Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. That would be a good tradeoff. I consider the Senator from Massachusetts to be not only a fine Senator, but he is my friend. He is very interested in fostering education and providing good legislation and good funding. If he wants another 3 minutes, I will be glad to yield him 3 minutes of my time. I am ready to make a point of order, but I don't want to do it without giving the Senator or any other Senator who wishes to speak time on his behalf.

Mr. BYRD. Very well. Mr. President, I am constrained to recall a little poem which I think the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts will like. I like it very much. I think we are both interested in the same cause, the education of our young people. As a Senator who has great-grandchildren, I certainly hope for the best for these great-grandchildren and the great-grandchildren of all other great-grandparents in the country. I guess I will close my opposition to this amendment with this brief recapitulation of verse: I took a piece of plastic clay And idly fashioned it one day-- And as my fingers pressed it, still It moved and yielded to my will. I came again when days were past The bit of clay was hard at last. The form I gave it, still it bore, And I could change that form no more! I took a piece of living clay, And gently fashioned it day by day, And molded with my power and art A young child's soft and yielding heart. I came again when years were gone: It was a man I looked upon. He still that early impress bore, And I could fashion it never more. I think that pretty well sums up my feeling toward our young people, our children, the education of our young people. Now is the time, the formative period in their youth when we can shape and mold them to our will. Now is the best time for the learning process, while they are young and they don't have the other cares that they will have later. I compliment the distinguished Senator for his offering of this amendment. I oppose it with apologies. But I can't help it. This bill is not the bill on which we should attach this amendment, however worthy the amendment. With those apologies, I will make the point of order. I yield back my time.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. I assure him we will be standing shoulder to shoulder in many instances. Mr. President, section 205 of H. Con. Res 290, the fiscal year 2001 concurrent resolution on the budget, created a point of order against an emergency designation on nondefense spending. The amendment contains nondefense spending with an emergency designation. Pursuant to section 205 of H. Con. Res 290, the fiscal year 2001 concurrent resolution on the budget, I make a point of order against the emergency designation contained in the amendment.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. I want to be certain that there is no ambiguity about what these funds are for. We are all aware that there was never any intention that these funds would be available for lethal assistance or for the expansion of settlements, but I think it is important to reaffirm that understanding. These NADR funds would not be available for offensive purposes, or for any purpose unrelated to the purchase of defensive, non-lethal anti-terrorism equipment, and the Senator from Kentucky has confirmed that.

Mr. BYRD. I have no objection to the Senator being able to do that.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to discuss the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky, the ranking minority member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, Senator McConnell, concerning assistance for Israel. This amendment would permit the transfer of all or a portion of the funds in the supplemental for Israel, to the ``Nonproliferation, Anti- Terrorism, Demining and Related Programs'' account (NADR), to be used for ``defensive, non-lethal anti-terrorism assistance.'' It is my understanding that the purpose of this amendment is to provide the authority to utilize these funds to purchase bomb detection equipment, x-ray machinery, body armor, and similar types of border security and other defensive equipment to prevent acts of terrorism. Am I correct?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the modification?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, regrettably, I must oppose the amendment offered by my friend from Massachusetts. I do not like to oppose this amendment. I would be very supportive of this amendment were it under different circumstances and not being offered to this bill. The amendment would provide $150 million in emergency funding for fiscal year 2002 to support community summer school programs. Last December, Congress approved and the President signed the Labor- HHS Education Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002. That act contains significant resources for the summer school program. Currently, the Federal Government provides $1 billion in funding for the 21st Century Afterschool Program. In fiscal year 2002, the funding increased by $150 million. Senator Kennedy makes a very strong case for this program, and I certainly agree with him in the concept, but I cannot support this amendment as it is being offered to this supplemental bill. This supplemental appropriations bill is focused on providing the resources necessary to support the war on terrorism and to secure our homeland. In the supplemental bill, we funded the President's request for $14 billion for the Department of Defense. We have provided $8.3 billion for homeland defense programs. I believe it is essential that the Senate move forward quickly in approving this bill so that Federal agencies and State and local governments have the resources they need now--not later--to prevent, to detect, and to respond to potential terrorist attacks. Funding homeland defense must be our highest priority. Sadly, in the Statement of Administration Policy, delivered to the Senate yesterday, I believe it was, the President's senior advisers indicated they would recommend that he veto this bill because it contains what the administration characterizes as ``lower priority, nonemergency programs.'' It is not clear which of our homeland defense programs the administration was referring to in their statement. Was it the funding to train and equip firefighters? Was it the funding to enhance law enforcement? Was it the funding to enhance port security? Was it the funding for airport security? Was it the security funding that the Department of Energy believes is essential to prevent terrorists from getting their hands on nuclear material but that OMB turned down? Regardless, we are facing a veto threat because the advisers to the President at least, apparently, believe we have too much funding in the bill for homeland defense and other programs. I believe the President and his advisers are fundamentally wrong when it comes to homeland defense. The Vice President has said we can expect another terrorist attack-- that it is almost certain. When might that happen--tomorrow, or next week, or next year? Yet the administration opposes critical homeland defense programs that our recent Appropriations Committee hearings demonstrated were necessary to fill in the cracks in the security of our homeland. Having said all of this, I do not believe we should add fuel to the fire by adding funding to this bill for a program that was well funded in the Labor-HHS Education Act. Was it because the summer school programs used more funds? Senator Kennedy and other Senators make a good case that it could be. But it is not an emergency. I regret having to oppose this amendment. I think I can say without any feeling that anyone can question my statement that I have been as great a supporter of education as any Senator in this Chamber. I have supported education all through the years. I support summer school programs. But I don't support adding $150 million to this bill when the threats of veto downtown indicate we would simply be adding fuel to the fire. This is a tough bill. It has been very difficult to bring it thus far. We conducted hearings which were extremely substantive. We had good witnesses. We had witnesses from all over the country--Governors, mayors, and people who are at the local level, firefighters, policemen, and health officials. We had former Senator Sam Nunn and former Senator Warren Rudman come before the committee. We had seven Federal Department heads. We went into matters very thoroughly on this committee. We were concerned about homeland defense. We wanted to provide the moneys that could be used in a protective way and in a way that would make our people safe. These moneys are for schoolchildren-- for the safety of schoolchildren, for safety in schools, and for the safety of the children and their parents in their homes. I just do not want to do anything that would give the administration any assistance in arguing that we are going beyond what we should do in this particular bill. We are having a hard enough time with the administration as it is. The Homeland Defense Director, Mr. Ridge, would not come before the committee. The President would not let him come before the committee. So we had to make do with what we could. We had very good hearings even though he did not appear before the committee. So we are doing the best we can to protect the people of this country in the face of imminent threats, if we are to pay any attention to what the administration has said about threats. I hope we will not add this amendment to this bill. It would be difficult enough in conference to carry the bill as it is written. We think what is in the bill, generally speaking, has been the product of our hearings. The hearings have been studied assiduously by the staff of both sides. And Senator Stevens and I have labored hard to bring this bill thus far. I don't want to see this bill vetoed. I hope we can convince the President not to veto it. But I think we ought to be very careful not to be adding amendments on this floor that will make it easier for the administration to make its case. I shall yield the floor at this point. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. BYRD. How much time does the opposition have?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I know it is easy to point to a bill that is a $31 billion bill. We increased that bill yesterday by $393 million. So it is $31,393,000,000. Now, it is easy to look at that, easy to pick at little items--pick, pick--but I think that if those items are considered and studied and all the facts are known, they are justified. They are justified. We do the best we can with a big bill. I do not take a back seat to anybody in support for the people of this country: the education of our children, young people, and adults. Last year, the President requested $44.5 billion for discretionary education programs. This level was woefully inadequate. Through negotiations with the White House, I was able to reach agreement on a ceiling for discretionary spending that was high enough to provide a $4.4 billion increase for our Nation's education programs. Following that agreement with the White House, I provided, as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, an allocation to the Labor- HHS Education Subcommittee that was large enough for Chairman Harkin to approve a $4.4 billion increase over the President's request and $6.7 billion, or 16 percent, above the prior fiscal year. So if you are looking for ``Mr. Education'' around here, I will stay in the ring; I will fight for that as hard as anybody else. I got my education the hard way. I started out in a two-room schoolhouse in southern West Virginia. I graduated in 1934 in a class of 28 persons. I was the valedictorian. If there had been 29 persons, I might not have been valedictorian. But it was 16 years after I completed high school before I was able to start college. So don't talk to me about education. You are looking at somebody who typifies the effort to study and to learn and the effort to help others to learn. I went to school 10 years at night in this city to get my law degree, not that I ever expected to be a lawyer, but I wanted to learn. I am still learning. I chose this past Sunday to travel miles into the mountains of West Virginia to address a commencement. I had several commencement invitations from West Virginia high schools and colleges. I chose one. I chose to address the commencement at a high school in Pickens, WV, near Helvetia, a little town that was founded by Swiss immigrants in the early 1800s. How many students were in that whole school? Thirty-seven from kindergarten through the senior class. How many students were in the senior class? Three--not 300; two young men and one young woman. Why did I choose them? I wanted to go to that little school to let those little people back there in the hills, who might feel that they are off the beaten path, that somebody was interested, somebody was paying attention to them. That little school has won several of the Statewide academic awards. They don't go in big for athletics--I don't, either--they concentrate on academics, and they won several awards. A little school with one ten-thousandths of the whole school population in West Virginia has won 11 percent of the academic awards in that State. So I am for education. I want to help our young people. Years ago, I fought for summer jobs for young people in this District of Columbia so they could work and, hopefully, stay out of trouble. So I can shout as loud as anybody, and I can believe what I am saying as conscientiously as can anybody else. I am doing what I can for education. Education is one of my priorities; it always has been. But this is a different bill. We are talking about the safety of young people who attend schools at Pickens, Sophia, or here in Washington, DC. We are talking about the safety of people. This administration tells us that we might see a repeat of what happened on September 11; it is almost certain. This bill needs to pass. We need to get it to conference. We need to get it to the President. And I hope that the President will not veto it. It is a worthwhile bill--not that the amendment that the distinguished Senator is proposing is not worthwhile. I support that amendment but not on this bill--not on this bill. I have a job to do here, and it is to try to get the bill through. How many minutes remain?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the chair, and I yield the floor for now.

Mr. BYRD. I yield 3 minutes to Senator Gregg.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require. Mr. President, the supplemental also contains $1 billion for the Pell grant shortfall. That is a key education program. I want the record to show that the bill is certainly not devoid of moneys that are to be spent in the interest of education. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, that should read: the amendment as proposed by Mr. Byrd, on behalf of himself and Mr. Stevens.

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

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, Senator Stevens and I have an amendment to strike section 1004 of the bill. This section serves to cap the amount of loan guarantees that would be available to the Nation's airlines for the duration of the current fiscal year. The section also caps the total amount of loan guarantees available through the life of the program. These loan guarantees were first authorized in Public Law 107- 42, the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act, which was enacted to bail out the airlines just 11 days after the tragedies of September 11. The committee included the provision capping the volume of available loan guarantees for the sole reason of reducing the overall cost of the bill as determined by the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO estimates that section 1004 of the bill serves to lower the total cost of the bill in fiscal year 2002 by $393 million. A similar provision was included in the House version of the supplemental. There has been a lot of concern voiced by various Senators, to me and to Senator Stevens and especially Senator Hollings, the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce. And the concern has been that the effect of this provision would especially be heavy on US Airways and other airlines. But that particular airline is hopeful it might receive a Federal loan guarantee in the current fiscal year. There may be reason to question whether any sizable new loan guarantees will be executed by the stabilization board within the current fiscal year, but it is not the desire or intent of the committee to work a hardship on US Airways or any other airline. US Airways is the principal air carrier serving my own State. Madam President, I send the amendment to the desk and ask that it be read.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, yesterday I made a statement on the floor concerning the contents of the supplemental appropriations bill. The bill is a good bill. It was reported out of the Senate Appropriations Committee by a vote of 29 to 0. That unanimous vote could not have been possible without the cooperation, the support, and the leadership of the distinguished Senator from Alaska, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Ted Stevens. As I indicated yesterday, the Appropriations Committee held extensive hearings on the President's supplemental request and on the needs for homeland defense. The able Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, and I joined in issuing the request for witnesses for these hearings. Every witness that came before the committee had been agreed upon jointly by the Senator from Alaska and myself. We heard from terrorism experts about the continuing threat to our Nation. We heard from Governors. We heard from mayors. We heard from the first responders: Our police, fire, and medical personnel. They all testified to a continuing need for resources to expand our capacity to prevent, detect, and respond to terrorist attacks. We took testimony from seven Cabinet members and the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Our former colleagues in this body, Sam Nunn and Warren Rudman, testified to the very real threat that this Nation faces. Those hearings were important, productive, and they brought forth exceedingly valuable information to the members of the committee. That information is reflected in the makeup of this appropriations bill. The principal components of this supplemental bill are $14 billion for the Department of Defense; $1.9 billion for international emergencies; $8.3 billion for homeland defense, including $4.4 billion for the newly established Transportation Security Administration; $5.5 billion for New York in response to the events of September 11; $1 billion for the Pell grant shortfall; and $417 million for VA medical care. Mr. President, Senator Stevens and I will join, hopefully, in opposing amendments that require offsets. Senator Stevens is in the Chamber. He will speak for himself and I look forward to his remarks. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I support the statements that have been made by the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, the former chairman. We had lengthy hearings on the bill. Those hearings were well attended by Members on both sides of the aisle. The witnesses who came before the committee were witnesses who were agreed upon by both the ranking member, Mr. Stevens, and myself. Everything was done that could have been done to try to ascertain what the true needs of the country are. We had seven Department heads. We had the Director of FEMA. We had mayors, Governors, local responders, the people who are first on the scene: the firemen, health personnel, law enforcement people. And we assiduously studied the hearings results as we prepared the bill. Now, it is easy to sit around and carp and complain and criticize, but there are some around here who believe they have to do some things to help this country. We have to move a bill. It is easy to find fault, but it is not so easy to try to develop the kind of support that this bill justifies. I think we have gone a long way to try to meet the true needs of this country. I have respect for the President, but he is not the fountain of all wisdom. I would hope that the President would take time to look at the bill, to study it. I think he will find there are provisions in it that he did not request but which are justified. So I have faith that he would be reasonable in that respect. We appropriated the $14 billion the President requested for the Department of Defense. We appropriated the $5.5 billion for New York the President requested. We appropriated the $1.6 billion for foreign aid. And we appropriated the money for homeland defense in the amount of--we approved his $5.3 billion request. He saw a need for that. We conducted the hearings. We are the representatives of the people. We are the elected representatives of the people. We come here to represent the people. I do not come here by virtue of any President, Democrat or Republican. No President sends me here, and no President is going to send me home. That is up to the people of West Virginia.

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, this is a defense bill. This is for the defense of our homeland. This is for the defense of our people, our schoolchildren, our people who go to church, our people who work in the mines and in the fields and the shipyards. We are talking about homeland defense. We can't get any closer to home. Why some people would come to the floor and attempt to be critical over moneys that are for the defense of our homeland, for the defense of our own people, and in the many areas that have been explained by the distinguished Democratic whip, Mr. Reid, is beyond me. Last year, the President requested $6 billion for homeland defense. The Congress appropriated $10 billion for homeland defense, $4 billion more than the President requested. The President signed that legislation. The President made a request last year. The Congress, in its wisdom, in its collective wisdom, saw a need to appropriate more money. Those additional moneys that Congress appropriated last year over the President's request have made a difference. With all due respect to the President, I would say the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Stevens, and I have worked together, and the other Republicans on that committee, to report the bill; 14 Republicans, 15 Democrats. That is a pretty good indication that this bill is a worthwhile piece of legislation. I hope Members will stop complaining. If they have any amendments they want to offer, offer them. Let's get on with the legislation and get it to conference and be prepared. We don't know what will happen 5 days from now, a week from now. I hope Members will restrain their appetites to criticize, find fault and complain, and help us to put across this legislation that is for the benefit of the Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Roger Cockrell and Scott Burnison, Appropriations Committee detailees from the U.S. Corps of Engineers and the Department of Energy, respectively, be granted privileges of the floor for the duration of the consideration of the bill now before the Senate.

Mr. BYRD

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