Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BYRD. I yield for no more than 7 minutes on his time, but I retain my right to the floor.

Mr. BYRD. I thought the President was saying to the country that he has to have this fast-track thing that we will vote on today in order to negotiate trade agreements. Is the Senator from South Carolina telling me he doesn't have to have that?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD. I yield to the distinguished Senator for a unanimous consent request provided that my speech does not show an interruption and that I retain my right to the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in the dead of night, under cover of darkness, near the bewitching hour of midnight on July 25, 2002, House and Senate conferees reached agreement on a new trade bill. The White House embraces this new trade bill, not because it contains trade adjustment assistance--no, no, no--but because it provides the President with fast-track negotiating authority. The administration likes to refer to it as trade promotion authority--that is an old Vaudeville trick--trade promotion authority. This is fast-track negotiating authority that the President wants, but he does not call it fast track. He wants to call it ``trade promotion authority.'' That sounds good. That has a sweet ring to my ears--trade promotion. Who would not be for trade promotion? The President knows how to frame these terms in ways one may be lulled to sleep--trade promotion authority--but it provides the President with fast-track negotiating authority, fast track. As we all know, the real effect of fast track is not to promote trade--no, no, no--not to promote trade but to prevent amendments to trade agreements. That is why we have fast track. This Constitution, which I hold in my hand, gives to the Congress the power to regulate trade and commerce with foreign nations. This Constitution is my authority, not fast track. This is my authority. This bill we are talking about here and about to vote on and upon which cloture was invoked earlier today is a fast-track bill. It is not really about creating jobs or helping workers. It is about weakening our trade laws, making it easier for multinational corporations to move offshore where they can pay slave wages and where they do not have to pay health insurance and where they do not have to pay retirement benefits. That is what this bill does. That is why the Chambers of Commerce around the country favor it. Just in my home State of West Virginia, we have lost thousands-- thousands--of jobs, good jobs that supported families and breadwinners who worked hard for their money, very hard, indeed. When I was first elected to Congress 50 years ago--elected 51 years ago--we had glass factories in West Virginia; we had pottery plants in West Virginia; we had leather goods; we made shoes; we produced steel. We employed many West Virginians in the steel industry. That was 56 years ago when I first got into politics, and then 50 years ago when I first came to Congress. We had those thousands of good jobs in West Virginia. Those jobs supported families and breadwinners who worked hard for their money, I say. They labored in the coal mines. They labored in the steel mills. They labored in the glass plants. They labored in the chemical manufacturing works. They worked in the leather goods industries in West Virginia. They were employed in the textile and apparel industries in West Virginia. These hard-working families deserve a fair slice of the pie. These and other American workers elected the various Members of this body to look after their interests in national trade matters. Senator Randolph and I, when we came to this Chamber, did just that; but other States elected their Senators, too, to give them, the American workers, a fair shake when the trade deals were being made. I have to say that Senators cannot fulfill this obligation by handing Presidents fast- track authority. The President proclaimed victory in obtaining his trade bill, but it is a hollow victory. It is a Pyrrhic victory. Remember Pyrrhus, who fought the Romans, who was the first to bring elephants to Rome and to the Italian peninsula to fight the war? That was in 280 B.C. He won a victory but a very costly one, and that has been called a Pyrrhic victory. So the President won a Pyrrhic victory for America. The President threatened to veto the bill unless the conferees dropped the Dayton-Craig amendment. So what did they do? They folded. They dropped it because the President waved his veto pen. Why should that make one falter or faint or fall? The Constitution gives the President that right. The Constitution says he can veto a bill. But why shake and tremble in one's boots because the President threatens to use his veto pen? Let him veto it. Go to it. Explain to the American people, Mr. President, your veto of this protection that was written into this bill. Explain to them. Yes, go ahead and veto it. He has a constitutional right to do that. Of course, the House and the Senate under the Constitution have the right to override his veto, but they will not on this bill. In these 50 years that I have been in the Congress, the House and the Senate, every administration, Democratic and Republican, has sung the same old song. It is the State Department song. Administration after administration, Democratic and Republican, have sung the same old song: Give us free trade agreements. Well, I voted against about every one that I can think of that came before this Senate, NICPAC--no, not NICPAC, but you name it, I voted against these so-called free trade agreements. I am for free trade. We are for free trade. Who would not be for free trade? But as some say, there is a great deal of difference between free trade and fair trade. They are two different terms. So the conferees dropped it. They dropped the Dayton-Craig amendment. They trembled when they heard the President say he would veto it. What happened? They dropped that language. The President struck fear, I suppose, into their weak hearts by saying, ``I will veto that bill. If it comes with that language in it, I will veto it.'' I say, go to it, Mr. President. You just go ahead and veto it. I dare you to veto it and then go and tell the American people. Let's both go. Let's have a debate on this. Let the American people know. So they scrapped the only meaningful part of the bill that allowed the Congress to stop the President from weakening our trade law. They scrapped the Dayton-Craig amendment, the only meaningful part of the bill that allowed the Congress to stop the President from weakening our trade laws in the next round of trade negotiations. Dayton-Craig would have allowed the Congress to exercise its constitutional right to amend and strengthen whatever agreement the President brings back to us. Without Dayton-Craig, we are at the mercy of our negotiators in Geneva, the same old place where nearly every week some WTO panel tells the United States that it has no right to enforce its own laws. The Dayton-Craig amendment was a bipartisan amendment that I cosponsored along with a third of the Senate. Although the amendment was supported by an overwhelming majority of the Senate--62 Members of the Senate from both sides of the aisle now--in conference it was blithely cast aside as a bag of dirty laundry in the face of the veto threat by the President. Like a bag of dirty laundry, whiff, out went the Dayton-Craig amendment. The President said he was afraid it might offend certain members of the WTO. Well, Mr. President, I must ask this question--ungrammatically I will put the question: Who is the President working for, the WTO or the United States? As I have often said, I was sent to the Congress not by the President of the United States. I have worked with 11 Presidents since I have been in Congress. Not one of them sent me to the House or to the Senate. I was not sent by any electoral college either. As I have often said, I was sent by the people, we the people of West Virginia. I listen to them. I was not sent by the President, and I was not sent by the WTO--nor was that Senator, nor that Senator, nor that Senator, nor that Senator. The last time I checked, neither the President nor I was elected by the WTO but by the American people. Not surprisingly, the very day after the trade conferees' deal was announced, the Director General of the WTO commended President Bush. Imagine that. The very day after the trade conferees' deal was announced, the Director General of the WTO commended President Bush. The WTO Director General congratulated the President of the United States for having obtained a trade bill that wrests from the Congress its right to strengthen and protect American trade laws under article I, section 8, of this U.S. Constitution which I hold in my hand. Again I ask: For whom is the President working? I will say it ungrammatically: Who is the President working for, the WTO or the people of the United States? Who is he working for, the President, the WTO, or the people of the United States? Of course, the Director General of the WTO is pleased with the President's trade bill. If I were pleased with it, I would congratulate him, too. The WTO is pleased with it. The President is now free to negotiate trade deals more favorable to other WTO members than to the citizens of West Virginia and the citizens of the United States. That is this trade bill I am talking about. I have seen how the employment figures in West Virginia have gone down over these years that I have been in Congress, and we have voted one time after another to take the Congress out of the equation, give Presidents free trade agreements. They can negotiate trade agreements without this bill we are going to vote on. They can. They don't need this to negotiate trade agreements. They call it promotion trade authority. What is that--PTA? Forget it. That is not promotion trade authority. That sounds good, count me in, if we promote trade. But this is fast track, nothing short of it. This is the old hat trick. Don't watch what is going on in this hand; watch what is going on over here. Everything really is happening over here. This is the old hat trick. So the WTO Director General ``congratulated'' the President for having obtained a trade bill that wrests from the Congress what Congress is entitled to under that Constitution--the right to debate and particularly the right to amend. These are the very same countries whose representatives, sitting on WTO dispute settlement panels, have ruled against the United States in nearly each and every U.S. antidumping, countervailing duty, and safeguards case taken to the WTO since the last round of international trade negotiations. So now, inexplicably, our President wants to enter into a new round of international trade negotiations. Why? To further undermine the ability of the United States to enforce its own laws against unfair trade. Despite congressional advice to the contrary, this administration honored the requests of foreign governments to renegotiate our trade laws, knowing full well that these are the same governments that are gutting these laws in Geneva. So again I ask, Who does the President work for, the WTO or the people of the United States? Why would our President want to do this? Let's step back a minute and look at this objectively. What exactly is the point of giving the President this authority to negotiate new trade agreements? Whom are we kidding? The goal of foreign governments in these negotiations is not to strengthen U.S. trade laws but to weaken them. And they have said as much. They begged us to put our laws on the negotiating table so they could water them down or kill them. Does anyone really believe that negotiating new trade agreements at the explicit request of the very nations that are committed to destroying our trade laws would somehow result in a better deal for the United States than if we had simply walked away? The foreign governments whose representatives sit on these WTO panels are launching a two-pronged attack on the United States. First, they seek to undermine our trade laws by having the President renegotiate them, meaning weaken them, in the new trade round. At the same time, whenever the United States applies an antidumping or countervailing duty order or a remedy under section 201 as we did recently in the steel case, our foreign competitors simply take us to the WTO where they continue to chip, chip, chip away at the laws passed by Congress precisely to stop their illegal actions. We already know, based on bitter experience, that regardless of what is negotiated in Geneva, future WTO panels will continue to find U.S. law inconsistent with the new international agreement. These WTO panels are not ruling against the United States based on their understanding of international law. They are not seeking to uphold a greater good. These panels are ruling against the United States to eviscerate-- eviscerate, disembowel--our trade laws so they can gain unfettered access to our markets--aha, the largest and most lucrative markets on Earth. And inconceivably this administration wants to help them do it. Even the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, agrees that the WTO panel's interim ruling against the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, known to some as the Byrd amendment, was yet another example of how WTO panels are trying to undermine our trade remedies by telling us that we cannot enforce our own laws. These WTO panels are not seeking simply to prevent us from enforcing our own laws. No, they are going far beyond that. They are basically making new laws. That is what they are doing. They are basically making new laws by exceeding the scope of legal review that is permitted under the WTO agreements. Standard of review of the relevant WTO agreements is based on language that was painstakingly negotiated by all WTO members during the Uruguay round. In those negotiations, WTO members agreed that in a dumping case, a panel is not permitted to substitute its own judgment for a member's government so long as, one, there is more than one permissible interpretation of a WTO agreement; and, two, the interpretation by the member government is a permissible one. The problem is, according to the WTO, there is only one permissible interpretation to these agreements. That permissible interpretation, it turns out, is never the interpretation of the United States. Instead, it is always the interpretation of the WTO panel. Rigged? We are beaten before we go in. We are out of the game before we enter. Instead, it is always the interpretation of the WTO panel. During the Uruguay round, all WTO members agreed that there could be more than one permissible interpretation of a WTO agreement, but current WTO panelists dismiss that. So if WTO panels do not respect their own agreements today, why does President Bush think they will abide by the agreements he negotiates tomorrow? Why should they? They know if down the line they refuse to play by the rules, this President will simply suggest another round of trade negotiations and those negotiations in the end will benefit whom. Them. Not us. The President is again getting started on these lengthy negotiations right away. Why? Who does he work for, the WTO or the American people out there who are watching through those lenses? He thinks he can appease our trading partners. In effect, this administration is trying to ``buy off'' our foreign competitors. It is more worried about them than it is about America. The administration is like Willy Loman in ``Death of a Salesman.'' He wants everybody to like us--everybody. I have a new little dog. It is a Tibetan terrier. Its ancestors were born and bred in Tibet. They were to be used in the palace because they were so loving. They loved everybody. My new little dog is called Trouble. My wife named our little dog Trouble. No dog will ever take the place of Billy, but Billy is gone. Billy has gone on to Billy's heaven, and so has Bonnie, his sister. Now we have a new dog--a new dog, a little dog. It is a lap dog, a real lap dog. That is why these dogs were bred. And they are loving. They are small. They were born and bred for the palace in Tibet--China. So the little dog loves everybody. I can pick up that little dog, and it will lick me, and it will lick me, and it will wash my face, and it will kiss me. It loves everybody. Well, that is the way it is here. That is the way it is here. The administration is like Willy Loman in ``Death of a Salesman.'' It wants everybody to love us. Maybe the President has a special nickname for each of our foreign competitors, as he does for our adversaries in the press corps. How about that? The President has a nickname for adversaries in the press corps--the fourth estate that sits up there in those galleries and watches, watches, and listens every hour and every minute that we are here. So he has a special nickname for each of our foreign competitors-- maybe--as he does for his adversaries in the press corps. But his desire to have the United States be loved by everyone could result in our trading partners' loving us to death. His ongoing attempts to buy friendship abroad are sowing the seeds of destruction here at home. For example, the Bush administration continues to compulsively exempt foreign imports from the 201 remedy on steel because it is concerned that the remedy is ``upsetting'' our foreign competitors. Rather than adhering to the letter of the 201 law, in the face of foreign critics, the administration every few weeks bows and scrapes, hems and haws, and, lo and behold, issues a new list of products suddenly exempted from the 201. These exclusions amount to thousands of tons of imported foreign steel. Is it any wonder that, despite the 201 tariffs, there was a 37 percent increase in steel imports in June compared to May of this year? And here is another question. Is the President's strategy of appeasing our offended trading partners paying off? Apparently not. As of July 12, the President had excluded 247 products from the 201 remedy, which amounted to 740,000 tons of foreign, unfairly-traded steel. However, after reviewing the exclusions that were announced by the administration on July 11, a spokesman for the European Commission said those exclusions were ``not enough.'' The EC said the United States would have to provide more exclusions or the EC would retaliate. So, glory be, what a surprise, on July 19, 2002, the President issued a new list of additional exclusions, including, of course, more exclusions of European steel. If that wasn't enough, the administration went on to announce that it would continue to grant exclusions on a ``rolling'' basis--which apparently means whenever we are threatened with retaliation--through the end of August. Not surprisingly, the EC suddenly announced it had decided to postpone its decision on whether to retaliate until the end of September. Coincidence? I think not. Listen to what the EC told us. The Danish Foreign Minister, speaking for the EC, candidly stated, ``We decided that if we sanctioned the United States now, it might prove more difficult for the U.S. to add additional exclusions.'' But notice he did not say that the EC would not retaliate at the end of September, even if the President gives the EC all of the exclusions it asks for. Will we be able to buy off the EC by continuing to grant these exclusions? Not based on recent history. Listen to this. On Monday, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body announced it was adding Brazil to the list of seven other WTO members that have requested a WTO panel in Geneva to contest our steel 201 remedy. If someone were to ask, ``Well, why didn't the President just exclude Brazilian products from the 201, as he has so many others?'' they might be surprised to learn that, in fact, Brazil was one of the first nations to be granted a 201 exclusion, and it was a whopper. You know about those fish we catch--``And it was a whopper.'' Obviously, it is not only futile but ridiculous for the United States to keep caving in to the demands of foreign critics. Why are we allowing ourselves to be cuckolded by foreign suitors we know are insincere? We cannot appease them by giving them further exclusions. They will have their cake and eat it, too-- won't they? Professor John Jackson of the University of Michigan is considered to be one of the most knowledgeable experts on GATT and the WTO in the whole wide world. Listen to what Professor Jackson wrote about the origins of the GATT in 1969. He wrote that it was an invention created by men, that was perhaps the least handsome of all the major international institutions of our time. He said the GATT began as only one wheel of a larger machine, the ill-fated International Trade Organization. And, he said, when the ILO fell apart, this wheel--the GATT--became a unicycle on which the burdens of the larger machine were heaped. He said of the GATT: This unicycle, for reasons not fully understood, has continued to roll through two decades since it was put together. To be sure, it takes careful balance to keep it rolling and ad hoc repairs and tinkering have brought it to a point where the bailing wire and scrap metal which hold it together form an almost incomprehensible maze. Professor Jackson made this observation in 1969. Add to this maze another thirty-three years of bailing wire, scrap metal, and ad hoc repairs and what do you get? The World Trade Organization. The WTO. An incomprehensible maze that is still rolling along, but rolling so hard and fast now, it's careening out of control. And the greatest irony of all of this, Mr. President, is that it all began at the behest of the United States. In the early 30's, at the request of Senator Roosevelt's Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, the United States enacted the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934. Between 1934 and 1945, the President negotiated and entered into 32 trade agreements. Most, if not all of the clauses in the GATT, can be traced to one or another of the clauses that were contained in those early trade agreements. So the United States was there at the inception of the GATT, and it continues to nurture what is now the WTO. And, I am sorry to report that we in the United States are still the greatest financial contributor to the WTO, paying approximately 16 percent of its total budget for the luxury of being told our laws are meaningless, and we don't know how to interpret WTO agreements that are rooted in American law. I submit we are being hoisted on our own petard, and that, rather than protecting us, the Bush administration is simply helping to sharpen the blade. I yield the floor. I reserve the remainder of my time, if I have anything.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority whip. As always, he is most gracious, most considerate, and most courteous. He also wants to be helpful.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. What is the request?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I don't know what the Senator's amendment is. I object, for the moment, just for the moment, until both managers are on the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Objection to what?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I personally have no objection, but I would like for both managers to be here. I would like for both managers to be here when the request is made.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator from Hawaii. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, let me ask, briefly, and express my viewpoint concerning Danny Inouye and Max Cleland. Others have just preceded me in speaking of these two valiant patriots. Danny Inouye has always been my hero in the Senate. There was never anyone, in my judgment, greater than Danny. In our time, or in past times, I think that says about all I need to say about Danny. He is the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee in the Senate. He has always been a valued supporter of mine when I was majority leader, when I was minority leader, and as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which I presently am. So he doesn't take second place to anybody in the Senate, as far as I am concerned. As heroes go, he is No. 1. In recent years, there has come to the Senate the junior Senator from Georgia, Max Cleland, who is also my hero. So I have two heroes in the Senate. Danny is one who has been my hero from the beginning, and Max Cleland is my second hero. So I just add that little bit to what has already been appropriately said by Senators Reid of Nevada and the majority leader. I don't think I can add anything to that.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the General Accounting Office has recently completed another in a long line of studies about financial mismanagement at the Department of Defense. A GAO report shows how Government-issued charge cards were abused for the personal gain of certain civilian employees and members of the Armed Forces. This issue is not about irresponsible use of personal credit cards so much. This is about using a Government charge card for personal use and leaving the American taxpayers on the hook. In some instances of abuse, the U.S. Government is left with only the interest on personal purchases to pay. In the worst cases of abuse, the Pentagon actually uses the funds that are appropriated for national defense to pay off the questionable charges on these credit cards. To understand the scale of the problem, it is important to understand how many charge cards are being used. According to the Department of Defense, it maintains 1.7 million charge cards that were responsible in fiscal year 2001 for--now hold on to your hat--$9.7 billion in spending. Neither the GAO nor I take issue with the well-regulated use of Government-issued charge cards. In the right hands, a charge card cuts through bureaucratic redtape, reduces paperwork, and limits the administrative costs of processing purchase orders. But put a government charge card into the hands of irresponsible individuals, and they can do some real damage. Take for example the case of a junior enlisted soldier at Fort Drum in New York. He ran up a bill of $10,029 on three travel cards, due mostly to charges made at a casino. Despite this serious abuse of the charge card, in October 2000, the soldier was allowed to be honorably discharged without punishment. But that horror story is just the tip of the iceberg. One soldier ran up charges of $1,058 in personal charges, including some from the Dream Girls Escort Service. Not to be outdone, another junior enlisted soldier ran up $2,278 in debt, including $110 from the Spearmint Rhino Adult Cabaret. According to the GAO, neither of those soldiers received any disciplinary action. These appear not to be isolated incidents, either. The GAO says that it found about 200 individuals who charged $38,000 in Fiscal Year 2001 alone at questionable establishments offering ``adult entertainment.'' Those soldiers ought to be ashamed of themselves. They have betrayed the trust of the public by using government money to fund their dalliances. It is a disgrace not only to the uniform that they wear, but also to their superior officers who were apparently asleep at their posts. In addition to using the cards for personal purposes, some cardholders play games with paying back the money that they owe. One soldier in south Carolina ran up $35,883 in debt, then bounced 86 checks, totaling $269,301, in a phoney attempt to pay off the card. It is small consolation that this soldier is undergoing a court martial for his criminal behavior. It appears that the astonishing lack of financial oversight in the Department of Defense has created a situation where it is easy to escape any kind of punishment. The GAO found 105 cardholders who held secret or top secret security clearances who had bad debt written off of their travel charge cards. Out of this group, 38 still had active security clearances even after they had experienced serious financial difficulties. I remind my colleagues of the serious security risks posed by individuals with financial problems. Robert Hanssen, the former FBI agent, and Aldrich Ames, the mole at the CIA, betrayed their country for money. In 1998, a retired Army officer, David Sheldon Boone, was caught and accused of selling secrets to Russia. His excuse? He claimed that financial problems led him to spying. The amendment that I offer today with Senator Grassley proposes to curb some of the most gross excesses of the charge card programs. First, the amendment limits the number of charge cards that can be made available to service members or civilian employees of the Department of defense to 1.5 million, a 10 percent reduction in the number of cards that are now out there. This cap will eliminate unnecessary cards and reduce the chance that the charge card numbers will be stolen. The amendment establishes a requirement that the Secretary of Defense evaluate the creditworthiness of an individual before issuing a charge card. It is astounding that this common-sense step has not been taken before. But it has not, and as a result, the GAO found that charge cards are getting in to the hands of individuals with a history of writing bad checks, making late payments on their personal credit cards, and even defaulting on loans. This must stop. The amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to develop uniform disciplinary guidelines, so that members of each of the military services are held to the same standard of conduct for their use of charge cards. The amendment includes specific language on security clearances, so that security officials will be informed of the financial wrongdoings of individuals who have access to classified information. Finally, the amendment keeps the pressure on the Department of Defense to continue its financial reforms by reporting to the congressional defense committees not later than June 30, 2003, on the implementation of reforms to the charge card programs. I have no doubt that Secretary Rumsfeld is serious when he says that he wants to straighten out the financial and accounting messes at the Pentagon. He did not create these problems. They did not occur on his watch. But it is now his watch. Someone has to be held accountable for these scandals. William Wordsworth once said, ``No matter how high you are in your department, you are responsible for the actions of the lowliest clerk.'' Congress has an important role in making sure that the money that we appropriate for our defense is well-spent. It is the Legislative Branch, after all, that is entrusted with the power of the purse. When money is wasted, we have an obligation to step in and take corrective action. The amendment that I have proposed with the Senator from Iowa Mr. Grassley, takes common-sense steps to crack down on the abuse of government charge cards in the Department of Defense. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have an amendment. I send it to the desk. Is there an amendment pending?

Mr. BYRD. Earlier this year, I received information from our Appropriations Committee staff which caused me some concern about the Defense Department's budget request for Navy basic research in fiscal year 2003. The information indicated that over the past five years, funding levels for basic research have stayed at roughly the same level or have grown slightly, in real/constant dollar terms--that is, excluding increases for inflation. Growth in funding for applied research, however, has been significant, averaging about 10% per year. Indeed, the perception and reality of a greater emphasis on applied research is common in both private and public labs. Just as we've found to be the case in the private sector, the federally funded labs have been forced to be better `marketers' of their products. This has led to a greater emphasis on applied research because, by its very nature, the work being done in applied research is more product-oriented. For fiscal year 2003, the Defense Department proposes to cut funding for the Navy's basic research program--a cut of 1% in real terms. This shift in emphasis to applied research is understandable. But, if this shift comes at the expense of funding basic research programs, our science and technology programs will suffer in the long run. Basic research is the fuel for the engine of invention. Without a growing understanding of the fundamentals of our physical environment--energy sources, molecular structures, materials, and biological systems, to name just a few--our scientific prowess will weaken and our technological edge will become dull. Given these concerns, I believe it is prudent that Congress sustain funding for this important program at traditional levels. That is why I am pleased to report that this bill includes, at my behest, a $6 million increase for the Navy Research lab. I want to thank the managers of the bill--the Chairman of the Defense Subcommittee, Senator Inouye, and the Ranking Member, Senator Stevens--for agreeing with my recommendation and for their continuing efforts to enhance our military's technology edge.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, let me say to the distinguished Senator from Arizona, that not only he will see the managers' amendments, but I will insist on the managers' amendments being read on all appropriations bills for the attention of the full Senate.

Mr. BYRD. The Senator does not need consent, does he? The consent has already been given some days ago.

Mr. BYRD. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in response to the terrorist acts of September 11, the Bush administration--like so many other administrations before it--has chosen to demonstrate its tough stand against something. In the case of the Bush administration, it is a tough stand against terrorism and its concern for the safety and well- being of the American people by boldly maneuvering the Federal chess pieces to create a new Department called Homeland Security. It is an impressive move, Mr. President--this reorganization of the Government. Many say that it is the greatest reorganization during the past half century. I think it could very well be said that it is the greatest reorganization since the Founding Fathers reorganized the Government in 1787. At that particular time, the 13 colonies--by then 13 States--had been under the operation of the Articles of Confederation. And many of those who served in the Senate in 1789 had been Members of the Congress under the Articles of Confederation and had been Members of the Continental Congress, which first met on September 5, 1774. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution reorganized our Government so that when their work product had been ratified by the States--the required number of nine for ratification--we then became the United States of America. We were no longer under the Articles of Confederation. That constituted a reorganization of our Government. But I am talking about a reorganization that is being proposed today. I say that it is the most massive reorganization that has occurred since the Framers reorganized the Government through the ratifying conventions and the ratifications by the requisite necessary number of States--reorganized the Government so that it was no longer a government under the Articles of Confederation. Rather, it was the United States Government under the United States Constitution. As to the current proposal, it is no wimpy reorganization. To check terrorism within our borders, the administration has proposed to establish a massive new Department of Homeland Security. It will be a Department so large that it will affect an estimated 170,000 Federal employees and will constitute the largest Department--the third largest--after the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs. From what I have read, the thousands of workers of this proposed Department will be doing essentially the same job they are already doing, but they will be doing it under a different newly consolidated roof with different lines of authority. Why the administration seems to think that these workers will perform their duties better just because they are transferred to a new agency has both bothered and baffled me until late last week. Last week, President Bush let it be known that if any version of the Department of Homeland Security passes the Congress which ensures Civil Service protections, collective bargaining rights, and other provisions to safeguard Federal workers' rights and protections, he will veto it. At first, I thought this was simply another of the usual pokes at Federal workers. There is the unfortunate implication in the President's veto threat that the current Federal workforce is so full of slackers--there are some there, no doubt--but it is so full of slackers and ineptitude that he may need to get rid of them all and hire a new Federal force. But then as I thought about the President's claims that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security will need the ability--get this--to act ``without all kinds of bureaucratic rules and obstacles,'' I began to have other concerns about the Bush administration's intentions. It may be that this White House crowd, comprised of CEOs, corporate managers, and other wealthy business elites, may be seeking to use the Department of Homeland Security to further their efforts to run the Federal Government more like a corporation, seeking freedom to hire and fire dedicated public servants, many of them experts in their fields, at will. By the way, the actions of CEOs are not exactly models--and I am not talking about all CEOs, of course. But the actions of CEOs we have been reading about recently are not exactly models on which to run much of anything these days, and I hope that I am not detecting the same cavalier attitude about Federal pensions that we have seen in press accounts detailing the horrific pension ripoffs by some of our large corporations. No one wants to deny the administration the ability to take reasonable steps to foster flexibility within the proposed new agency, but I question the real motivation behind the administration's objections to worker protections. Let's face it, the players in this administration do not have much of a reputation as champions of basic protections for workers. President Bush is currently pushing the Congress to subject 425,000 Federal jobs to contractor competition by the end of his term. This administration has made it a goal to take Federal jobs and dole them out like candy to private firms, apparently. In drafting its proposed reorganization, the administration started with a panel of four--four white collar political players; four white collar political players in the bowels of the White House, in the subterranean caverns of the White House. Who were the geniuses behind this idea? Mr. Andrew Card, a fine gentleman--I like him, a very able man; former Gov. Tom Ridge, a fine gentleman, a very able official, who has had great experience in running the Governor's office in one of our larger States in the Union, one of the States that was among the first 13, by the way. Then there is the White House counsel, I believe his name is Gonzales. I am not sure I know him very well. And then the fourth in this quartet of master planners is none other than Mr. Mitch Daniels, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. So there is the quartet. Not quite the caliber, I would say--although one may wish to debate it--it may be worthy of argumentation--not quite the caliber of the committee of five that wrote the Declaration of Independence: Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, William Livingston, and Roger Sherman. Roger Sherman is the only one of the five who signed all of the founding documents of this great Nation. Now there was a committee of five. So while there may be some argument as to how one would stack up against the other, I would put my bets on the committee of five that wrote the Declaration of Independence. I will stay with them. No disrespect intended, of course, to the White House committee of four, but they operated in secret in the bowels of the White House. I understand that when the President unveiled this massive monstrosity, some of the Department heads in the Government had not been in on the deal until the day that it was sprung. It sprang like Aphrodite from the ocean foam. She sprang from the ocean foam and was carried on a leaf to the Island of Crete. She later appeared before the gods on Mount Olympus and, of course, they were dazzled by her beauty. This Homeland Security plan came into being about like that, or one might compare its sudden emergence with the goddess Minerva who sprang from the forehead of Jove, the forehead of Jupiter. Minerva sprang fully armed and clothed from the forehead of Jove. That is about the way this thing came into being. That was the genesis of it, down there in the White House. It was conceived in secret and was born in secret, and there we are. So the administration has given these white-collar political players--there were four of them in the beginning--free rein to move Federal workers around from one agency to the other in the name of homeland defense. That same administration now appears poised to sabotage the pay, the health benefits, and the retirement benefits of the very Federal workers it wants to involve with safeguarding our homeland security. There is nothing like threatening jobs and health benefits to give a boost, of course, to the morale of the employees of a new and very important Department. This is just what we need to energize our new Homeland Security Department, is it not? They will like that-- jeopardize their benefits and their pay and their jobs. Imagine the concentration level of nail-biting employees concerned about where their next paycheck is coming from. Think about that. And what will happen to their families if the Bush administration prevails in freeing itself from the normal restrictions which safeguard Federal workers' rights? For those who doubt my concerns, I ask them to examine the Bush administration's attitude toward Federal workers. It has been clearly expressed by recent comments. Administration spokesman Ari Fleischer, for example, has said that Federal workers need to be stripped of their rights and protections because managers in the Department of Homeland Security will need the ability to fire a worker who was drunk on the job and as a result allowed terrorists into the country. Great stuff! Great motivation, for a Federal workforce on whom we will rely for our safety, and those of our families and friends and associates, and people all over the country. I do not see anyone defending drunken workers. Not me. I would not defend a drunken worker. We do not have to strip all Federal workers of their basic rights and threaten their pay and retirement benefits in order to deal with one worker who has been drinking on the job. I certainly do not defend that kind of behavior. This comment was a needless and irresponsible cheap shot at hundreds of thousands of dedicated, hard-working Federal employees who are laboring day and night in many instances for far less money than they could be earning in the private sector. I think Mr. Fleischer owes them all an apology. Federal workers are not the problem. They are the unsung heroes who are protecting our homeland. Pause for a moment and think about that. They are the Border Patrol agents. Federal workers are the Border Patrol agents guarding our 6,000-mile-long borders when we think of both borders with Mexico and Canada. All day, and all night while the rest of us are sleeping, they are guarding those borders, guarding us. Those are Federal workers. They are the Customs Service inspectors who have been working around the clock since September 11 to prevent weapons of mass destruction from being carried in containers through our ports of entry. Those are Federal workers. They are the postal workers who have to think about delivering packages of anthrax. They are the Federal workers who have had to deal with the anthrax threat. What about the Center for Disease Control workers who must confront the hard reality of a possible bioterrorist attack every day? Federal employees are the rank-and-file workers who do the bulk of the work in securing the homeland, and they will continue to do the bulk of the work in securing this country from sea to shining sea. They are the workers who will do the bulk of the work in securing the homeland but who will receive little of the credit and the glory that go to the administration's political appointees. The President has asked these Federal employees to be the frontline soldiers in the war on terrorism. They are out there at every hour of the day and the night, somewhere, guarding the ports of this country, guarding the borders of this country, guarding the airports of this country, standing on guard. And the President would reward them by trying to take away their basic labor, civil service rights, and job protections? I was especially alarmed by OMB Director Mitch Daniels' explanation for stripping Federal workers of their rights. Mr. Mitch Daniels said: Our adversaries are not encumbered by a lot of rules. Al- Qaida does not have a three foot thick code. This department is going to need to be nimble. This is a startling, as well as frightening, remark. Since when did al-Qaida become our role model for labor-management relations? I thought we were out to destroy al-Qaida, not emulate them. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. No, they do not have a 3-foot code of rules. Al-Qaida also does not have this code which I hold in my hand, the Constitution of the United States, but we do. We have this code, this Constitution. Is this administration using the 19th-century industrial robber barons as its role model for labor-management relations? What is going on in the heads of these so-called administration spokesmen? The President had better rein in some of these spokesmen. Destroying the basic rights of Federal workers is not how we should be combating terrorism. The fight against terrorism does not have to be fought by workers stripped of basic labor rights. Denying basic rights and protections to workers always makes recruitment of skilled and experienced employees difficult. But just as important as the necessity that our Federal workforce be a secure workforce, a workforce composed of employees who know they will be protected from politics, cronyism, and favoritism, it must be a workforce armed with protections that can allow them to speak out about mismanagement without fear of losing jobs. It is rank-and-file Government workers, who are on the job every day and night, keeping Government operating, protecting you, Mr. President, protecting me, protecting our friends in the fourth estate there in the gallery. These are the Government workers who make the Government function, and they are the Government workers upon whom we now depend to protect us. I can't help but think of those incredible workers at FEMA who have done such a tremendous job, time and time again, in response to floods in West Virginia and in crisis situations in every other State in the Union. It was a Federal employee of the Customs Service who apprehended a terrorist, Ahmed Ressam, with 134 pounds of explosives in December of 1999 at the border in the State of Washington. Later, the terrorist confirmed that it was his intent to bomb Los Angeles Airport during the 2000 New Year's celebration. These are the players that this administration threatens to strip of their rights and benefits. The assertion that Federal workers cannot be disciplined under existing Federal guidelines is somewhat of a myth. There are strict performance requirements for Federal workers already in place. There are performance reviews annually and initial hires on probation for 1 year. No new rules are necessary. No new blanket exceptions for basic labor rights are needed by this administration. This administration has not even got legislation in place which clearly identifies the mission of this new Department, and this administration is already trying to blame the Federal workforce for any potential failures that might occur in the future. Again, I say, slow down. Let's slow down. Let's slow down. Let's slow this proposed legislation down. I am not saying today that I am against a Department of Homeland Security. But what is the rush? What is the rush? Consider carefully a veto threat of any bill setting up a Department of Homeland Security which does not give this White House sweeping new powers, sweeping new powers to abolish workers rights and workers protections. Imagine that; imagine a veto that would do that. I think the agenda of this White House is becoming very, very clear. And we had better pause, we had better stop, we had better look, and we had better listen. Talk about passing this massive new law, creating a massive, monstrous behemoth by September 11, by an artificial deadline! This legislation would emasculate certain portions of this Constitution which I hold in my hand--emasculate it! Trample it into the dirt! Mr. President, I have been here 50 years. I am not in the Senate today because I need a Senate salary. I could have retired 2 years ago when my 7th term was completed. I could be drawing a check today, a retirement check. I have been in the Senate and the House 50 years. I don't have to work here to put bread and butter on the table for my wife, to whom I have been wed 65 years and 2 months, the day before yesterday. I don't have to have it. Why am I here? I should be at home with her. I should be living with my grandchildren, my great- grandchildren, enjoying a little leisure at the end of a long, long worklife that began in the mining camps of southern West Virginia a long time ago. No, I am here to protect this Constitution and this Institution of which you, Senator, from Minnesota, and you, Senator, from Hawaii, and 97 other Senators are a part. That is it. Some give their lives on the battlefield in wars. There are others of us who give our lives in public service. I am one of them. Let's slow down. We don't know what the unintended consequences will be of the passage of this legislation. Study the House bill. Study the House-passed bill. The House passed a bill after 2 days of debate. I believe there were 132 Members of the House who voted against that bill. Were they against homeland security? No! Those Members of the House who voted against that bill were as much for homeland security as I am, as much as the President of the United States is. They were for homeland security. I am for homeland security. I defy anyone to say that the Senator in the chair, that the Senator who sits just behind me, or any other Senator, is against homeland security. Many times I have stood before that desk up there and put my hand on the Holy Bible, and I have sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is why I am here. We are in too big a hurry to pass this bill. For what reason? Because there is an election coming on. And then there were some well intentioned souls, but so gullible, as to suggest that we ought to do this big ``thing'' before September 11 or by September 11, the anniversary of the most horrendous attack against this country that has ever occurred. Why September 11? We have a duty to discuss this bill at length. I say to all Senators, Republicans and Democrats, hear me, the people out there across this country are not clamoring for this legislation. The politicians are clamoring for it. The same people who will work under this new Homeland Security Department are already working today for homeland security in the various agencies that will be transferred to this department. They are already on the job. The Appropriations Committees of both Houses have already acted to release funds for homeland security time and time again, last year and this year. Then, the people of this country are being urged to pressure their representatives to act on this Department. This Department was conceived in the bowels of the White House by four Federal workers-- four members of the White House staff! Take time to study what we are about to do! Read title 8 of the House-passed bill. It scares me! Read title 8. I think the agenda of this White House is becoming very clear. It is not homeland security that this White House is lusting after. Bin Laden is not the only target at which this administration is pointing its six-gun. Clearly in the bull's eye is also the job security of thousands of Federal employees and the core values of rights for the workers. And there it is. I will have more to say on this subject. I am talking about the Constitution and about this Institution, Mr. President. Think of it! Think of the blood that has been shed by men and women over these past 216 years to uphold this Constitution, to protect the security of this country. There is a man in the chair (Mr. Cleland) who has given everything but his life for his country. I would be ashamed to run against him. I would be ashamed to be a candidate, put myself up against that man--or this man here behind me (Mr. Inouye). We had better go slow. We can easily tear down in a few weeks what it has taken centuries to build. I saw them tearing a building down, A group of men in a busy town; With a ``Ho, heave, ho'' and a lusty yell, They swung a beam and the sidewall fell. I said to the foreman, ``Are these men skilled The type you'd hire if you had to build?'' He laughed, and then he said, ``No, indeed, Just common labor is all I need; I can easily wreck in a day or two, That which takes builders years to do.'' I said to myself as I walked away, ``Which of these roles am I trying to play? Am I a builder who works with care, Building my life by the rule and square? Am I shaping my deeds by a well-laid plan, Patiently building the best I can? Or am I a wrecker who walks the town, Content with the labor of tearing down?''

Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that my remarks appear at someplace in the Record other than in association with the Defense appropriations bill.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if I may, while the ranking Republican member of the Appropriations Committee is completing an appointment outside the Chamber, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for not to exceed 30 minutes.