Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be laid aside so that I may offer an amendment.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I also thank my very able and distinguished friend from Virginia. Mr. President, I shall offer an amendment today that provides a 5- year sunset to any Presidential authorization of any military commission enacted under the legislation currently being debated. This amendment which I shall offer is essential to the ability of the Congress to retain its power of oversight and as an important check on future executive actions. As I stand here now, Members are readying themselves to beat a path home to their States--I understand that--so they may get in their final politicking. Unfortunately, though, in the feverish climate of a looming election, the most important business of the Senate may suffer. I have seen that happen over the years. This is no surprise. We have seen before the fever of politics can undermine the serious business of the Congress once November and the winds of November draw nigh. We have seen the mistakes that can come when Congress rushes to legislate without the benefit of thorough vetting by committees, without adequate debate, without the opportunity to offer amendments. Likewise, when legislation is pushed as a means of political showboating--we all know what that is--instead of by a diligent commitment to our constitutional duties, the results can be disastrous. In fact, there have been various proposals to bring congressional oversight to the military tribunals which were first authorized in November, 2001. Senators Specter, Leahy, and Durbin were instrumental in attempting to push back against unilateral actions by the President to establish these commissions. These attempts were to reassert the power of the Congress--yes, the constitutional duty embodied in Article I of this Constitution that is vested in the Congress and in the Congress alone, to make our country's laws and specifically to make rules concerning captures on land and water. Let me say that again. I will repeat the verbiage of the Constitution: to make our country's laws and specifically to ``make rules concerning captures on land and water.'' Nothing came of these proposals. Since then, the Congress has ignored its responsibilities and this most important issue has been shoved aside. What is this new impetus spurring congressional action and a renewed interest in the issue? Did Congress find its way back to embracing its Article I duties? No. Did the executive branch wake up to realize it is not within its purview to dictate the laws of the land? No. It was the Supreme Court's decision in the Hamdan case. While the President grabbed the wheel and the Congress dozed, the Court stepped in to remind us of the separation of powers and the constitutional role of each branch, thank God. Yes, thank God for the separation of powers envisioned by our forefathers. Thank God for the Supreme Court. Yes, I said this before; I say it again: Thank God for the Supreme Court. It is no coincidence that the traditional pathways of legislation through the committee and amendment process and ample opportunity for debate are the best recourse against the enactment of bad, bills. This is the way the Senate was designed to operate and this is how it separates in the best interests of the people. Unfortunately, because of the timing of the Supreme Court's decision and the charged atmosphere of the midterm elections, we are again confronted with slap-happy legislation that is changing by the minute. The bill reported by the Senate Committee on Armed Services, which I supported, was the product of a thorough process, a deliberative process. Unfortunately, this bill's progress was halted by the administration's objections, and the product suffered mightily. Then, in closed-door negotiations with the White House, many of the successes announced less than a week ago in the previous version were trashed. When the administration met stiff opposition to its views by former JAG--judge advocate general--officers and previous members of its own Cabinet, it realized it must come back to the table. Last Friday's version of the bill was superseded by Monday's version, and changes are still forthcoming. In such a frenzied, frenetic, and uncertain state, who really knows the nature of the beast? This bill could very well be the most important piece of legislation--certainly one of the most important pieces of legislation--this Congress enacts, and the adoption of my amendment, which I shall offer, ensures--ensures--a reasonable review of the law authorizing military tribunals. There is nothing more important to scrutinize than the process of bringing suspected terrorists to justice for their crimes in a fair proceeding, without the taint--without the taint--of a kangaroo court. Those are the values of our country. We dare not handle the matter sloppily. The Supreme Court has once struck down the President's approach to military commissions, has it not? Do we want the product of this debate subjected to the same fate? Do we want it stricken also? The original authorization of the PATRIOT Act is a case study of the risks we run in legislating from the hip--too much haste--and how, in our haste, we can place in jeopardy those things we hold most dear. Apparently, the Senate has not recognized the error of its ways. This legislation is complex. This legislation defines the processes and the procedures for bringing enemy combatants to trial for offenses against our country, and it involves our obligations under the Geneva Conventions. This bill defines rules of evidence, it determines defendants' access to secret evidence, and it seeks to clarify what constitutes torture. We cannot afford to get this wrong. As with the PATRIOT Act, my amendment offers us an opportunity to provide a remedy for the unanticipated consequences that may arise as a result of hasty congressional action. Along with the sweeping changes made by the PATRIOT Act, the great hope included in it was the review that was required by the sunset provision. Everyone knows the saying that hindsight is 20-20, but the use of this type of congressional review gives us the opportunity both to strengthen the parts of the law that may be found to be weak, and to right the wrongs of past transgressions. So if we will not today legislate in a climate of steady deliberation, then let us at least prescribe for ourselves an antidote for any self-inflicted wounds. Let us prescribe for ourselves the remedy of reason--the remedy of reason. Let this be the age of reason once more. Sunset provisions have historically been used to repair the unforeseen consequences of acting in haste. You have heard that haste makes waste. If ever there were a piece of legislation that cries out to be reviewed with the benefit of hindsight, it is the current bill. My amendment, which I hold in my hand, provides that opportunity through a 5-year sunset provision. Now, what is wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with that--a 5-year sunset provision. And I thank Senator Obama and I thank Senator Clinton for their cosponsorship of my amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I send my amendment to the desk.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senator knows my great respect for him. It is an abiding respect. When I look at him, I see a man--a Member of this Senate--who has had vast experience and worn many coats of honor. I see a man who stands by his word, who keeps his word, and is always very meticulous in criticizing another Senator or criticizing legislation. He is most circumspect, most respectful to his colleagues, and most respectful to the Constitution. But I am abhorrent--I cannot write very well anymore. I would like to be able to write down words that other Senators say in a debate. But I cannot write. So I may have misinterpreted, or I may misstate the words. But I cannot understand why this legislation would not be in the best interests of my country. I believe the Senator said--he certainly implied strongly--that this legislation would not be in the best interests of our country. If I am wrong, I know the Senator will correct me. Let me read, though, the amendment: On page 5, line 19, add at the end the following: ``the authority of the President to establish new military commissions under this section shall expire on December 31, 2011. However, the expiration of that authority shall not be construed to prohibit the conduct to finality of any proceedings of a military commission established under this section before that date.'' Mr. President, what is wrong with that language? How would that language not be in the interest of our country? I think we are all subject to error. Adam and Eve were driven from the Garden of Eden because of error. So from the very beginning of history, the very history of mankind, this race of human beings, there has been evidence of errors, mistakes. People did not foresee the future, and this language is a protection against that. What is wrong with providing an expiration date for the authority given to the President in this bill, after a period of 5 years? Can we not be mistaken? Might we not see the day when we wish that we had an automatic opportunity to review this? Five years is a long time. Five years is ample time. So I must say that I am somewhat surprised that my friend, the great Senator from Virginia, would seek to oppose this amendment. Let me read it once again. This is nothing new, having sunset provisions in bills. I think they are good. We can always review them, and if mistakes have not been made, we can renew them. There is that opportunity. But it does guarantee that there will come a time when this legislation will be reviewed. Only the word of Almighty God is so perfect that there is no sunset provision in the Holy Writ. No. But the sunset provision there is with us, and the time will come when all of us will take a voyage into the sunset.

Mr. BYRD. Absolutely. I will yield right now.

Mr. BYRD. We are not dealing with the treaties of 1949.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am almost speechless. I listened to the words that have just been uttered by my friend. My amendment does not affect, in any way, the portions of this bill that relate to the Geneva Conventions. It sunsets only the authority of the President to convene military commissions and, of course, the Senate can renew that authority. That is done in many instances here. I think it is insurance for our country and the welfare of our country and the welfare of the people who serve in the military. We say 5 years. Do we want to make that 6 years? Do we want to make it 7 years? Fine. It will expire at that time. It simply means that the Senate and the House take a look at it again and renew it. What is wrong with that?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it could be a Democratic President, as far as I am concerned. I think this is wise on the part of the Senate in conducting its constitutional oversight, to say that we will do it this far and then we will take another look at it in the light of the new day, in the light of the new times, the new circumstances; we will take another look at it. We are not passing any judgment on that legislation 5 years out. I am flabbergasted--flabbergasted--that my friend would take umbrage at this legislation. I only have a few minutes left.

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield 3 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Friends, Senators, lend me your ears. Friends, Senators, lend me your ears. I voted to report a fair and balanced bill from the Armed Services Committee, but the legislation before the Senate today bears little resemblance to that legislation. It has been changed so many times, we don't know the real implications of this ever-changing bill. The Byrd-Obama-Clinton-Levin amendment sunsets the authority of the President to convene new military commissions after 5 years. There is nothing wrong with that. This amendment ensures that Congress will not simply stand aside and ignore its oversight responsibilities after this bill is enacted. This amendment will not stop any trials of suspected terrorists that commence before the sunset date. It simply forces Congress to revisit-- revisit--the weighty constitutional implications of this bill in 5 years' time and then be in a position, on the basis of new knowledge and experience, to make a decision again. It is a very reasonable amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, do I have any time remaining?

Mr. BYRD. This amendment will not set any terrorists free. Let Senators who are here 5 years from now take a new look on the basis of experience and make a decision in the light of the then circumstances. That is all I am asking. This is nothing new.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I support cloture on H.R. 6061, the Secure Fence Act. The sooner the Congress passes this bill, the sooner the Congress can put aside the misguided amnesty legislation passed by the Senate earlier this year. The American people have listened and rejected the call to offer U.S. citizenship to illegal aliens. They have said NO to amnesty! Hallelujah! Comprehensive immigration reform is a euphemism for amnesty, and I oppose it absolutely and unequivocally. I voted against the amnesty bill passed by the Senate, and I will continue to vote against amnesty as long as I am in the Senate. I have seen how amnesties encourage illegal immigration, with the amnesties of the 1980s and 1990s corresponding with an unprecedented rise in the population of unlawful aliens. I have seen how amnesties open the border to terrorists, with the perpetrators of terrorist plots against our country taking advantage of amnesties to circumvent the regular border and immigration checks. I have seen how amnesties afford special rules to some immigrants. Amnesty undermines that great and egalitarian American promise that the rules will be applied equally and fairly to everyone. We are a nation of immigrants to be sure, but that does not mean that we are obligated to give away U.S. citizenship. According to immigration experts, until 1986, the Congress never granted amnesty to any generation of immigrants. The Congress encouraged immigrants to learn the Constitutional principles of our Government and the history of our country. Immigrants learned English, and tried to assimilate. U.S. citizenship was their reward. The Congress did not reward illegal aliens with U.S. citizenship. Now that this idea of amnesty has been rejected by the Congress, perhaps the administration will begin, at long last, to focus its efforts on actually reducing the number of illegal aliens already in the country. Such an effort will require a significant investment of funds to hire law enforcement and border security agents, and to give them the resources and equipment they need to do their job. In the years immediately after the September 11 attacks, those funds had not only been left out of the President's annual budgets but had been continuously blocked by the White House in the appropriations process. I and others tried to add funds where possible, but not until recently did the administration begin to respond to the inadequacies along the border. So much more is required and needs to be done. The bill before the Senate today is a good bill. It would authorize two-layer fencing along the southern border where our security is weakest, and set timetables to which the Congress can hold the administration. But this bill will amount to little or no protection without the resources to implement it. The administration must do more. Without its continued support and a committed effort to prevent illegal immigration, the protective barrier called for in this bill will amount to nothing more than a line drawn in the sands of our porous Southern border.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for no more than 30 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, what is the limitation on speeches at this point?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, yesterday, September 17, the Nation observed Constitution and Citizenship Day. Yesterday, on the Sabbath, the Nation observed Constitution and Citizenship Day. The day marked the 219th anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution. On September, 17, 1787, 219 years ago yesterday, an extraordinary convention of American statesmen met in Philadelphia's Independence Hall to adopt our fledgling Nation's fundamental governing principles, codified in the new Constitution. I am happy to glory in my good fortune, the blessing of living in this Nation and under this Constitution--this Constitution which I hold in my hand. I have long been a student of the Constitution, and I do carry it with me, close to my heart. Alexander the Great slept with a copy of the Iliad, written by Homer in the 800s before Christ--a copy of the Iliad under his pillow, they say. I do not sleep with a copy of the Constitution under my pillow, but I carry it close to my heart. Over the years, I have read deeply about our Founding Fathers and the great national debate that accompanied the development, the adoption, and the ratification of this critical document. This history is enlightening, revealing the lessons of our Founding Fathers, the great lessons of our Founding Fathers and the lessons they learned from ancient history as well as from their own experience as colonists subject to the British King. As a Member of the Senate, I have many good reasons to want to know more about the Constitution. Yes, I am 89, but I want to know more. The Constitution affects all Americans, and I urge all Americans to learn more about the Constitution. Why? Because it remains as vital to our lives today as it was 219 years ago. That was a long time ago, 219 years. This Constitution affects the structure and operation of our government, a government of laws, not a government of men. Yes, this Constitution, this is the roadmap, this is the cornerstone of our Republic. It dictates who is eligible to run for office and hold office. It dictates who may elect government officials and how those officials--like me, like myself--must conduct themselves while in office. It outlines who does what within the Federal Government and between the Federal Government and these United States. It requires the President, the Chief Executive in the White House--who is he? He is the Chief Executive, but it requires that he, the President of the United States, report. To whom? To the people and to Congress. The Constitution decides who may declare war. It says, ``The Congress shall have the power to declare war.'' Yes, the Congress. It decides who may appoint Ambassadors, who may levy taxes, who may decide how Federal dollars will be spent. If all of that does not affect every American, I do not know what does. I firmly believe that our Constitution deserves greater awareness in our national life and in our everyday lives. A distressing number of studies have shown a profound ignorance of and, yes, even indifference to this fundamental document of government. This is it. I hold it in my hands. Of course, more than the Constitution is included in this fine little document that I have and carry in my pocket, but the title of this little book is the ``United States Constitution.'' That is it. This is the pillar of my liberties, the pillar of your liberties, and it is the roadmap by which those who govern shall govern. Too many citizens have little or no knowledge of this Constitution, from the functions of government to the scope of their own rights and liberties. Did you realize that, every one of you who is within the sound of my voice throughout this great Nation? You may revere the Constitution--and most people do. Yes, they are proud of the Constitution. They revere it. But they do not know what is in it; too many do not know what is in it. Many do. I think that may also be true of many Members of Congress, many Members of this body. As you know, there are two bodies of Congress. Two bodies make up the Congress, not one body. It may be true of many Members of these two Houses. It may be true of many Members of this House, the Senate of the United States. It may be true of the executive branch officials. Did you hear that it may be true of executive officials, many of them? It may be true of military officials, many military officials and personnel, and members of the news media. Hear me now, yonder on the back benches, those who write, those who question, those who explain: members of the news media. Few people know why the Constitution was designed the way it was. Few people may understand what the checks and balances contained in our governmental structure are meant to do. When the Constitutional Convention sent to the States this Constitution for ratification, in 1787, it stimulated an active political debate out there--in the mountains, the hills, and the valleys of this land. It was not a political debate such as we see today--a cacophony of short sound bites and slogans that do not answer the questions or which are aimed only at attacking a political opponent--but a real debate, a real discussion, a real looking at the structure, at the parts of the structure, at the words, at the sentences--yes, a real debate and discussion. Supporters and opponents wrote pamphlets and published essays that were widely read. Can you imagine that? They wrote pamphlets, essays that were widely read, widely discussed? The Constitution became a topic of conversation around dinner tables and at public meeting places. Imagine, just imagine--hear me now, imagine that today. Imagine that happening today. The Federalist Papers--may I say to the pages--read them. The Federalist Papers--not just the Constitution but also the Federalist Papers. Read them. The Federalist Papers, that great defense of the Constitution written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay--read the Federalist Papers. They were widely printed in newspapers and still more widely read and discussed. The Federalist Papers served as the centerpiece for the debate over the form of government the Constitution created, the form of government this little Constitution created. Yes. I hold it in my hand. Sadly, today there are few people outside of college classes and history and politics who have read the Federalist Papers. They should be read by all Americans who want to understand the Constitution. Read the Federalist Papers. If you have read them, read them again. It is like reading the Holy Bible. Each time you read it, you will see new things, you will understand new things, new words are being said, new sentences, new thoughts are being expressed, some that you had not seen before. Madison, Hamilton, and Jay--those great men, Madison Hamilton, and Jay--turned to the mass-communication system of their day, the newspapers. Now, in the 21st century, we have the ability to promote better knowledge and better understanding of the Constitution through the newest form of mass communication--think about that--the Internet. As an excellent resource for Americans on this vital topic, I draw attention to the considerable information about the Constitution that the United States is making available--get that--the United States is making available to the public on the Senate Web site. You hear me. It is there. By publishing articles in newspapers, Madison, Hamilton, and Jay reached out and touched an audience of thousands. Through the World Wide Web, the Senate's Web site, material on the Constitution can be accessed by an audience of millions, millions of citizens, teachers, and students--people from all around, the world. In honor of this year's celebration of Constitution Day, the U.S. Senate has included a variety of features on its Web site--at www.senate.gov_to promote a more thorough understanding of our Constitution, the blueprint--here it is--for the Federal Government that still defines and guides us today, I say to the President who sits in the chair. Visitors to the Senate Web site will find many items related to the Constitution. The full text of the Constitution can be viewed, along with annotations and Senate-specific clauses. There is also a feature on the Federalist Papers and a special section featuring books about the Constitution for children. There is a beautiful color reproduction of the mural unveiled in the Senate wing of the Capitol Building just a few days ago. The mural depicts the authors of the Connecticut Compromise of 1787--also known as the Great Compromise--that led to creation of the Senate and the House of Representatives. There is also a Virtual Reference Desk that can guide visitors to further reading and resources to help them learn more about our--our, our--Constitution. I commend the Secretary of the Senate, the Sergeant at Arms, and their staffs, who collected and posted this array of constitutional material in such an attractive and easy-to-use format. Their work reflects well on the Senate and offers a real service to the Nation. It embodies the spirit of Constitution Day, which I am proud to have had a hand in establishing. I also commend the many other organizations that have made an abundance of educational material available to all those seeking greater knowledge of the Constitution. Notable among these are the Web sites of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Justice Learning, the Center for Civic Education, the Constitutional Rights Center, the Constitution Project, and the Freedom Forum. They have all done fine work that deserves widespread attention. Our Constitution is what sets the United States--yes, our Constitution is what sets the United States, a star, above other nations. Our Constitution is what makes the United States such a shining beacon, such a shining star for the people of other nations, for those still struggling to establish democratically elected representative governments. Our Constitution empowers our leaders but also places limits on our leaders to prevent autocratic rule. ``If men were angels, no government would be necessary.'' James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, ``If men were angels, no government would be necessary.'' ``If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty is this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.'' The self-control mechanism in our Constitution and therefore in our governmental structure comes first from the competition between and among the three branches of Government, the famous ``checks and balances.'' Ultimately, the self-control mechanism in our Government comes from the powers and the responsibilities placed by the Constitution upon the people of the United States. In order to effectively play our safeguarding role as citizens, we each--each of us; you, Mr. President, me, each of us--has an obligation to be informed. The system of checks and balances between and among the three branches of Government and the ideals of freedom and of rights and liberties set forth and realized in our Constitution are our greatest contributions to the world--our greatest contributions to the world. My hope is that observances of Constitution Day--yesterday, today, this year, and in future years--will encourage all citizens, all citizens high and mighty and low, to learn more about our Constitution and Government. Certainly there is no better way for people to start than by clicking on the U.S. Senate's Web site. I hope many people listening today, many people watching today, will be inspired to use the Internet today--yes, today--to visit the Senate's Web site and see the marvelous collection of information about the most marvelous document, the Constitution of the United States. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for as long as I may consume, not to exceed 30 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for not to exceed 20 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, September 11 has come and gone, and as we remember those who were lost, those lives that were lost on that awful day, that fateful day, and contemplate events since the horrific attack, one truth stands out: The war in Iraq has backfired, producing more recruits for terrorism and deep divisions within even our own country. It is a war we should never have begun. The detour from our attack on bin Laden and his minions hiding in the cracks and crevices of the rough terrain of Afghanistan, to the unwise and unprovoked attack on Iraq, has been a disastrous one. Mr. Bush's war has damaged the country because he drove our blessed land into an unnecessary conflict, utterly misreading the consequences, with the result now being a daily display of America's vulnerabilities to those who wish us ill. The United States is a weaker power now, especially in the Middle East but also in the court of world opinion. Where, where, where is the America of restraint? Where is the America of peace and of inspiration to millions? Where is the America respected not only for her military might but also for her powerful--her powerful--ideas and her reasonable diplomacy? Our country may have deviated occasionally from its positive global image in the past, but Abu Ghraib, the body snatching for torture, euphemistically called rendition, Presidential directives which unilaterally altered conditions of the Geneva Conventions--these are not the stuff of mere slight deviations from the America of peacefulness, the America of fairness, and the America of goodwill. These are major policy and attitudinal changes of tsunami-sized proportions--tsunami-sized proportions. Our friends shake their heads in disbelief. Our enemies nod wisely and claim they knew all the while. I cannot remember a time in our history when our elected leaders have failed the people so completely, and yet, so far, are not held accountable for costly misjudgments and outright deceptions. Take our Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, for example. He misread the Iraqi situation completely and entirely. He adamantly dismisses suggestions for a larger force in Iraq. He failed to object when the White House's Coalition Provisional Authority disbanded the Iraqi Army, only to have them go underground and provide fodder for the insurgency. Yes, he insisted that the Iraqi people would view our soldiers as liberators, not occupiers, and even failed to properly anticipate the equipment needs of our men and women in harm's way. Who am I talking about? Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. He continues to insist that we are not facing a civil war in Iraq, despite convincing evidence to the contrary. Yet he sits comfortably in his office as the echo of his errors in judgment and strategy continue to cost thousands of lives--thousands of lives. Then there is President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. These men continue to try to make the American public swallow whole the line that the war in Iraq is the frontline of a global war on terror which must be continued at all costs. Stay the course, they say, stay the course despite 3 years of discouragingly little progress in Iraq. The body count is approaching 2,700 for our side, tens of thousands for the beleaguered Iraqi people. We ought to think of them, too. Tens of thousands of men, women, and children, the Iraqi people, and billions-- billions, I say--billions of American tax dollars of which an embarrassingly large chunk has been wasted by irresponsible contractors and Government officials who lack the proper respect for the public purse. Many of our allies have left the field, recognizing the truth that the administration fails to see; namely, we had the weapons to win the war but not the wisdom to secure the peace. Yet too many in the public are utterly complacent about the numerous violations of the public trust and the continuing loss of human life in Iraq. Some of our citizens have apparently been convinced that it is unpatriotic to criticize one's country when that country is engaged in an armed conflict. In fact, in our land today, there is a troubling tolerance for Government overreaching on fronts at home as well as abroad. This administration has repeatedly used fear and flag-waving to blunt the traditional American insistence on the Bill of Rights: personal freedom of thought and action, privacy, and one's right to speak and write as one pleases. Such a cynical exercise on the part of high officials of our Government is unconscionable. It is shameful behavior for which there is no excuse--no excuse, none. The Congress, under the control of the President's party, has been submissive--submissive, a lap dog wagging its tail in appreciation of White House secrecy and deception. Yes, a lap dog Congress. Yes, we. Even the vast majority of the opposition party has been too quiet for too long, unable to find its voice, stunted by the demand to support the troops. We forget too often that there is a very real difference between support for the troops and support for an unnecessary war. The men and women of our military did not ask to go--no, they didn't ask to go to those faraway places, but they were willing. They went. They answered their country's call. We have an obligation to support them, but we do not need to follow blindly the unthinking policies that keep them mired in a country that is in the middle of a civil war. The American public is our last best hope now. You out there who are watching through those lenses, you are our last great hope, the American people. Our people must demand more from their representatives--from me, for one--their representatives in Congress, and from their leaders in the White House. Donald Rumsfeld should be replaced by the President because he has made so many grievous errors in judgment on Iraq and because a new voice--hear me now--a new voice at the helm at the Department of Defense could be a breath of fresh air--fresh air--yes, fresh air for our policies in Iraq. Mr. Rumsfeld's replacement would be good--good--for our country. Yet even a sense-of- the-Senate vote of no confidence in Mr. Rumsfeld's leadership has been blocked by the President's party in the Senate. Personal accountability has been long absent from this administration, and I would like to see it returned. One would hope that men and women who rise to positions of awesome responsibility would have the grace, the dignity, and the honor to know in their own hearts when a well-timed resignation would advance patriotic goals. But too often, the selfish love of power or some misguided show of toughness wins the day to the detriment of our country's fortunes. Donald Rumsfeld ought to step down or his President, Mr. Bush, ought to ask him to step down. There is too much at stake for any other course. Personally, I believe the President is being derelict in his duties if he does not ask for Mr. Rumsfeld's latchkey. The bungling and the loss of life attendant to this tragic--this tragic--3-year-long debacle in Iraq have hurt this country, hurt its public image, and hurt its ability to achieve numerous other national and international goals. That kind of dangerous ineptitude should not be excused. It should not be excused. But like so many things, when it comes to Iraq and the Middle East in general, the United States of America is stuck in neutral, with the only thing showing vigorous movement--the ever- spiraling price of gasoline. We have destabilized the Middle East and handed the Mullahs a way to affect the daily lives and livelihood of every American, and the efficacy of our military might: the oil supply lines upon which our own economy and our own military depend. Now that oil supply is the favorite target for terrorists who have learned the joys of bombing pipelines and listening to America bite its nails about the high cost of gasoline while it laments its lack of foresight in developing alternative fuels. Now we have passed yet another anniversary of the bloody attacks which precipitated the disastrous situation in which our country finds itself today. Yet while we mourn, there are hard truths to confront. Our attention has been shifted by design and deception too quickly from the war in Afghanistan, a war that we needed to fight, a war that we needed to win. Now the Taliban is on the rise in that country. Al-Qaida continues to find sanctuary in the mountains, violence is on the rise, and peace and stability are in jeopardy. North Korea, probably reacting to our doctrine of preemption--a very unconstitutional-on-its-face doctrine--North Korea, probably reacting to our doctrine of preemption and our newfound bellicosity, has increased its nuclear capability. Iran has been emboldened by our inability to stop the violence in Iraq and by the lukewarm support that we have garnered from traditional allies. Even the people of Turkey-- even the people of Turkey, one of the United States's staunchest allies, Turkey, a member of NATO, and a model, yes, a model of secular Muslim democracy--have turned against us. A survey, conducted by the German Marshall Fund of the United States, indicates that Iran has become one of the most popular countries in Turkey and that there is a growing willingness to identify with radical Islam. A display of ineptitude and spectacular miscalculation in Iraq has cost us dearly. Disenchantment at home with the dismal results in Iraq will have reverberations for years, much like the failure in Vietnam did in the 1960s. President Bush insists that his war must go on. He defends warrantless wiretapping of our own citizens as essential to his cause, despite a Court decision that the President has no such authority under our Constitution--our Constitution, this Constitution. He defends torture and rendition and says that they have produced valuable evidence which has subverted several terror attacks on our country. But his credibility is so damaged that it is difficult to believe him. He demands the authority to hold terror suspects indefinitely and then to try them using military tribunals which deny basic rights, also in defiance of a Supreme Court ruling. He seems convinced that he can win a global war on terror despite the demonstrated failure of his policies of unilateralism, militarism, overheated rhetoric, and a pathological dislike of diplomacy. So it is up to the Congress--up to us, the Congress, the people's branch--to change course and to stop the heinous raiding of constitutionally protected liberties by a White House which does not fully appreciate the true meaning of the word liberty, the true meaning of the word freedom. My fellow Senators, I hope that we may find the courage. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 4975

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate is now considering a long overdue--a long overdue--authorization bill to address the security of our ports--yes, our ports. I applaud the efforts of Senators Lieberman, Stevens, Inouye, Murray, Collins, and many others for their steadfast commitment to address this vulnerability. The administration has let the issue of port security languish for far too long--far too long. Oh, yes, the President has made a series of speeches in recent days about the threat to the homeland and the great desire and capabilities that al-Qaida possesses to attack us--yes, to attack us, the United States. Yet when one reviews the President's homeland security budget, gaping holes can be found in funding to address known vulnerabilities. After 9/11, we learned that our first responders could not communicate with one another. How about that. We learned that our first responders could not communicate with one another. How awful that was. The cost was lives, human lives. It now appears that we have a similar problem in the White House, where the administration's speech writers and its budget writers don't communicate. They operate in alternate worlds--worlds far apart. In his speech last Friday at Georgetown University, Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff urged Congress to pass this port security legislation. He said that passing the bill: Would be not only a fitting tribute to the fifth anniversary of 9/11, but would also be an important set of tools that we can use in achieving the goal that we have set for ourselves over the next couple of years. Now, this is the very same rhetoric and, if I may say, it is the very same hot air that we have been listening to and we have been hearing for 5 years--5 years. Yes, we have been listening to it for 5 years, the same rhetoric, the same hot air that is used for lifting balloons, lifting balloons into the heavens. The administration, time and time again, uses tough talk when it comes to homeland security, but, sadly, that tough talk rarely is followed up with real money, cash on the barrelhead. This month the majority leadership is once again playing a clever rhetorical game with homeland security. The port security bill that is before the Senate authorizes $400 million for port security grants. These grants would provide essential resources to our most vulnerable ports for building fences, deploying cameras and sensors, training security personnel, and for verifying the identity of the thousands of port workers who access our ports every day. The House-passed bill which authorized the same $400 million level was adopted by a vote of 421 to 2. But, I ask my colleagues, where, oh where is the $400 million? Where is it? Right now, the Senate and House are conferencing the Homeland Security appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007. The Senate-passed version of the bill includes an amendment that I offered with the support of my illustrious, inimitable chairman, Judd Gregg, which provides an additional $648 million for port security. The amendment would appropriate the full $400 million authorization for port security grants along with critical funds for cargo container inspection equipment, for Coast Guard ships and planes, and for increased cargo inspections at foreign and domestic ports. That is real port security, but--oh, there is that conjunction here--but, regrettably, the House majority has refused to make the $648 million available to the conference. What a sad state of affairs. Our citizens watching the Senate today are being led to believe that this bill will secure our ports. Here it is: H.R. 4954, an Act to Improve Maritime and Cargo Security Through Enhanced Layered Defenses, and for other purposes. They believe this bill will secure our ports. Here is the bill. It doesn't weigh very much, but it means security for our ports. However, it will be a charade if the port security funds are not appropriated. How about that? Money. What does the Bible say about money? The love of money, what does it say about it? Did the White House step to the plate? How about it? ``Hey, Mr. President--hello there, down at the White House.'' Did the White House step up to the plate to address security risks at our ports? No. No. One of the hardest words in the English language to say: No. If the administration were really serious about port security, it would have voiced support for the $400 million in the Senate bill for security grants. Yet there was not one mention of port security in the administration's letter--not one mention. It has been more than 3\1/2\ years since the Coast Guard estimated that the security cost at our ports would be $5.4 billion. Senator Collins, bless your heart, to date not a cent of that amount has been funded despite the fact that U.S. seaports handled over 95 percent of U.S. overseas trade. Last year, the Department of Homeland Security was able to fund only 24 percent of the critical projects requested by the port authorities. These funds are critical, absolutely critical for ports to improve communications, access control systems, and provide waterside security. Where, oh where has the administration been? ``Where, oh where has my little dog gone?'' Where has the administration been? Of the $816 million the Congress appropriated since 9/11 for port security, only $46 million was requested by the President. Did you get that? Let me say it again. Of the $816 million the Congress appropriated since 9/11 for port security, only $46 million was requested by the President. There is an odd disconnect at the White House when it comes to port security funding. While I applaud the efforts of my colleagues today for moving this authorization legislation forward, and hopefully to the President's desk, authorizations of funding are not worth a hill of beans unless we provide real money, real dollars to fund them. That funding is in jeopardy. Why? That funding is in jeopardy due to an irresponsible indifference from the White House and objections from the House majority. I challenge the White House--yes, come on now--I challenge the White House and the majority, not only to talk the talk on port security but also to walk the walk by supporting the funding that will actually make us safer. Our ports are seriously vulnerable to a terrorist attack. Potentially, thousands of American lives are at stake. Think about it. If we are truly determined to tighten security at our ports, we should send the Homeland Security appropriations bill to the President with the $648 million to fund port security. My amendment includes the funding to address many of the provisions in this bill that are being debated today. In addition to port security grant funding, my amendment includes $40 million to hire 354 additional Customs and Border Protection officers to conduct cargo container inspections at our seaports and $211 million to purchase additional nonintrusive inspecting equipment for U.S. seaport and rail border crossings. There you have it. Currently, only 5 percent of the 11 million containers entering the United States are physically inspected by opening--take a look at it by opening the containers. Only 5 percent of the 11 million containers entering the United States are physically inspected by opening the containers. The Coast Guard has only 34 inspectors to review security plans at foreign ports. Of the 144 countries that conduct maritime trade with the United States, the Coast Guard has assessed security at only 59. I have to say that again. I have a duty to say that again. Of the 144 countries that conduct maritime trade with the United States, the Coast Guard has assessed security at only 59--59 out of 144. At the current rate of inspections, U.S. inspectors will visit countries that trade with the United States only once every 4 years. Does that make you feel safer? Think about that tonight when you are laying your head on the pillow. Think about that. My amendment includes $23 million to double the presence of inspectors at foreign ports and increase security compliance checks at domestic ports. Finally, my amendment includes $184 million for Coast Guard deepwater assets that are critical to securing our ports and surrounding waterways. These funds will allow the Coast Guard to address an immediate shortfall in boats and planes needed to patrol our ports and adjacent waterways. The President and Members of Congress may applaud each other and congratulate themselves for protecting lives with this port security authorization bill, but the truth of the matter is that this bill will do little to secure our ports if the President and those same Members of Congress do not provide the money--there you go again-- the money to actually scan for dirty bombs, inspect containers, and implement the security systems that are so desperately needed. What on Earth is wrong? Can we please stop playing these dangerous political games with homeland security and actually come together to protect the precious lives of people? Unless we provide the funding authorized in this bill, we will be playing fast and loose with the security of our people. Hear me. Hear me now. I say it again. Unless we provide the funding authorized in this bill, we will be playing fast and loose with the security of our people. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Shame.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, important provisions in H.R. 5970 provide a long-term solution for the Abandoned Mine Land, AML, program as well as resolve the uncertainty of the health care needs for retired miners and their families. Right now, there are 52,320 retired miners and their families nationwide who depend on these critical funds to provide for their health care needs. At least 17,195, or about one-third of these people, are in West Virginia. I have also worked for many years to keep the AML program going for West Virginia and other coal-producing States. This important program cleans up old mine hazards and improves the environment in the coalfields. I have always been there to shore up the funding for our coal miners' health care funds, and I have always been there for the AML program. The bill before us today is an opportunity to solve these issues permanently, and I embrace it. H.R. 5970 would also address the Federal estate tax, something that the small business owners and farmers of my State have made clear is a priority for them, and in need of reform. In the past, I have supported legislation to increase the estate tax exemption, and to lower the top tax rate, as an alternative to permanent repeal. This bill is consistent with those past efforts that I have supported. Senators have raised concerns about the cost of this bill, and its effect on the Federal budget. The fiscal course of deficits and debt chosen by the administration is abominable, and I have advocated tirelessly that the Congress abandon it. But of the budget-busting measures endorsed by the Congress, this one does not rate top billing. The revenue loss from the estate tax portion of this bill would not begin for 3 years, and the effect on the Federal budget would not be felt until the next decade. Meanwhile, the health care needs of my State's retired coal miners and their families are immediate and urgent. I will not vote against those miners who need this assistance now, based upon budget projections that may not mean much until the next decade. This bill would also guarantee a $2.10 increase in the Federal minimum wage within the next 3 years. Should a new Congress revisit the issue, I hope that that schedule could be accelerated. This bill would raise wages for workers who need it the most. It would provide health care to retired coal miners and resolve our Nation's mine reclamation needs. It would codify a compromise measure that is less than repeal and consistent with previous efforts to try to reform the estate tax to help small businesses and farmers. This is a good bill for West Virginia, and it should receive an up- or-down vote on this floor.