Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. No, Mr. President. That has never been done.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it was 122 degrees in Baghdad today. The Iraqi Parliament thinks it is too hot to work and has gone on vacation. Our soldiers don't have that luxury. Our brave men and women continue to patrol the hot streets of Baghdad in full battle gear. They will get no vacation. They continue to risk their lives in the sand and in the heat, supposedly to give the Iraqi politicians ``breathing room'' to build a political consensus. Those politicians are now on vacation. A majority of Iraqis now say that we are doing more harm than good by staying in their country. Perhaps I should say that again. A majority of Iraqis now say that we are doing more harm than good by staying in their country. Every day brings more terrible news of American casualties. What has the response from this administration been? ``Wait. Wait. Give us more time.'' Our President has been saying that for the last 4 years, and it is clear that he will keep on saying it for as long as we keep on accepting it. So I am angry. This is my 49th year in the Senate. I believe it is the first time I have said that. I am angry. Every Member of this body should be angry, angry that the Iraqi Government is on vacation while our troops, American troops, U.S. troops--your troops, my troops, our troops--fight and die in their civil war. Everyone, including General Petraeus, agrees that there is no military solution in Iraq. None. Iraqis will have to make the hard political compromises necessary to force a national consensus. Nothing the U.S. military does can force them to make those compromises. But, rather than work to craft a political solution, the Iraqi Government decided to take the entire month of August off. And where has our Congress been? I am deeply disappointed that the Senate has once again failed to have a real debate on the issue of the war in Iraq. There is no issue currently facing our Nation that more deserves the attention of this body, and yet we continue to have empty procedural votes instead of passing legislation that would mandate a change of course, as a large majority of Americans want. We are, in fact, charged by the Constitution to have that debate, and yet we wait. ``Wait until September,'' the critics say. ``Wait until the new report.'' How many reports must this Congress read before we see the handwriting on the wall? I, for one, am tired of waiting. The American people are tired of waiting. Our brave soldiers and their families are tired of waiting. The President and his supporters in Congress are fond of painting a picture of what would happen following a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, and they paint with a pallet of fear. But their picture is not reality. It is easy to win an argument against a straw man, but we are not calling for a precipitous withdrawal. The proposal that 53 Senators voted in favor of recently called for a phased redeployment of troops to focus on the threats that truly face us, not a hasty and radical complete pullout. I opposed this terrible war from its beginning, but I recognize we are there now and some actions can't be so simply undone. Our first priority must be that of protecting U.S. interests, and the simple truth is that we do have vital interests in the region. The question is how to best protect those interests. The President of the United States, President Bush--and I say this most respectfully--the President says that al-Qaida wins if we leave and that if we pull out the terrorists will follow us home. Let me say that again. The President says that al-Qaida wins if we leave and that if we pull out the terrorists will follow us home. Al-Qaida is our enemy, but are we really defeating them by trying to referee a sectarian civil war between Shia and Sunni that has been going on for over 1000 years? The President's own advisers now admit that al-Qaida is as strong today as it was before 9/11. Al-Qaida is resurgent in Pakistan and Afghanistan. When the President of the United States took his eye off the ball and diverted our national attention from Osama bin Laden and his terrorist training operation in Afghanistan, the President dealt the security of the people, the American people, a major blow. Iraq did not attack the United States on 9/11. No Iraqi, not one--not one--was involved in those attacks. Al-Qaida may now be in Iraq. But it was not there before we went in and handed them a new training ground for fresh recruits. More importantly, al-Qaida is not the core of the problem in Iraq. Al-Qaida is not the core of the problem in Iraq, no matter how often the President says that it is. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said recently that al-Qaida was only 10 percent of the problem in Iraq. The real problem in Iraq is not al-Qaida, the real problem is the multiple civil wars that are raging: Shiia versus Sunni, Shiia versus Shiia, Sunni versus Kurds. The argument that if we lose in Iraq, they will follow us here is pure hogwash. Nonsense. Did you hear me? I say, did you hear me? Let me say it again. The argument that if we lose in Iraq, they will follow us here is pure hogwash. H-o-g-w-a-s-h. Hogwash. I have heard that time and time again. If we lose in Iraq, they will follow us here. That is absolutely hogwash. Nonsense. What is keeping terrorists from coming here now? Tell me. So we heard the argument: If we lose in Iraq, they will follow us here. Well, what is keeping the terrorists from coming here now? Certainly not the fact that our military is in Iraq. Our military was not in Iraq when hijackers with box cutters flew planes into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. Have we such short memories? I saw those planes attack the World Trade Center. I have not forgotten it. Keeping our troops in Iraq is not what is going to keep a terrorist attack from happening again. So I repeat that. Keeping our troops in Iraq is not what is going to keep a terrorist attack from happening again. The real threat, the real threat, the real threat is in Pakistan and Afghanistan, as the President's own advisers admit. Principled people in this country, let me say that again, principled people--in other words, people of principle in this country and in the Congress are calling for a change in strategy, not because they are weak, not because they are scared, not because they are callously political, they are calling for a change because it has become patently obvious that what we are doing is not making us safer, it is making us less safe. They are calling for a change because it has become patently--p-a-t- e-n-t-l-y--obvious that what we are doing is not making us safer, it is making us less safe. Now, as U.S. officials absolutely wake up to the resurgence of al- Qaida in Afghanistan and urge President Musharraf's Government to crack down in Pakistan, we confront great anger in the region. I think that statement is entitled to a rehearing. Now, as U.S. officials slowly wake up to the resurgence of al-Qaida in Afghanistan and urge President Musharraf's Government to crack down in Pakistan, we confront great anger in the region. Our continuing occupation of Iraq has damaged our credibility and aroused suspicions about the depth of the U.S. commitment to the sovereignty of other nations. There is a lesson here. It is this: If you are marching in the wrong direction or if you are fighting the wrong fight, unflinching persistence is not a sign of strength, it is a sign of stupidity. If you are marching in the wrong direction or fighting the wrong fight, unflinching persistence is not a sign of strength, it is a sign of stupidity. Yet amazingly we hear plans of continuing for 2 more years our pointless, senseless occupation in Iraq. I said it was wrong in the beginning. It was wrong from the start. It amazes me when we hear plans of continuing for 2 more years our pointless, costly, senseless occupation in Iraq. The seas are rising and our present course is headed for an iceberg. Turn around. Turn around, Mr. President. Turn around. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I rise to express my disappointment with where we find ourselves on the pending bill. We are debating the Homeland Security appropriations bill. The bill includes over $14 billion--spelled with a ``b''--for border security. By a vote of 89 to 1, we just approved $3 billion in emergency funding for border security. I note that the bill also includes $1.7 billion for FEMA disaster relief to help fund the response to Hurricane Katrina. The Senator from Louisiana--where is he? Do you want to hear me? Come on out. I want to say it in front of you. The Senator from Louisiana is now holding up this bill over a legislative matter that is not germane to the measure. As the manager of the bill, I thought we had reached an accommodation on how to dispose of the matter. Instead, the Senator from Louisiana--where is he? He was here a moment ago. I thought we reached an accommodation on how to dispose of the matter. Instead, the Senator from Louisiana offered a new amendment--a new amendment. Is he here? All right. I want to say it in his presence. Instead, the Senator from Louisiana offered a new amendment. I am disappointed that the Senator from Louisiana has decided to delay consideration of a bill that includes critical funds for aiding the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Did you hear me? Where is that Senator? I am disappointed----

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the very able Senator from Tennessee for his amendment. It highlights another shortcoming in the President's budget. When it comes to homeland security, the President--and I speak most respectfully of the President; I always do--likes to rob Peter to pay Paul. Regrettably, in an effort to help States deal with the cost of REAL ID, the able Senator proposes to do the same thing. The able Senator proposes to do the same thing by using an across-the-board cut. I don't like across-the-board cuts. That cuts into programs that hit a lot of people, all good people. I rise to oppose the amendment. The President's budget fails to address the mandate imposed on States by the REAL ID Act. According to the National Governors Association, it will cost States $11 billion to implement the REAL ID Act. Yet the budget did not include one thin dime to help the States with this Federal mandate. Meanwhile, the Department has let $35 million which Congress appropriated in 2006 for REAL ID implementation sit in the Federal Treasury unspent for almost 2 years. Let me say that again: The Department has let $35 million--that isn't just chickenfeed--which Congress appropriated in 2006 for REAL ID implementation to sit in the Federal Treasury unspent for almost 2 years. I share the concern of the Senator that this law, which was jammed down Congress's throat in an unamendable war supplemental, will impose serious costs on our States. However, given that there is $35 million still sitting at the Department and that we have no request from the White House, this bill is not the place to fix this problem. This amendment would hamper the Department's ability to secure the Nation. For example, this cut would result in the reduction of 416 transportation security officers at the same time air travel has been increasing approximately 3 percent each year and the TSO workforce has decreased or stayed flat each year. It would also occur at a time when the aviation sector is at a heightened alert status. Let me say that again: It would also occur at a time when the aviation sector is at a heightened alert status. The Federal air marshals would reduce coverage of critical flights. The Coast Guard would be unable to respond to projected search-and-rescue cases, thus endangering the lives of citizens and property, interdict a projected increase in migrants, marijuana, and cocaine, and remediate anticipated oil and chemical spills, further degrading our natural resources. This cut would delay the recapitalization of the Coast Guard's fleet, further exacerbating maritime and aviation operational gaps. The President's budget requested--and the committee supports--funding for 3,000 new Border Patrol agents. Furthermore, this reduction would cut that increase in agents to 24. Additionally, the National Guard forces currently supporting Operation Jump Start on the southwest border assisting the Border Patrol will begin leaving the border this summer. Once again, the Border Patrol will be forced to move agents back from the border to perform administrative duties. Additionally, the committee's bill includes funding to support a total of 4,000 new detention beds, bringing total detention beds to 31,500. Moreover, this reduction would cut that increase by 32 beds. Are you listening? Given that the average length of stay in a given detention bed is approximately 40 days, losing 32 beds means we have lost the space to detain approximately 300 illegal aliens annually. Are you still listening? We have spent the past 2 months debating immigration reform and the need for detention beds. A cut like this turns that debate on its head. The President's budget requested and the committee bill supports funding of $1 billion--that is $1 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born--for fencing infrastructure and technology along our still porous border. If we have learned nothing during the debate on the immigration bill, it is that the American people and a majority of the Senate want to secure our borders. Let me say that again: If we have learned nothing during the debate on the immigration bill, it is that the American people and a majority of the Senate want to secure our borders. A cut like this moves us in the exact opposite direction. First responders' State formula grants would be cut below the fiscal year 2007 enacted level; ironically, the level approved under a Republican-controlled Congress. The practical implication of this will be: First responders will go without up-to-date personal protective equipment; fewer critical infrastructure facilities, including chemical and nuclear, will have a security buffer zone; public transportation, a known target by terrorists overseas, will be less secure. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, we didn't hear what the Senator said. Does the Senator want to say it again?

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Senator Landrieu joined me in including important language in the Senate report that accompanies the Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008. This language addresses a serious trade problem that is affecting the United States and many of its most critical industries. Our report language directs U.S. Customs and Border Protection to undertake a more vigorous approach to collecting unpaid antidumping and countervailing duties which are owed the United States under the U.S. trade laws. In our report language, the Appropriations Committee directs CBP to work with the Departments of Commerce and Treasury and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to increase the collection of duties owed on unfairly traded U.S. imports. CBP--Customs and Border Protection--is directed to provide an annual report to the committee within 30 days of each year's distributions under the Continued Dumping and Subsidies Offset Act. The CBP report must summarize the Agency's efforts to collect past-due amounts and to increase current collections, particularly with respect to cases involving unfairly traded U.S. imports from China. The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Act--also known as the Byrd amendment--was enacted on October 28 in the year of our Lord 2000. It provides that assessed duties received pursuant to either an antidumping or a countervailing duty order must be distributed by Customs to affected domestic producers for certain expenditures that the producers incurred after the order was put in place. On June 4, 2007, CBP transmitted to Congress a fiscal year 2006 report on annual antidumping and countervailing duties collected on a case-by-case basis. The report stated that while CBP distributed nearly $400 million to more than 1,700 affected domestic producers in fiscal year 2006, a whopping--hear me--a whopping $146,391,239.89 was due but never--never--collected. Astoundingly, the amount of uncollected antidumping and countervailing duties not collected since 2000 is approaching $700 million. Let me read that again. Hear me now. Astoundingly, the amount of uncollected antidumping and countervailing duties not collected since the year 2000 is approaching $700 million, with the largest uncollected amount, over $400 million, owed in a single case: dumped crawfish tail meat from China. On June 20, 2007, CBP advised that, since October 1, 2001, CBP has simply ``written off'' $30.3 million in uncollected antidumping and countervailing duties. The greatest amount written off, again, was in the case of crawfish meat from China, where CBP wrote off nearly $7.5 million. That is a lot of money. This is money that otherwise would have been distributed directly to eligible U.S. crawfish producers. This means these funds will never be distributed to the hundreds of deserving American families to whom they are owed. What a shame. Have Senators heard of Moon Landrieu? That was this Senator's father, Senator Landrieu. I would like to ask my esteemed colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, if she is similarly concerned about our Government's failure to collect these funds, recompense which is now lost--to whom? To Louisiana's honest and hard-working crawfish farmers and processors.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order so that the Senator can be heard?

Mr. BYRD. I hope the Senator will say that again.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield just for a second? The Senator said ``for a few moments.'' How long is that?

Mr. BYRD. That is fine. I have no objection.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I would like for our majority leader to say that again.

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

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Member from Pennsylvania for his remarks on the amendment he has filed. The safety and security of our Nation's mass transit systems is a critical priority for me. We only need be reminded of the terror attacks in Madrid on a commuter rail system in 2004 and in London on the underground system in 2005 to appreciate the magnitude and urgency of the threat to our transit and rail networks. I look forward to working with my colleague to help ensure that SEPTA, and all mass transit and commuter rail systems, have the necessary resources to ensure their safety and security, including facilitation of communications between first responders in the event of an attack. To the extent that the SEPTA system faces a unique challenge with regard to flexibility and duration of use of their existing Federal funds, I look forward to working with you and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to find an appropriate solution that meets the legitimate safety needs of the passengers and employees of the system. the northern border

Mr. BYRD. I appreciate my friend from Michigan's concern about the northern border and tell him that yes, the amendment is meant to increase staffing at both of our borders and it is not the intent of the amendment to favor one border over the other. The Appropriations Committee has been clear in its support for the Border Patrol and its mission of preventing entry into the Untied States of illegal aliens, terrorists, weapons of mass destruction and other illicit goods or individuals. Further, in recognition of the importance of security at our northern border, the Appropriations Committee has directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to assign to the Northern Border 20 percent of the net increase in agents in fiscal year 2008.

Mr. BYRD. Where? Where? Where is that, Senator?

Mr. BYRD. I compliment the Senator on his statement. Am I a cosponsor of this amendment?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, the Senate yesterday attempted to add $3 billion in emergency spending to secure our borders. I supported that effort. Unfortunately, rather than voting on the substance of the amendment, it was necessary for the Senate to vote on a procedural matter. In order to provide for the orderly processing of appropriations bills in the Senate, it was essential to vote to sustain the ruling of the Chair under rule XVI. However, I still believe it is important that we not miss this opportunity to provide robust funding to secure our borders and to enforce our immigration law. Therefore, I support the amendment providing $3 billion--that is $3 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born--get that, hear me, $3 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born--in emergency spending to hire, train, and equip Border Patrol agents and immigration enforcement officials, procure additional detention beds, expand our immigration enforcement efforts on the interior, construct border fencing infrastructure, and technology, and other steps to secure our borders. This $3 billion will not be encumbered by controversial legislative and policy issues. Instead, it will be used in support of already authorized activities such as hiring Border Patrol agents, building fencing and other border technology, and enforcing the immigration laws already on the books. Specifically, this amendment will hire, train, and equip at least 5,000 new Border Patrol agents, in addition to the 3,000 new agents funded in the underlying bill. It will procure more than 4,000 additional detention beds, in addition to the 4,000 new beds funded in the underlying bill. It will hire more than 1,000 new immigration investigators and detention and removal personnel to perform interior enforcement activities such as expanding the work site enforcement investigation. It will increase the number of Criminal Alien Program and Fugitive Operations teams to locate and remove the over 630,000 fugitive alien absconders whom a judge has already ordered to be removed. It provides an additional $1 billion for border fencing, infrastructure, and technology. Finally, it provides funds to procure additional helicopters, fixed- wing aircraft, marine vessels, and other border surveillance equipment, as well as funds to construct additional border stations in which our Border Patrol agents work. This amendment is balanced, and it is focused on meeting the immediate border security needs while enforcing our current immigration law. I urge my colleagues on my left and my colleagues on my right to support the amendment. I thank all Senators, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Senator, tell the Senate about his amendment again. Let me hear about the amendment again.

Mr. BYRD. No.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, we have not seen any amendment.