Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will vote against H.R. 7081, a bill to approve the United States-India Agreement for Cooperation on Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy. This agreement represents a major shift in U.S. nonproliferation policy, with widespread ramifications for regional and global security, yet it is being rushed through the Congress with unseemly haste and reckless disregard for the deliberative process outlined for such agreements in the 1954 Atomic Energy Act. There is no need for this rush to judgment; far from it, the Senate and the Nation would be better served, in my opinion, to put this off until the heat and fury of the election season has passed and we can give this agreement the prudent consideration that it merits. The world recognizes India as an economic and a nuclear power. Its growing economy, large population and soaring energy requirements make nuclear power generation an attractive option. However, we cannot address assistance for India's electrical power needs without also considering that India is a military power with a sophisticated technological base that includes the ability to build and launch nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missiles and ballistic missile defense systems. India has conducted nuclear tests since 1974 and has been under a global ban on trade in nuclear fuels and technology since that date. On September 27, after the House of Representatives voted in favor of this agreement, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh addressed the Indian community in New York with these words: ``India will be liberated from the constraints of technology denial of 34 years. It will add an important strategic pillar to our bilateral partnership. We will widen our clean energy options.'' However, the Indian military and civilian nuclear programs are closely intertwined, and this new agreement will require new program separation measures that may prove difficult to ensure or fully enforce. There is a real risk in that providing U.S. technology and materials to the civilian side of that equation may result in enhancements in India's military nuclear program. If the Congress approves this agreement, we must be prepared for the potential backlash of a nuclear arms race in the region. Pakistan, which has long had border disputes with India, has threatened to match any Indian nuclear capabilities. Pakistan has, like India, clandestinely developed a nuclear weapon capability and has conducted nuclear tests. Like India, Pakistan has not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, or other nonproliferation agreements. But India will be rewarded for its three decades of defiance of international nonproliferation accords with access to nuclear technology and materials provided in this agreement, and it will not, in return, give up one iota of its military nuclear facilities or programs. This agreement may have been a long time coming, but it is not yet final. In 2006, the Congress rejected President Bush's original U.S.- India nuclear cooperation agreement. Instead, the Congress adopted the Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006, which proposed several additional safeguards requirements to the agreement. President Bush signed the act, but the agreement he is now pushing so hard to get approved before he leaves office neither meets all the requirements of the Hyde Act nor the procedures for consideration of these agreements outlined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. India has not yet filed its declaration of the facilities to be safeguarded with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Nor has the Indian government publicly acknowledged that the safeguards would last ``in perpetuity.'' There is no provision to terminate this agreement immediately in the event that India conducts another nuclear test, as it last did in 1998. Even though this is the first agreement of its kind to require an exemption under the Atomic Energy Act, because India is not a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Congress is being pushed to override the statutory period for consideration of the agreement. At a time when the United States is strengthening its sanctions on Iran to halt its uranium enrichment, India has joined in non-aligned movement statements supporting Iran's nuclear position in its negotiations with the West and is a major supplier of refined petroleum products for Tehran. In addition, shortly after the House vote on the Hyde Act in 2006, the State Department reported that Indian entities were believed to have sold sensitive missile technologies to Iran. According to those in the non-proliferation community, this agreement creates a dangerous distinction between ``good'' proliferators and ``bad'' proliferators and sends misleading signals to the international community with regard to Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty norms, making the task of winning international support to contain and constrain the nuclear programs of North Korea, Iran, and potential proliferators more difficult. We need to let the process work. There is no rush. The Congress will still be here come January. India will still be around come January. The Indian government may even have filed its facilities declaration with the International Atomic Energy Agency by January. Only President Bush will be leaving in January, but, if this agreement is approved, I can assure him that his Administration will get all due credit for negotiating it. Let us take a step back from this mad rush we are in, and do our job as the Founders intended, as a deliberative body, not a rubber stamp.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following disclosure of earmarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the very able, very distinguished Senator, Thad Cochran, the ranking member, for his many notable contributions to this legislation. I also thank our able majority and minority staff who worked together to produce this legislation. Let me name them: Charles Kieffer--let me say that again--the inimitable Charles Kieffer, Chip Walgren, Scott Nance, Drenan Dudley, Christa Thompson, Tad Gallion, Rebecca Davies, Carol Cribbs, Arex Avanni, and Adam Morrison. Madam President, I yield the floor. I thank all Senators.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the very able and distinguished Senator. I certify that the information required by Senate rule XLIV related to congressionally directed spending has been available on the publicly accessible congressional Web site in a searchable format at least 48 hours before a vote on the pending bill. Madam President, I speak today in support of the fiscal year 2009 Homeland Security Appropriations bill which addresses America's most critical and pressing security needs. The Appropriations Committee, which was established in 1867, by a vote of 29 to 0, produced a balanced and responsible bill. We had a good negotiation with the House. The legislation invests the resources needed to protect our citizens from deadly terrorist attacks, to secure our borders and enforce U.S. immigration laws, and to ensure a rapid and effective Federal response to both natural and manmade disasters. The bill total is $42.2 billion. That is $42.20 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. The bill total is $42.2 billion, which is $2.4 billion above the President's budget request. And despite--hear me now--despite the administration's assertion that al-Qaida has reconstituted itself in Pakistan with the goal of striking America, the President--get this--the President submitted a flat budget proposal for the Department of Homeland Security. I am going to read that again. It bears reading again. Despite the administration's assertion--that is, this administration--this administration's assertion that al-Qaida has reconstituted itself in Pakistan with the goal of striking America, the President submitted-- that is your President, my President, our President, Madam President-- the President submitted a flat budget proposal for the Department of Homeland Security. The President--your President, my President, our President--proposed deep cuts--you hear that--the President proposed deep cuts in funding for our Nation's first responders. The message that is now before the Senate increases our ability to secure the homeland--this homeland, our homeland--by increasing resources for border security, restoring irresponsible cuts in first responder grants, funding immigration enforcement, and increasing funding above the President's request for core homeland security missions that help to keep our people--your people, my people--our people safe. Finally, the bill includes new requirements for contracting, procurement, and program oversight, helping to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being carefully spent. The legislation significantly increases resources for border security, including $775 million, as requested, for border fencing and technology on the southwest border and funding to hire 2,200 new Border Patrol agents and 892 new Customs officers. The legislation provides significant resources for immigration enforcement, including over $1 billion to identify and remove from the United States criminal aliens who are either at large or already incarcerated in prisons or jails, funding for 1,400 new detention beds, $60 million above the request for work site enforcement, and $226 million to fully fund 104 fugitive operations teams that locate and remove illegal aliens who have been ordered removed from the country. The legislation restores irresponsible cuts in first responder grants by providing $4.244 billion--$16.2 million above fiscal year 2008 and $2.071 billion above the President's fiscal year 2009 request. Port security grants are funded at $400 million, and rail and transit security grants are funded at $400 million. FIRE Act grants are funded at $565 million, which is $265 million over the President's request, and SAFER grants are funded at $210 million, which the President proposed to eliminate. The bill provides critical increases above the President's request for core homeland security missions, including the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, aviation security, and FEMA. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a more detailed description of the bill.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, let me say that I share the disdain the able Senator from Mississippi has expressed for this process. Everything the able Senator has said is absolutely correct. The last time that all appropriations bills were sent to the President on time was 1994 when I was chairman. We should all do better, and I look forward to working with the able and distinguished Senator to return to the regular order. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the Chair. Madam President, I speak today in support of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009. The measure that is before the Senate includes the fiscal year 2009 Defense appropriations bill, the fiscal year 2009 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill, and the fiscal year 2009 Homeland Security bill. In addition, the measure includes a continuing resolution for fiscal year 2009, which provides funding for Government operations at fiscal year 2008 levels through March 6, 2009. In response to the Midwest floods and Hurricanes Gustav, Hanna, and Ike, the measure includes $22.3 billion of critical disaster relief. The measure also includes funding to support $25 billion of auto industry loans that were authorized in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. These loans will provide a critical boost to the effort to develop energy-efficient vehicles, while creating thousands-- thousands, I will say--of new jobs. The bill also includes $5.1 billion for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program and $250 million for the Weatherization Program. With this funding, an additional 5.7 million households will get assistance in coping with dramatically rising home heating costs. At the current funding level, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program serves only 15 percent of eligible families. The message that is before the Senate lives up to the commitment we made to support our troops, provide first class health care to our veterans, secure our homeland, direct relief to the victims of natural disasters all across this great Nation of ours, and provide help for families on Main Street. Madam President, my good friend, Senator Thad Cochran, and I began this year with the goal of producing 12 bipartisan, fiscally responsible appropriations bills. The Committee on Appropriations made great progress in reporting nine such bills by the end of July. Regrettably, the President--your President, my President, our President--chose to announce that he would veto any of the bills--hear that--he would veto any of the bills--did you hear that--that he would veto any of the bills that exceeded his request. Our bills included critical increases in funding for veterans health care, for job-creating programs such as highway and mass transit, for the National Institutes of Health, and for fighting crime in our streets. As a result of the President's veto threats, the appropriations process has fallen prey to the election cycle. Therefore, in order to fulfill our promises to the troops and to our veterans, we have, once again, yes, been forced to use an omnibus appropriations measure to complete our work. I disdain--I disdain--such procedures. But, in order to complete our work, we proceeded on a bipartisan basis to produce the legislation that is now before the Senate. So I urge all of my fellow Senators--hear me: I urge all of my fellow Senators to join me in supporting swift action on these critical national priorities. Madam President, there is funding in this bill to conduct an independent and objective study regarding the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq in the next 12 to 18 months. This bill includes $2.4 million for the Department of Defense to provide to the RAND Corporation to conduct this study. As a Federally-funded research and development center and an independent research arm of the Department of Defense, RAND has access to the Department of Defense information necessary to prepare such plans. Furthermore, the staff at RAND is able to draw on expertise from across the entire spectrum of the U.S. government to provide a long overdue strategic assessment. This study will assume that the United States will leave a limited number of troops in Iraq to train Iraqis, target Al Qaeda, and protect our mission after the withdrawal of the majority of our forces. A study of this scope is long overdue. Secretary of Defense Gates stated before the Senate Armed Services Committee on September 23, 2008 that in Iraq, he believes: we have now entered that endgame--and our decisions today and tomorrow and in the months ahead will be critical to regional stability and our national security interests for years to come. Yet it is unclear where Defense Department formal planning stands on withdrawing our forces in a measured and responsible manner. The time to begin the Iraq withdrawal is now. This new RAND study will publicly and independently help chart the responsible course ahead. I wish to thank Chairman Inouye for including this language and Senator Kennedy for his strong leadership on this issue. Madam President, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Reid/Byrd economic stimulus package. Over the past week, congressional leaders have been working with administration officials to craft a bailout package for Wall Street. But if we are going to bail out Wall Street, we also need to help Main Street. The President's failed fiscal policies have resulted in higher unemployment, hardship in coping with rising food costs, higher energy costs, and increased dependence on foreign oil. If the President thinks that a $700 billion bailout for Wall Street is good for America, he should certainly support a $56 billion investment program to create jobs on Main Street. The unemployment rate now stands at 6.1 percent, the highest rate since September 2003. The unemployment rate is up 1.4 percentage points since last August. The U.S. economy has lost jobs every month this year, a total of 605,000 jobs. The stimulus package extends unemployment benefits by 7 weeks in all States and another 13 weeks in high unemployment States. Food prices have increased by 7.5 percent this year after increasing 4.9 percent in 2007. In order to help low-income individuals cope with rising food prices, the stimulus package temporarily increases Food Stamp benefits by 10 percent and includes $450 million for the Women, Infants, and Children--WIC--program, which would allow 625,000 women and children to receive benefits. $50 million is included for food banks, $30 million for the commodity supplemental food program, and $60 million for senior meals programs, providing 18 million more meals to seniors. There are consequences for failing to invest in America. Bridges fall into rivers. Roads and subways are congested to the breaking point. FEMA cannot respond to a major disaster. Fuel prices go through the roof. This stimulus package includes $10.8 billion for building and repairing highways, bridges, mass transit, airports, and AMTRAK, creating 384,000 jobs; $50 million for the Economic Development Administration to help communities impacted by massive job losses due to corporate restructuring; $500 million for the COPS program to hire 6,500 police officers; $600 million for clean water systems that would create 24,000 jobs; and $2 billion for school construction that would create 32,300 jobs. Twenty-nine States are facing a $52 billion shortfall in revenues in their fiscal year 2009 budgets, resulting in cuts in health care, education, and other programs. The stimulus package includes $19.6 billion to reduce the States' share of Medicaid costs by increasing the Federal share by 4 percent. Energy prices have increased by 22.4 percent in 2008. This stimulus bill includes major investments in promoting energy independence and a clean environment, including funds for advanced battery research, for local governments to improve energy efficiency, for environmental clean up, and weatherizing homes. Over 22 percent of the world's energy supply is under the Arctic ice cap. The Russian President has stated that Russia should unilaterally claim part of the Arctic, stepping up the race for the disputed energy- rich region. We are not going to go along with that. No. Hell no. Russia has a fleet of 20 heavy icebreakers and is nearing completion of the first of their newest fleet of nuclear-powered icebreakers in an effort to control energy exploration and maritime trade in the region. Thanks to the Bush administration, the United States has only one functioning heavy polar icebreaker, and it has only 6 years left of useful life. Shame. Mr. President, $925 million is included for the Coast Guard to provide what the Navy and the Air Force call, ``an essential instrument of U.S. policy'' in the region. Funding is included to promote safety and energy efficiency in public housing, implement provisions of the recent housing law, give housing assistance to tenants displaced by foreclosure, and fund FBI investigations of fraud in the mortgage market. To promote education and job training, $2 billion is included for school repairs, $36 million for homeless education, and $400 million for the secure rural schools program. Job training funds would provide 160,000 dislocated workers and youth with training and job search assistance. Mr. President, $1.2 billion is included for the National Institutes of Health. America's small businesses, the lifeblood of our economy, face an ever-tightening credit market in the wake of struggling financial markets. The stimulus provides $205 million to support $16 billion in reduced-fee loans to small businesses, delivering needed relief to small businesses on Main Street. I urge Senators to vote for this bill to send a message to the White House that Main Street matters. I ask unanimous consent that information relating to rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate be made a part of the Record.

Mr. BYRD. Yes. I thank the majority leader.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I think that September 17 should be honored equally with the Fourth of July. Both dates mark bedrock, fundamentally important events in the life of our country. Most Americans know that July 4, 1776, marks the signing of the Declaration of Independence, but far fewer could say what is so important about September 17. I am sure that you are not scratching your head over this date, but perhaps some who are listening are doing just that. September 17--does it mark the end of the American Revolution? Was it the date of George Washington's inauguration? Did Christopher Columbus spot land or the passengers of the Mayflower disembark on this date? The answer to all of the above is no. Those are important historical events, to be sure, but none of those dates reaches out to touch the daily lives in as many ways as September 17. On September 17, 1787, the U.S. Constitution was signed. Our great national experiment in representative democracy began nearly 2 years later with the approval and entry into force of the Constitution on March 4, 1789, after New Hampshire became the ninth State to ratify it. September 17, 1787, however, marks the ``miracle in Philadelphia'' when the Constitutional Convention gave birth to its masterpiece. We all know that the Declaration of Independence describes in soaring oratory the grand goals for the new Republic, chief among them the ``life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'' that most people recognize. It is also full of more specific examples of things the Founders could no longer tolerate, such as taxation without representation, having British troops quartered in private homes, and lack of access to fair trials. In the Constitution, the Founders created the structures of government to implement both the grand visions of a free republic and to prevent the abuses of government they had suffered under British rule and outlined in the Declaration. As a result, the Constitution generally makes for less compelling reading material than the Declaration of Independence. It is not full of stirring prose, but rather, it is like an assembly and repair manual, straightforward and commonsense. Yet it supports the framework for freedom and justice. Its words, and those of its amendments, are as critically important to every American as instructions on how to operate a lifeboat are to the passengers of a storm-tossed ship. The Constitutional Convention that met in Philadelphia managed to build an entire government in just seven articles and a preamble. One article for the legislative branch, one for the executive branch, one for the judicial branch, one for the States, one for the amendment process, one to define Federal power, and one to set forth the requirements for ratification--the Constitution is shorter than many instruction manuals for new cars, even if you add the 27 amendments. Yet, for over 200 years, the Constitution and the Government it created have overcome the challenges of insurrection, war, depression, growth, and technologies that could never have been anticipated by the Founding Fathers. This fall and winter, Americans will again witness their Constitution in action. We will elect a new President and many new Members of the House and Senate as well. Through the processes outlined in the Constitution and honed through years of practice, the Nation will peacefully transition to a new government. It seems routine to us, but the peaceful transition of government is a precious thing. Our system of checks and balances is a precious thing. On September 17, I hope that all Americans who love our country and cherish our flag will take just a few minutes to read and think about our remarkable Constitution. Keep it close to your heart, as I do. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a Washington Post article entitled ``Cheney Shielded Bush From Crisis.''

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I thank all Senators. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. That is right.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. King.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Right.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I regret that again this year I must vote against the National Defense Authorization Act. I support many of the provisions in this bill, which authorizes the activities of the Department of Defense, including important research, development and procurement funding to improve our Armed Forces and the operations and maintenance funding necessary to ensure the smooth running of the military services over the coming year. I support these activities, which not only benefit those servicemembers currently serving overseas in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also help build a strong and effective military for the future. I applaud the fine work of Senator Levin and Senator Warner and the staff of the Committee on Armed Services for their efforts in putting together a bill that is, in most ways, a good piece of legislation. However, S. 3001 also provides authorization for the funding of continued operations in Iraq at levels requested by the Bush administration and without any provision to either transition the military mission in Iraq or to bring our troops home. In my view, providing this funding without conditions, without strings attached, is unacceptable. In my view, the Congress should not continue to write blank checks for the prosecution of this apparently endless war in Iraq. In effect, this bill also provides a congressional authorization to fund the continuation of President Bush's policy in Iraq into 2009, without any strings attached. Amendments filed that would have limited the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq were not even considered during debate on the bill. That is truly unfortunate. Continuing to prosecute this war at the current rate is straining our military to the breaking point. Many units and individuals are enduring their third and fourth rotations to Iraq, and because no limits have been placed on the mission or force levels, there is no end in sight, despite efforts to declare the surge a success in bringing stability to Iraq. More and more military analysts are warning that the U.S. Armed Forces are at risk for becoming a ``hollow force,'' as happened after the Vietnam conflict, putting our entire Nation at greater risk. Our military commanders in Afghanistan are urgently requesting additional and substantial numbers of troops to counter the rising violence there, but there are few troops to spare for them. As a result, we risk losing whatever gains have been made there, in the actual central front of the war on terror and the hunt for Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida organization. We must win that fight, there, or face more attacks like the one that took place today against the U.S. embassy in Yemen. I support our troops and I will not let them to lack for anything needed to do their job or to keep them safe. But I cannot countenance leaving them in Iraq forever, with no limits placed on their mission and no assurances by our commander in Iraq that this war is making the United States any safer.