Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Fiscal Year 2003 Defense authorization bill was in conference for nearly 16 weeks. This bill, which creates the policies and programs that will guide the Department of Defense during this fiscal year, is the counterpart to the defense appropriations bill, which was passed by Congress and signed into law last month. After the President challenged Congress to make the defense budget a priority, why did it take so long for Congress to complete action on the defense authorization bill? This bill has wide support in the Senate, having originally been passed on June 27, 2002, by a vote of 97 to 2. So the bill is not so divisive that controversy among Members of the Senate could have delayed its completion. The chairman and the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin and Senator Warner, worked diligently during this extended period of time to be able to produce a defense authorization bill for this year. They cannot be blamed for it taking so long to completing conference on the bill. The true reason for the delay was the myopic veto threats that emanated from the White House over provisions in the Senate- and House- passed bills that would have expanded benefits to disabled veterans. The reason the White House opposed these benefits is clear: the President's advisors were only looking at the bottom line. It just does not make sense that we can pass a defense budget that will spend a billion dollars a day during the next 12 months, and we can spend more than a billion dollars a month on military operations in Afghanistan, but when it comes to providing benefits to disabled veterans, suddenly we do not have the money. The veterans' benefit that was proposed in the Senate version of the Defense authorization bill would allow an individual with a disability who retired from the military after 20 years of service to receive the full amount of his military retirement pay and his veterans' disability pay, without reduction from either. Under current law, these two payments are offset, in effect forcing these individuals to pay for their own disability checks. The Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, has authored a bill to correct this situation. I am one of 82 cosponsors of that bill. The House version of this bill has 403 cosponsors. These bills are of the highest priority to a great number of veterans' groups and of great importance to thousands of disabled veterans around the country. Despite such broad support, the White House veto threats torpedoed the full expansion of these benefits in the Defense authorization bill. The conference report to the Fiscal Year 2003 Defense authorization bill that we will soon vote on contains a limited expansion of benefits to some veterans, depending on their level of disability and how their injuries were inflicted. It is well short of what veterans deserve. I will vote in favor of the conference report, however, because the bill makes improvements to a number of other programs that are important to the men and women who serve our country in uniform. The Defense authorization bill provides for an across the board pay increase, creates new bonus payments for hardship assignments, and reduces housing costs for military families. The bill also authorizes $10.4 billion for military construction, which includes funding to replace dilapidated housing at military bases throughout the United States. This bill will help to improve the quality of life of those who now serve in the military. Although this bill does not make enough progress in getting veterans the benefits that they have earned, the passage of this Defense authorization bill will not be an end to that issue. There is strong support in Congress to allow disabled veterans to receive the full amount of their military retired pay and their disability compensation, and I am certain that this issue will be raised again. In the meantime, I urge the thousands of veterans who contacted me in support of expanding these benefits to let the President know how important this issue is to you. No veteran should doubt who is responsible for killing this proposal. Veterans and their families should hold the President accountable for his stand against benefits for disabled veterans.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the legislative situation in the Senate at this moment?

Mr. BYRD. So two cloture motions have been filed?

Mr. BYRD. And in order of precedence, which is the first?

Mr. BYRD. And the second is on the----

Mr. BYRD. The underlying bill being House bill 5005.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I have nothing further. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. The Senator from West Virginia could not hear the motion. Would the Chair get order? Let's hear the motion again.

Mr. BYRD. I would just like to hear what the motion was.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Sunset and evening star, And one clear call for me! And may there be no moaning of the bar, When I put out to sea, But such a tide as moving seems asleep, Too full for sound and foam, When that which drew from out the boundless deep Turns again home. Twilight and evening bell, And after that the dark! And may there be no sadness of farewell, When I embark; For tho' from out our bourne of Time and Place The flood may bear me far, I hope to see my Pilot face to face When I have crost the bar. Mr. President, one of our number has gone from our midst. I know that by now he has seen his Pilot face to face because Paul Wellstone has crossed the bar. He was not tall; yet mere feet and inches are no measure of a human heart. He could not be cool or aloof, for he knew that it is passion and commitment that drive human progress. He was not without infirmity, but the limitations of the flesh never hold down a robust and tenacious spirit. Paul Wellstone fairly burned with exuberance for life and for the causes that he cared about. We all heard Paul Wellstone as he spoke about those causes that he cared so much about. He always spoke with passion. A visit to his office is illustrative. Over the entrance to his private office is a huge enlargement of a snapshot of his former, now deceased, chief of staff, Mike Epstein. Most of us remember Mike Epstein, who used to be seen back here on the bench to my left as he sat listening to Paul and waiting with Paul. Paul Wellstone did not forget. He did not forget Mike Epstein. Once inside Paul's office, over the doorway three large photos can be seen of the faces of battered women. Paul Wellstone often spoke of those battered women in our population. He did not forget. On the walls of his private chamber are photos of Hubert Humphrey, John Kennedy, and on his desk is a bust of Martin Luther King. Paul Wellstone did not forget. Paul was a man of causes. He was a teacher. He was a man who stayed true to the things in which he believed. I can almost see him back there now beside the flowers that have so thoughtfully been placed on his desk as a token of our remembrance of him. I often heard him use a metaphor. He called it an old Jewish proverb. He would use it again and again, in speech after speech. He would say, ``You can't dance at two weddings at the same time.'' Senator Don Nickles is on the floor, and he remembers this and has indicated so by a smile. I never quite knew what Paul Wellstone meant when he said that you can't dance at two weddings at the same time. I never tried it, but I never was at two weddings at the same time. When he said, ``You can't dance at two weddings at the same time,'' he meant that one must not be false. That is the key. One must not be false. He meant that one cannot be all things to all people. He was thinking of the words of Shakespeare, who said: To thine own self be true. Thy can't now then be false to any man. He meant that one cannot say one thing and then do another. And he meant that one cannot say the same thing to two different people and mean two different things. It is a fundamental lesson and has special application to those of us who toil in the ruined fields of what passes for politics today. You cannot dance at two weddings at the same time. Paul Wellstone died tragically, but he lived heroically. He ran uphill against the odds and enjoyed and gloried in the experience. He was unique, he was priceless, and he was quite irreplaceable. I shall miss him, and we all shall miss his courage. I was most endeared to Paul Wellstone in the last days of his life. One day as we stood in the room together--we Democrats--and discussed the resolution concerning the Iraq war--which may come and which in my present thinking is likely to come--we stood over in the corner room there and the majority leader was there. My Democratic colleagues--most of them--were there; Paul Wellstone was there. We discussed the Iraq resolution. I remember Paul Wellstone as he stood and said to us, his Democratic colleagues: You all do what you must, but I am going to vote against the resolution. But don't worry about me. I will explain it to my people. I think I am doing the right thing, and I believe my people will feel also that it is right. But if they don't, they will vote. However that vote comes, whatever that decision is, I will live with it. I thought that took a great deal of courage. Here was a Senator who was running for reelection and he had already reached a decision in his mind that he was going to take a stand, and that was going to be a principled stand. His future in politics could go one way or another; but regardless Paul Wellstone was going to take that position. He was going to go to the people with it. He was willing to debate it with the people, and he felt that in the final analysis the people would uphold him in the position he had taken. There were not any ifs, ands, or buts. That was a position he took right over in that room, in the corner, near the elevator on this floor. That, more than anything I saw in Paul Wellstone's life when he was here in our midst for 12 years, that, more than anything else, impressed me. I thought: Oh, if all Senators were like that. If all public officials were like that, who would take a principled stand, state the reasons for that stand to the electorate, and let them make their choice. Of course, he wanted to come back to the Senate, but he knew very well that particular stand, in the climate in which we find ourselves, might mean he would not be reelected. And in the minds of a lot of people, the likelihood would be perhaps he would not be reelected. He took that stand. That told me something about that man I had never seen before in him. That is the kind of courage that is found in men and women who are not only willing but are proud to stand up for their convictions and win or lose. They are determined to do it that way because they feel that is for the best interest of their country. That is the way Paul Wellstone felt. But that, more than anything else, watching him and listening to him on that occasion and knowing he was heading out of here in a very close election, which at that point he probably was a little behind--and I think he was. But he went. He made that decision. He voted that way. He went to the people and, from what I can understand, he was winning. His points were going up. He was going up. So the people, even though some of them--many of them--may not have agreed with Paul, admired a man of conviction. That is the kind of man they wanted in this body. I will always remember Paul Wellstone for that demonstration of conviction, that demonstration of integrity, that demonstration of courage, that demonstration of character. So his spirit, as long as I am here, will always permeate this Chamber. I never was close to Paul Wellstone. I cannot say I am close to a great many Senators here. That is not their fault. We are all busy people. But that drew me close to Paul Wellstone. We owe a great debt to the people of his beloved Minnesota and his wonderful family for sending him to serve with us for a time. I fully believe if Paul Wellstone had lived, he would have won that race. That Senator we would have had back. I went to that memorial service. I went to Minnesota. I went there when Hubert Humphrey died, and I went to the memorial service for Paul Wellstone. I was at that dreg gathering. I was struck by the size of that tremendous gathering of people singing songs, speaking. I wondered about this man, what kind of hold he must have had on the hearts of the people of Minnesota to draw a huge audience like that in a memorial service. I also believe in my heart that the memorial service veered off on a path that probably was not intended, and I felt badly about some of the things that happened there--about the treatment, not only impolitic, but the discourteous treatment that was accorded to the minority leader, Mr. Lott. I did not know about the treatment by which he had been embarrassed. I did not know about that until after it was over. But I felt as time went on that I was in a strange meeting, and I believe that but for the veering off course by that meeting Walter Mondale would have been elected. In any event, that is in the past and cannot be revisited. We will all miss Paul Wellstone. I do not think that he would have wanted things to happen as they did in that particular meeting, but that being said, I think Paul Wellstone's spirit will live on. I regret the strange twist of fate that took his wife and his daughter and the members of his staff to their untimely ends. But as to Paul, we owe him a great debt. I think I can best say his spirit will live on by repeating the words of Thomas Moore: Let fate do her worst, there are relics of joy, Bright dreams of the past that she cannot destroy, That come in the night-time of sorrow and care, And bring back the features that joy used to wear. Long be my heart with such memories filled, Like the vase in which roses have once been distilled, You may break, you may shatter the vase if you will, But the scent of the roses will hang round it still. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to submit for the Record two very thoughtful and well-researched documents submitted to me by renowned constitutional scholars with respect to the President's ability to launch an unprovoked military attack against a sovereign state. Earlier this year, I wrote to a number of constitutional scholars advising them that I was concerned about reports that our Nation was coming closer to war with Iraq. I asked a number of esteemed academics their opinion as to whether they believed that the Bush Administration had the authority, consistent with the U.S. Constitution, to introduce U.S. Armed Forces into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power. All of the scholars I consulted responded by stating that, under current circumstances, the President did not have such authority. I have previously submitted for the Record the responses of professors Michael Glennon of Tufts, and Jane Stromseth of Georgetown University Law Center. Now, I would like to submit two additional responses I received on this same subject from professors Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School and William Van Alstyne of the Duke University School of Law. I found the depth and breadth of their scholarship on this subject to be extremely impressive and, for this reason, I ask unanimous consent that their responses to me be printed in the Record.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator for his clarification and assistance with this most important issue.

Mr. BYRD. Will my friend, the Senator from Hawaii, who ably serves as the chairman of the subcommittee on Defense, yield for a colloquy?

Mr. BYRD. Is my understanding correct that the FY 2003 Defense Appropriations Bill now before the Senate contains an increase of $21.5 million above the President's budget request for the Joint Computer Aided Acquisition and Logistics Support, JCALS, program, for a total FY 2003 program level of $58.9 million?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chairman for his assurances. If I may inquire further, it is also my understanding that it is the committee's intent that $21.5 million of the JCALS funds in the Army RTDE account are to be spent exclusively on activities directly related to the JCALS Tactical Logistics Data Digitization (TLDD) initiative, which operates out of Hinton, WV.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chairman. If he would yield for a final question, am I correct in my understanding that it is the Committee's further intent that the JCALS Program leverage and expand the capabilities of the Southeast Regional Technical Center now primarily located in Hinon, WV to provide support and training for the TLDD initiative? This action will address a key recommendation by the Institute for Defense Analysis in a study it prepared last year for the Office of the Secretary of Defense to increase training and support for the military services that utilize the JCALS program.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the right to vote is one of the fundamental components of our Republic. It is the central means by which the American people can influence the direction of government, and thereby the future of the nation. But, as we saw in the 2000 Presidential election, just casting one's ballot is not the end of the process. Votes must be verified and counted, and done so quickly and accurately so that the American people have confidence in our elections. Preserving the integrity of our voting system is critical to preserving our representative form of government. Over the years, I have watched as the percentage of eligible voters who actually take the time to go to the polls and cast votes has declined. I find it beyond disappointing that American citizens would fail to exercise this precious right--in fact, this important responsibility. Yet, I well understand how the spectacle of last year's elections and the irregularities that were widely reported can exacerbate a common misconception that one's vote does not count, a belief that has permitted far too many minds in our nation. The federal government can do more to reignite a passion for citizen participation, and we must do so if we are to ensure that our Constitutional form of government will survive for future generations. This bill establishes grant programs that will provide states with the resources to replace outdated voting machines and train poll workers. It establishes minimum federal voting standards for states, but leaves responsibility for election administration at the local level. The bill includes a number of safeguards designed to improve voter access, including provisional ballot requirements, being able to correct improperly marked ballots, and funding for equipment to allow a disabled voter to cast a private vote without assistance. In an effort to avoid a repeat of the Florida debacle of 2000, this bill mandates that states create uniform standards for counting ballots. I congratulate the members of the conference committee for their efforts to bring this bill to conclusion. I support this reform because it is an important first step in restoring confidence in our election process.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I have absolute and complete faith in the integrity of the distinguished Senator from Nevada, and I thank the Chair, with the greatest of respect. I thank the Assistant Parliamentarian as well, for whom I have the greatest respect. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BYRD. I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, and I yield 20 minutes, leaving myself 1 minute, to the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden. I thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona for reminding me the Senator from Delaware had been waiting very patiently. I thank all Senators.

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

Mr. BYRD. And I yield to the distinguished Senator whatever time he needs.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to the Senator, and I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I do not intend to hold the floor much longer. How much time will the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, wish me to yield to her?