Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 20, 2009, at 10 a.m. in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``S. 1631, the Customs Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2009.''

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 20, 2009, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``The State of the Nation's Housing Market.''

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until the hour of 2:15 p.m. today.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as we complete the debate today on the fiscal year 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations bill, I again thank the very able Senator from Ohio, George Voinovich, the ranking member, for his many contributions to this bipartisan legislation. I thank all Senators. This conference report provides the Department of Homeland Security with the resources it needs to succeed in its critical missions. I urge support for the conference report. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the junior Senator from South Carolina earlier raised concerns about dropping his amendment concerning the fence on the southwest border. He asserted that the decision to drop the language was made behind closed doors. To be clear, the conference met in public session on October 7 during the full light of day. As to the DeMint amendment, I fully support the goal of the amendment that was offered by the Senator from South Carolina. I am one of the strongest proponents in the Senate of securing our southwest border. That is why I supported legislation in 2006 to build the fence. I have led the effort to increase border security and immigration enforcement efforts. However, the amendment that was offered by the able Senator from South Carolina is too prescriptive and too costly. Instead, in conference I worked to provide real resources to secure our borders. The conference agreement before the Senate today sustains the bipartisan congressional effort begun by the Byrd amendment to the fiscal year 2005 supplemental and continued in the fiscal year 2006- 2009 appropriations acts to provide substantial increases in border security and immigration enforcement. The number of Border Patrol agents has increased from 11,264 to a level of 20,019 agents, by the end of this year. Under this agreement, the conferees added over $21 million above the request to hire an additional 144 agents. There will be 20,163 agents onboard at the end of fiscal year 2010. Similarly, the number of detention beds has increased in the same time period from 18,500 beds to 33,400 beds. The agreement fully funds 33,400 detention beds and includes statutory language to maintain that level of bed space throughout the fiscal year. The agreement also adds $25 million to the President's request of $112 million to expand the capacity of the E-Verify Program and increases its compliance rate. The miles of fencing that have been constructed have increased from 119 miles in 2006 to more than 629 miles. The number of miles of the southwest border that are under ``effective control,'' as determined by the Border Patrol, has grown from 241 miles to almost 700 miles this year. That is an increase of almost 80 miles since the end of the last fiscal year. More than 655 miles of border fence will be complete in early 2010. The agreement provides $800 million or $25 million above 2009 for the deployment of additional sensors, cameras, and other technology on the southwest border. Since beginning major border fence and security construction along the southwest border in fiscal year 2007, when combined with the $800 million in this bill and the $100 million provided in the Recovery Act, nearly $4.1 billion--spelled with a ``b''--nearly $4.1 billion has been appropriated for this purpose. That $4.1 billion is a lot of money, a lot of money. That is $4.10 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born the way I figure it. However, it is estimated it could cost $8.5 billion to construct the additional fencing required by the Senator's amendment. That is money we do not have. The conference report strongly supports all aspects, all aspects of border security and immigration enforcement, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

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

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

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I speak today in support of the conference report providing appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2010. I especially wish to thank my ranking member, Senator George Voinovich, for his cooperation in producing the agreement that is now before the Senate. It has been 8 years--8 long years--since the attacks of 9/11. There are some people in this country who have become complacent about the threat of another attack. Don't count me as one of them. I am not one of those people. There have been numerous terrorist attacks around the globe, including the London, Madrid, and Mumbai bombings. Just last month, a Denver man was indicted on a charge of conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction. Where? In New York City. So we must continue to be vigilant. Nor can we be complacent about Mother Nature's power to wreak havoc with a major earthquake, flood, or hurricane, meaning that such disaster relief will require the funding provided in this bill. This year, I have set five goals for the Homeland Security Department, five goals that I trust we all share. What are they? No. 1, to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws. No. 2, to protect the American people--your people, my people, the American people--from terrorist threats. No. 3, to prepare for and respond to all disasters, both manmade and natural. No. 4, to support our State, local, tribal, and private sector partners with resources and information. No. 5, to give the Department of Homeland Security the management tools it needs to succeed. I believe the conference report we are presenting today meets those goals. Funding for the Department of Homeland Security totals $42.8 billion. Do you know how much money that is? That is $42.80 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. That is a lot of money. It is an increase of $2.65 billion over 2009. Again, I thank my friend, the very able Senator George Voinovich, the ranking member, for his notable contributions to this legislation. I thank Senator Daniel Inouye and Senator Thad Cochran, the chairman and the vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I also thank our able majority and minority staff who have worked together to produce this legislation. Let me name them: Charles Kieffer, Chip Walgren, Scott Nance, Drenan Dudley, Christa Thompson, Rebecca Davies, Carol Cribbs, and Arex Avanni. Madam President, I thank all Senators, and I urge support for the conference report.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining time in morning business be yielded back.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, few subjects weigh more heavily upon a President of the United States than the decision to send America's sons and daughters into war. Such a commitment demands the clearest of clear thinking, including a thoroughly dispassionate assessment of goals-- objectives, in other words--risks and strategies. This is difficult, very difficult terrain for any American President, especially when faced with conflicting views from advisers, from Congress, and from the American public. I have become deeply concerned that in the 8 years since the September 11 attacks, the reason for the military mission of the United States in Afghanistan has become lost, consumed in some broader scheme of nation building, which has clouded our purpose and obscured our reasoning. General McChrystal, our current military commander in Afghanistan, has requested 30,000 to 40,000 additional American troops to bolster the more than 65,000 American troops already there. I am not clear as to his reasons and I have many questions. What does General McChrystal actually aim to achieve? So I am compelled to ask: Does it take 100,000 U.S. troops to find Osama bin Laden? If al-Qaida has moved to Pakistan, what will these troops in Afghanistan add to the effort to defeat al-Qaida? What is meant by the term ``defeat'' in the parlance of conventional military aims when facing a shadowy, global terrorist network? And what of this number 100,000? Does the number 100,000 troops include support personnel? Does it include government civilians? Does it include defense and security contractors? How many contractors are already there in Afghanistan? How much more will this cost? How much in terms of dollars? How much in terms of American blood? Will the international community step up to the plate and bear a greater share of the burden? There are some in Congress who talk about limiting the number of additional troops until we surge--where have I heard that word before-- until we ``surge to train'' more Afghan defense forces. That sounds a lot like fence straddling to me. I suggest we might better refocus our efforts on al-Qaida and reduce U.S. participation in nation building in Afghanistan. Let me say that again. I suggest we might better refocus--in other words, take another look--our efforts on al-Qaida and reduce U.S. participation in nation building in Afghanistan. Given the lack of popularity and integrity of the current Afghan Government, what guarantee is there that additional Afghan troops and equipment will not produce an even larger and better armed hostile force? Let me ask that question again. Given the lack of popularity and integrity of the current Afghan Government, what guarantee is there that additional Afghan troops and equipment will not produce an even larger and better armed hostile force? There is no guarantee. The lengthy presence of foreign troops in a sovereign country almost always creates resentment and resistance among the native population. I am relieved to hear President Obama acknowledge that there has been mission creep in Afghanistan, and I am pleased to hear the President express skepticism about sending more troops into Afghanistan unless needed to achieve our primary goal of disrupting al-Qaida. I remain concerned that Congress may yet succumb to military and international agendas. General Petraeus and General McChrystal both seem to have bought into the nation-building mission. By supporting a nationwide counterinsurgency and nation-building strategy, I believe they have certainly lost sight of America's primary strategic objective; namely, to disrupt and defang--in other words, pull the teeth right out of the bone. I believe they certainly have lost sight of America's primary strategic objective to disrupt and defang al-Qaida and protect the American people--protect the American people--from future attack. President Obama and the Congress must--I do not say ``should,'' I say ``must''--reassess and refocus on our original and most important objective; namely, emasculating--I mean tearing it out by the roots-- emasculating a terrorist network that has proved its ability to inflict harm, where? On the United States. If more troops are required to support the international mission in Afghanistan, then the international community should step up and provide the additional forces and funding. The United States is already supplying a disproportionate number of combat assets for that purpose. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, on August 25, a towering figure on our national political landscape left us. Edward Moore Kennedy succumbed to a malignant brain tumor after an 18-month battle for his life. As I look now at his desk, draped with black cloth and covered with flowers, I still have difficulty believing that he is gone. My ebullient Irish-to- the-core friend has departed this life forever. How bleakly somber. How utterly final. How totally unlike Ted Kennedy in life. Ted Kennedy in life was a force of nature--a cheerful, inquisitive, caring man, who never accepted somberness for long or the finality of anything. His energetic adherence to perseverance, his plain dogged determination, his ability to rise from the ashes of whatever new horrific event accosted him, always with grace, and usually with a liberal dose of humor, were his trademarks. It was almost as if Ted Kennedy were at the top of his form when coping with adversity. Life itself inspired him. He believed that life was a contact sport, but that it should never be played without joy in the game itself. That is how he saw politics as well. Ted Kennedy and I were friends and, yet, we were the oddest of odd couples. He was the scion of a wealthy and storied family. I am a coal miner's son who had no bottom rungs in my ladder. In earlier years we were rivals. What Ted and I discovered, though, was that somehow we had many things in common--a love of history; an affection for poetry; a fondness for dogs; a commitment to the less fortunate in our society. Many will speak of Ted's stunning Senate career, his huge and lasting impact on our culture, his domination of the political scene for so many, many decades. By all means, let us never forget Ted Kennedy's extraordinary contribution to this great country. It is largely unmatched. But I will especially cherish the personal side of this big man, with his infectious laugh, his booming voice, and his passion for the things and the people that he cared about. I will remember the dog lover who brought Sunny and Splash to my office to visit. I will recall a considerate friend who sent dozens of roses to mark my wedding anniversary or a special birthday. I will again enjoy a very special recitation of the ``Midnight Ride of Paul Revere.'' By habit, I shall immediately look for Ted Kennedy whenever I enter this Chamber. In a thousand ways large and small he will simply be deeply, deeply missed. My heart goes out to his steadfast wife Vickie and to his wonderful family. His spirit surely lives on in all of you. Not long ago, I picked up a book of poetry which Ted Kennedy had given to me in July of 1996. It bore this inscription: ``To Bob, the master of our legislative poetry who has already left so many extraordinary Footprints on the Sands of Time.'' After that, Ted had written, ``See page 371.'' I close with a few stanzas from ``a Psalm of Life'' on page 371 of Ted's gift to me: Life is real! Life is earnest! And the grave is not its goal; Dust thou art, to dust returnest, Was not spoken of the soul. . . . . Lives of great men all remind us We can make our lives sublime, And, departing, leave behind us Footprints on the sands of time; Footprints, that perhaps another, Sailing o'er life's solemn main, A forlorn and shipwrecked brother, Seeing, shall take heart again. Let us, then, be up and doing, With a heart for any fate; Still achieving, still pursuing, Learn to labor and to wait.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the U.S. Senate is an institution that reveres precedent, continuity, and tradition. Ours is an institution that prides itself on the great men and women who preceded us in this Chamber, and the role this institution has played in protecting our Nation, and in making our Nation a better place in which to live, work, and raise families. This is an institution that prides itself on its history. Therefore, it is important that the Senate have an official historian, along with an Historical Office to document our history, and supervise the management of the records of the Senate as an institution, of Senate committees, and of individual Senators. For the past 34 years, the Senate has been fortunate, perhaps I should say we have been blessed, to have Dr. Richard Baker as the Senate Historian. Unfortunately for us, he is now leaving his position as Senate Historian, so I must say farewell. This is a most reluctant and sad farewell. While I am pleased that Dr. Baker will now have the time and opportunity to pursue other endeavors, such as spending more time with his wife and other family members, as well as completing some manuscripts he has been working on, I must say that I am truly sorry to see him leave. In the preface of volume two of my four-volume history of the Senate, I pointed out that, ``This work in its present form would not have been possible without the assistance of the professionals within the Senate historical office,'' which, of course, was headed by Dr. Baker. My little acknowledgment hardly begins to convey the debt of my gratitude to him for his assistance in that project. Researching and writing that four-volume history took more than a decade, and during that 10-year period, whenever I went to him for assistance, whether for help in research or writing or just thinking about how I wanted to present a certain idea, he always went above and beyond the call of duty. He was always there, ready and eager to help. I will never forget how, time after time, he would simply say, ``Senator, I'll be delighted to help.'' He was always ready to help, although he was responsible to 99 other Senators, and had so many other responsibilities and functions. Since the office was created in 1975, following the Watergate scandal, Dr. Baker, the Senate's first and only historian, has ensured that the history of the Senate is properly collected, categorized, maintained, and preserved. In addition, he has advised Senators on how to manage their personal papers while they are here, and how to preserve them once they leave office, and has advised Senate committees on the transfer of their records to the National Archives. Charged with maintaining an objective and thorough record of the institution, his office has collected information on important Senate events, and traced the background and the evolution of Senate rules, precedents and countless activities. In a multitude of ways, through the publications that his office issues, in talks with Senators and our staffs, and in private consultations, Dr. Baker has provided Senators with a better understanding and appreciation of the U.S. Senate, and its importance and its role under the Constitution. His office has reminded us on a daily basis of the majesty, the uniqueness, and the greatness of our institution. His office has undertaken its very important work objectively and without political motivation or slant. It always remained a completely nonpartisan office. As a result, Dr. Baker earned the respect as well as the gratitude of Senators on both sides of the aisle. This explains why, even with the many changes in the Senate during his tenure as Senate Historian, including changes in Senate leaders and party control, no one has even considered any change in the Senate Historical Office. Because of his careful and methodical work in collecting the history of the Senate, I can safely predict that the work of his office will be vital to future historians. Years from now, when most of us are long gone--from the Senate, that is--historians will be using the records his office has compiled and the documents his office has produced, to write their histories of the Senate--and for that we will all be grateful. I congratulate and I thank Dr. Baker for the marvelous work he has done. I wish him and his lovely wife Pat nothing but much happiness, great success, and the best of health as they embark on the next phase of their lives.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I draw the attention of the Senate to a bill I recently introduced, S. 1529, the Executive Accountability Act of 2009. This legislation is similar to H.R. 473, introduced in the House of Representatives in January by Mr. Jones of North Carolina. ``Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.'' That is Santayana's Law of Repetitive Consequences, and it is the reason I introduced this legislation--that we might learn from history so that we do not repeat it. The Executive Accountability Act certainly addresses lessons learned from the debate leading to the Iraq conflict, but it is also a lesson we should have learned, and should have corrected, as a result of executive branch actions leading to and during the Vietnam conflict, World War II, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War and other points in our history when Presidents have distorted the facts, withheld critical information, or exaggerated circumstances in order to sway public opinion and congressional will. History is replete with examples that know no partisan allegiance. Presidents from both parties have fallen into the trap of inflating fear and distorting facts, if not resorting to outright fabrication, in order to win approval for or justify using military force. Democratic President Lyndon Johnson misled Congress during the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964, publicly announcing that a second attack had occurred. On the same day, however, a naval commander in the Gulf of Tonkin cabled that a review of the second attack was doubtful, calling for a complete evaluation before any further action was taken. Without the complete facts, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, leading the United States in to a war that ultimately took more than 55,000 American lives. Republican President Richard Nixon expanded the Vietnam conflict in 1969 by authorizing bombing operations in Cambodia and directing that they be conducted clandestinely. Operational reports of the bombings were either not made or were falsely described as having occurred over South Vietnam rather than Cambodia. A few Members of Congress were informed, secretly, of the bombings, but the remainder of Congress was deceived about the secret bombing campaign over a nation with which the United States was not at war. Most recently, of course, another President, his Vice President, and other Cabinet officials, used scare-mongering tales of ``smoking guns'' and ``mushroom clouds''; of nonexistent weapons of mass destruction; dubious tales of mobile biological laboratories; fictional African trips to buy yellowcake; and, improbable and unsupported rumors of alliances between dictators and terrorists to stampede a fearful nation and a spineless Congress into a so-called ``preemptive'' invasion of another sovereign nation. President Abraham Lincoln, an opponent of the Mexican-American War during his service in the House of Representatives, well understood the dangers of preemptive war and the need for the constitutional check on executive power inherent in the requirement for a congressional declaration of war or an authorization to use military force. Lincoln condemned President Polk for driving the U.S. into war with Mexico by putting U.S. forces in danger on disputed territory. Polk then inflamed public and congressional anger by asserting that Mexican soldiers had shed U.S. blood on U.S. soil. Lincoln explained his concerns with his usual eloquence: Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose--and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, ``I see no probability of the British invading us,'' but he will say to you, ``be silent; I see it, if you don't.'' Lincoln went on to say, The provision in the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood. Lincoln's insight considered preemptive wars only against neighbors. One can only imagine what he would think of the global reach that the current military might of the United States gives to an unfettered executive. One can only wonder if Lincoln would think the ``good of the people'' has been served by a war that has climbed to more than $845 billion in direct costs, with a total cost to the U.S. economy estimated by some to be more than $3 trillion. What good has been served that is worth the more than 4,000 U.S. combat deaths and more than 31,000 U.S. casualties? S. 1529 is a simple piece of legislation that applies only in the most limited but most important intergovernmental communications--the warmaking power. It prohibits the President, Vice President, and other executive branch officials from deliberately misleading Congress in an effort to persuade the Congress to authorize the use of force by the Armed Forces of the United States. Officials are not prohibited from being wrong or having incomplete facts, but they may not knowingly and willfully falsify, conceal, or cover up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or make any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation. They may not make or use any false writing or document that they know to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement. If the Congress finds that it has been deceived or lied to, the official can be referred to the Attorney General by either House of Congress for investigation and judicial action, if warranted. The Executive Accountability Act is limited to executive branch officials only, and only with regard to lying to Congress and only about decisions on the use of force. Therefore, its penalties are unlikely to inhibit the normal flow of intergovernmental communications by creating a fear that any statement made before Congress might result in the threat of prosecution. To those who say that there are already laws that prohibit individuals from making false statements to Congress, rendering the Executive Accountability Act unnecessary, I urge them to read the history of the False Statements Act, section 1001 of Title 18, U.S. Code. In 1995, the Supreme Court ruled in Hubbard v. United States that section 1001 covered only false statements made to the executive branch, not to the judiciary or to Congress. Congress then moved to reverse the ruling by legislating changes to section 1001 in 1996. However, that bill, as enacted, applies only to administrative matters within Congress and any investigation or review conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress. The Executive Accountability Act clarifies the requirement for honest testimony and discussion with the Congress about the most important question debated by Congress and provided by the most authoritative officials of the government. The Framers were absolutely clear about the warmaking power: they gave the President the authority to lead troops after war was declared and to repel invasions of the United States, but only the Congress could authorize the use of force--the ability to send troops into battle. The Framers were well aware of the dangers inherent in vesting the warmaking decision with a single executive, having the history of the world's kings and emperors as their foundation. Our recent history has shown us that a powerful and persuasive executive can, and too often has, used his command of the intelligence and information gathering and dispensing functions of government to paint a distorted picture designed to frighten and sway Congress into ceding even more power to him. Presidents of all political parties have shown themselves to be equally susceptible to the lure of absolute power, making the Executive Accountability Act a non-partisan solution to a deep-seated problem. S. 1529 restores balance to the system of checks and balances by reinforcing the role of Congress in decisions to use force. Congress does not have millions of civil servants working for it. It does not have its own intelligence community or its own diplomatic corps. Congress must rely upon the executive branch for those missions and for the product of those missions. So Congress must be confident that the information it receives is complete and factual--particularly when that information is used to inform a decision to commit U.S. troops and U.S. treasure to any foreign battlefield. Testimony and communications from the White House and the executive branch must be reliable--not fictional, not distorted, not embellished, not cherry-picked for the purpose of supporting only the decisional outcomes desired by the President. I urge my colleagues to support S. 1529. It is not retroactive. It will not reach back to affect any statements made by previous administrations. We can learn from the past, make this necessary correction, and move into the future with greater assurance that the most difficult and consequential decisions made by Congress--those involving the use of military force--will be made on the basis of open and frank discussion based on all of the facts.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to reauthorize the Appalachian Development Highway System. This network of highways and corridors, known as the ADHS, was designed to provide access to and from communities in Appalachia. The concept of the ADHS was born 45 years ago. It was, and is, an important promise made by the Federal Government to the people of my State and the rest of Appalachia. I thank the cosponsors of my bill: Senators Rockefeller, Casey, and Webb, and I look forward to working with Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Boxer to have my legislation included in the next highway reauthorization. While serving in the House of Representatives, I cast my vote in favor of establishing the Interstate Highway System back in 1958. I have had a long history of advancing the cause of our Nation's highway systems and of emphasizing the immense economic and safety benefits that come with the improvement of all surface transportation. The ADHS's inception was in 1964, when it was recognized by the first Appalachian Regional Commission that, while the Interstate Highway System would provide historic economic benefits to most of our Nation, the system was designed to bypass the Appalachian region. This was primarily due to the difficulties involved in building roads upon Appalachia's beautiful, but very rugged topography. Absent the Appalachian Development Highway System, my State, as well as the whole of the Appalachian region, would have been left solely with a transportation infrastructure of dangerous, narrow, winding roads which follow the paths of river valleys and stream beds, winding around mountains and hills. Thus, the limited access to these regions has tended to stifle economic opportunities for countless communities--a problem that still exists all these years later. In addition to the Federal Government's responsibility to keep the promise made decades ago to the people of Appalachia, new benefits-- benefits to the entire Nation--have evolved because of the ADHS. In a recent economic analysis conducted by the Appalachian Regional Commission, the study found that completion of the ADHS will result in significant reductions in travel time for personal, business, and long- distance freight trips. By 2020, the aggregate savings in travel time is estimated to be over 67 million hours, 240,000 hours daily of travel time saved, and grow to almost 180 million hours of reduced travel time by 2035. ADHS corridor improvements will produce significant monetized travel benefits to individuals and businesses both within and outside the ARC region. Total user benefits--travel time, fuel and non-fuel operating costs, and safety--are estimated to be $1.3 billion in 2020, the year of system completion, and grow to $4.3 billion by 2035. Over half the benefit is expected to accrue to business-related travel--commodity- based truck flows, local nonfreight truck trips, and on-the-clock auto trips. The reason for the existence of the Appalachian Development Highway System is no less valid today than when it was established in 1964. The benefits of completion of the ADHS are twofold: continue to make inroads into isolated communities, and address and alleviate an already overly burdened Interstate Highway System. Unfortunately, there are still children in Appalachia who lack decent transportation routes to local schools. There are thousands upon thousands of people who cannot obtain sustainable, well-paying jobs because of poor transportation access to major employment centers. Some of the most beautiful places in the country are in Appalachia, but for tourism to thrive, Americans must be able to actually get to these beautiful destinations. It is time for this Congress, in concert with the administration, to take the last great leap forward and to authorize sufficient contract authority to finally complete the Appalachian Development Highway System. The legislation I am introducing today will provide sufficient contract authority to complete the system, and the completion of the system will provide additional economic opportunities, safer modes of travel, and ease the strain on our current transportation infrastructure.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to reauthorize the Appalachian Development Highway System. This network of highways and corridors, known as the ADHS, was designed to provide access to and from communities in Appalachia. The concept of the ADHS was born 45 years ago. It was, and is, an important promise made by the Federal Government to the people of my State and the rest of Appalachia. I thank the cosponsors of my bill: Senators Rockefeller, Casey, and Webb, and I look forward to working with Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Boxer to have my legislation included in the next highway reauthorization. While serving in the House of Representatives, I cast my vote in favor of establishing the Interstate Highway System back in 1958. I have had a long history of advancing the cause of our Nation's highway systems and of emphasizing the immense economic and safety benefits that come with the improvement of all surface transportation. The ADHS's inception was in 1964, when it was recognized by the first Appalachian Regional Commission that, while the Interstate Highway System would provide historic economic benefits to most of our Nation, the system was designed to bypass the Appalachian region. This was primarily due to the difficulties involved in building roads upon Appalachia's beautiful, but very rugged topography. Absent the Appalachian Development Highway System, my State, as well as the whole of the Appalachian region, would have been left solely with a transportation infrastructure of dangerous, narrow, winding roads which follow the paths of river valleys and stream beds, winding around mountains and hills. Thus, the limited access to these regions has tended to stifle economic opportunities for countless communities--a problem that still exists all these years later. In addition to the Federal Government's responsibility to keep the promise made decades ago to the people of Appalachia, new benefits-- benefits to the entire Nation--have evolved because of the ADHS. In a recent economic analysis conducted by the Appalachian Regional Commission, the study found that completion of the ADHS will result in significant reductions in travel time for personal, business, and long- distance freight trips. By 2020, the aggregate savings in travel time is estimated to be over 67 million hours, 240,000 hours daily of travel time saved, and grow to almost 180 million hours of reduced travel time by 2035. ADHS corridor improvements will produce significant monetized travel benefits to individuals and businesses both within and outside the ARC region. Total user benefits--travel time, fuel and non-fuel operating costs, and safety--are estimated to be $1.3 billion in 2020, the year of system completion, and grow to $4.3 billion by 2035. Over half the benefit is expected to accrue to business-related travel--commodity- based truck flows, local nonfreight truck trips, and on-the-clock auto trips. The reason for the existence of the Appalachian Development Highway System is no less valid today than when it was established in 1964. The benefits of completion of the ADHS are twofold: continue to make inroads into isolated communities, and address and alleviate an already overly burdened Interstate Highway System. Unfortunately, there are still children in Appalachia who lack decent transportation routes to local schools. There are thousands upon thousands of people who cannot obtain sustainable, well-paying jobs because of poor transportation access to major employment centers. Some of the most beautiful places in the country are in Appalachia, but for tourism to thrive, Americans must be able to actually get to these beautiful destinations. It is time for this Congress, in concert with the administration, to take the last great leap forward and to authorize sufficient contract authority to finally complete the Appalachian Development Highway System. The legislation I am introducing today will provide sufficient contract authority to complete the system, and the completion of the system will provide additional economic opportunities, safer modes of travel, and ease the strain on our current transportation infrastructure.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Sunday is Father's Day. The third Sunday in June is a lovely time of year, and a perfect time for any celebration. This year, it is also the first day of summer--the best day of summer, before the weather is too hot, before bugs mar the beauty of fresh green leaves and weeds threaten to smother the garden, before we are tired of marveling at the smooth green of a freshly mown lawn. On this Sunday, we thank both our heavenly Father and our earthly father for all that is good and strong and vibrantly beautiful in our lives. Although scientists say that some smells can trigger strong memories, I think that there are certain sounds that many people instantly associate with fathers. The keening whine of a power tool, the droning buzz of a lawn mower on a Saturday morning, the grunt and clank of tools in tight places, the quiet scrape of a razor over a stubbled chin, the slow tread of a tired man coming home in the evening, or even the nighttime chorus of snores--these are the everyday sounds of fathers that provide the quiet sounds during a peaceful childhood. Other father sounds may have occurred less frequently, but still trigger their own quick smiles of recall--the slap of a baseball into a worn glove, perhaps, or the gentle splash of a fishing lure hitting the water, that remind us of pastimes enjoyed together. On Sunday, fathers will be feted with brunches or barbeques. They may open a few gifts and some funny cards. Mother's Day might warrant more sentimentality, but Father's Day seems to call for a more humorous approach--perhaps so that fathers will not be embarrassed by any teary- eyed show of emotion. It is enough, for many fathers, to get a card at all, and to have all the attention focused on him. Most fathers are not much given to displays of emotion or sentimental speeches. A father's love is expressed through his presence and the endless labor that he expends to care for his family. His love is expressed through his actions, and all the sounds that accompany them. My own Dad was a quiet man, but he saved his cake from lunch to give to me. He listened attentively to my recitations and my fiddle playing, and he made sure that I had paper and pencils to draw with as a child. Without words, he showed me how much he cared. An untitled poem by an unknown poet captures the unspoken love that fathers find easier to express: Fathers seldom say, ``I love you'' Though the feeling's always there, But somehow those three little words Are the hardest ones to share. And fathers say, ``I love you'' In ways that words can't match-- With tender bedtime stories-- Or a friendly game of catch! You can see the words ``I love you'' In a father's boyish eyes When he runs home, all excited, With a poorly wrapped surprise. A father says, ``I love you'' With his strong helping hands-- With a smile when you're in trouble With the way he understands. He says, ``I love you'' haltingly, With awkward tenderness-- (It's hard to help a four-year-old into a party dress!) He speaks his love unselfishly By giving all he can To make some secret dream come true, Or follow through a plan. A father's seldom-spoken love Sounds clearly through the years-- Sometimes in peals of laughter, Sometimes through happy tears. Perhaps they have to speak their love In a fashion all their own. Because the love that fathers feel Is too big for words alone! Mr. President, we can all remember times in our own lives when our fathers let us know that they were proud of us. We remember the words of praise, the thumbs up, the smile or simply his quiet presence at some long ago event. An occasion was important, if our father made the time to be there. This Sunday is our chance to return the favor and make the occasion important for him, by our presence at brunch, or by the grill, or on the phone. He will appreciate the effort, even if he may find it difficult to show just how much it means to him.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on June 20, 1863, West Virginia became the 35th State in our great Union. This coming Saturday, West Virginia will celebrate those 146 years of statehood, so I say, ``Happy Birthday, West Virginia!'' I might also add, `` and many more!'' It is a happy day. West Virginians will celebrate the State's birthday in many different ways. In the myriad State parks and forests, special programs may be enjoyed amid the majestic scenery, views of endless, rolling hills, and rushing, tumbling white water with which the Creator has blessed us. At the Haddad Riverfront Park in Charleston, an outdoor concert will entertain the crowds with music and fun. Blenko Glass, in Milton, has produced another stunning artwork in molten, hand blown glass in honor of West Virginia Day. Across the State, local arts festivals and historic reenactments will celebrate the history and talents of West Virginia. West Virginia Day is a wonderful day to celebrate all that is unique about our great State. Of her 55 counties, 47 were named after notable individuals. Some counties derive their names from Revolutionary War heroes like Francis Marion and the Marquis de Lafayette. Others are named after U.S. Presidents and Vice Presidents, including Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, and Grant; or notable politicians such as Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky. Just three county names reference the State's English heritage--Hampshire County, named after the county in England; Berkeley County, named after the Royal Governor of Virginia, Norborne Berkeley; and Raleigh County, named after the English explorer Sir Walter Raleigh. Several counties are named after prominent Virginians, reflective of West Virginia's origins as a part of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Still other county names commemorating frontiersmen like Daniel Boone and Lewis Wetzel remind us of West Virginia's time at the fringes of the American union, when the Nation was still young and growing. Counties named after Native Americans like the Mingo Chief Logan, Powhatan princess Pocahontas, and the Mingo tribe, however, speak to West Virginia's even earlier history. Five county names celebrate natural features like rivers or the minerals that are West Virginia's great natural treasure. The stories of all these people, places, and things help to tell the history of West Virginia. It is a rich, complex and fascinating tale full of hope and hardship, triumph and tragedy. From the Native Americans who lived and hunted these rich woodlands, to the hearty settlers who built new lives in the hollows and along the rivers, West Virginia is full of unwritten history marked only by trails, mounds, campsites, and old homesteads. Modern history is built of soft red brick and bright limestone, iron rail lines and asphalt highways painstakingly carved through the hills. Every county is full of scenic drives, history, natural wonders, beautiful handcrafted goods and foods, and--most of all--welcoming people. Throughout her history, the State's motto has shone through: ``Mountaineers are always free.'' West Virginians value grit and hard work put forth by individuals. Populated by hardworking families and individuals, West Virginians also value their close-knit communities. You can see that spirit whenever natural disasters bring neighbors together to work together in the aftermath of storm or flood. The same friendly atmosphere fills the many festivals and celebrations held throughout the State virtually every weekend. I urge those listening to come and explore West Virginia. We are closer than you think, but thanks to the mountains that have shaped our history, still quiet and unspoiled. I know that I may be a little bit biased, but West Virginia is my favorite State, full of never ending variety and great beauty in every season. From the colonial and Civil War history in the eastern panhandle's Harper's Ferry and Berkeley Springs, to the whitewater adventures offered on the Gauley and other rivers, West Virginia offers something for every taste. You can sample true luxury at the Greenbrier resort or ski and snowboard in the Canaan Valley. You can hunt game or the works of great artisans; listen to bluegrass music or to the wind blowing through the trees. West Virginia has been waiting for you for 146 years--come and celebrate with her.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, our flag is the most recognizable symbol of the United States, an instant wordless message freighted with history and meaning. The Stars and Stripes is much more than a war banner. Each flag carries visions of smoke-clouded battles, to be sure, but also visions of brave explorers venturing into new lands, astronauts landing on the moon, athletes celebrating Olympic victories, and of coffins carried on somber caissons to a final honored resting place. Old Glory also marks every great American moment, from presidential inaugurations that celebrate the peaceful transition of power in our democracy to the defiant unfurling of flags over the battered ruins of the Pentagon and the Twin Towers. June 14 is Flag Day. Although flags fly every day in front of many Federal, State and local office buildings every day, and many flags are displayed on other holidays such as the Fourth of July, Memorial Day, and Veterans Day, only on Flag Day do we honor the flag itself. The first national observance of Flag Day was in 1877, though it was not until 1949 that President Truman signed into law legislation recognizing the anniversary of the adoption, on June 14, 1777, by the Continental Congress, of the Stars and Stripes as the official flag of the United States. In earlier years, much more was done to mark the occasion of Flag Day. Schools educated students on the rituals and principles of citizenship, and held patriotic programs to honor the flag. These days, it is enough to mark the day by flying the flag. I hope that many Americans will do so, and do it properly--hoisting the flag up smartly, bringing it down reverently, and folding it away again properly. Once it is up and flapping in the breeze, take just a moment to admire it, or to say the Pledge of Allegiance. On June 14, 1777, a congressional committee established the design of our flag in a few short words. The record notes simply that ``. . . the flag of the thirteen United States be thirteen stripes alternate red and white; that the union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new constellation.'' In the years since, the number of stars in that constellation has expanded, but the brave ideals that it represents--that all men were created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness--shine as true today as they have since 1776. Our flag is a symbol that goes well beyond the cloth out of which it is fashioned. It is America, and long may it wave. I close with a favorite poem of mine, by Henry Holcomb Bennett, that I like to recite on Flag Day. It never fails to stir my spirits, as I hope it does for those listening. The Flag Goes By (By Henry Holcomb Bennett) Hats off! Along the street there comes A blare of bugles, a ruffle of drums, A flash of color beneath the sky: Hats off! The flag is passing by! Blue and crimson and white it shines, Over the steel-tipped, ordered lines. Hats off! The colors before us fly; But more than the flag is passing by. Sea-fights and land-fights, grim and great, Fought to make and to save the State: Weary marches and sinking ships; Cheers of victory on dying lips; Days of plenty and years of peace; March of a strong land's swift increase; Equal justice, right, and law, Stately honor and reverend awe; Sign of a nation, great and strong Toward her people from foreign wrong: Pride and glory and honor,--all Live in the colors to stand or fall. Hats off! Along the street there comes A blare of bugles, a ruffle of drums; And loyal hearts are beating high: Hats off! The Flag is passing by!

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I like this budget. I support many of the policies that the President's budget embraces including middle-class tax relief, and badly needed investments in our Nation's infrastructure but I cannot, and I will not, vote to authorize the use of the reconciliation process to expedite passage of health care reform legislation or any other legislative proposal that ought to be debated at length by this body. Using reconciliation to ram through complicated, far-reaching legislation is an abuse of the budget process. The writers of the Budget Act, and I am one, never intended for its reconciliation's expedited procedures to be used this way. These procedures were narrowly tailored for deficit reduction. They were never intended to be used to pass tax cuts or to create new Federal regimes. Additionally, reconciliation measures must comply with section 313 of the Budget Act, known as the Byrd Rule, which means that whatever health legislation is reported from the Finance Committee or legislation from any other committee that is shoe-horned into reconciliation will sunset after 5 years. Additionally, numerous other nonbudgetary provisions of any such legislation will have to be omitted under reconciliation. This is a very messy way to achieve a goal like health care reform, and one that will make crafting the legislation more difficult. Whatever abuses of the budget reconciliation process which have occurred in the past, or however many times the process has been twisted to achieve partisan ends does not justify the egregious violation done to the Senate's constitutional purpose. The Senate has a unique institutional role. It is the one place in all of government where the rights of the numerical minority are protected. As long as the Senate preserves the right to debate and the right to amend we hold true to our role as the Framers envisioned. We were to be the cooling off place where proposals could be examined carefully and debated extensively, so that flaws might be discovered and changes might be made. Remember, Democrats will not always control this Chamber, the House of Representatives or the White House. The worm will turn. Some day the other party will again be in the majority, and we will want minority rights to be shielded from the beartrap of the reconciliation process. Under reconciliation's gag rule there are 20 hours of debate or less if time is yielded back, and little or no opportunity to amend. Those restrictions mean that whatever is nailed into reconciliation by the majority will likely emerge as the final product. With critical matters such as a massive revamping of our health care system which will impact the lives of every citizen of our great land, the Senate has a duty to debate and amend and explain in the full light of day, however long that may take, what it is we propose, and why we propose it. The citizens who sent us here deserve that explanation and they should demand it. We must not run roughshod over minority views. A minority can be right. An amendment can vastly improve legislation. Debate can expose serious flaws. Ramrodding and railroading have no place when it comes to such matters as our people's healthcare. The President came to the White House promising a bipartisan government because he knew how sick and tired the American public is of scorched earth politics. I daresay President Obama should not be in favor of the destruction of the institutional purpose of this Senate in which he served any more than he would bless a rigged psuedo-debate on healthcare, completely absent minority input. While I support the admirable budget priorities outlined in this resolution, I cannot and will not condone legislation that puts political expediency ahead of the time-honored purpose of this institution.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Yes, yes.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee and his staff for their hard work on this year's budget resolution. I regret, however, that the discretionary spending level is less than President Obama's request. The Obama administration, to its great credit, recognizes the serious consequences of the previous administration's lack of investment in American infrastructure. I will continue to support President Obama's full discretionary budget request. I look forward to working with the chairman of the Budget Committee on this matter as the resolution moves forward. I also compliment the chairman for making the right decision to forego reconciliation instructions in this budget. Unfortunately, the House budget resolution does include reconciliation instructions, and that should be of concern to every Senator. The House provisions open the door in conference to language requiring as many as five Senate committees to report reconciliation legislation--the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the Finance Committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee, and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. While the House reconciliation instructions are ostensibly for health reform and education bills, they could also be used to report other bills under the jurisdictions of those committees--including climate legislation--as long as the bill complies with the budget's net deficit reduction instructions. Whatever legislation those committees decide to report, their bills would require only 51 votes for Senate passage. Under the Budget Act, debate is limited to 20 hours, and amendments are sharply curtailed. I am one of the authors of the reconciliation process. Its purpose is to adjust revenue and spending levels in order to reduce deficits. It was not designed to cut taxes. It was not designed to create a new climate and energy regime, and certainly not to restructure the entire health care system. The ironclad parliamentary rules are stacked against a partisan minority, and also against dissenting views within the majority caucus. It is such a dangerous process that in the 1980s, the then-Republican majority and then-Democratic minority adopted language, now codified as the Byrd Rule, intended to prohibit extraneous matter from being attached to these fast-track measures. The budget reconciliation process will not air dissenting views about health and climate legislation. It will not allow for feedback from the people or amendments that might improve the original proposals. If there are rules--such as the Byrd Rule--that frustrate Senators, I hope that they will take the time to understand that those rules exist for a reason. They protect every Senator, regardless of whether they are in the majority or minority party, because even a Democrat in the majority today may have a viewpoint in the minority tomorrow. I understand the White House and congressional leadership want to enact their legislative agenda. I support a lot of that agenda, but I hope it will not require using the reconciliation process. Again, I commend the chairman of the Budget Committee for excluding reconciliation instructions, and look forward to working with him to ensure those instructions are not included in conference.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Hear, hear.

Mr. BYRD. Hear, hear.