Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am glad to do so.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Shame.

Mr. BYRD. Five days.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Yes, Mr. President. I am glad to do so.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished Senator for his remarks.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for as long as I wish to consume. That will not be very long. I cannot talk about Senator Lott in 3 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. I thank my colleagues, Mr. President. Mr. President, in his political memoir, ``Herding Cats: A Life in Politics,'' our distinguished colleague, the former majority leader, Senator Trent Lott, noted that he viewed his ``years in Washington as a magnificent experience, with many more mountaintops than valleys.'' How is that? Let me say that again: He viewed his ``years in Washington as a magnificent experience, with many more mountaintops than valleys.'' What a wonderful way to look at one's experience in the U.S. Congress. Everyone in public life knows there are valleys. Life may be unfair, but in public life, that unfairness, I daresay, is magnified tenfold. But as Senator Lott explains, he prefers to look at the mountaintops, and his political life has been one of many mountaintop experiences. This son of a shipyard worker and public school teacher was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1972. He was in the House for 16 years, where he distinguished himself by serving with great aplomb on the House Rules Committee as his party whip. I know something about that party whip. That ain't easy. In 1988, he left his safe and secure seat in the House to run for the Senate. Reach for the stars. In the Senate, Senator Lott has served as Republican conference secretary, Republican Senate whip, Senate minority leader, and Senate majority leader. As the Senate whip, Senator Lott became the first Republican ever elected to the whip positions in both Houses of Congress. As the Republican Senate leader, Senator Lott served with dignity and with diplomacy. Diplomacy was his tool. He was a facilitator who sought to bring differing political factions together on key legislative issues. Trent Lott established solid, productive relationships with the Senate Democratic leaders in order to keep legislation moving, moving, moving to the floor. Make no mistake, as a conservative Republican, Senator Trent Lott has always been combatively--combatively; underline that word, combatively--partisan in his thinking and his approach to public policy, but--a big conjunction here--but he never allowed his partisanship to become stubborn or nihilistic or destructive. No, never. Senate Majority Leader Reid--that is Harry Reid, Senator Harry Reid, majority leader--recently commented on how closely he has worked with Senator Lott. They negotiated. They negotiated. Together they worked out compromises, which, as they say, is the art of politics and the legislative process. Majority Leader Reid then explained: Even though Trent Lott is certainly a true conservative, we were able, in his pragmatic fashion, to work things out. It is not easy. Allow me to state this in another way. Senator Lott always put the good of this institution--right here, this institution-- and the good of our country first; that is, above partisan political interests or political party. For that, I have always respected him, Trent Lott, and I have always admired him. Senator Lott takes great pride in his roots and his southern heritage. I, too, am a southerner and am proud of that. My great uncle was killed fighting for the Confederacy. As a champion of his beautiful and beloved home State of Mississippi, he was always on call for the people of the Magnolia State. This was best seen a few years ago when he was considering retiring from the Senate at the close of the 109th Congress, but feeling an obligation to help his State to recover from the deadly and devastating impact of Hurricane Katrina, Trent Lott decided to stay with us, and I, for one, am glad he did. Thank you, Trent. In his political memoir, ``Herding Cats,'' which I mentioned a few minutes ago, Senator Lott included a special chapter entitled ``The Differences Between Friends and Colleagues.'' ``Differences Between Friends and Colleagues''--what a powerful and insightful look this is into the political realities of life and work on Capitol Hill. Senator Trent Lott pulled no punches--none--as he discussed the differences between the two. He bluntly recalled telling one person: You didn't help me when you could have. Senators, think of that. Think of that statement if it was said to you: You didn't help me when you could have. That is piercing, leaves nothing unsaid. I guess that about sums it up: You didn't help me when you could have. I will miss Senator Trent Lott. I wish him and his very lovely wife Tricia--tell her I said hello on behalf of Erma and myself--I wish him and his lovely wife Tricia health, happiness, and success as they now embark upon the next phase of their lives. I pray they will enjoy nothing but the best. They have earned it. Mr. President: It isn't enough that we say in our hearts That we like a man for his ways; And it isn't enough that we fill our minds With psalms of silent praise; Nor is it enough that we honor a man As our confidence upward mounts; It's going right up to the man himself And telling him so that counts. Then when a man does a deed that you really admire, Don't leave a kind word unsaid, For fear that it might make him vein Or cause him to lose his head; But reach out your hand and tell him, ``Well done'', And see how his gratitude swells; It isn't the flowers we strew on the grave, It's the word to the living that tells. Thank you, Trent.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Constitution grants to Congress an extensive array of powers, each of which in one way or another touches the lives of every 1 of the 300 million people who live in America today. But of all of those powers so carefully inscribed in article I, none is so powerful or so necessary for the welfare of our country as the power to appropriate monies--monies from the Federal Treasury. But it is not simply within the power of the Congress to appropriate funds for the operation of the Government. It is a duty that must be exercised each year without fail and without excuses. The operation of the Government to enforce our laws, to serve our people, to protect our liberties depends upon Congress providing the funds that are necessary to do so. The bill that will soon be before the Senate, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, is essential legislation for the country. It includes 11 of the 12 annual appropriations bills. In all, it appropriates $473.5 billion--spelled with a B, Mr. President, a capital B. That is $473.50 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. It appropriates $473.5 billion for the operations of nearly every agency in the Federal Government, save for those funded by the already- approved Defense Appropriations Act. The bill contains an additional $42.2 billion in emergency spending, including $31 billion for the war in Afghanistan and for force protection for our troops--American troops, our troops--in Iraq. I wasn't for going there; I was against our going into Iraq. But we are there. We are talking about our troops who are there in Iraq. The President's budget, as submitted, simply did not include sufficient funds for the health of our veterans. This bill provides $3.7 billion more than requested to make sure the Veterans' Administration can provide better care for our veterans. The bill also includes $3 billion of emergency spending for border security, $622 million for drought relief, $300 million for firefighting in the West, and $250 million for low-income home energy assistance. Emergency funds totaling $2.4 billion are also included for peacekeeping operations in Darfur, refugee assistance, and other foreign assistance programs. We also approved $194 million for the replacement of the bridge which recently fell into the Mississippi River. The consolidated appropriations bill contains an unprecedented level of transparency and accountability for Member-requested projects and earmarks. Each and every earmark contained in the bill or described in the explanatory statement is accounted for in the tables that are part of the joint explanatory statement. These tables describe the project, they describe the level of funding approved, and they provide a list of the Members of either the House or the Senate who requested the item. It is there, as clear as the noonday's Sun in a cloudless sky. How is that, Bernie? We are not supposed to address other Members directly, but in this instance, I know I will be forgiven. These tables, as I say, describe the level of funding approved and a list of the Members of either the House or the Senate who requested the item. All information required by Senate rule XLIV is included in the explanatory statement accompanying the amendment. Read it, Senate rule XLIV. The total dollars that are earmarked is reduced--hear me now--by 43 percent. That ``ain't'' chickenfeed. The total dollars that are earmarked is reduced by 43 percent compared to the appropriations bills signed into law by the President 2 years ago. It is imperative this bill be approved not the week after next, not next week but this week. Last May, Congress passed a budget resolution that balanced the budget by 2012 and permitted Congress to approve appropriations bills at a level of $21.2 billion above the President's request. The Senate was able to work constructively on a bipartisan basis to address the needs of the American people. After the deadly bridge collapse in Minnesota, the Senate voted 88 to 7 to provide additional funds to repair crumbling bridges. At a time when crime rates are on the rise, the Senate voted for a bill that puts more cops--yes, they protect you, they protect me--more cops on the street by a vote of 75 to 19. While oil prices are soaring, the Senate voted 75 to 19 to pass a bill providing more help to low-income families so they can pay their heating bills this winter. After the shocking state of the Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital made the news, the Senate voted 92 to 1 to approve a bill increasing VA spending to allow better care for our returning warriors. Because our borders are in need of additional enforcement to stem the tide of illegal immigration, the Senate voted 89 to 1 to approve an amendment with billions more for border security. This bipartisan cooperation on moving the appropriations process forward, while addressing the crucial needs of this country, would not have been possible without the diligent work of the committee's ranking member. Who is that ranking member? The distinguished and able and venerable Senator Thad Cochran--may his tribe increase. That is from Abou Ben Adhem, in case you have forgotten. It is refreshing to know that in this era in which each political party is urged to view the other as a mortal enemy, there is hope for at least one oasis of comity in which the duty to govern is still taken seriously. I thank my friend, Senator Thad Cochran, and all the other Members of the Appropriations Committee for their hard work, their diligent work to produce each--now listen to this--each of the 12 appropriations bills and for all their cooperation in the assembly of this Consolidated Appropriations Act. Sadly, the President does not share our view that we must invest in America, apparently. The President--your President, my President, our President--proposed to increase the Defense budget by 10 percent. The President proposed to increase foreign aid by 12 percent. The President--your President, my President, our President--proposed $195 billion of emergency spending for the wars, and yet the President believes this 7-percent increase we sought for domestic programs was fiscally irresponsible. As a result, he, the President--your President, my President, our President--threatened to veto 9 of the 12 appropriations bills. Under our Constitution, the President has the power to veto. He does. Nobody disputes that. And the President made it clear, crystal clear, as clear as the noonday's Sun in a cloudless sky, that he intended to veto our bills. We are already 10 weeks into the new fiscal year. It is time to govern. There is a time in the affairs of men when we say it is time to govern. There must be compromise from time to time, and so working together across the aisle, such as Senator Thad Cochran and I--we shake hands, we argue, we debate, and we contend with one another. At the end of the day, we put our arms around each other and walk out of this Senate together. So working together across the aisle, we have cut $17.5 billion from the original levels approved by the Appropriations Committee. As a result, domestic programs receive only a 3-percent increase. I am not pleased with this outcome, but I urge all Senators to support the consolidated bill. Within the limits set by the President, we have funded as best we could, the essential priorities of this Nation--your country, my country. For our veterans, this package includes a record $43.1 billion in funding for the VA. That is a lot of money, $43.1 billion in funding for the VA, an increase of $3.7 billion over the President's request. The bill provides $37.2 billion for veterans health care, and an additional $124 million is included to hire more VA personnel to reduce a 6-month backlog of benefit claims. Funding for the National Institutes of Health is $613 million above the President's request. Energy prices are going through the roof, and we provide $788 million more than the President requested for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which gives 2 million more families additional help for winter heating bills at a time of these record oil prices. Despite the fact that violent crime is on the rise--hear this, violent crime is on the rise--for the first time in 15 years, the President wanted to cut State and local law enforcement, but--there is that conjunction ``but''--we have restored $1.2 billion to that unwise cut. Under the President's request, 600,000 women, infants, and children would lose important nutrition assistance. We fully fund--yes, we fully fund--the WIC program. This package also makes education a priority--education a priority-- by increasing Head Start by $114 million, stopping the proposed cut of 30,000 slots for early childhood education. This additional $118 million for No Child Left Behind means that tens of thousands of disadvantaged students will get the help they need to succeed in school. For college students, the amount for Pell grants is increased to $4,731 per year. The President proposed to eliminate or slash numerous programs for our rural communities, such as rural health, rural housing, and clean water programs, but we have restored money for all of those programs. The President wanted to slash funding for vital infrastructure programs, but we--the Congress--have increased funding: For highways? Yes. For repairing bridges? Yes. For airport improvements? Yes. And for Amtrak. Amtrak. All aboard for Amtrak. At my direction, the bill includes a $20 million increase above the President's request for mine safety. Now I know something about that. I know something about the need for mine safety. I am the son of a coal miner. This money will save lives. Despite the failure of FEMA to adequately respond to Hurricane Katrina, the President wanted to slash funding by over $1.5 billion for first responders. We restore those cuts--how about that--and actually increase funding by $544 million. I am pleased also that the bill includes $31 billion for the wars in Iraq--I was against that war. I said we ought not go in there; we have no business being in there, but we are in there--and Afghanistan--I was for that war--including $16 billion for the war in Afghanistan, over $10 billion for force protection in Iraq, such as body armor and systems to defeat IEDs, $1.1 billion for the Wounded Warrior program, and $4 billion for other programs. It is a balanced package--a balanced package--and I support it. The bill invests in the security of our homeland and supports the men and the women who are on the front lines of protecting our communities. The Border Patrol will hire 3,000 more Border Patrol agents to protect our borders. We nearly double funding for port security, chemical security--we know what that is about down in the Canaan Valley of West Virginia--and transit and rail security. The Justice Department will hire 100 new U.S. Marshals, 200 DEA agents, and 160 FBI agents, and we provide funding for hundreds of new cops at the State and local level. Finally, we more than double funding, to a total of $108 million, for screening and treating illnesses suffered by those who bravely responded to the 9/11 attacks at the World Trade Center. Because so many Americans are worried about their mortgages and the specter of foreclosure, this bill adds $180 million to provide credit counseling and foreclosure mitigation to subprime borrowers. These are not just meaningless numbers on an obscure government ledger. There are consequences for our failure to invest in America. Did everybody hear that? There are consequences for our failure to invest in America. Bridges fall, fires destroy, hurricanes devastate. People get sick from food that is not inspected and drugs that are not adequately tested. Our schools, our roads, our transportation systems are all in need of serious attention. This bill is a genuine effort to compromise so that we can move forward. It is a balanced bill. It is the result of over a month of bipartisan negotiations. For the sake of the welfare of our Nation, it is time--time, time--to govern. The ``gotcha'' politics that prevail in Washington must end. To continue it damages our country from within and damages our country from without and discredits both political parties--your party, my party--both political parties. With respect to the explanatory statement for the bill, the House- approved amendment to H.R. 2764, was filed with the House Committee on Rules by Representative Obey at approximately midnight Sunday night, December 16, 2007. Accompanying the amendment is an explanatory statement contained in the Congressional Record of December 17, 2007. That statement, like the amendment, is the product of bipartisan, bicameral negotiations. The joint explanatory statement is the final vehicle for conveying congressional intent with respect to purposes for which appropriations are made. In order to assure that there is no ambiguity as to congressional intent, the House amendment includes a provision that provides that the explanatory statement submitted by Mr. Obey and printed in the Record will serve the purpose of a conference report for determining congressional intent. I fully endorse this provision, for in its absence, this Administration, which strives to overturn statutory language in its bill signing statements, would completely ignore congressional intent. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my able friend for his generous remarks, for his good work on the committee, and for his kind leadership. I wish for him and all his loved ones a very merry Christmas, in the old-time way. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I intend to support the amendment being offered by the Senator from Wisconsin. While I fully support the addition of the $31 billion in funding for the war in Afghanistan and for troop protection, I cannot support the President's demands that funding be given to him with no strings attached so that he may keep some 130,000 or more troops in Iraq for a sixth year. Risking the lives of more soldiers to try to win a bad bet on Iraq represents a terrible injustice to our brave fighting men and women. Just a little more time, the President says, just a little more money, and the quagmire that is Iraq will be transformed. The President has made clear that if he has his way, U.S. troops would still be in Iraq decades hence. What a statement by a U.S. President. What a deadly bankrupt legacy to leave. 2007 has already been the most deadly year in Iraq in terms of U.S. deaths since the invasion began, and the year is not yet over. The number of U.S. deaths has reached 3,890, and the number of wounded has surpassed 28,000. The Iraqi Government has not passed any of the legislative benchmarks that would indicate progress toward national reconciliation. The economic rebuilding of Iraq continues to lag, financed by U.S. taxpayer dollars and marked by waste, fraud, and abuse. Oil production is sputtering and shortages of basics such as electricity and water continue unabated, despite the boondoggle that this war has been for private contractors. Evidence of ethnic cleansing is growing, as Sunnis are forced out of Shia areas and vice versa. The Iraqi Army and police forces remain riddled with sectarianism. U.S. forces continue to carry the bulk of the security burden, and while U.S. forces remain in Iraq, there is little incentive for the Iraqis to assume that duty. Some have pointed to recent tactical successes and the reduction of violence in certain areas of Iraq as justification for continuing the occupation of Iraq. But the prowess of our troops was never in question. They have been given a job to do, and they do it with bravery and skill. The important question--the only true measure of our efforts in Iraq--is whether those tactical successes somehow add up to progress toward a lasting political solution. That progress has failed to materialize. It is time for a change in Iraq. It is time to limit the U.S. military mission in Iraq and bring the bulk of our troops home. It is time to seriously engage our allies and the nations of the Middle East on Iraqi security issues. It is time to restore the reputation of the great United States of America by returning to the policies that made the United States an example to inspire the world, a beacon of economic prosperity, a showcase of humanitarian ideals, and benevolent assistance to people in their hour of need. It is time to shed our image as invaders and occupiers of other nations, using mercenary forces to expand our reach. It is time to unequivocally reject the notion that America condones torture. For most of my lifetime--and it has been a long one already--the world looked to the United States first when help was needed. Now, the world wonders which nation America will invade next. How far we have fallen. The administration has used emergency proclamations and stop-loss orders to effect a back-door draft that keeps soldiers in the military, even though their terms of service have been completed. Meanwhile, the needs of our own Nation go wanting, as important equipment that could be used for domestic disasters is shipped off to Iraq, and our National Guardsmen, the first responders in emergencies, sit in the sands--the hot sands--of the Middle East. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of this amendment and, thus, reaffirm our resolve to alter our disastrous course in Iraq. To vote for this amendment is to vote for our troops and to begin a reasonable new policy for Iraq. To vote for this amendment is to begin to reassert the constitutional role of the Congress as the people's check on the Executive, using the most powerful tool there ever was and ever will be in the congressional arsenal--the power of the purse. To vote for this amendment is to show the American people we are listening to them. Keeping our troops in harm's way in support of a misbegotten war and a failed strategy is not patriotism. We must not roll the dice again, recklessly risking American lives and American treasure. It is time-- time--time--for a change. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it has been a challenging year for the Senate Appropriations Committee. When the 110th Congress convened in January 2007, only two of the annual appropriations bills had been enacted. Working with the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Mr. David Obey, Senator Cochran, and Representative Lewis, we immediately began work on a joint funding resolution to fund the Federal Government. We focused on funding a short list of priorities, such as adding $3.6 billion for VA medical care; $1.6 billion for State and local law enforcement; $620 million for the National Institutes of Health; and $1.4 billion to fight AIDS and malaria in the developing world. That joint funding resolution was passed by the House and the Senate and signed into law by the President on February 15, 2007. Almost immediately, the committee was called back into action to tackle a bill to make emergency appropriations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee produced a prudent and responsible bill that required a new course for the war in Iraq. The bill set a goal for having most of our troops out of Iraq by January 1, 2008. Had the President signed that bill, most of our troops would already be home preparing to celebrate the new year. Unfortunately, the President found that the bill did not support his ``stay the course'' policies and vetoed that bill on May 1, 2007. The Appropriations Committee produced another bill, totaling $120 billion, unfortunately this time stripped of the important guidance on the future of the war. That bill was again passed by the House and Senate, and this time the President signed it into law on May 25, 2007. The committee then began its annual work of producing the regular appropriations bills. I am proud to say that the committee reported 12 individual appropriations bills, many of which were reported by unanimous, bipartisan votes. The bills that were considered on the floor of the Senate received broad, bipartisan support, and each received the affirmative vote of more than 75 Senators. And finally, the, committee--working on a bipartisan, bicameral basis--produced the complex legislation, which is now before the Senate. My reason for detailing the work of the Appropriations Committee this year is simple: I wish to convey my personal appreciation for all of the work and cooperation of the committee's ranking member, Senator Cochran, who has time and again used his skill and experience to bring credit upon himself, the committee, and the Senate as a whole. I also wish to commend the chairmen and ranking members of each of the 12 subcommittees. It is through their knowledge and leadership that the committee is able to craft the individual appropriations bills. It is to their great credit that the committee was able to rise to the many challenges presented this year. I wish to express my gratitude to the staff of the Appropriations Committee. They are dedicated public servants: professional, expert, and diligent. The committee is extremely fortunate to have their services, and I thank them for all the many hours they have devoted to performing their duties. And finally, I send to my colleague, Senator Cochran, each member of the Appropriations Committee, and all of the staff, my warmest wishes for a safe and joyous Christmas in the spirit of the old-Time Christmases and a very happy New Year.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Right.

Mr. BYRD. Shame.

Mr. BYRD. Right.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, our Government should not be able to confiscate the land of private citizens in a way that is reckless or that benefits the pecuniary interests of private developers at the expense of the public good. That is why I share the concerns of many Americans about the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London, where the Court held that eminent domain could be used to transfer private property to other private owners for development purposes. However, today, I joined a majority of the Senate in voting against an amendment that would have unduly limited the power of eminent domain by State and local governments because the reach of the amendment was far too broad and its text had not been the subject of hearings before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. The proposed legislation would have imposed severe Federal sanctions on State and local governments seeking to exercise eminent domain over land for perfectly legitimate and defensible reasons, including for purposes of historic preservation, conservation, to create parks, or to promote recreation or community service. I share the view of most Americans that the power of eminent domain must be exercised in a fair, prudent, and balanced way. Unfortunately, this amendment would not have accomplished that objective.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as a son of West Virginia's southern coalfields who grew up in a coal miner's home and married a coal miner's daughter, I note that today is the 100th anniversary of the Monongah, WV, mine disaster, a particularly momentous and solemn observance for the coal miners of West Virginia. The Monongah, WV, mine disaster remains today the worst industrial accident in American history. At least 362 coal miners lost their lives in that explosion on that cold December day, December 6, 1907. The truth is, some of the miners inside Fairmont Coal Company's No. 6 and No. 8 mines were boys--mere children, in fact--whose names did not appear on the company's official ledgers. So we may never know exactly how many lives were lost inside that mine on that dark day. Sadly, many more miners across West Virginia and the Nation would perish, including another 78 miners in an explosion in that same West Virginia community a little over 60 years later, before Congress would respond with the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. Coal miners are a different breed. Coal miners are bound together in ways perhaps not unlike the bonds that develop between soldiers or others whose occupations are inherently dangerous. Coal miners share a vocabulary foreign to most outsiders. Coal miners must place great trust in the persons next to them for their safety. Although mortal danger stalks them daily, in every minute of every day, this mutual trust and mutual dependence creates unusually strong bonds. Coal miners enjoy an unusually deep camaraderie. Today in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Montana, Virginia, Utah, Alabama, Wyoming, and West Virginia, coal miners are marking the 100th anniversary--that is today--of the Monongah, WV, mine disaster. They do it with reverence, and they honor their survivors. In West Virginia, we also mark December 6 as Miner Day and celebrate all coal miners--past, present, and future. Coal remains today, this very moment, the backbone of America's energy supply. Over half of all the electricity we consume every day-- and some of it is burning here tonight in the ceiling of this Hall-- over half of all the electricity we consume every day is provided by coal miners. We must protect those coal miners. The names Alma, Darby, Crandall Canyon, and Sago remind us that mine disasters are not simply a part of the coal industry's past; they are part of our present. As we remember the miners who lost their lives at Monongah on that cold December day in 1907, let us also recommit ourselves to protecting the health and the safety of all those men and women who so bravely toil in our coal mines today. May we also take a moment to consider that the current political debate regarding the future of coal--black diamonds--in our national energy policy is taking place under lights-- right here, for example--under lights illuminated by the work of coal miners, in the warmth of furnaces fueled by coal miners and completely independent of any foreign sheik or imam, thanks to coal miners--coal miners such as my dad, coal miners such as my wife's father, coal miners such as my brother-in-law. Coal miners, coal miners, coal miners--may God bless them. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. What is the floor situation, Mr. President?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I speak out of order for no more than 10 minutes.

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, as Congress reconvenes this week after our observance of the Thanksgiving holiday, we find a brisk wind blowing through the streets of the Nation's Capital. As cold temperatures begin to grip the country, Americans are turning up the heat in their homes, but the elected leaders of our country should seize the opportunity to turn down the heat in Washington. Three days ago, in his weekly radio address, the President placed the blame at the feet of Congress for the delays in enacting 11 of the 12 annual appropriations bills. But finger pointing does nothing--nothing, zilch--to solve the impasse, which began with White House threats to veto 10 of those funding bills. With 3 short weeks left in this session of Congress, it is time to close down the political posturing and recognize we have a responsibility to govern. As the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, it is clear to me that Congress is working with great diligence to find a way around our budget conundrum. Working hand in hand with Members of the minority, we are crafting an appropriations package that I expect will garner bipartisan support. This package contemplates a reduction of $10.6 billion from the spending levels approved by Congress in this year's budget resolution. And $10.6 billion is a lot of money. In addition, various controversial matters, some of which have been the subject of veto threats, are eliminated. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress are attempting, in good faith, to find a way around the veto threat demagoguery that has been emanating from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for months. Now the White House needs to put aside politics and recognize it is time to govern in the responsible manner that is expected by the American people. I urge the President--and he is my President, too, and I say it respectfully--to stop the stale veto threats that have been the albatross around the neck of responsible budgeting for months. The fact is the needs of this Nation have changed since the budget was submitted way back in February. That should come as no great surprise. The Senate, on a bipartisan basis, has recognized these needs, and events have made them crystal clear. The crumbling state of our infrastructure was punctuated by a deadly--and I mean deadly--bridge collapse in Minnesota. The Senate passed a bill containing funds for the bridge replacement and for repairing bridges across the Nation by a vote of 88 to 7. That was the responsible thing to do. Soaring oil prices mean a cruel squeeze on low-income heating assistance. The Senate approved by a vote of 75 to 19 a bill providing increased heating assistance. That was the responsible thing to do. Investigations into the treatment of soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have underlined greater demands on the VA health care system. Legislation to increase funding for our veterans passed the Senate by a vote of 92 to 1. That was the moral thing to do. More money is needed to improve the security of our borders. An amendment to provide such funding passed the Senate 89 to 1. That was the smart thing to do. In July, the administration released its latest National intelligence report that concluded al-Qaida has regrouped in Pakistan with the intention of attacking the United States again. The Senate passed a Homeland Security bill to increase funding for first responders by a vote of 89 to 4. Rising crime rates in this country highlight the wisdom of additional funding for law enforcement. The Senate passed legislation providing such funding for cops on the street by a vote of 75 to 19. The rising cost of food means that there must be more funding for the Women, Infants and Children Program or 500,000 people will lose important nutritional support. Yet despite all of these developments since the President submitted an inadequate spending proposal in February, the White House continues to demand an arbitrary and irresponsible ceiling on spending. The White House continues to stubbornly oppose bipartisan initiatives to invest money to solve the real problems that face the Nation. Soon, the first session of this 110th Congress will draw to a close, but there is still time to craft an appropriations proposal that makes a sincere attempt to meet the President in the middle of the road. I thank Senator Thad Cochran and his ranking members for their efforts as we move forward in completing the fiscal year 2008 appropriations process. So the choice is clear--as clear as the noonday Sun in a cloudless sky. The President and the Congress must recognize that the people of this country expect their leaders--that is us, the people downtown at the other end of the avenue and those across the Capitol--to actually govern and address the real problems facing the country. Democrats and Republicans in Congress are willing to work to resolve differences and complete a fiscally responsible package of appropriations bills. But to do the people's business, the Congress must be joined by a White House willing, at last, to jettison its political posturing, stop its political posturing. The tyranny of the veto threat has already dangerously delayed the Nation's priorities for far too long. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have some comments. They will be short, but I will save them for next Tuesday, which the Lord willing, at that time I will say a few things. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator. I thank all of the Senators. I thank all the Members and the staff who make it possible for us to do our work. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Have a good Thanksgiving.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, today the President, our President, demonstrated once again that he values political posturing more than making America a safer, healthier, more economically strong nation. This morning, President Bush vetoed a bipartisan, fiscally responsible Labor-HHS-Education bill that increases funding for programs to improve student performance, makes college more affordable, supports lifesaving medical research, and provides relief for families coping with rising home heating costs. The bill also provides money for veterans employment programs, homeless veterans, and research to help those veterans suffering from traumatic brain injuries. The President, in an effort to convey the appearance of fiscal discipline, has threatened to veto 10 of the 12 appropriations bills-- 10 out of 12. Today the President vetoed the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill because Congress chose to increase funding by 5 percent. The hypocrisy of the President's political posturing became even more clear today. This morning, the President signed the Defense appropriations bill which provides a $40 billion, or 10-percent, increase for the Department of Defense. Also, this morning, the President vetoed the Labor-HHS-Education bill because Congress chose to restore irresponsible and shortsighted cuts proposed by the President. As part of the President's political message, he describes the 5- percent increase for Labor-HHS-Education programs as ``bloated'' spending. I call it responsible investments in research in cancer, heart disease, diabetes, in educating our children, in providing access to health care to rural America, and to heating the homes of low-income elderly Americans. The President proposed to cut funding for the National Institutes of Health by $279 million for studying cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. Under the President's budget, the National Institutes of Health would have to eliminate 717 research grants that could lead to cures or treatments for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, and other diseases. Congress restored those cuts and provided an increase of $1.1 billion. I ask the question: Is increasing spending for the National Institutes of Health by 3.8 percent ``bloated'' spending? Is it? Of course not. The President proposed over $3 billion in cuts for educational programs, including special education, Safe and Drug-Free Schools, and improving teacher quality. Congress--that is us--restored those cuts. Is increasing by 3 percent to educate our children bloated spending? I ask the question again. Congress restored those cuts. Is increasing funding by 3 percent to educate our children bloated spending? No. The President proposed cuts of nearly $1 billion from health programs, such as rural health, preventive health, nurse training, and mental health grants. Congress, on a bipartisan basis, restored those cuts. I ask the question: Is providing an increase of $225 million for community health centers bloated spending? Is it? Certainly not. The President--our President--proposed to cut low-income home energy assistance by $379 million. Congress restored that cut and provided an increase of $250 million. With the price of a barrel of oil reaching $100, does anyone really think increasing low-income home energy assistance is bloated spending? No. No Senator will be cold this winter. I will not be cold this winter. You on that side of the aisle will not be cold this winter. We on this side will not be cold this winter. No Senator will be cold at home this winter. The President will not be cold down at the White House. No. Yet the President wants Congress to slash such assistance. President Bush's Budget Director, Jim Nussle, with whom I met several weeks ago, indicated he would be prepared to negotiate in good faith with Congress over our differences in spending. To my dismay--to my dismay--Director Nussle has not reached out to the leadership of the Appropriations Committees in the House and the Senate in a genuine effort to find common ground. Now, what is the problem? Why, Mr. President, why, Mr. Nussle, is the $40 billion increase for the Department of Defense fiscally responsible while a $6 billion increase to educate our children and improve the health of our citizens bloated spending? Now, let's stop--please, let's stop--this charade of political gamesmanship. I say this most respectfully to our President. Let's move forward for the good of the American people. They deserve more from their elected officials. I suggest to this White House that it stop its intransigence and help us--the elected Representatives of the people in Congress--to enact this vital legislation. Let's sit down together and work out the problems in this bill. Providing for our people's needs should not be a game of us versus them. It should not be a Republican White House versus a Democratic conference. People's lives should not be fodder for ego-driven political games. Homeless veterans, veterans in need of health care, children in need of education, these must not become the target in a foolish game of kickball. I urge this White House--I plead with this White House--to sit down with the Congress and address the growing unmet needs in this country. If we can build schools and hospitals in Iraq, we can certainly provide health care and education for our own citizens. Nobody wins in a game of chicken, and surely the White House can and ought to work with us--us, in Congress--to stop this charade. Mr. President, I yield the floor.