Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, my colleague from Oklahoma has offered an amendment which seeks to eliminate funding for 11 initiatives. Among those initiatives he seeks to eliminate is language authorizing the National Park Service to expend up to $300,000 to defray the costs of the events associated with the 150th anniversary of John Brown's raid on the arsenal at Harpers Ferry. For those whose memories need refreshing, on the evening of October 16, 1859, abolitionist John Brown led a group of men to Harpers Ferry to seize control of the town and steal weapons from the old Federal armory to be used in the cause against slavery. By the morning of October 18, the engine house, later known as John Brown's Fort, was surrounded by a company of U.S. Marines under the command of COL Robert E. Lee of the U.S. Army. With most of his men either dead or captured, John Brown was taken into custody, tried, and found guilty of treason, conspiring with slaves to rebel, and murder. Although John Brown's short-lived raid on Harpers Ferry failed, his trial and execution helped to focus the Nation's attention on the moral issue of slavery and constituted a major step toward the Civil War. I had requested $300,000 to enable the National Park Service to fully support the myriad activities that have been planned in the Harpers Ferry area throughout this year to highlight the relevance of John Brown's raid to the history of this country. Ultimately, the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, rather than supporting direct funding, included language to provide the National Park Service the authority to expend up to $300,000 for the anniversary effort. The Park Service is expecting that nearly 100,000 people will participate in the series of reenactments, dramatic productions, family activities, and special tours that have been planned by the John Brown Sesquicentennial Quad-State Committee. Supporting the events for such crowds at the Harpers Ferry National Historical Park will largely be the burden of the National Park Service. Without the additional support, the agency reports that planned activities at Harpers Ferry would likely have to be reduced in scope by 75 percent. As a Congress, we should be doing all in our power to keep the unique history of our country alive and accessible to anyone who wants to learn. In better understanding the significance of the Harpers Ferry raid, we learn about our Nation's failures, our mistakes, and the inequities of our past. But we also learn about the values and ideals upon which our Nation was founded--the values and ideals that have inspired the American people throughout our history. Writing about the thousands of soldiers who lost their lives during the Civil War battle at Antietam, historian Bruce Catton explained that those men did not die for a few feet of a cornfield or a rocky hill. They died that this country might be permitted to go on, and that it might be permitted to fulfill the great hope of our Founding Fathers. So may be said of all those courageous men who participated in the historic raid on Harpers Ferry. They paid the ultimate sacrifice to permit this country to go on, to fulfill the great hope of our Founding Fathers. They sacrificed to promote and to protect the freedom and liberties of all Americans. As President Abraham Lincoln said of those soldiers who fell in the Battle of Gettysburg, they ``gave their lives that this Nation might live.'' Without this knowledge of our heritage, we cannot appreciate the hard-won freedoms that are now our birthright. As I have said before, one does not protect what one does not value. And one does not value what one does not understand.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. It has been my honor, my dear friend.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I oppose S. 160, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act. I must--in other words, I have to--review and renew my objections to legislation of this kind. I have to speak and speak loudly--can you hear me--to its flaws, as I have done when similar erroneous attempts have been made to amend the Constitution with legislation. As I have said previously, my quarrel is not with the intent of the legislation but with the vehicle with which the Congress is seeking to effect this change. What does the Constitution say? Article I, section 2, of the Constitution says--now listen: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States . . . The Constitution does not include the residents of the District of Columbia in this context as a State. We know--or we ought to know--from our history books that our Founding Fathers sought out a Federal city that would not have to rely upon the protections of any one State. Their vision, the vision of the Founding Fathers, a center of government apart from the States, is seen in the distinction made in article I, section 8, between the ``States'' and a ``District.'' Therefore, under the Constitution, the District is not a State. Consequently, a constitutional amendment is required to give the District's citizens voting representation in Congress. This is the step that ought to be taken. It is the step I have consistently supported. As far back as 1978, as the majority leader of the Senate, this body, I--let me identify myself: Robert C. Byrd--spoke in support of and voted for H.J. Res. 554, a joint resolution that proposed amending the Constitution to provide for representation of the District of Columbia in Congress. Where is that? Here. Every Member of this Senate ascribes to the underlying tenet of our system of government; namely, that the Government of the United States of America serves only by the consent of its citizens, as expressed through their elected representatives. That is us, their elected representatives. Every Senator seeks the goal of upholding and perfecting our representative form of government, but the difference lies in how we seek to effect those rights. I contend that this is no way to go about doing it. While the goal in this case is laudable, it is a dangerous course on which we embark. Simply passing a law that grants voting rights to an entity that is not a State is plainly circumventing the Constitution. As John Adams noted: ``Facts are stubborn things.'' Let me say that again. This is John Adams talking now, not Robert C. Byrd. ``Facts are stubborn things.'' That is right, I may say to the Senator. Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. So I say this imperfect method of legislation employed to amend the Constitution has already been met with swift opposition and solid opposition. The text of the legislation anticipates that very outcome by providing for the Court's expedited review. And legal challenges will surely come quickly--don't doubt it--calling into question the validity of this legislation, and the fate of the District's long- sought voting rights will be further bogged down in a swamp--a swamp-- of litigation. Providing voting rights for the District through a constitutional amendment would provide the clarity and the constitutionality needed and would also avoid the path of litigation. Anything short of a constitutional amendment will be insufficient and will certainly set a dangerous precedent. While it is indeed an arduous task to amend the Constitution, and rightly so, thank heavens, something so critical as representation in the House for the people of the District of Columbia compels it. Shortcuts have no place here. In this instance because of litigation, any shortcut, so-called, may turn out to be the long cut, the long way home for the very deserving, long-suffering people of the Capital City of this country, Washington, DC. I will support the point of order raised by Senator McCain against the underlying bill, as it addresses this most crucial issue. I thank the distinguished, very able Senator. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, these are perilous economic times. The national economy is shedding jobs at an alarming rate. Nearly 2 million jobs have been lost nationwide in the last 3 months, with 3.6 million jobs lost since December 2007. In West Virginia, our workforce has been buffered to some degree by the mining industry, but we, too, are now feeling the painful global recession. In December--in just 1 month--West Virginia lost 4,100 jobs. We are hearing more frequently about layoff and job loss announcements: Dow Chemical in Kanawha County, Century Aluminum and Alcan in Jackson County, Bayer Material Science in Marshall County, Patriot Coal in Boone and Kanawha Counties, Mountaineer Racetrack & Casino in Hancock County, Simonton Windows in Ritchie County, AGC Flat Glass in Harrison County, American National Rubber in Wayne County, Georgia-Pacific in Fayette County, Greenbrier Resort Hotel in Greenbrier County, Kingwood Mining in Preston County, and Goodies Clothing and Circuit City stores throughout the State. The Federal Reserve has reduced its interest rate target to near zero, and continues to experiment with unprecedented programs to bolster lending, injecting about $1 trillion into the banking system. Adding to the unease, the Congress has authorized the Treasury Department to purchase up to $700 billion of toxic debt from financial institutions. This is an authority that has been used, so far, to recapitalize the banking system, seemingly with few, if any, strings attached on the institutions receiving the funding. Meanwhile, national deficits and debt are increasing to what still seem like improbable levels. If the stimulus package before the Congress today seems extraordinary, it is because the economic and fiscal challenge before us is extraordinary. Not only has the recession created a $3.6 trillion economic gap over the next 5 years, but the fiscal programs of the previous administration have left this Nation with a $2.2 trillion deficit in infrastructure investments. Highway and mass transit systems, airport and rail construction, energy and water projects, schools and public facilities were starved under the previous administration. As State and local budgets shrink, these infrastructure deficits will continue to increase. In West Virginia, I have seen how inadequate infrastructure can limit access to jobs, to health care, and to schools. It can strangle and suffocate local economies. It may seem incredible to some, but with a $2.2 trillion infrastructure deficit, and a $3.6 trillion contraction in the economy, an $838 billion stimulus is not enough. Rather than cutting back the stimulus package as some have suggested, we should be adding funds to infrastructure projects, which is why I cosponsored an amendment to the stimulus bill that would have further increased investments in transportation infrastructure. I agree with others who have said that the risk here is not that we may do too much. The real risk is that we may not do enough, fast enough, soon enough, and that jobs will continue to evaporate. I have tried to focus this stimulus where I think it can do the most good for the working people of this Nation, including the people of West Virginia. During the debate, I supported several amendments to limit costs, and to target spending and tax cuts toward working families and their communities. I fought to make sure the bill would create jobs quickly. Seventy eight percent of the stimulative effect will take place in the next 18 months--a big improvement compared to the House bill. I also sought to ensure that there is some oversight of how these funds are spent at the state and local level. I have supported the creation of a Recovery and Transparency Board comprised of inspector generals across the Federal Government, to bring to light wasteful and corrupt spending. Likewise, I am hopeful that this Board will monitor State and local management of these funds, to ensure that excessive or political strings are not attached, delaying this critical funding. I am sorry to see this stimulus package derisively referred to as wasteful, pork-barrel spending. I suspect many of these naysayers are not looking to create jobs, so much as they are looking to create a sound bite. I do not consider moneys for our Nation's roads and bridges, for our schools and communities, and for a safety net for the unemployed and uninsured to be handouts. I do not consider funding wasteful if it helps to ensure that state and local officials do not have to layoff police officers, school teachers, and fire fighters. This stimulus is exactly what we need to be doing. I have been fighting for this infrastructure funding for many years. The bill may not win any popularity contests, but it is still the best idea for helping to mitigate this economic downturn. It achieves the principle goals of creating jobs, of helping to prevent painful and dangerous budget cuts at the State and local level, and of investing in the long-term growth of the U.S. economy. I unhesitatingly cast my vote in support of this measure.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Me too.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on January 30, 2009, after more than 37 years of service at the Library of Congress, Dr. Harold C. Relyea will retire as a specialist in American National Government at the Congressional Research Service, CRS. His service and devotion to the U.S. Congress will be greatly missed. President Thomas Jefferson once observed that ``information is the currency of democracy.'' He also noted that ``whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.'' Thanks to the fine work of Dr. Relyea and his colleagues at the Congressional Research Service, the people's representatives in Congress are well- informed--and, thus, well-armed--to preserve and defend the ideals, structure, and balance of our government as envisioned by our Founding Fathers. As Senators and staff come and go, the best CRS specialists become repositories of institutional knowledge, deep wells of experience who offer perspective and thoughtful analysis. Such specialists tend to take a long view on issues, having seen issues and trends emerge and reemerge in varying forms. These public servants enlighten and educate Members, and sometimes testify before congressional committees. These men and women are steeped in their field of expertise, and though some come to be recognized for their published work and analysis, most labor in anonymity, satisfied by the pure reward of helping to inform and shape the public debate. Dr. Relyea is, and has been, reliable, authoritative, and humble--a genuine example of the true public servant over the long years of his career. A native of Oneida, NY, Dr. Relyea earned his doctorate in government in 1971 from American University--my own alma mater. He joined the Congressional Research Service that same year, shortly after the enactment of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 that provided the charter for the modern Congressional Research Service. Dr. Relyea was promoted to head of the Executive Organization and Administration Section at CRS in 1976. Twenty years later, he became the head of the executive and judiciary section of the government and finance division. As a Specialist in American National Government, Dr. Relyea garnered national recognition for his research and writings on the Presidency, and executive branch powers and organization. I came to know Dr. Relyea in 2002, as the Bush administration attempted to expand its use of emergency and wartime powers, and I increasingly sought to defend and assert the rights and privileges of the Congress as a co-equal branch of government under the U.S. Constitution. I recall sitting across the table from Dr. Relyea in the Appropriations Committee hearing room, where I had asked several CRS specialists to brief me on the creation of a new Department of Homeland Security. I remember being impressed by Dr. Relyea's depth of knowledge, and his timely and thorough responses to my requests for information. Dr. Relyea and others sacrificed their August recess that year, in order to help prepare for a long debate when the Senate returned in September. I welcome this opportunity to thank Dr. Relyea, and to thank everyone at the Congressional Research Service for their hard work and dedication. As a source of necessary expertise for Members of Congress, CRS helps to provide a vital counterweight to a mighty and powerful Executive branch. In a career that has spanned four decades and eight administrations, Dr. Harold C. Relyea has set a standard of superior service for the entire Congressional Research Service. It's clear that Dr. Relyea has earned the respect and appreciation of his colleagues. He is a patient and generous mentor and has assisted a full generation of CRS analysts in developing their skills. In 2008, his colleagues showered praise on Dr. Relyea as they nominated him for the prestigious Director's Award. I think their greatest tribute to him, however, would be to continue his outstanding legacy of scholarship. I thank Dr. Relyea for his extraordinary dedication to the work and traditions of the U.S. Congress and to the country and the Constitution which we all revere.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate has traditionally given the President, especially a new President, great leeway in choosing his Cabinet. I like to follow this practice when I can, as a matter of grace and in the spirit of cooperation, believing that a President has an understandable desire to want trusted advisors in his Cabinet who are sympathetic to his programs. But I also take very seriously the oath I swore to support the U.S. Constitution and to faithfully discharge the responsibility entrusted to each Senator in advising and consenting to the appointment of all officers of the United States. Some very serious questions have been raised about the President's nominee to be Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, and his failure to pay Social Security taxes on income he earned at the International Monetary Fund--IMF--between 2001 and 2004. According to documents released by the Senate Finance Committee, Mr. Geithner recently filed amended tax returns for the years 2001-2002, 2004-2005, and 2006, reporting additional taxes and interest totaling $31,536. In addition to adjusting his claims for certain expenses and credits, Mr. Geithner paid Social Security taxes on income he earned at the IMF from 2001 through 2002. This follows an audit by the IRS in 2006, when Mr. Geithner was required to pay Social Security taxes for income earned in 2003 and 2004, totaling an additional $16,732 in taxes and interest. At the time of the 2006 audit, Mr. Geithner chose not to pay the Social Security taxes he owed for 2001 and 2002, apparently because he had been advised that the statute of limitations had expired requiring the payment of those taxes. I believe Mr. Geithner when he expresses regret for his failure to pay these taxes, but that doesn't explain why the failure happened. This embarrassing ``mistake'' occurred despite Mr. Geithner receiving annual and quarterly documents from the IMF and signing annual tax allowance requests that were supposed to serve as reminders about his tax obligations. He also failed to pay these taxes despite having accountants review his tax filings, and despite using software to prepare his tax returns. He only paid these taxes in full after being selected to be Treasury Secretary. Had he been nominated to head almost any other position, perhaps this might not seem so egregious. But this matter seriously undermines Mr. Geithner's credibility to be the Nation's top tax enforcement officer. It suggests serious negligence on his part and creates the impression of someone trying to game the system. Mr. Geithner showed poor judgement in waiting so long to pay these taxes, and then doing so only because it became a political necessity. Certainly most American taxpayers do not have that luxury. Whatever his qualifications and talents for addressing the banking problems that are plaguing our economy, I cannot in good conscience vote to confirm this nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I will oppose the joint resolution of disapproval and vote to release these funds, but I do so adding my voice to those putting the incoming administration on notice. This is an enormous sum of money and authority being given to the Treasury Department, and it is especially worrisome because the American public has little confidence in this program. Its transactions are opaque. Its potential for abuse is enormous. Its effect on the economy remains uncertain. According to the public letter sent this week to the House and Senate leadership, the incoming Obama administration's economic team has committed to a ``full and accurate accounting'' of how these monies are invested and ensuring that these resources are not ``enriching shareholders or executives.'' The House of Representatives today is considering legislation to hold the new administration to its commitments, and I hope the Senate will do the same. Other promises and commitments are being made, at private briefings and closed-door caucuses, as the new administration tries to cajole Senators to oppose this disapproval resolution. That is unfortunate because I believe it further undermines an already questionable program, which could use more transparency, and not less. I realize that the new administration inherited this financial mess and that it is trying to do the best with the hand that it has been dealt. But I hope that it will learn from the mistakes of the outgoing administration and, instead, have faith in the wisdom of an informed public. Having authorized this program only 15 weeks ago, I think the Congress should give it time to work. By any objective measure, the economy is getting worse. West Virginia's unemployment rate is rising, and it has lost hundreds of manufacturing jobs in recent months. In the last 2 months, Toyota announced that it would lay off 120 workers at its plant in Buffalo. An Ohio-based packaging manufacturer announced it would close its plant in Culloden, laying off 41 workers. The Bayer MaterialScience plant in New Martinsville, which makes polymers that are used in the automobile and housing industries, announced it would lay off 70 workers. Columbian Chemical Company announced that it would close its plant near Moundsville, laying off 55 workers. If the new administration says it needs these tools, then I am willing to give it some latitude. But I caution this administration, the American people must have transparency. They must see effective oversight. They must have confidence that this is not another Ponzi scheme, concocted by Madoff-type, money-hungry, Wall Street fat cats, who don't care about anything except lining their own pockets. If the new administration gets this money, it must do better than its predecessor. We have just lived through one failed administration. We cannot afford to live through another.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as I think about Senator Clinton's leaving the Senate to become Secretary of State, I am reminded of the words of the great English bard William Shakespeare, who wrote that ``parting is such sweet sorrow.'' Senator Clinton's departure from this chamber is a time for joy as well as sorrow. Hillary Clinton has been an effective, hard-working Senator. When Senator Clinton first came to the Senate in 2001, she asked my advice. Although Mrs. Clinton had been an accomplished and graceful First Lady, she told me that she wanted to excel at working for the State of New York. I advised her to be a work horse about her new role as a Senator and a work horse she has been, and the people of her State have benefitted. Following the terrorists attacks of September 11, 2001, she and I worked with Senator Schumer to secure financial aid for New York City to help the city to recover from that terrible tragedy. For that, she has since referred to me as the ``third Senator from New York,'' and I am very proud of that designation. Senator Clinton and I have worked together on legislation for the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq, served on the Budget Committee together, and worked on several important appropriations issues. Senator Clinton has been an active and aggressive Senator, always mindful of the traditions of this great Chamber. She has won the respect and admiration of everyone. In her 2008 Presidential bid, Hillary Clinton broke down barriers for women all across this country, and inspired many of them to pursue their own hopes and dreams of a future in politics. I will miss Senator Clinton. This Chamber has been graced by her eloquence, intelligence, and her natural leadership. Mrs. Clinton's 8 years as our country's First Lady, and her 8 years in the U.S. Senate, where she served on five different Senate committees, including the Senate Armed Services Committee, certainly qualify her for the high honor of being Secretary of State. She will shine in that office because of her sound judgement, keen intellect, sharp wit, infectious charm, and powerful commitment to making this world a better place. I congratulate Senator Clinton on her new position and wish her the best of luck and success. These are troubled times and she will have a most difficult job in the years ahead. Speaking at her graduation at Wellesley College, Hillary Clinton declared that, ``the challenge now is to practice politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible.'' I say go to it Secretary of State-designate Clinton. If anyone can make ``what appears to be impossible, possible,'' Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton can and will.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on this cold January morning, I am being kept warm by four glorious words that keep running through my mind-- those four words are: ``Vice President Joe Biden.'' I love the sound of that. It is music to my ears. I have known Joe Biden for nearly four decades, since he was first elected to the Senate in 1972. I have been enriched by his friendship. I have appreciated his commitment to public service. I have watched his work as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. I have admired the enthusiasm and dedication he has brought to his work every single day he has been a U.S. Senator. His years of service in this institution will be one of his greatest assets in the years ahead. During his tenure in the Senate, Joe has gained a priceless working understanding of the importance of our constitutional systems of checks and balances and separation of powers. He has stood on this floor and argued long and hard--with fire in his belly--against executives of both political parties when he felt it was in the best interests of this Nation. We have all watched him, time and again, pacing this floor, speaking in that rhythmic Joe Biden way-- drawing us in with a shout and then punctuating his point in whispered tones. I can see him now, putting the White House on notice, and defending the advice and consent authority of Senators. Joe has seen how this part of the government--the people's branch--lives. He will assume his new job fresh from membership in the world's greatest deliberative body. Those Senate years will, I believe, serve him, the country, and the people, well. Senator Biden is moving on, and while I regret losing him as a colleague here, I am heartened by the experience and wisdom he takes to his new duties. I believe that he will be a great Vice President. My good friend and former colleague, President-elect Obama showed outstanding judgment when he selected Senator Joe Biden to be his running mate.

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 rise today to commend and congratulate one of the best and brightest gentlemen I have ever had the privilege of employing. That man is Mr. Charles Kieffer who has served as staff director of the Senate Appropriations Committee for the last 2 years, and as deputy staff director for 6 years prior to that. Chuck Kieffer is a marvel of intelligence, wisdom, tact, coolness, and an extraordinary knowledge of appropriations and budget matters. He is personable, polite, and a pleasure to work with. He has been invaluable to me, to the leadership of the Senate, and to all the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee. In a time of continual wrangling over the appropriations process, tight budgets, veto threats, and differences between the House and Senate, Chuck has been a steady leader and a working dynamo. We have been extremely fortunate to have the right man as staff director in very difficult times. Chuck also serves as the chief clerk of the Homeland Security Subcommittee which funds the agencies that merged to form this cabinet level department. In the aftermath of September 11, Chuck provided key advice and direction about the wisest ways to protect against future terrorist attacks and address the staggering destruction in New York State and at the Pentagon. He has worn the two hats of staff director of the full Appropriations Committee and clerk of the Homeland Security Subcommittee, which I continue to chair, with grace and with ease. This really should come as no surprise. Despite his youth and unassuming demeanor, Chuck has served five Presidents, beginning with President Carter. Before he joined my Appropriations staff, Chuck worked at the Office of Management and Budget during the Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush administrations. In 1978 Chuck began his government service as a Presidential management intern at the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. From 1978-1985 he served as a budget analyst for the Department of Health and Human Services. From 1985-1990 Mr. Kieffer was special assistant to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. From 1990-1995, he served as chief appropriations analyst for the Office of Management and Budget, and from 1995-2001 he was acting associate director of legislative affairs at the OMB until he joined my staff as deputy staff director of the Appropriations Committee in 2001. In 2001, Chuck Kieffer won the Robert G. Damas Public Service Award. As I step aside as chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the coming days, I am thankful that Chuck has agreed to stay by my side as the chief clerk of the subcommittee on Homeland Security. We can all sleep a little more soundly knowing that such a talented person as Chuck Kieffer is helping to adequately and effectively fund the Department charged with keeping Americans safe from harm here at home.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in my multivolume history of the Senate, I noted that the Senate is ``the anchor of our republic.'' It is, I wrote, ``the morning and evening star in the American constitutional constellation.'' Today, I recall those words because I am even more convinced that the Senate still stands as the great forum of constitutional American liberty. For five decades--that is a pretty long time--I have seen this Senate weather the storms of adversity, withstand the barbs of cynics and the attacks of critics as it provided continuous stability and strength to our great country during periods of strife and uncertainty. The Senate has served our country so well because great and courageous Senators have always been willing to stay the course through the continuum and to keep the faith. The Senate will continue to do so as long as there are Members of the Senate who understand the Senate's constitutional role and who zealously guard the Senate's powers. It has been said that this institution--meaning the Senate--has a life of its own. That may be true. I also know from my 50 years of service in this Chamber that the life of the Senate is rooted in the character of the men and the women who serve in the Senate. During my five decades of service here, I have had the high honor and the great privilege of serving with some of the finest and a few of the greatest Senators in history. This distinguished list includes my mentors, Senator Richard Brevard Russell, Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson, Senator John Calhoun Stennis, and Senator Mike Mansfield. It includes the great Margaret K. Smith, who never for a moment hesitated to follow her conscience. It includes Barry Goldwater, and it includes Phil Gramm, both of whom were spear carriers for the Reagan revolution. It includes those giants of the Senate, Howard Baker and Mark Hatfield, both of whom exemplified stunning political courage. And of course any list of greats must include our own beloved Ted Kennedy, who went from being a bitter adversary in the beginning of my years to my dearest friend. It has been an honor and a great privilege to have served with these Senators and with so many others who have contributed and who still contribute to the Senate to make it the great institution it has become. I hope and I pray to the Good Lord that in my 50 years here, I have also made a small but positive contribution, and I pray that I will continue to do so. Because of the good people of West Virginia, my half century--my 50 years--of service in this Chamber has allowed the foster son of an impoverished coal miner from the hills of southern West Virginia--and the wife of that coal miner to have a son--to have the opportunity to walk with Kings, to meet with Prime Ministers, and to debate with Presidents. I have had the privilege not only to witness but also to participate in much of America's history. From the beginning and the apex of the Cold War to the collapse of the Soviet Union, from my opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act to my role in securing the funds for the building of the memorial to Martin Luther King, from my support for the war in Vietnam to my opposition to Mr. Bush's war with Iraq, I have served here, and I have loved every second of every blessed minute of it. My half century of service in the great Senate has also allowed me to experience profound changes in this institution. Unfortunately, not all of them have been for the best. During my tenure, especially in recent years, this Chamber has become bitterly partisan. All of us already know this, so I will not belabor the point other than to say we should do better. I will point out that we should do something about the vitriol before it destroys the Senate and the people's faith in the Senate. If anyone thinks I am exaggerating, I will give just one example. The filibuster is a prime guarantee of the principle of minority rights in the Senate. The filibuster is a device by which a single Senator can bring the Senate to a halt if that Senator believes his cause is just. But our partisan warfare has often transformed this unique, fundamental Senate tool into a political weapon which has been abused. As a result, there have lately been efforts to abolish it. If this should ever happen, a vital and historic protection of the liberties of the American people will be lost, and the Senate will cease to function as the one institution that has provided protection for the views and the prerogatives of a minority. I lament the ever-increasing costs of running for a Senate seat. In 1958, Jennings Randolph and I spent a combined $50,000 to win the two Senate seats in West Virginia. Today, Senators can expect to spend about $7 million. Too much of a lawmaker's time, too much of a lawmaker's energy is now consumed in raising money for the next election or to pay off the last one. I lament that too many legislators in both parties continue to regard the Chief Executive in a roll much more elevated than the Framers of the Constitution ever intended. The Framers of the Constitution did not envision the Office of the President of the United States as having the attributes of royalty. We as legislators have a responsibility to work with the Chief Executive, but it was intended for this to be a two-way street, not a one-way street. The Senate must again rise and be the coequal branch of Government which the Constitution of the United States intended it to be. I lament the decline of the thoroughness of Senate committee hearings. In its classic study, ``Congressional Government,'' Woodrow Wilson pointed out that the ``informing function of Congress is its most important function.'' This was revealed in 1973 when, after 8 days of hearings and after hours upon hours of questioning, L. Patrick Gray, President Nixon's nominee to be Director of the FBI, revealed that White House counselor John Dean had lied--lied--lied--to FBI investigators, thus beginning the unraveling of the Watergate coverup. Today, we have the knowledge this could not happen with the time restrictions that are in place on the Senate's hearings. I am pleased to say that during my half century in the Senate, there have also been positive changes in the Senate. I will mention a few. The first is the Senate has become more open and the Senate has become more constituent friendly. This was highlighted in 1986 when television cameras were finally installed and the American people all across this country could watch their Senators debate the issues of the day on C- SPAN. I am proud to have been a part--though a small part--but a part of that innovation. During my tenure, the Senate has become more open and it has become more diverse. When I came here in 1959, there was only one--one female Senator. In the 111th Congress, there are 17 women in the Senate. In the 50 years prior to my service, not a single--not one African American was elected to the Senate. During my 50 years here, three African Americans have been elected to the Senate. This is a small number, but one of those three has now been elected to the highest office in the land--President of the United States. So, my fellow colleagues, we have come a very, very, very long way. Let me conclude my remarks by simply acknowledging it has been a wonderful 50 years serving in this ``great forum of constitutional American liberty.'' I only wish my darling wife, who now sings in the heavenly choir above, were here today to say with me that I look forward--yes, look forward to the next 50 years. Amen. Amen. That concludes my remarks. I yield the floor and I say good night to the Chair and all the people here. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Today is a day I have dreaded. Today I say farewell to my good friend and esteemed colleague, Senator John Warner. A few years ago, in an article for a Capitol Hill publication, Senator Warner called attention to the courage of America's war veterans. He explained that the men and women who serve in our military are ``heroes [who] share the timeless virtues of patriotism and selfless devotion to duty in defending our country.'' Mr. President, Senator Warner is one of my ``heroes.'' He is a man who has always displayed ``the timeless virtues of patriotism and selfless devotion to duty in defending our country.'' Indeed, Senator Warner has spent his life in service to our country. He enlisted in the Navy at the tender age of 17 in order to serve in World War II. A few years later, he joined the Marines in order to serve in the Korean conflict. From 1969 to 1972, he served as the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and from 1972 to 1974, as Secretary of the Navy. In 1978, he was elected to the U.S. Senate, and is now the second longest-serving Senator in the history of his beloved Commonwealth of Virginia. His entire Senate career has been marked by his dignity, style, grace, and integrity. He is one of those men with whom one can disagree without rancor. I cannot recall ever hearing anyone speak ill of John Warner. A few years ago, on another occasion in which I paid tribute to my good friend, I referred to him as ``the classiest of class acts''--and he is. We will miss his comity, his courtesy, and his refreshing bipartisan spirit always seeking consensus solutions for the good of the country. Whether in committee or on the Senate floor, he never succumbs to the bitter, destructive partisanship which has all too often characterized this chamber in recent years. Senator Warner has spoken out against his own party when he felt that the wrong course was being pursued. When the horrors of Abu Ghraib came to light, John Warner did not hesitate to help write the legislation to restrict the use of torture. Senator Warner embodies the guiding principles set down by another of our country's brave warriors, GEN Douglas MacArthur, who proclaimed his leading lights to be, ``Duty, honor, country.'' Mr. President, without qualification, I can say that it has been an absolute pleasure to have served with this distinguished and esteemed Virginia gentleman, and I will miss him. chuck hagel Mr. President, I came to know Senator Hagel in 1997 when we worked together on the Byrd-Hagel Resolution related to the Kyoto Protocol. We made a good team because our effort was approved unanimously, by a vote of 95-0. In our work together, I made a new friend because I found Senator Hagel to be a likeable and cooperative person as well as a knowledgeable and hard-working Senator. My respect for this dynamic Senator increased as I watched him become one of the Senate's most outspoken critics of Mr. Bush's war in Iraq. Several of us were already pointing to the disastrous results of the Bush administration's flawed and failed Iraqi war policies. But Senator Hagel's opposition to the war carried very special impact. He is a conservative, a member of the President's own political party, and a military veteran. In fact, he still carries shrapnel in his chest and remnants of burns to his face from his service as an infantryman in Vietnam. Senator Hagel now calls Mr. Bush's war in Iraq ``an absolute replay of Vietnam.'' I will miss my friend and colleague. The Senate needs strong, independent voices like Senator Hagel--lawmakers who are willing to put the best interests of our country and American people over partisan politics. pete domenici Mr. President, when the Senate convenes next January, it is difficult to accept that Senator Domenici will not be here. This son of an Italian immigrant grocer was elected to the Senate in 1972, making him the first Republican in nearly 40 years to be elected to the Senate from the great State of New Mexico. He is now the longest serving Senator in the history of New Mexico. In the Senate, he established himself as an expert on fiscal policies and the intricacies of the Federal budget. Having served with Senator Domenici on the Appropriations and Budget Committees, I have come to know and respect him not only as a dear friend and colleague, but also as a formidable opponent. Senator Domenici and I have clashed swords many times on the Senate floor, and, believe me, when you clashed with him, you would have the fight of your life. He has one of the sharpest minds on Capitol Hill. He is one of the most knowledgeable people on the budget on Capitol Hill. And he is always prepared. Oh, how I regret that he will be leaving us all too soon. But I would like to use this opportunity to thank the senior Senator from New Mexico for his wonderful service and to congratulate him on an outstanding career in the Senate. Thank you, Senator Domenici, for all your work for your State, and our country. And, thank you, Pete, for being a friend.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. You bet.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have been thinking, while sitting here listening to the eloquent remarks of the senior Senator from Alaska on this day, I have been here a long time, and so has he, the Senator from Alaska, although he is just a youngster compared to me. Some in this town would say we have both lived too long. A long life is a blessing for many reasons. One of the reasons is one learns a lot. One learns to take the bad with the good. One learns to separate the phonies from the friends. One learns that family is the most important gift. One learns to appreciate small, special moments and the really good things in life--like a good laugh, a good cry, a good dog, and a good meal. Politics is a rough business, with lots of highs and lots of lows. After a long time in politics, I come to understand that the point of it all is helping people. Ted Stevens has helped a lot of people. We all make mistakes. I have made more of them than I have hair follicles. But thank God we will be judged in the next world by the good we do in this world. Ted Stevens has done a lot of good. I wish for you, my friend Ted Stevens, many happy years. I know you will never stop working for the people of your beloved State of Alaska. Bless your heart, Ted. I love you. I offer an Irish blessing: May all the roads that you have built, Ted, rise up to meet you, and may the wind, Ted, be always at your back. May the Sun shine warmly upon your face, Ted, and may the rains fall softly upon your fields. And until we meet again, may God hold you, Ted, in the hollow of His hand. Bless your heart, Ted. I love you.

Mr. BYRD. That is right, Ted. That is right. (Applause.)

Mr. BYRD. That is right.

Mr. BYRD. That is right.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, in September, the Senate considered a $56 billion economic recovery bill, authored by Senator Reid and myself. While the bill received 52 votes, the minority succeeded in blocking its consideration. In the following 2 months, the economy has continued to deteriorate. On Monday, Senator Reid and I renewed our effort to stimulate the economy and help the millions of Americans hurt by the recession by introducing a $100 billion economic recovery bill. In response to higher unemployment, rising food costs, higher energy costs, State budgets in crisis, and increased dependence on foreign oil, President-elect Obama has called for passage of a second stimulus bill. I spoke with the President-elect yesterday, and I committed myself to helping the President implement his agenda. Madam President, it is time to deliver to Main Street USA. S. 3689 is a $100.3 billion economic stimulus package that would create over 635,000 jobs. I will repeat that. S. 3689 is a $100.3 billion economic stimulus package that would create over 635,000 jobs. The unemployment rate now stands at 6.5 percent, the highest rate since March 1994. The unemployment rate is up by 1.7 percentage points since October 2007. The U.S. economy has lost jobs every month this year--a total of 1.2 million jobs, with almost half of the job losses coming in the last 3 months alone. New unemployment claims filed exceeded 500,000, the highest number since just after 9/11. In order to respond to these grim statistics--and they are grim--the stimulus package extends unemployment benefits by 7 weeks in all States, as well as another 13 weeks in high-unemployment States. Thirty-seven States are facing a shortfall of over $70 billion in their fiscal year 2009 budget, necessitating cutbacks in education, cutbacks in health care, and cutbacks in law enforcement. The stimulus package includes $37.8 billion--that is $37.80 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born--to reduce the State's share of Medicaid costs by increasing the Federal share--increasing, I say--the Federal share by 8 percent. The economic recovery package also--I emphasize the word ``also''-- includes a temporary increase in food stamp benefits. These funds--hear me now--these funds will be spent quickly, and they will help to stimulate the economy. Over $37 billion is included for essential infrastructure and investment programs. Now hear me, listen closely. I measure each word. There are consequences for failing to invest in America. For 8 years--8 long years--we have failed to make adequate investments in highways, transit systems, housing, in clean and safe drinking water systems, and in energy independence. This bill funds such investments, as well as small business loans, assistance for rural communities, and disaster relief for farmers hurt by the hurricanes and the floods this summer. I understand, I am sorry to say, there is going to be an objection to debating this bill. This would be a mistake. I will say that again. I understand there will be an objection to debating this bill. This would be a mistake--a mistake. Why? Because it is time to act. Delaying is not acceptable. And so I ask all Senators, every Senator, to do the right thing for this country--your country, our country--and support this measure. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record information related to rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate for title I of S. 3689.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I know that my esteemed colleague, Senator Rockefeller, joins me in taking this opportunity to congratulate Martin and Seibert L.C. on the 100th anniversary of the establishment of their firm. May God grant them many more years of success and service to the people of West Virginia and surrounding localities.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate one of the most upstanding and intellectually accomplished law firms in the country on its historic 100 years in practice. Yes, this year marks the 100th anniversary of the premier regional law firm of Martin and Seibert L.C., which has offices in Martinsburg and Charleston, WV, Winchester, VA, and Hagerstown, MD. The firm, founded in 1908, offers an extraordinarily high level of professional, competent, and courteous service. Nestled in the eastern panhandle of West Virginia and surrounding environs, it is respected throughout the area. I would like to ask my esteemed colleague, Senator Rockefeller, if he shares my appreciation of the unique history and many accomplishments of this exemplary firm?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this is an enormous package--$700 billion. That ain't chicken feed! That is 17 times what we spend annually on health care for our Nation's veterans. That is 14 times what we spend annually on highways and mass transportation. That is more than the annual defense budget, which supplies our troops and fuels our planes and naval vessels around the globe. That is more than the total amount the Federal Government will spend on homeland security over the next 17 years. And that number actually hides the real potential cost because the Treasury Secretary would be authorized to buy and sell an unlimited amount of these troubled assets in the next 2 years. It is an enormous amount of money. And it involves granting an enormous amount of authority to the Secretary of the Treasury. I believe many Americans, and that includes this Senator, would not pretend to understand all of the nuances of the financial mess that we are told is creeping into our Main Street communities and threatens to jeopardize the security of millions of Americans. But we all understand that, when working families were suffering because of the economic policies of these past 8 years, nobody in the Treasury Department or the Federal Reserve told us about the dangerous course we were on. When the Senate tried to pass an economic stimulus bill just last week, which included unemployment benefits and financial assistance for these same working families struggling with rising energy and food prices, those efforts were met with filibusters and fierce opposition from the White House that now wants a bailout of Wall Street. Apparently Wall Street institutions are too big and too important to be allowed to fail, but the same isn't true when it comes to working families. West Virginia has always had its share of economic troubles. But, it has been further battered by the Bush administration's feckless fiscal policies. The annual budget cuts imposed by the Bush administration and its allies in the Congress have punished the people of my State and many other States. Everything from health care, to law enforcement, to programs for children have been put on the chopping block. I grew up in the Great Depression. That economic collapse followed a decade of business prosperity. Three Republican administrations had pursued policies that brought the country to the brink of economic ruin. Those administrations pushed to get the government off the backs of business, a ``return to normalcy,'' President Harding called it. They had pushed through enormous tax cuts, including the largest tax cut in American history to that point all the while proclaiming the virtues of big business: ``The business of America, is business,'' thundered President Coolidge. For the past 8 years, we have again heard the same slogans reflecting the same philosophy and seen another Republican administration follow the same reckless path. ``Unleash capitalism'', has been the cry for the past 8 years. ``Get the Government off our backs.'' The government is the problem, not the solution. We have heard it all before. Well, the financial oversight agencies have had an 8 year holiday. For 8 years, Wall Street has run wild, as they loaned money they did not have, to people who could not afford these loans, to buy houses and other real estate that were enormously overpriced. Now, faced with financial troubles, the Wall Street barons look to the very Government that they had been resisting to save them to the tune of $700 billion. As the fear spreads and confidence erodes, now the turmoil on Wall Street threatens to wash over Main Street as banks refuse credit, old loans default, and investments that fund the pensions of the average American plummet in value. Republicans espouse the theory of trickle down economics--that the benefits of economic growth will trickle down to the working family. What hogwash. This crisis proves that the only thing that trickles down to the working family is the losses that come from Wall Street run wild. I fear the enormity of the potential crisis that looms over our entire economy. The scope and the cost of the bill speak to the severity of the challenge that our financial leaders believe our country is confronting. This is legislation I do not want to support, yet I fear the consequences of its failure in this body. I fear opposing this legislation because I fear even more what might happen to our States, our workers, their pensions, and their jobs if this turmoil on Wall Street spreads further into our economy. I am somewhat comforted by the improvements Congress has made in an otherwise total giveaway of funds and authority to the executive branch. The EESA bill is 113 pages compared to the 3-page proposal requested by the administration. Much of the new language includes checks on the new authority: No. 1 sunsets the legislation on December 31, 2009--15 months from now--but the Treasury may extend the program until 2 years after the date of enactment; No. 2 releases $700 billion to the Treasury in parts--the first $250 billion is available immediately, the next $100 billion is available after Presidential certification, and the next $350 billion is available unless a joint resolution of disapproval, subject to expedited procedures, is passed within 15 days of the Treasury request; No. 3 includes the Appropriations Committees in the list of congressional committees that will receive regular reports; No. 4 creates a new Congressional Oversight Panel in the legislative branch, which would be required to report to the Congress 30 days after the Treasury Secretary first exercises his authorities and every 30 days thereafter. The members of the panel would be appointed by the House Speaker, the Senate majority leader, the House and Senate minority leaders; No. 5 requires the Comptroller General to report to the Congress every 60 days; No. 6 creates a special inspector general, which would be subject to Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation, and would be required to report to the Congress within 60 days of confirmation and quarterly thereafter; No. 7 creates a Financial Stability Oversight Board in the executive branch. The board would consist of the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Treasury Secretary, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the overseer for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and would be required to report to the Congress quarterly. In addition, 60 days after the Treasury Secretary first exercises his authorities and every month thereafter, and 7 days after the purchasing authority reaches each $50 billion tranche, the Secretary would be required to report to the Congress; No. 8 within 2 days of the Secretary exercising his authority under the act or within 45 days of enactment, the Secretary would be required to publish program guidelines explaining how troubled assets would be selected, priced, and purchased. I believe that our duty is clear. We must pass this legislation or further destabilize our country's economic situation. But after we pass it, if we do, we must then go after all of those who so cavalierly put the rest of us at such incredible risk.