Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair and I thank all Senators.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Webb be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the floor for 2 minutes. Amendments Nos. 3342 and 3352 En Bloc, to Amendment No. 3325

Mr. BYRD. Does the Senator wish to make a unanimous consent request?

Mr. BYRD. How long does the Senator wish?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, do I have the floor?

Mr. BYRD. Do I have the floor?

Mr. BYRD. I will sit down because I know I have the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, is the Senate operating under a time agreement at this point?

Mr. BYRD. Am I recognized at this point?

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, last year the coal mining industry recorded the highest fatality rate in 10 years: 47 coal miners perished. Perished. They died. Many of these coal miners perished in the terrible tragedies at the Sago, Alma, and Darby Mines in West Virginia and Kentucky. In response, the Congress passed the MINER Act to help ensure better emergency preparedness in the coalfields, such as the underground installation of wireless communications and additional emergency breathing devices. In order to fund these new mandates, and in order to ensure continued compliance with already existing health and safety standards, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $13 million above the President's budget request for the Mine Safety and Health Administration in the fiscal year 2008 budget. I also note that because the President's budget failed to do so in fiscal years 2006 and 2007, the Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee secured funding, at my request, to hire additional mine safety inspectors and to bolster safety enforcement at MSHA. I wish to thank Chairman Harkin and Senator Specter for their support and their stalwart advocacy of these requests. They are true champions of the coal miners. Since the Appropriations Committee reported this bill in June, another tragedy occurred in Utah where six miners were trapped at the Crandall Canyon Mine. During the rescue operation, three miners lost their lives, one of them a Federal mine inspector. The original six miners who had been trapped were never found. They remain entombed to this very minute, this very hour, this very day. They remain entombed in Crandall Canyon. When the Congress returned from its August recess, the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Labor HHS Subcommittee conducted a hearing to examine MSHA's actions at Crandall Canyon. In response to several questions I asked based on articles in West Virginia's Charleston Gazette, the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health informed me that MSHA had not been performing the full quarterly inspections required by the Mine Act. I learned that MSHA has fallen dangerously, shockingly behind on its mine inspections across the Nation. In southern West Virginia, the inspection rate had been allowed to decline from 89 percent in 2006 to 63 percent in 2007. MSHA needs the personnel, MSHA needs the budget to perform its primary and most basic functions; MSHA needs support staff to properly assess penalties; MSHA needs resources to review and certify safety equipment; MSHA needs the capacity and the personnel to train more inspectors. Years of attrition and budget cuts by the Bush administration--let me say that again--years of attrition and budget cuts by the Bush administration have left critical positions unfilled at MSHA, incapacitating the Agency in many respects. During a recent meeting in my office, the Assistant Secretary for MSHA, in response to my request, described a plan for MSHA to achieve 100 percent of the inspections required by the Mine Act. The plan would require many tens of thousands of overtime hours and the transfer of inspectors from districts across the country. I have been told that these additional measures would be sufficient to fill the current gaps in the inspection schedules, at least until new inspectors can be trained and are able to assume their full responsibilities. Now the problem falls to the Congress. That is here. The problem falls to the Congress to figure how to pay for this interim plan and how to fix these very serious budget deficiencies at MSHA. Even after the most horrific year of mine fatalities in a decade, the President's budget request still does not include adequate funds to enable MSHA to conduct, in full, the most basic safety inspection. The President's budget request--let me say that again. Our President's budget request--let me say that again--our President's budget request does not even include the necessary funds to help MSHA comply with the mandates of the new MINER Act which the President signed into law. Today, I am offering an amendment that would add $10 million. Did you hear that? It would add $10 million to MSHA's budget. These funds are necessary to enable MSHA both to complete the safety inspections required by the law and also to implement the mandates required by the MINER Act. The amendment would be fully offset by a reduction in travel expenditures for the departments and the agencies funded in the underlying bill. It would save lives. The funds enable MSHA to support additional hours of overtime for mine inspectors and specialists and to pay for travel for inspectors temporarily reassigned. In addition, this amendment enables MSHA to hire additional support and administrative staff and to designate education specialists to better train new mine inspectors. The amendment would allow MSHA to begin to reduce its backlog of applications for certification and approval of new safety technologies. The amendment would spur expeditious approval of a truly wireless communications and tracking system that can meet the requirements of the MINER ACT. As SAGO--SAGO, a terrible word because of that terrible tragedy-- Crandall Canyon, and too many other recent mine disasters have made deadly clear, mine safety must not be funded on the cheap. The Congress must fund MSHA's true budgetary needs, and it must have the candid appraisal of the Department of Labor and the Mine Safety and Health Administration. Tell it to us straight. I say to them, tell it to us straight. Anything less is a threat to the health and safety of our miners. I send my amendment to the desk.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, it is my understanding that someone is needed on the other side of the aisle. I can certainly appreciate that. I want to ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment. I am advised by the able staff on the other side that Senator Specter would agree to having the yeas and nays. I request the yeas and nays.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, my amendment would add $10 million to the budget for the Mine Safety and Health Administration. These funds would enable MSHA to complete safety inspections and to implement the MINER Act. The amendment is fully offset by a reduction in travel expenditures for the Departments funded in the underlying bill. This amendment is cosponsored by the managers of the bill, Senators Harkin and Specter. I ask unanimous consent that Senator McConnell also be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, nearly 5 months ago, the Congress sent the President the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act 2007. Despite the President's signing the measure into law on May 25, 2007, I have learned with great disappointment that the Office of Management and Budget has yet to release more than $104 million included in this legislation by the Congress for the purpose of assisting the FBI in combating terrorism. These were funds that the FBI had asked the OMB to include in the supplemental in order to deal with various aspects of homeland security such as carrying out the FBI's new responsibility for rendering safe a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear incident in the United States. The funds were also requested by the FBI to make advances in areas such as DNA and other identification technologies, which offer opportunities to positively identify individuals and prevent terrorists, criminals, and other ineligible individuals from entering the United States, thus better securing our borders. I call upon the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to release these funds for the purposes identified by the FBI. This is a dangerous way to waste time. Nearly 5 months have already been wasted. These funds should be put to use for the purposes for which they were appropriated in order to better secure the homeland and combat terrorism.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise to commend Senator Mikulski for her skillful management of this bill. The Commerce-Justice-Science bill requires tough tradeoffs between critical programs that serve our country well. I thank Senator Shelby for his many contributions to this bipartisan legislation. I urge Senators--do you hear me?--I urge Senators to vote no on the motion to commit the bill to committee for the purpose of reducing the bill to the President's request. If such a motion were approved, the bill would need to be reduced by $3.2 billion. Did you get that? If such a motion were approved, now, the bill would have to be reduced by $3.2 billion. Now, to any Senators who intend to vote for the motion, I ask this question--listen--what programs would you cut? Hear me. What programs would you cut? Stand up. Let me see you. Let me hear you. Should we reduce funding for the FBI while it is struggling to fight the global war on terror and fight crime on our streets? Should we? Is that what you want? Should we? I ask again, should we reduce funding for the FBI? I do not hear anyone responding on that. Should we reduce funding for law enforcement grants to State and local governments when violent crime is on the rise in this country? Should we? Let me ask you again. Should we reduce funding for law enforcement grants? Step up to the plate now. Should we reduce funding for law enforcement grants to State and local governments when violent crime is on the rise in this country? This summer, the President signed the America COMPETES Act authorizing increased funding for the National Science Foundation and for NIST. Should we cut those programs that will help to drive a prosperous economy? Should we reduce our commitment to NASA? Should we? Should we reduce our commitment to NASA? I hear nobody. Why all this silence? I think not. I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to commit, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Right.

Mr. BYRD. It is.

Mr. BYRD. Get out of my face.

Mr. BYRD. Just 1 year.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, last week the Senate voted on an amendment to the Defense authorization bill that designated a portion of the Iranian Armed Forces as a terrorist organization. I joined 21 of my illustrious colleagues in voting against that amendment. It was a dangerous, unnecessary provocation that is escalating the confrontational rhetoric between the United States and Iran. In response to the passage of that amendment, the Iranian Parliament on Saturday designated the U.S. Armed Forces and the Central Intelligence Agency as terrorist organizations. Would someone please explain to me what has been achieved by this exchange of international verbal spitballs? It is deeply troubling to see the Senate joining the chest pounding and saber rattling of the Bush administration. I am no apologist for the Iranian regime, anymore than I was for Saddam Hussein, but I fear we may become entangled in another bloody quagmire. We have been down this path before. We have seen all too clearly where it leads. Four and a half years ago, Secretary of State Colin Powell made a speech before the United Nations Security Council claiming to have evidence that proved Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was an imminent threat to U.S. and international security. Others in the administration made the rounds of Washington news programs to pound the drums of war, scaring the public with visions of mushroom clouds and mobile chemical weapons labs. The proponents of war compared Saddam Hussein to Adolf Hitler, warning ominously of the dangers of Chamberlain-like appeasement. That is a seductive analogy, but it is a dangerously specious one. Every foreign adversary is not the devil incarnate. We know now that Saddam Hussein was militarily a paper tiger. The intelligence that suggested he was an imminent threat was flat wrong. Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein had not attacked our country. Saddam Hussein was a ruthless tyrant, but he was not an imminent threat to U.S. national security. Now we hear the same scare tactics and several analogies trotted out again, this time with Iran. Analogies can be dangerous. They risk oversimplifying complicated situations and can lead to erroneous conclusions. While there may be some superficial similarities between Hitler and Ahmadi-Nejad, it does not mean our only option is to start world war III. We are now more than 4 years into a war that was launched by false fears and scary hyperbole, and here we are again being led down a path by chest-pounding rhetoric, without a clear idea where that path is taking us. As the philosopher George Santayana once said: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Are we condemned to repeat the colossal blunder that is the Iraq war or has the Senate learned the lessons of history? Every day it seems the confrontational rhetoric between the United States and Iran escalates. We hear shadowy claims about Iran's destabilizing actions in Iraq, with little direct evidence offered to back it up. The President telegraphs his desire to designate a large segment of the Iranian Army as a terrorist organization--and instead of counseling prudence, the Senate rushes ahead to do it for him. I hope we can stop this war of words before it becomes a war of bombs. We have seen the results when the Senate gives this administration the benefit of the doubt: a war that has now directly cost the American people $600 billion, more than 3,800 American deaths, and more than 27,000 American casualties; a war that has stretched our military to the breaking point; a war that the commander of our forces in Iraq, just 3 weeks ago, could not say had made America safer. I daresay many--perhaps most--in this Chamber wish we had never gone into Iraq. Are we willing to sleep-walk into yet another disastrous military confrontation with a Middle East tyrant? We need to talk directly to the Government of Iran without preconditions or artificial restrictions and indicate that regime change is not our goal. Unfortunately, the President seems unwilling to take that step. We have held only two talks at a relatively low level, and those have focused solely on Iraq. Direct talks with North Korea about the issue we were most concerned with--North Korea's nuclear program--resulted in the first progress toward a denuclearized Korean peninsula in years. And yet with Iran we continue to refuse to discuss the issue we are most concerned about: insisting that they must first renounce their nuclear program. That is not negotiation; that is dictating ultimatums. I agree that no option should be taken off the table when considering how to deal with any threat posed by Iran. But if the President concludes, after serious diplomacy has failed, that an attack is necessary, he must make the case to the Congress and the American people. Under article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, only the Congress--the elected representatives of the people--have the power to declare war, not the President. The President has stated his belief that previously enacted congressional authorizations to use force give him all the authority he requires to start a new war. I respectfully disagree. It is incumbent upon us--it is incumbent upon us--to reassert the powers granted to the people's branch in the Constitution. That is the best way to prevent another colossal blunder in the Middle East. It is the people of this country who pay the price of such Presidential misadventures. We, as their representatives in the Congress, must not fail in our No. 1 duty: to protect their interests. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Hear hear.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today I voted to table an amendment offered by Senator Coburn to H.R. 3093, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008, which would have shifted funding to the Civil Rights Division within the U.S. Department of Justice for the investigation and prosecution of unsolved civil rights cases. I share Senator Coburn's fervent and sincere desire to solve these ghastly crimes. However, I do not believe that his amendment would achieve this important task. Instead, the Senate should consider and pass S. 535, the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act. I am a cosponsor of this bill, which would commit the resources of the U.S. Government to investigating and prosecuting racially motivated murders that occurred on or before December 31, 1969. The bill designates an official within the U.S. Department of Justice, and another within the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to investigate, prosecute, and coordinate the investigations of civil rights violations that occurred prior to 1970 and resulted in a death. There is an urgent need for the Congress to enact this measure. Given the advanced age of defendants and potential witnesses, there remains only a small window of opportunity in which to solve these cases. Ultimately, the purpose of this bill is to provide justice to the families of those who were murdered for racially motivated reasons prior to 1970. The bill expresses the sense of Congress that all authorities with jurisdiction, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other entities within the U.S. Department of Justice, should expeditiously investigate unsolved civil rights murders, and provide the resources necessary to ensure timely and thorough investigations in the cases involved. The families of the victims of these heinous crimes deserve no less. It is my hope that this bill, which has been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, will soon be voted upon and passed by the Senate.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I will vote against H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act. I support many of the provisions in this bill, which authorizes the activities of the Department of Defense, including important research, development and procurement funding to improve our Armed Forces and the operations and maintenance funding necessary to ensure the smooth running of the military services over the coming year. I support these activities, which not only benefit those servicemembers currently serving overseas in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also help build a strong and effective military for the future. I applaud the fine work of Senator Levin and the Committee on Armed Services for their efforts in putting together a bill that is, in most ways, a good piece of legislation. However, H.R. 1585 also includes title XV, which provides authorization for the funding of continued operations in Iraq for the coming year. In my view, this provision constitutes a ``poison pill.'' I have stated before that the Congress should not continue to write blank checks for the prosecution of this apparently endless war in Iraq. That is what title XV does. In effect, it provides a congressional authorization to fund the continuation of President Bush's policy in Iraq for another year, without any strings attached. I offered an amendment to clarify that nothing in the bill constitutes a specific authorization for U.S. troops to remain in Iraq, but the committee was unable to clear the amendment. Other amendments offered to the bill that would have placed limits on the number of troops or otherwise limited the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq were defeated during the floor debate on H.R. 1585. This is regrettable. Continuing to prosecute this war at the current rate is straining our military to the breaking point. Many units and individuals are enduring their third and fourth rotation to Iraq, and because no limits have been placed on the mission or force levels, there is no end in sight. More and more military analysts are warning that the U.S. Armed Forces are at risk for becoming a `hollow force,' as happened after the Vietnam conflict. That is irresponsible, and it puts our Nation at risk. There are no provisions in this bill to require the U.S. President or the Iraqi government to meet any benchmarks or withdraw any troops, or even to put limits on sending still more troops to Iraq, if any could be found. It is time for Congress to start reining in this runaway horse, before our military is completely exhausted and our nation made vulnerable. I support our troops. I do not want them to lack for anything needed to do their job or to keep them safe. But I cannot and will not agree to leave them in Iraq forever, with no limits placed on their mission, no provision to ensure that they at least get as much time at home as they do on the battlefield, with no benchmarks or goals set for the Iraqi Government that might trigger a return of our troops, and no assurances by our commander in Iraq that this war is making the United States any safer. That is a bitter poison pill I cannot swallow.