Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I oppose Social Security privatization-- unequivocally and without question. The language in the DeMint amendment, which would encourage the Finance Committee to report legislation that would embrace private investment accounts within Social Security, is something that I cannot support. Therefore, I oppose the DeMint amendment.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am concerned about the use of the so- called function 920 account to offset amendments to the budget resolution. The budget resolution sets the aggregate level of discretionary spending for the coming fiscal year. Within that maximum level of discretionary spending, the budget resolution displays certain nonbinding levels of discretionary spending that are divided between 20 major functions, including function 050 for defense, function 150 for international affairs, function 400 for transportation, function 550 for health, and so on. Function 920 is a kind of catch-all account, which displays the budget effects from initiatives that cannot be easily categorized into the other budget functions, such as an across- the-board spending cut. When a Senator offers an amendment to increase spending in one discretionary account, such as function 400 for transportation or function 550 for health, and then directs the Appropriations Committee to find unspecified savings in the function 920 account, it creates an expectation for increased resources when none are produced. Such amendments do not increase the maximum level of discretionary spending allowed by the budget resolution falsely raise expectations that more money is available for certain spending programs. In reality, this is a shell game amounting to shifting funds around without any actual consequence. Function 920 has a legitimate accounting purpose. That purpose, however, is not to create the illusion of progress for public consumption and a press release.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, at Andrews Air Force Base in 1990, I helped to craft the first statutory firewalls as part of the budget summit that resulted in the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990. That act created three categories of discretionary spending--defense, international, and domestic discretionary. At the time, the device of the three separate caps to protect each category from being raided by another category made sense. There was a definable military threat, and nondefense funds did not contribute significantly to the defense of the Nation. That is not the case anymore. The September 11 attacks blurred the line between defense and nondefense spending. Military threats can no longer be viewed as matters that are fought solely through the Defense Department. The enemy may attack our troops overseas or civilians here at home. Within a matter of weeks, the focus of our war against terrorism can shift from military efforts abroad, to our homeland security efforts here at home, and then back again. To respond to this threat, the Congress should maintain maximum flexibility to shift funds to where they are needed most--whether for our homeland security needs here at home or for our troops overseas or for our veterans who need health and medical care. With so much uncertainty regarding the threat of terrorism and the war in Iraq, it makes no sense to limit how those funds can be spent. Senators should know that firewalls in the past have forced the Congress to resort to all sorts of machinations to pass its annual spending bills. Firewalls were used in past years, as part of a partisan budget process, to hold nondefense discretionary spending at unrealistically low levels. These spending levels were set early in the year under different fiscal circumstances and at levels that neither the administration nor the Congress expected to stay within. The result was always unnecessary delays in the appropriations process and even more spending as nearly all budgetary discipline evaporates in the push to pass an end-of-the-year omnibus bill. These kinds of budget gimmicks undermine the people's confidence in the Congress to manage the Nation's spending priorities. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Robert Browning, a brilliant British poet, once wrote a stirring poem about an unpleasant subject, namely: Rats. A key section of the poem reads as follows: Out of the houses the rats came tumbling. Great rats, small rats, lean rats, brawny rats, Brown rats, black rats, gray rats, tawny rats. Grave old plodders, gay young friskers, Fathers, mothers, uncles, cousins, Cocking tails and pricking whiskers, Families by tens and dozens, Brothers, sisters, husbands, wives-- Followed the Piper for their lives. Mr. President, it is gotten so that, every morning when I open the paper and see another story describing the administration's incompetence or wrongdoing, Robert Browning's vision of administration wrongdoers tumbling out of the house comes into my mind. ``Brothers, sisters, husbands, and wives,'' who followed the misled Piper--in this case, the President, ``for their lives.'' And they may pay dearly, as a result. Just as the entire country is now paying dearly for the arrogant, reckless and misguided policies of this Administration. We see more clearly, every day, that the executive branch of our Government is in dire need of a thorough housecleaning, to rid itself of the conniving agents lodged in its bureaus, who apparently will stop at nothing to grab power for the Executive at the expense of the Congress and the People who send us here to represent them. Last year, in one of several bills reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act--all of which I voted against--a small provision was added by the then- Republican majority. It enabled administration officials to fire any U.S. attorney whose politics they did not like and replace them with what in Las Vegas are called ``shills.'' The word shill is defined by Webster's Dictionary to mean, ``one who acts as a pitchman''--in this case, for the administration. The provision, which was tucked into the PATRIOT Act reauthorization, permits the administration to fire and appoint new U.S. attorneys, whose term in office can be indefinite and never subject to Senate confirmation. What an abomination! I was one of only ten U.S. Senators who voted against the legislation that made this possible, and, in retrospect, I am feeling quite proud of that vote. A U.S. attorney is supposed to be the chief Federal law enforcement officer in his or her state. It is critical that U.S. attorneys be able to enforce the law and perform their duties, free of political pressure to achieve a partisan end. Federal law is to be applied fairly and objectively; not to fuel a political witch hunt or to feather the nest of a political contributor. This White House has made it crystal clear that it has no respect for the separation of powers; no respect for our constitutional system of checks and balances; and no respect for even the rule of law, going so far as to pervert the appointment of U.S. attorneys for its own partisan purposes. Well, key officials in this administration may be in for a rude awakening. The rule of law remains alive and well in the hearts of most Americans. If our laws apply to the American people, must they not also apply to the Justice Department? And to the White House? Imagine how baffled the American public must be to hear that the nation's chief law enforcement officer, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, defends the administration's actions as follows: in the March 14 Washington Post, Attorney General Gonzales stated that he knew nothing of the scandal surrounding this issue, because he ``was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on,'' and, he said, ``that's basically what I knew as the attorney general.'' Is that possible? Isn't that preposterous? Are we really to believe that, as head of the Justice Department, the chief law enforcement officer of the nation knew nothing about efforts to replace a plethora of U.S. attorneys nationwide? Which is worse: that he knew nothing that his Deputy was doing, or, instead, that he did know there was a scheme in place, hatched by the White House, to evade congressional oversight? The administration's appointment of these U.S. attorneys constitutes a serious breach of the public trust. Americans don't want law enforcement officials appointed based on their good looks, family connections, or because the Republican National Committee wants to groom them to run for Congress some day. U.S. attorneys should be nominated and confirmed by the Senate based on merit. Only the Constitution affords the people the powers and the prerogatives that keep us a free nation. The constitutional doctrines of checks and balances and separation of powers are the foundations of our government, so brilliantly formulated by the Founders in 1787. My long study of constitutional history and a lifetime of public service have made me keenly aware of why so many Americans have given their lives to protect these basic principles. This is why we must continue to fight to ensure that our constitutional rights and privileges are never undermined or trampled by an ambitious, overly zealous executive branch like the one now in the White House. That is why we must enact S. 214-- to restore the Senate's role in the confirmation of U.S. attorneys. The Founders granted the Senate the power of confirmation, precisely so that we could prevent a corrupt White House from undertaking exactly the indefensible actions that this White House has embraced with respect to the appointment of U.S. attorneys. Let us put a stop to those actions right here and right now. Let us begin today to clean the house and rid our ship of state of the pests that gnaw away at our constitutional protections.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, along with my Democratic colleagues, I intend to vote for the Reid resolution, S.J. Res. 9. I have some concerns with the approach in this resolution--I firmly believe that the Congress must address the open-ended 2002 authorization to use force in Iraq, which is not dealt with in this resolution--but I certainly agree with the Reid resolution's intent. There is a diversity of views in both parties about our policy in Iraq, but a majority of the American people are united in the firm belief that a change of course is long overdue. Fifty-nine percent of Americans believe that the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq. Sixty percent favor withdrawing all U.S. troops by the end of next year. The American people are speaking, and finally their Representatives in the Congress are listening. Some of us may disagree about the best way to effect a change of course in Iraq, but this debate shows one thing--it is time for a new plan, time for a real discussion, not more empty rhetoric about ``stay the course'' versus ``cut and run.'' This administration is fond of referring to the powers of the Commander in Chief, but surely the most important responsibility of any Commander in Chief is to provide solid leadership. As President Harry Truman said: ``The buck stops here.'' But we are entering the fifth year of this misbegotten war, and this President has failed time and time again to articulate a plan, a plan to give a clear reason for why we are in Iraq or to outline a strategy for bringing our troops home. Stubbornly denying that Iraq is engaged in a civil war is not leadership. The White House has abdicated its leadership on this issue, so it is left to the Congress--that is us--to speak for the American people. The hue and cry raised from my colleagues across the aisle and from the White House is that those who do not support this disastrous war do not support the troops. Three thousand one hundred and eighty-nine soldiers have now died in Iraq. Thousands more have been wounded and maimed and have come home to find outrageous and dehumanizing treatment. Truly supporting our troops means not putting them into harm's way without a clear plan for success and unless it is absolutely necessary. It means not asking our sons and daughters, our best and our brightest, to make the ultimate sacrifice without being able to articulate exactly why they are being asked to do so and exactly what we will accomplish as a result. Supporting our troops means treating our wounded men and women with dignity. It means not sending them to recuperate in mold-filled rooms without supervision and without assistance in a morass of paperwork. It means not sending back to the front lines those too wounded to fight, as this administration is doing. I continue to receive letters and phone calls from service men and women, troops currently serving in Iraq, thanking me for my stand--yes, my stand--against this war. The troops are not the ones criticizing our attempts to bring them home. The troops are the first to say there is no military solution to the situation in Iraq, only a political solution. The Iraqis will have to assume leadership of their own country and start making political compromises to overcome the ethnic and sectarian divisions that are splitting the country apart. There is no military solution, none, no military solution for Iraq. A national reconciliation is the only solution for that war-torn country, and we do not need another 3,000 young lives lost to learn that. We were wrong--and I said so at the time--to invade. We were wrong to think that victory would be quick and easy. We are wrong to stay on in an occupation which earns us only hatred with no end, no end, no end in sight. Our young men and our young women now find themselves in the crossfire of a civil war. Nearly every one--nearly every one--except our Commander in Chief realizes that there is no military solution. To continue this ill-advised and demoralizing war only damages our wonderful country in the eyes of the world and chews up lives, both American and Iraqi. I have said it before--yes, I will say it again, yes--democracy cannot be force-fed from the point of a gun. Let this debate mark the beginning of a way out, out, out of Iraq. Let this Congress begin to understand why the Framers of this Constitution gave the power to declare war to the Congress, the representatives of the people we send to fight and to die for our country. Let us begin to put some sanity--sanity--in our foreign policy again. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am pleased to speak today in support of an esteemed colleague, a fine West Virginia lawyer named Mr. John Preston Bailey. Mr. Bailey hails from the beautiful city of Wheeling, WV. John Bailey has been nominated by the President for a seat on the Federal bench in the Northern District of West Virginia. Mr. Bailey is a splendid choice for this judgeship. He is senior partner at the firm of Bailey, Riley, Buch and Harman. Not only is Mr. Bailey well-versed in administrative law, he is also a successful litigator, competent in both civil and criminal litigation. John Bailey graduated from West Virginia University's College of Law in 1976, where he was a member of the West Virginia Law Review. He was admitted to the State Bar of West Virginia that same year and clerked for 2 years thereafter with the Honorable Charles H. Haden II, who, at that time, was the U.S. district judge for both the Northern and Southern Districts of West Virginia. Mr. Bailey is extremely well qualified to be confirmed as a Federal judge. He worked as an assistant prosecuting attorney in the mid-1980s, and he served as chairman of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board in West Virginia from 1985 to 1991. He sat on the executive council of the West Virginia Bar Association for 6 years and was elected to be president of that association in 1992. He was thereafter elected and served as president of the West Virginia State Bar from 2003 to 2004. Before that, he served as vice president of the state bar and as a member of the bar's Board of Governors. More recently--in fact, just last year--he was also bestowed the honor of ``Fellow'' by the West Virginia Bar Foundation. In bestowing that honor upon Mr. Bailey, Tom Tinder, the executive director of the West Virginia Bar Foundation, stated that Mr. Bailey is a ``true leader'' of his community. John Preston Bailey has been a member of the Order of the Coif, the Order of the Barristers, a member of the Moot Court Board, the Ohio County Bar Association, the West Virginia Trial Lawyer Association, and a member of the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys. I can attest to the fact that Mr. Bailey comes highly recommended by West Virginians of varying legal viewpoints. He is a smart, independent thinker. He is hard working. He has had over 30 years of experience as a licensed attorney. As a result, he recognizes the solemn responsibility with which a Federal judge is charged. He must interpret--impartially, and with proper contemplation of, and respect for, the three, separate branches of our Government--provisions that have been approved by the Congress and signed into law the President. Mr. Bailey has an excellent reputation and a keen intellect. Based on my understanding of Mr. Bailey's character and impressive credentials, I believe that he will make a fine Federal judge. For all of the reasons that I have mentioned, I am pleased to urge my colleagues to support his nomination to be a U.S. district court judge for the Northern District of West Virginia.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, 46 years ago, President John F. Kennedy proposed to the Congress one of the most successful and influential programs in the history of our Nation. It was on March 1, 1961, that President Kennedy asked the Congress to establish the Peace Corps. In making that request, President Kennedy pointed out that the program would be of great benefit to struggling nations that were in ``urgent need for skilled manpower.'' The program has helped meet that need as more than 187,000 volunteers have served in the Peace Corps since its inception, in 139 countries. President Kennedy also explained that the program would benefit developed nations as well. ``The future of freedom around the world,'' President Kennedy explained, ``depend[s], in a very real sense, on the ability to build growing and independent nations where men can live in dignity, liberated from the bonds of hunger, ignorance, and poverty.'' In pursuit of the Peace Corps mission of helping people help themselves throughout the world, Peace Corps volunteers have served as school teachers, economic development advisers, agricultural and environmental specialists, and in various capacities as skilled laborers. These dedicated Americans have helped developing nations with health and sanitation projects and have assisted them in increasing their agricultural production. They have helped these nations to combat diseases, including malaria and HIV/AIDS, that have, for too long, plagued underdeveloped nations. Because of the outstanding work of its volunteers, the Peace Corps has become an enduring symbol of the American commitment to freedom through the encouragement of the social, as well as the economic progress of all nations. And, in proposing the creation of the Peace Corps, President Kennedy forthrightly acknowledged that American self-interest was involved in the creation of the program. ``Our own young men and women,'' he explained, ``will be enriched by the [Peace Corps] experience . . . an experience which will aid them in their future careers.'' And it did. Members of the Senate, Senators Paul Tongas and Chris Dodd, came to this Chamber as Peace Corps veterans. My good friend and colleague from West Virginia, Senator Jay Rockefeller had worked for the Peace Corps in Washington, DC, where he served as the operations director for its largest overseas program in the Philippines. Members of my staff, like Zach Pusch, and even the mothers of members of my staff, like Mrs. Dorothy Corbin, have served in the Peace Corps. I have heard all of them, on a number of occasions, discuss how their lives and careers were enhanced by their service in the Peace Corps. Their experience in the Peace Corps inspired them to persevere in making this world a better and safer place in which to live, work, and raise families, long after they had left the program. It is through the Peace Corps that the dreams and the policies of the great and beloved President John F. Kennedy live on. On this 46th Anniversary of the Peace Corps, and in celebration of National Peace Corps Week, I want to congratulate everyone and anyone ever involved in this unique organization for your service to our country. And, I want to commend you for your efforts in promoting freedom around the world.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, more than 11 million cargo containers enter the United States each year. One hundred percent of the shipping manifests are screened to determine their risk. Approximately 17 to 19 percent of those containers determined to be high risk are examined by screening machines using xray or gamma ray technology, and only 5 percent of containers are physically opened and examined. This is not satisfactory. Clearly, much more needs to be done to increase the number of containers that are screened prior to entering this country. Only a more robust system will provide the deterrence necessary to make America safer. I have been a leader in the effort to provide additional funding to purchase screening equipment and hire the personnel to perform these inspections. Nevertheless, I voted to table the amendment of the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer. I believe we must set realistic goals. There is a process which has been set in place by the SAFE Port Act to get us to the ability to conduct 100 percent inspections. I will continue to do all in my power to provide the funds to ensure that we reach an achievable goal as rapidly as possible.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Let's hear something about the amendment.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator from Maine.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have the attached rules and subcommittee memberships for the 110th Congress printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, over 3,000 Americans are dead--dead, dead--and over 23,000 Americans are wounded as a result of the war in Iraq. Our military leaders say that our Armed Forces are stretched almost to the breaking point. We have spent almost $400 billion, and the number continues to go up, up, up. But the United States Senate is mired incredibly in a debate about the ability even to have a debate about our Nation's future course in Iraq. Surely, no one in this Senate can be so fearful of debate on a nonbinding resolution concerning the President's plan to send some 40,000 additional troops to Iraq that they fail to hear the voices of over 70 percent of the American people out there who now oppose our involvement in this war. But apparently some in the Senate are afraid of such a debate. Some of my colleagues have indicated that they will vote against the motion to proceed to debate on this straightforward resolution, which expresses disagreement with the President's plan. While our brave fighting men and women put their lives on the line in Iraq, this Senate stands paralyzed--paralyzed, paralyzed, I say. The United States Senate--the greatest deliberative body in the whole world--is probably the only place in this wonderful land of America where this debate is not--is not--taking place. How can some express unwavering support for the troops if they quake in the face of a debate about their safety? Our troops are stretched thin. They are weary after deployment and redeployment. Post-traumatic stress disorder and mental problems--yes--are rife in the troops. Lost limbs and physical mutilation have scarred many of these young people for life. Scores of families weep--yes, they weep--every night for their lost loved ones. And yet many in this Senate claim to support the troops, while those same many steadfastly refuse to debate an ill- advised escalation--yes, an ill-advised escalation--of this war which almost nobody but nobody supports. Can one claim support for the troops while acquiescing in a policy that only sinks our forces deeper into a civil war? Can any of us look in the mirror while we stonewall the concerns of the American people and engage in some political fandango to prevent discussion of our engagement in Iraq? Madam President, if it will help to bring our soldiers home, I will work every Saturday for the rest of this Congress. I will stand here, right here on this floor, of this Senate every day, 24 hours every day if it would mean one less family without a son or a daughter. Hear me.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for 2 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Nothing, I say to my friend. I would not see anything happen to the Senator's time.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, this is the most important issue facing America, the land of the free and the home of the brave, and I stand with my colleagues today to say enough, enough stalling, enough obfuscation. It is time for the people of America--yes, you people out there in the mountains, the valleys, and across the rivers, across the mountain ranges, yes, the great Rockies--you people, it is time for you to know where every Senator stands on this war. I will cast my vote with pride this afternoon, Madam President, in favor of proceeding to this debate, and I hope that every one of my colleagues joins me. I yield the floor and thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. I don't.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, how long may I be recognized for? Two minutes?

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank our distinguished friend from Illinois. And I thank my longtime friend from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy. I only rise to say that I have a binding resolution to bring our troops home. I hope to see the day when we may vote on my resolution to bring American troops home--home, home.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Right.

Mr. BYRD. Shame.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I just want to interpose a point here. I think I heard the Senator make reference to the majority leader having the right to fill the tree. No, he doesn't. He does not. He has the right if no other Senator seeks recognition. But once the majority makes a motion or sends an amendment to the desk, at that second he loses the floor until the Chair states its business, and while he has lost the floor, another Senator can seek recognition. I merely make the point the majority leader does not have ``the right.'' No other Senator has ``the right'' to fill the tree. If other Senators do not intervene, then of course he will fill it.