Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am in opposition to the amendment to strike section 2002 of the bill. Congress should be proud of the lead that it has taken in funding homeland defense programs that will help prevent, detect and respond to potential terrorist attacks. Last year, we acted together on a bipartisan basis and provided $10 billion for homeland defense programs, $4 billion more than was requested by the President. Last December, President Bush threatened to veto the Defense Appropriations bill if it contained funding for homeland defense programs that he regarded as excessive. Last November, Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge wrote me and said, ``no additional resources beyond what the President has already requested are needed at this time.'' Yet, as I emphasized in my opening remarks on this bill, the Congress came together on a bi-partisan basis to increase funding for homeland defense programs and that funding is now making a difference. Over 2,200 more INS border agents and Customs inspectors are being hired. The INS is now implementing a system for tracking foreign students in this country. Our police, fire and medical personnel are getting better training and equipment for detecting and responding to potential biological, chemical or nuclear attacks. The FBI is hiring hundreds of new agents. 750 more food inspectors and investigators are being hired. The number of ports with Food and Drug Administration investigators is being doubled. 324 additional protective personnel are being hired to protect our nuclear weapons complex, and additional resources are being spent on efforts to destroy or secure nuclear materials overseas. I do not understand why the Senator offering this amendment would want to give the President what would essentially be line item veto authority over the homeland defense funds contained in this bill. If this amendment is adopted, the President would be able to completely disregard the priorities contained in this bill. Which programs would the President choose not to make available, the firefighter equipment and training funds, the port security grants, the money for the Coast Guard, the money for the Customs Service to inspect cargo containers overseas when we currently inspect only 2 percent of our imports, or how about the money for making sure that our first responders, our police, fire and emergency medical care personnel have communications equipment that are interoperable? One thing we do know is that the President has already designated as an emergency $1.6 billion for foreign aid. Why would we want the President to have the authority to use the emergency designation for $1.6 billion of foreign aid but not require him to designate the homeland defense funds as an emergency? And this amendment is not just about homeland defense. If this amendment were adopted, it would allow the President to not release $275 million for Veterans Medical Care. It would allow him to not release the $80 million for the Cerro Grande fire victims. It would allow him to not release $1 billion for the Pell grant shortfall. Finally, Mr. President, I want to assure all Senators that there is precedent for this language. In fact, two years ago, the Republican House and the Republican Senate approved substantially the same language on a fiscal year 2000 supplemental appropriations bill for President Clinton. I supported that bill, when the conference report passed the Senate on a voice vote. I urge all Senators to stand by their priorities and oppose this amendment.

Mr. BYRD. I thank my colleague for his kind words and would be happy to engage in a colloquy with the Senators from New York and New Jersey.

Mr. BYRD. I thank my colleagues for their thoughts on this matter, and am gratified that we are able to provide such critical support for this intermodal transportation center. chemical demilitarization

Mr. BYRD. The Senator is correct. You and I had a discussion regarding the unique situation facing the Pennsylvania hospitals and I sympathized with the plight of these hospitals. However, because your reclassification provision would have violated Rule XXVIII, which precludes matter from being included in conference agreements unless relevant language was contained in either the House or Senate version of the appropriation bill, we were unable to accommodate your provision.

Mr. BYRD. This is a matter that is in conference. I will give it serious consideration. However, I shall point out that the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee have written to me, opposing inclusion of any items in this Supplemental that fall within their committee's jurisdiction.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I take the floor at this late hour to express my appreciation to the senior Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, for his cooperation in handling this bill and for his masterful handling of the bill on the floor. I thought it best to let him do that without any action or work on my part. The problem was on his side. I believed that Chairman Stevens was the man to deal with those things. He did it to perfection. I thank him. We couldn't have gotten to this point had it not been for Senator Stevens and his support. Let me also thank Harry Reid. Senator Reid is a whip sui generis. He has been a real asset to the leadership, and to the managers of the bill in getting this bill passed. It has taken hours on his part. For his willingness to stay until the last, for his willingness to take our statements and get them in the Record, I want to personally thank him for a job well done. It is a hard job. I have been a whip. I have not been whipped, but I have been a whip around here. So I know the kind of work he did. I also thank the wonderful staff on both sides of the aisle. They worked hard. They worked during the hours after some of us went home to sleep. But they stayed here. And they will still be here after we go home tonight. We can't thank them enough. They are excellent. I thank Members on both sides of the aisle for the courtesies they extended. I think this is a good bill. I am glad we passed it. We need to get it to conference. Perhaps there will battles there. I thank all Senators, and I thank the floor staff--the people who are here who work many hours. I thank you all. Again, I thank Mr. Stevens. He couldn't be a better Senator from Alaska. He is the ``Senator of the 20th century'' from Alaska. I salute him.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate. The Presiding Officer (Mr. Durbin) appointed Mr. Byrd, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Reid of Nevada, Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Dorgan, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Reed of Rhode Island, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Specter, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Bond, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Burns, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Craig, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Gregg, Mrs. Hutchison of Texas, and Mr. DeWine conferees on the part of the Senate.

Mr. BYRD. Oh, I will be glad to yield.

Mr. BYRD. I have been to many a revival meeting, and when the altar call came, the Senators hit the sawdust trail. The Senator remembers Billy Sunday, that great evangelist. So that is a time for admitting one's errors. Maybe I was in error then, but I voted with the Republican-controlled Congress and against my own President in that instance. What we are doing here tonight is certainly not a precedent. We are just following in the wake. It was that language that gave us the idea. That was the precedent. Without that, we might not have thought of this. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment to strike section 2002 of the bill. Congress should be proud of the lead it has taken in funding homeland defense programs that will help prevent, detect, and respond to potential terrorist attacks. Last year, we acted on a bipartisan basis to provide $10 billion for homeland defense programs. Last year, in the face of a veto threat from the President, this Congress, this Appropriations Committee added $4 billion more than what was requested by the President. That money is being well spent, and it is making a difference. The veto was threatened then. So we have heard that before. We have a responsibility to use our own judgment in behalf of the American people, in behalf of the security of this homeland. We should make our own judgment. No President sends any Senator here. Calling him the Commander in Chief, if you will--that is what the Constitution says he is, but I do not think that has a thing to do with this bill. I have heard that term thrown around here today, the ``Commander in Chief.'' No Commander in Chief sends me here. No Commander in Chief sends the Senator from Vermont here. No Commander in Chief sends the Senator from Louisiana here. No Commander in Chief sends the distinguished Senator from Texas here. He comes here by virtue of the wisdom and good judgment of the good people of Texas. Thank God. We are not made or unmade by any President. I have served not under but certainly with, I believe, 10 or 11 Presidents. None of them sent me here, Democrats and Republicans. I have stood by the principles that I see as being important principles in upholding the prerogatives of this institution and the Constitution, and I have stood against; I have opposed the wishes of Democrat Presidents in this regard, and I opposed those Republican Presidents. It does not make any difference to me who is President. He puts on his trousers just like I put mine on, two legs at a time, two legs at a time. Some say you cannot do that, but you can. (Laughter.) I have tried it. You can. If you do not believe it, just sit down in a chair and pull them on both legs. (Laughter.) I like this man from Texas. He will smile, he will yield, and he is not only a good Senator, but he is a good sport. Mr. President, I have seen Presidents come and go. I have never bowed and scraped to any of them. I do not expect the people to bow and scrape to me, and I do not expect to do that to any President. I am for using Robert Byrd's judgment, as far as my votes are concerned. Paul Sarbanes will use his own judgment. We are not here at the beck and call of any President, even if he is the Commander in Chief. We have our own judgments on this. This committee, on a bipartisan basis, supported by the Republicans, 14 of them, and 15 Democrats, reported out this bill. We had hearings. Those hearings were attended by Republicans and Democrats to ask questions. We heard people from the local level. I have said this before but should say it again. We heard the firefighters. We heard the policemen. We heard the health personnel. We heard mayors. We heard Governors. We heard county commissioners. We heard seven Department heads in the executive branch. We heard the Director of FEMA. And based on those hearings, this committee, in its considered judgment, elected to increase the amount by $3 billion. We increased the amount by $4 billion last year. That money has made a difference. I have stated already what is being done with that money, $4 billion more than the President requested. This year it is $3 billion more. Let's use our own judgment. Let's not be here at the beck and call of any President. I am here because the people of West Virginia sent me here, and so is every other Senator here because of the people of their State. I hear all this business about Commander in Chief. I get a little tired of hearing Commander in Chief, Commander in Chief. Under the English history, there were commanders in chief all over the continent, all over the islands. So they were called commanders in chief. So what, Commander in Chief. The Constitution says the Congress will enact the laws. It will have all power herein provided to enact laws. It says that the Congress will make the appropriations of moneys. So let's use our own judgment. Mr. President, I will not be much longer. I emphasized in my opening remarks on this bill that Congress came together on a bipartisan basis to increase funding for homeland defense programs, and that funding is now making a difference. I do not understand why my friend from Oklahoma, who offers this amendment, would want to give the President what would essentially be a line-item veto. In other words, he can pick and choose. No, when it comes to defense, there will be emergencies, but when it comes to homeland defense, nondefense spending, then he can pick and choose. He does not have to call that an emergency. What do Senators think will happen? The President, in my judgment, will certainly support the making of an emergency on defense moneys, but when it comes to homeland defense, he may or he may not. So why should we give him that authority to pick and choose? The Supreme Court turned down the line-item veto which I opposed on this floor and which several Senators here--Mr. Sarbanes and Mr. Reid and others--opposed. Now we have it in a different form. This is a kind of line-item veto. The President can pick and choose. I am not for that. Which programs would the President choose not to make available? The firefighter equipment and training funds? The port security grants? The money for the Coast Guard? The money for the Customs Service to inspect cargo containers overseas when we currently inspect only 2 percent of our imports? Or how about the money for making sure our first responders, our police, our fire and emergency medical care personnel have communications equipment that is interoperable? The one thing we do know is that the President has already designated as an emergency $1.6 billion for foreign aid. Why would we want the President to have the authority to use the emergency designation for $1.6 billion of foreign aid but not require him to designate the homeland defense fund as an emergency? This amendment is not just about homeland defense. If this amendment were adopted, it would allow the President to not release $275 million for veterans' medical care. How about that? It would allow him not to release the $80 million for the Sierra Grande fire victims. How about that? It would allow him not to release $1 billion for the Pell grant shortfall. How about that? Do we want to give the President that kind of authority? No, not I. I want to assure all Senators that there is precedent for this language, as I indicated at the beginning of my remarks. I urge all Senators to stand by their priorities, stand by their people back home, and oppose this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Chair state the question for the Record so that all who read it may understand on what we are voting?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President?

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. I would love to go to that point.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator identify the emergency items that the President requested that the committee did not fund?

Mr. BYRD. No question about it. The Senator is absolutely correct. And I certainly would not want to be a Senator who voted for this motion to strike this item if something happened. And who knows what might happen today, tonight, tomorrow.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator for his expression of support.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I wonder if Members will be agreeable to cutting their time on this amendment to some extent. I am willing to cut mine in half.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, we have several amendments yet. Is there any hope of completing action on this bill tonight?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I would like 10 minutes at the conclusion of which I expect to offer the motion.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, a week ago today, on the 29th of May, I was fortunate to celebrate 65 years of marriage, 65 years of wedded bliss-- in this day and age, a somewhat uncommon occurrence. I am sorry this is so, for I wish that more people could know the joy I have had in finding one's soulmate early in life and then sharing that deep companionship over many happy years. In the 16th century, John Ford wrote: The joys of marriage are the heaven on earth, Life's paradise, great princess, the soul's quiet, Sinews of Concord, earthly immortality, Eternity of pleasures; no restoratives Like to a constant woman. Mr. President, my strength, my comfort, was born Erma Ora James, the daughter of a West Virginia coal miner. She was my childhood sweetheart. We married in 1937, in a time of great hardship and trial. Together, we have seen great changes in the world--a world war and numerous other conflagrations around the globe, the dawn of the nuclear age, the advent of space exploration, the collapse of communism, breathtaking medical advances, astounding technological growth, rapid social changes, and resurgent terrors. We have known the highs of life and we have known the lows of family life--the delight of two fine daughters growing up, marrying, and having children of their own; the tragedy of the loss of a grandson; the indescribable love of holding newborn great granddaughters in our arms. For two hillbillies--that is what we are, two hillbillies--from West Virginia, it has been an exciting and wild ride, and I am glad I have had Erma to share it. In my mind's eye, Erma Byrd will always be that sweet, young girl who allowed me to woo her with candy and chewing gum that were given to me by another schoolmate. She is a strong woman, but she is a quiet woman--even somewhat shy. I know she would rather that I were not speaking right now, and that is just the way she is--never seeking the limelight, keeping her focus on her family and her home. Being the wife of a Senator has never impressed her. She never developed any airs of self-importance, and she has never let me develop any airs either-- although some people may think otherwise. She keeps me grounded, or, as my old mom used to say, she never lets me ``get above my raising.'' When I start to get a bit too proud, puffed up with my own accomplishments, she doesn't pop my balloon but, rather, knows how to gently deflate it before it swells too large. But she has always been there for me, helping me to campaign, always making herself available to the people of West Virginia. She is my biggest cheerleader and she is my kindest critic. Erma has always been an equal partner in our marriage. Her domain is the home, where she rules as a benevolent dictator. There I am not Senator, just Robert. I mop the kitchen floor for her each Saturday morning--or I used to up until about a month ago. She will admit that I don't do the windows. When the duties of the Senate filled all my waking hours, and when I was going to school at night to earn my law degree, Erma kept the home fires burning. She took the lead in bringing up our two daughters, teaching them to be the fine women, mothers, and grandmothers they are. Without her help and her support, I could not have put the level of effort into my work that the people of West Virginia deserve and have come to expect; I would not have a law degree. Erma proves the old adage that ``behind every successful man is a successful woman.'' Perhaps Alfred Lord Tennyson put it better when he wrote in ``The Princess'' as follows: The woman's cause is the man's: they rise or sink together. Mr. President, together, Erma and I are complete and whole, a total that is more than the sum of its parts. The 65th wedding anniversary is, by tradition, a diamond anniversary. In my life, Erma Ora Byrd is the diamond. She is my strength in times of fear, my comfort in times of sorrow, my perfect complement. She is a priceless treasure, a multifaceted woman of great insight and wisdom, of quiet humor and common sense. She is the reservoir of serenity at which one can slake the thirst of a stressful day. I can only thank her and thank the Creator that she has put up with me for 65 years and now 1 week. Mr. President, I would like to close with the words of Charles Jeffreys in a poem he titled ``We Have Lived and Loved Together.'' I dedicate it to my wife Erma and to all the lucky, happy couples who have, like us, been fortunate to spend a lifetime together. To the young married people who work for me, to all who are starting on their married lives together, I wish them well, and I hope that someday this poem will speak for them as well. We have lived and loved together Through many changing years; We have shared each other's gladness And wept each other's tears; I have known ne'er a sorrow That was long unsoothed by thee; For thy smiles can make a summer Where darkness else would be. Like the leaves that fall around us In autumn's fading hours, Are the traitor's smiles, that darken When the cloud of sorrow lowers; And though many such we've known, love, Too prone, alas, to range, We both can speak of one love Which time can never change. We have lived and loved together Through many changing years, We have shared each other's gladness And wept each other's tears. And let us hope the future, As the past has been will be: I will share with thee my sorrows, And thou thy joys with me. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, would the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts like some of my time?

Mr. BYRD. How much time does the Senator from Massachusetts have remaining?