Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, during this hot, sultry, high-gas-price summer, I urge the American people to take a minute to observe the U.S. Senate. Take just a few minutes from the daily challenges of coping with the kids, driving them from camp to soccer grounds, going to church, worrying about how to cobble together enough money to manage even a brief family outing, and watching nightly news coverage of the Middle East imploding to focus, just briefly, on what is happening, or rather not happening, on this Senate floor. Instead of working to pass necessary legislation like the 11 remaining appropriations bills, which are now jammed up and waiting for movement like the cars in a typical rush hour on the Washington beltway, we are engaged in yet another leadership-driven message dance. These fandangoes feature bills which are meant to drive home political points to the unsuspecting American voter. The latest entry in this catalog of message bills is S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy bill, a bill cobbled together by the majority and then presented to the full Senate to vote on without opportunity for amendments. To anyone in these United States who is tempted to swallow the line that this sham bill now on the Senate floor is a solution to high petroleum and natural gas prices, I say think again. Desperate politicians eager to invent a vote which can serve as the 30-second add solution to the hot-button issue of high energy prices are out to hoodwink the public again, this time with this very bad idea. Well, this Senator is very weary of message bills that lie to the public. Here is the plain truth about the U.S. supply of oil and the world supply of oil. We are running out, and we will reach that peak in oil in the not-too-distant future. U.S. production peaked 30 years ago. That is why the U.S. imports two thirds of the oil it consumes, and that consumption is about 20 million barrels per day. As far as U.S. supplies go, if the United States were, for some reason, suddenly dependent on only our own supply, we would hit empty very soon. That is the cold, hard truth. There isn't much oil left to pump in these United States, and pumping it will not make one iota of difference in the price of gasoline, because oil is a global commodity and is bought and sold on the international market. After the oil is gone, the fuel of choice is another finite source natural gas. Who leads the race in that new energy game? None other than nations such as Russia and Iran, because they are the top two global natural gas reserve holders. If that makes you sleep well at night or suggests to you the emergence of lower energy prices, I would have to say I beg to disagree. The only course of action which will lead to lower, more reliable, more secure energy and energy prices is a strong national commitment to investing in greater energy efficiency and developing alternate energy sources--and the sooner we get started the better. The President likes to say that the solution to high gas prices is to build more refineries. I do not disagree that it would be useful to build more refineries because we have not built any since the 1970s. However that is not a short-term solution, nor is it a simplistic, long-term solution to high gas prices. It takes too long to build refineries for refineries to be a short-term solution. And we are running out of oil, so refineries cannot be a long-term solution. The solution, of course, is the development of a variety of alternative energy sources. Crude oil currently costs something like $74 per barrel, and that price will certainly go up. Nuclear power plants can be hazardous, especially in this age of terrorism. Clean coal liquefaction technologies are promising because the good ole U.S. of A. is by far the global leader in proven coal supplies. Remember that half of all U.S. electric power comes from coal. But, there has been no real robust commitment to clean coal technologies, industrial gasification, and coal liquefaction by this administration. Yet this bill--this message bill--this bumper sticker solution to American distress over high gas prices is a pathetic attempt to foist a fake promise upon the people, which the American people ought not swallow. It will do little or nothing to bring down gas prices or natural gas costs. It is also just very bad legislation. Let me tell you why. This proposed offshore drilling in Florida waters is not worth the environmental risk. The total amount of oil which could be extracted from this new drilling will equal around 55 days of American consumption at current usage rates. Consider also the time it will take to develop this region--to deploy the rigs, pump, refine, and transport these products, and anyone who cogitates for just 30 seconds will clearly see that this drilling will do nothing to bring down gas prices in the near term. Furthermore, the generous revenue sharing plan aimed at buying the votes of coastal State Senators could well have an impact on our future Federal funding needs. The robust payments to just four Gulf-producing States which will not be offset by the oil and gas generated by this new offshore drilling could cause holes in the Federal treasury which would impact programs that would benefit States like West Virginia. This bill is a bad deal for State and 45 other States, which can offer alternative fuels to blunt our dependence on oil. We are not allowed to consider amendments to this bill. A yes vote for this bill does nothing to help coal, ethanol, solar, and wind technologies because it propagates the myth of continued dependence on oil and gas. A yes vote lies to the American public, because it says Joe Citizen can continue economically drive a gas powered automobile if only we drill a few more holes in the fragile gulf coast shoreline. A yes vote on this bill says to the American public, don't bother to increase energy efficiency or produce alternative fuels. It says don't push the powers that be to stop gauging and start producing transportation that does not depend on a dwindling supply of scarce and ever increasingly expensive oil. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, am I recognized?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, yesterday the Prime Minister of Iraq addressed a joint meeting of Congress. In his speech, he stressed his view that great progress has been made in his country in the past months and equated the violence in Iraq to the al-Qaida attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. With the Prime Minister's comments in mind, it is worth taking stock of how this war began 3 years, 4 months, and 1 week ago. Let me say that again. It is worth taking stock of how this war began 3 years, 4 months, and 1 week ago. The war in Iraq, that is what I am talking about. The war in Iraq. There is a war going on there, and we are involved in it. Our men and women are over there in harm's way. They die every day. The war in Iraq was initiated on the false promise of securing our country from the threat of weapons of mass destruction. That was a false promise. There have been many efforts to try to rewrite history. You can't do it. But there have been efforts to try to rewrite history and to try to find a new justification for the invasion of Iraq. But one need look no further than the use of force authorization passed by the Congress-- when? On October 11, 2002. Look at that use of force resolution. That resolution contains 23 ``whereas'' clauses. You can count them. Ten of those ``whereas'' clauses pertained to Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction. The idea that Iraq could threaten our country with weapons of mass destruction was the keystone of the argument for war. It was the one allegation at the center of nearly all the cases that were made for war. I didn't fall for that. I didn't fall for that reason because I didn't believe it was there. I didn't believe that Iraq was a threat to the security of this country. I didn't believe it. I had reasons for not believing it, and I have said them many times. The agencies that produced the intelligence to build the case for war have admitted that they made massive errors. Intelligence was massaged. Did you get that? Intelligence was massaged to remove most of the dissenting views. Dissenting views were not listened to very well. Congress, in 2004, even rushed to reorganize the CIA and the rest of our intelligence agencies based upon these massive failures--failures that built a flawed and discredited case for U.S. entry into that war. I did not buy into the hype and the rush to war. I didn't buy into that. I didn't buy into that case. I didn't believe we had that case for war. I did not believe Iraq posed an imminent threat to the security of this country. I did not believe it. I said so. And therefore I voted against turning this whole thing--lock, stock, and barrel--over to one man, the President of the United States. Congress relegated itself to the sidelines, and it has never gotten itself off the sidelines, really. We are still there. I did not believe Congress should have passed the resolution to allow the President--any President, not just this President, any President-- to decide where, when, and why to launch an attack on Iraq. I did not believe then, I do not believe now, that one man, Democratic or Republican, or one woman, acting as the chief executive of our country, should be handed the authority to decide on his own to shed the precious blood of our sons and daughters, husbands and wives--to shed their blood. The American people at this point should pause and reflect now on where our Nation stands in this war. Where does our Nation stand in this war in Iraq? As of today, July 27, 2,564--2,564--American men and women have been killed--dead. Upwards of $318 billion--that is a lot of money--upwards of $318 billion has been drained from our Treasury. Talk persists of more than 100,000 of our troops remaining in Iraq for many years to come--many years to come. Most ominously, the violence in Iraq appears to have entered a new phase. Mr. President, 2\1/2\ months after the killing of the terrorist leader Zarqawi, an average of 100 Iraqis are being killed every day, according to a new report by the United Nations. Who is responsible for this violence in Iraq? Is it Osama bin Laden or some other nefarious outside force? Is it the same terrorists who plotted the attack on the World Trade Center? Is it the same miscreants responsible for the train bombings in London and Madrid? The answer is no. This wave of violence which has crashed over Iraq is the result of Iraqis fighting and killing Iraqis. Militias and death squads are carrying out a brutal campaign of violence against fellow Iraqis. Shiites are fighting Sunnis. Sunnis are killing Shiites. The Kurds of the north are under attack. No one is safe from these indiscriminate killings--not doctors, not teachers, not even children. Iraq is being ripped apart from the inside out. Could there be any doubt that there is a civil war in Iraq? Statistics gathered by the Iraqi Government: 2,669 Iraqi civilians were killed in May; another 3,149 Iraqi civilians were killed in June. Government figures show that 14,338 civilians were killed in Iraq in the first 6 months of this year. At least 100,000 Iraqis are refugees in their own country. Yes, there is a civil war going on in Iraq. It is a civil war that has been brewing, brewing, brewing since we first opened this Pandora's box by invading Iraq in March of 2003. I didn't vote for that invasion. The question is, What are our troops doing in the middle of this civil war? What are American troops doing in the middle of this civil war? The American people should take notice of what is happening in Iraq. The American people--it is their sons and daughters, yes. Our troops are increasingly being thrust into this fighting with no plan for success. It is time to stop, look, and listen, and time to ask questions about where we are headed. Are our troops on the way out of Iraq or are they on their way in? Are they being drawn deeper into this civil war? Is there any chance for our troops to win a decisive victory on the battlefield or is the fate of our soldiers tied to the political fortunes of untested Iraqi politicians? Does anyone in this administration have a plan for how to deal with this civil war which is going on in Iraq? These are not inconsequential questions. These are important questions. These are important questions for the people of our country. But instead of telling the American people how we are going to disentangle ourselves from the sectarian violence in Iraq, we learn this week that the President plans to send more American troops into Baghdad to take sides in the Iraqi-on-Iraqi fighting that is tearing that country part. The President announced on Tuesday--yes, he did-- that he is sending thousands more U.S. troops into Baghdad, which is the center of the storm of violence. So I say to the people out there watching through those electronic lenses, is this our plan? Is this our plan for dealing with an Iraqi civil war? When I asked Secretary Rumsfeld at an Appropriations Committee hearing on March 9 about his plan if civil war were to break out in Iraq, he said, ``The plan is to prevent a civil war, and to the extent one were to occur, to have the . . . Iraqi security forces deal with it, to the extent they are able to.'' Those are quotations. You can look at the Appropriations Committee hearings and find these words for yourselves. The plan to have Iraqis deal with their own civil war appears to be on its way out the window. The Iraqi Prime Minister's attempts to pacify Baghdad with Iraqi troops has failed. In fact, the Prime Minister, in his speech to Congress, pleaded for more foreign aid and urged our troops to stay until Iraqis are ready to take up the fight to defend their Government. Sending more U.S. troops to deal with domestic strife is not the right course. What we are seeing in Iraq is mission creep, mission creep, creep, creep, creep of the worst kind. The mission to overthrow Saddam Hussein is transforming before our very eyes into a mission to take sides between warring ethnic factions. This is a plan for disaster. Our troops have bravely served in Iraq for more than 3 years. They have done everything that has been asked of them. Our troops did not ask to be sent to war, but the call to service has gone out and our servicemembers have responded. They have fought, they have been wounded, they have bled, and they have died for what our country has asked them to do. But we owe it to our troops to be judicious in what we ask them to do. We owe it to our troops not to send them headlong into fighting when there is no plan for victory. We owe it to our troops not to send them into the center of a civil war without raising so much as a question, without raising so much as a question about whether they belong there. We cannot allow the escalating war in Lebanon to distract us from the deteriorating situation in Iraq. Look at what is going on. Open your eyes. The fighting between Israel and Lebanon has dominated our attention, but the administration is on the verge of making irreversible decisions about how deeply our troops will be involved in Iraq's civil war. Before more of our troops are sent to Baghdad, the Senate must ask tough questions of Secretary Rumsfeld and our military commanders about whether they have a plan for dealing with the civil war in Iraq. The Armed Services Committee on which I serve must have a chance to exercise its oversight responsibilities before more of our troops are ordered to take sides in a fight that is pitting Iraqi against Iraqi. We have seen before the disastrous consequences of ordering our troops into the middle of civil wars. Do we remember the 241 marines who were killed in Beirut in 1983? Do we remember that? Let us remember the bloody battle in Somalia in 1993. Let us have more wisdom, more caution, and a coherent strategy before we marshal our forces to send them once more into the breach in Baghdad. We owe that much to our brave troops. We owe that much to their moms and their dads, their wives and their children anxiously awaiting their safe return home. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it has always been my firm belief that minors should be required to notify their parents prior to seeking an abortion. I cannot help but believe that in nearly every case, young women do themselves, their babies, and their families well to seek guidance from their parents or legal guardians before making such a serious decision. Most parents honestly do have their daughters' best interests at heart. Consequently, how can parents not be informed when their children are confronted with making one of the most critical decisions of their lives, one which carries with it such extraordinary, expensive, and irretrievable consequences? I have a long history of support for parental notification in such difficult circumstances. In 1991, I supported legislation that would have required entities receiving grants under Title X of the Public Health Service Act to provide parental notification in the case of minor patients seeking abortions. While I support parental notification, I would also observe that we, as a nation, must work harder and do more to ensure that young women understand the consequences of unwanted pregnancy before they find themselves in such a predicament. We need to return to a time when abstinence was respected, not denigrated. A time when young men and women were praised and rewarded spiritually, emotionally, and financially--for doing the right thing. Today, little girls are encouraged to become sexual at younger and younger ages by a consumer society that cares more about what it can sell than what it can teach. The entertainment culture, with its ``sleaze'' does all Americans, and particularly young women, a despicable disservice. Repulsive lyrics and morally offensive videos degrade women to the point where little girls as young as 10 or 12 years of age come to believe that their only real value lies not in themselves but in bearing the child of a teen-aged boy. How truly sad. We all recognize that the family is, and has been, in crisis. We would all like to see a reduction in unwanted pregnancies and abortion. No one is pro-abortion. But the question remains, what are we doing to prevent these unwanted pregnancies--meaning what are all of us together, on both sides of the aisle, doing to prevent them? Aren't there more creative ways in which we could be bolstering the self- esteem of young women? Let us not forget that the future of humanity passes through the family, and that each of us must, in our own way, fulfill our duty to preserve the family. As John Kennedy once put it so succinctly and so beautifully, ``On Earth, God's work must truly be our own.''

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the foundation of democracy lies in a government that reflects the voice of its citizens. The Constitution, the beloved document that chartered our system of government, makes this clear. ``We the people'', are the very first words of our Constitution: ``We the people.'' This is no mistake, for our Founders sought to create a government that would reflect the will of those who send us here. Voting is the underpinning of our democratic process. In an address to Congress, President Lyndon B. Johnson said that, ``In a free land where men move freely and act freely, the right to vote freely must never be obstructed.'' With the act of casting one's ballot, each citizen has ensured a place in the democratic process, fulfilling the civic responsibility that each and every one of us must safeguard and cherish. All citizens deserve this right, and all should utilize it. Like so many worthwhile initiatives, safeguarding the freedoms of democracy can sometimes exact a heavy toll. Wars have been fought on our own soil to ensure these freedoms, and our country's history has been blemished with the events of a less enlightened time. But even through strife and toil, our democracy emerged intact, our Republic strengthened by the sacrifices made by the citizens who fought for equality and the right to vote. I met yesterday with Mr. James Tolbert, President of the West Virginia NAACP, and other members of the West Virginia NAACP delegation. They were here in Washington D.C. as part of a national effort to spearhead the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. I was proud to assure them of both my cosponsorship of the measure and my support for the reauthorization. While the various reauthorizations of the Voting Rights Act have forged the pathway to the polls for all Americans, the ability to vote is but half of the process. Democracy works best when the people are vigilant in protecting of their rights, and engage in the electoral process. Our democracy is strongest when there is free and open access to the polls for everyone, and when the people embrace the vote as both a right and a responsibility. Indeed, the decades that have followed the initial passage of the Voting Rights Act have witnessed the progress of our Nation. To continue in our efforts, we have only to look to past successes for inspiration. To be ardent in the defense of our democracy is to preserve it for the generations to come.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today, the Senate is debating H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which would allow the Federal Government to provide additional funding for embryonic stem cell research. I have received numerous heartfelt letters from constituents outlining their concerns with embryonic stem cell research. These are concerns which I simply cannot overlook or dismiss. I know the suffering and worry that families go through when a loved one desperately needs treatment for a serious progressive illness. Easing the pain and suffering of our loved ones, our daughters, sons, parents, and grandparents, should be at the hallmark of a caring society. The potential of finding cures for Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, cancer, and diabetes must not be ignored. I understand the promise for embryonic stem cell research to yield treatments and therapies for numerous diseases; however, we must not overlook the ethical concerns associated with such research. I am a great supporter and will continue to be a proponent of fully funding the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health for research into cures for cancer, diabetes, and heart disease, to name a few, which is why I also support H.R. 810. However, the moral implications of embryonic stem cell research must not be discounted. We are not just debating whether the scientific and medical communities should continue the exploration of embryonic stem cells their impact on medical conditions. If Federal funds begin to flow without also addressing moral issues such as human cloning, how long will it be before an ethical crisis of our own making erupts? This is why the Congress should also debate a framework to ensure that practices such as reproductive cloning do not take place. The Senate has taken up three bills, none of which provides guidance about stem cell research's future development. None of these bills addresses the need to examine the possibility that embryonic stem cell research might lead to potential immoral outcomes, such as the cloning of human beings for illegitimate purposes. We must not dismiss these ethical and moral undertones. A comprehensive approach must be devised to protect science and medicine against misuse and public backlash. While I will support H.R. 810 in order to help provide hope to those who suffer from diseases, the Congress must take a hard look into ensuring scientific integrity as this medical research proceeds.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have grave concerns about what the coming days hold for the situation in the Middle East. The spiral of violence, which began with the kidnaping of Israeli soldiers, is threatening to engulf the entire region. Unless something is done soon to stop the escalation, all out war--the likes of which has not been seen in the Arab-Israeli conflict for decades--could soon be upon us. Innocent lives are at risk. The rocket attacks on Israel are indiscriminate tools of terror. We know that Israeli bombs have also taken innocent lives, including those of children. How does this fighting serve any greater purpose? Can there be no other way to solve the important problems facing the region without shedding innocent blood in the process? Let us not forget that it is not only the lives of Israelis, Lebanese, and Palestinians that are threatened by the fighting. Press reports indicate that 25,000 Americans are in Lebanon, and some believe that number is far too low an estimate. I have learned that a number of West Virginians are in Lebanon now. Two of the families of West Virginians have children with them--children as young as 4 years old. One of these families has already fled Beirut into the countryside while they await word on when they can be transported to safety. I am hopeful that there are yet moderate voices in the international community which seek solutions to this crisis. There are calls for an international peacekeeping force to stabilize the Israeli-Lebanese border. There are also indications of behind- the-scenes diplomacy to unite all countries of the region in favor of a reasonable solution. The resolution before the Senate is not a voice of moderation. It is a resolution that proposes only to point fingers at who is to blame for the current violence. This is the wrong response to an international crisis and a humanitarian tragedy. Does this resolution help the Americans who are stranded in Lebanon amidst this fighting? It does not. I fear that this resolution might, in fact, unleash a violent anti-American backlash at a time when the State Department and our Armed Forces are struggling to find a way to rescue our citizens. The Senate should have more sense than to rush to pass such a provocative resolution at this time. Mr. President, now is the time for moderation and wise counsel. We need solutions, not recriminations. Why should the Senate pass a resolution, the only possible effect of which is to further entrench both sides of the current conflict? I cannot support a resolution that does not I have the practical effect of advancing us toward an end to this tragic violence.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am aware of that. I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding and without any prejudice to any Senator, to speak for 5 minutes on another matter.

Mr. BYRD. Not showing an interruption at this point.

Mr. BYRD. I make that part of my request.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, yesterday, July 16, was the anniversary of one of the greatest events in American history. It was 219 years ago that our Founding Fathers were meeting at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, attempting to formulate a workable plan of Government. At the time, the young American Government was operating under the Articles of Confederation, which every day was proving to be unworkable. For 7 weeks, the Constitutional Convention had been working to devise a better form of Government, a ``more perfect union.'' It would be a Government with three branches: an executive branch, a legislative branch, and a judicial branch. The branches of the Government would have separated powers and the ability to check and balance one another. The Convention delegates had already made a number of important decisions about the structure of the Congress. The Convention had set the minimum age for Members of the Senate at 30 and a term length at 6 years, as opposed to 25 years of age for Members of the House of Representatives, who would have 2-year terms. But then came the stumbling block, how the States would be represented in Congress. Delegates from the large States believed that because their States contributed more to the Nation's financial and defensive resources, they should have greater representation in the legislative bodies. Small State delegates demanded that all States be equally represented in both Houses. Hours, even days, of heated, contentious debate followed. A number of proposals, including one by Benjamin Franklin, were considered and rejected. Stalemate was in the air. Failure threatened the Convention and the youthful Republic was stymied, stopped in its tracks. If the Constitutional Convention collapsed, it meant that the American Government would have to continue operating under the flawed and failing Articles of Confederation. So maybe it was a miracle in Philadelphia. It may have been divine intervention. Who knows. Perhaps it was because there were great political leaders and they acted as mature political statesmen. Politics, it is said, is the art of compromise. And this is exactly what our Founding Fathers did; they compromised. They worked out a compromise, the Great Compromise, also known as the Connecticut Compromise because it was designed by the Connecticut delegates Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth. It provided a dual system of congressional representation. In the House of Representatives, every State would be assigned a number of seats in proportion to its population. In the Senate, all States would have the same number of seats. Just 8 days after the Great Compromise was adopted, the Convention was able to elect a committee to draft a detailed Constitution embodying the fundamental principles of the proceedings. Today, representation of the two Houses of Congress seems so logical and so accepted that we take it for granted. Perhaps it is for that reason that we pass this anniversary with very little notice, too little notice--that is a shame--and no fanfare. It was a crucial moment in history. An American moment. It should be recognized and honored and remembered. Thou, too, sail on, O Ship of State! Sail on, O Union, strong and great! Humanity with all its fears, With all the hopes of future years, Is hanging breathless on thy fate! We know what Master laid thy keel, What Workmen wrought thy ribs of steel, Who made each mast, and sail, and rope, What anvils rang, what hammers beat, In what a forge and what a heat Were shaped the anchors of thy hope! Fear not each sudden and sound and shock, 'Tis of the wave and not the rock; 'Tis but the flapping of the sail, And not a rent made by the gale! In spite of rock and tempest's roar, In spite of false lights on the shore, Sail on, nor fear to breast the sea! Our hearts, our hopes, are all with thee, Our hearts, our hopes, our prayers, our tears, Our faith triumphant o'er our fears, Are all with thee--are all with thee!

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. Were it not for that compromise, we would not be here today. There would be no Senate. There would be no Republic as we know it. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the fiscal year 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill. I commend Chairman Gregg for his leadership on this important legislation. I thank Senator Murray for her contributions to the bill this week. I also thank Chairman Gregg's staff and my staff for their excellent work on this legislation. The bill that is before the Senate contains numerous improvements to the President's request, both in terms of funding and in giving clear direction to the Department on how to improve its operations. Regrettably the President sent a budget to the Congress for Homeland Security programs that is hollow. This bill provides critical improvements to that request and does so in a fiscally responsible manner. Additional funding is provided for border security, port security, grants to equip, train, and hire firefighters, for the Coast Guard Deepwater program to replace its aging fleet of ships, planes and helicopters, as well as additional funding for emergency managers. In addition, we provide clear direction to the Secretary for securing our Nation's chemical facilities. While many of the Department's legacy agencies, such as the Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, and the Secret Service, continue to operate effectively, the Department itself has become an ineffective, behemoth. Rather than make America safer, the Department has become a cumbersome agency, burdened by malaise. FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has been broken into ineffective pieces, separating the responsibilities for preparedness and response. We all learned after Hurricane Katrina that FEMA is no longer up to the task of responding to a catastrophic disaster, whether the disaster is a terrorist attack or a natural disaster. The Department has become a haven for contractors. DHS spends millions of dollars on contractors who produce lots of paper and data dumps, that sit in file cabinets and computer files. But the Department fails to use that information to make careful choices about how to secure the Nation. In addition to failing to address known vulnerabilities, the Department of Homeland Security is turning into a case study for failed management. The GAO and the DHS Inspector General have documented numerous financial management and procurement failures at the Department. DHS information systems are not secure. GAO alone has completed 494 evaluations of DHS programs. The DHS Office of the Inspector General is spread so thin that it was unable to follow through on 616 different allegations of wrongdoing last year. The Department continues to allow valuable homeland security dollars to gather dust in the Treasury. Last week was the 1-year anniversary of the London train bombing; yet, under the Department's plan, rail and transit security funding that was appropriated by Congress last October will not be awarded until this September. And the same malaise applies to grants to secure our ports, our buses, for securing buffer zones around nuclear and electrical plants, and grants to hire more firefighters. The Department, working with its contractors, put together a list of 77,000 critical infrastructure sites around the country. It is an undifferentiated list including nuclear power plants and electrical grids, an Old McDonald's Petting Zoo, a fleamarket, and an ice cream parlor. How ridiculous. Without careful choices, how does that investment make us safer? The Congress gave the Department authority to allocate first responder funds based on risk, and what did they do? They cut grants to New York by 37 percent and the Washington, DC, area by 43 percent. Nearly 5 years after 9/11, key issues, such as fixing FEMA, establishing chemical security standards, inspecting cargo on commercial aircraft, inspecting air passengers for explosives, securing our ports, and making sure that State and local governments have effective mass evacuation plans, are all languishing at the Department. The list of issues that are festering at the Department goes on and on. To the Department of Homeland Security I have two words: Wake up. To the administration, I simply say, if you are not going to lead on making our homeland safer, than follow the lead of Chairman Gregg and the United States Senate. Chairman Gregg has done a masterful job on this bill. I urge adoption of the bill.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I must oppose the Sessions amendment because it would eliminate critical border security funds from this bill. The subcommittee has carefully balanced the needs of our law enforcement personnel on the border, and an across-the board cut, like that proposed in the Sessions amendment, would leave our borders dangerously exposed. I remain committed to strengthening the fencing along the border. But it is unwise to finance that fencing with cuts in our border security elsewhere. I join the chairman in opposing this amendment.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this year marks the 150th birthday of the town of Piedmont, WV. This little town, charted in 1856, is located on the North Branch of the Potomac River in the northeastern corner of West Virginia. In the late 19th Century, the town of Piedmont bustled with economic activity. A period of prosperous growth began when the Baltimore Ohio Railroad established a locomotive shop complex and switching yard in the area, and the town became an important freight-generating point on the B&O line. When local entrepreneurs persuaded surrounding railroads to turn from wood to coal for firing their locomotives, the coal industry in the region boomed. In the 1880s, William Luke established the West Virginia Paper Company's paper mill--Westvaco--in Piedmont, which became a major source of jobs for Piedmont residents. This included native Appalachians, migrant African Americans, and European immigrants, especially Italians and Irish. Therefore, soon after the opening of the paper mill, Piedmont became a town saturated with ethnic neighborhoods. A resident of Piedmont has written that, ``Piedmont's character has always been completely bound up with the Westvaco paper mill.'' This Town of Piedmont features some unique characteristics. For example, ``Ripley's Believe It or Not'' once pointed out that Kenney House Hill in Piedmont is the only street in the world from which a person can enter all three stories of the same building! Piedmont is also known for a number of famous residents it has produced. This includes Don Redman, a famous jazz musician and composer, who wrote a number of hit arrangements for American music greats like Jimmy Dorsey, Harry James, and Count Basie. Henry Gassaway Davis was a giant in the coal mining and banking industries in the late 19th Century, and a two-term U.S. Senator from West Virginia. In 1904, Davis was the Democratic nominee for Vice President--he was 80 years of age at the time, making him the oldest person ever nominated for President or Vice President on a major party ticket. Thousands of people throughout the United States know of the town of Piedmont becauce of the writings of another of the town's famous residents, the nationally renowned writer and eminent scholar, Henry Louis Gates. Dr. Gates is the W.E.B. DuBois Professor of Humanities at Harvard University and Chairman of Harvard's Department of African and African American Studies Program. In his memoir, Colored People, Dr. Gates discusses life in Piedmont during the 1950s. The book, which reflects on his childhood in this small rural community, before and during the civil rights movement, is a vivid portrayal of the people of Piedmont, whom he describes as ``virulent nationalists--Piedmont nationalists.'' ``[N]estled against a wall of mountains, smack-dab on the banks of the mighty Potomac,'' writes Dr. Gates, ``we knew God gave America no more beautiful location. `` According to Gates, the town's credo is: ``all New York's got that Piedmont's got is more of what we got. Same but bigger.'' ``Otherwise,'' he writes, ``the advantage was all to Piedmont.'' Mr. President, I congratulate the town of Piedmont, the little town ``on the side of a hill in the Allegheny mountains,'' as Dr. Gates calls it, on its 150th birthday which the town will celebrate with its ``Homefest.'' I wish the town the best of success on this milestone event.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent my name be added as a cosponsor to Senator Vitter's amendment No. 4615.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I shall offer an amendment to strengthen chemical facility security. As Yogi Berra once said, ``this is like deja vu all over again.'' This is the fourth appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security, and every summer, I have offered an amendment to provide incentives to the chemical sector to secure their facilities by establishing a chemical security grant program. Unfortunately, at every turn, the administration opposed my amendments and those amendments were defeated. The administration claimed that it was partnering with the chemical sector and that they were doing enough to secure their facilities. In my State of West Virginia, there are 73 chemical manufacturing plants and 100 chemical distribution plants. If there were an attack on one or more of those facilities, the potential loss of human life and damage to the local and national economy would be devastating. The same can be said for facilities in New Jersey, New York, Texas, Michigan, California, Pennsylvania, and many other States. The Department of Homeland Security's National Strategy for Securing the Chemical Sector states that ``the value of the sector to the Nation, as well as the potentially high consequences associated with some chemical facilities, make the Chemical Sector a potentially attractive target for terrorists.'' Despite the multitude of warnings that the chemical sector is vulnerable to attack, including its own warnings, the administration has shown a great reluctance to make security at chemical facilities a priority. Last year, the Government Accountability Office concluded that for 93 percent of the chemical industry, it is uncertain whether facilities are improving security at all. Only 1,100 of the 15,000 chemical facilities identified by the Department of Homeland Security are known to adhere to voluntary industry security procedures. The Environmental Protection Agency reports that 123 chemical plants located throughout the Nation could each potentially expose more than a million people if a chemical release were to occur. I was encouraged last summer when the DHS Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection and Information Security testified before Congress that a system to enforce and audit security standards must be put in place for the chemical sector. Unfortunately, no action has been taken since his testimony. This year, in its National Strategy to Secure the Chemical Sector, DHS says, ``legislation that would provide the Department of Homeland Security with overarching regulatory authority for the Chemical Sector security should be enacted.'' If the administration were serious about chemical security, it would have submitted legislation to back up this tough talk. Yet, the administration has not submitted such legislation. Nor has it played an active role in encouraging the congressional leadership to work with the various committees with an interest in this matter to resolve their differences and bring a bill to the floor. This morning, the administration submitted its statement of administration policy on the bill that is before the Senate, and once again the administration is silent on this matter. For the life of me, I do not understand why this administration does not take securing our chemical facilities seriously. I applaud the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee for reporting legislation on this matter, and I thank Senator Joe Lieberman for cosponsoring this amendment. My amendment requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue interim final regulations for chemical facilities that he determines present the greatest security risk. The substance of the regulations would be established by the Secretary. I believe this is a strong first step. Any regulations issued by the Secretary under this authority would only be applicable until final regulations issued under other laws are established. We have waited too long. The potential devastation--the terrible loss of life, the huge hit to the Nation's economy, the irreparable harm to our air and water--the potential devastation demands that we take steps now to secure these chemical facilities. There has been enough talk; it is time to act. I urge all colleagues to support this amendment. I send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BYRD. I agree with my friend from Michigan. I understand that Secretary Chertoff has said that the establishment of the final northern border air wings will be completed in fiscal year 2007. These funds will help the Secretary meet his goal. My amendment, which was cosponsored by the chairman of our subcommittee and adopted unanimously by the Senate yesterday, provides $105 million for air and marine interdiction, operations, maintenance, and procurement. Certainly, $12 million of those funds could go to Michigan for the establishment of this important and final northern border air wing. I will work with the chairman in conference to ensure that the border security funds are retained in conference. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the aforementioned materials be printed in the Record.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I was just saying as I came in, I saw these young pages here--I have been around here quite a long time, but I haven't gotten used to these. Our country has put a man on the Moon and brought him back to Earth again, but it hasn't yet perfected a really good public address system. A Senator such as myself is not used to the public address system and has to learn how to use the ones we have. As I was saying, I said the person who really introduced court reporting in the Roman Senate was Cicero, which I will discuss at another time. Amendment No. 4557

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, when the President sent his budget to the Congress in February, it was based on a false premise. The President's budget assumed that the Appropriations Committees would raise the aviation fees on airline passengers by $1.23 billion. The President and his advisers at the Office of Management and Budget were aware that the Congress would not approve this tax increase on airline passengers because the administration tried a similar proposal last year, and the Congress responded with a bipartisan no. Thus, the President's budget is kind of a hollow one--h-o-l-l-o-w, hollow. It leaves a gaping $1.23 billion hole in the homeland security budget. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Cochran, provided the subcommittee with some additional resources, but the fact remains that this bill is still $515 million below the President's request and $350 million lower than the bill that was passed by the House of Representatives last month. The amendment I am offering today attempts to rectify this discrepancy. My amendment provides an additional $350 million for border security infrastructure enhancements, and it is fully paid for. I am pleased that the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Gregg, is working with me on this amendment. As we continue to hire more Border Patrol agents and other immigration enforcement officials, we need to give them the tools they need to do their job, and we need to start paying for those tools now so they will be available as more and more Border Patrol and immigration enforcement officials are hired and trained. The Border Patrol needs new helicopters because the average age of its helicopters is nearly 40 years. The average age of our Customs primary fixed-wing aircraft is 30 years. All of our border enforcement officials, including the newly hired officials, need more vehicles, including all-terrain vehicles, high endurance vehicles, and even more buses to transport and remove illegal aliens. Customs and Border Protection has a requirement for 18 unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs. The Senate-passed immigration bill authorizes more UAVs. Yet the only one we had operating on our border crashed in the desert this past spring. The amendment I am offering provides real dollars for our aging border infrastructure. It provides $90 million for additional fencing, tactical border infrastructure, and facilities. It provides $105 million for air and marine items, such as new helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles, the standing up of all planned northern border air wings, and the facilities to house and maintain these aircraft. It provides $55 million for replacement vehicles for our border and immigration personnel, and it also provides $15 million for the ongoing Information Technology Modernization Program at Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The President's budget requested $47 million in direct appropriations for the Business Transformation Program at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Because of the hollowness of the President's budget submission, these funds were not included in the bill reported out of committee. The program is a multiyear effort to modernize immigration benefits services. So this amendment will help to reduce the rate of fraud in the program and to ensure the security and the integrity of the immigration system. This amendment provides the $47 million requested by the President for this program. Finally, my amendment adds $38 million for fraud detection and national security activities at USCIS. This $38 million will add 100 new positions to enable FDNS to conduct benefit fraud assessments of additional immigration benefits, including training efforts necessary to further enhance the background checking process. We must have the technology and trained personnel in place now if we are to ensure that only those individuals who are legally allowed to be in this country are obtaining benefits and other privileges. How is the amendment paid for? The amendment is fully paid for through increases in existing fees on non-U.S. citizens. Border security in this country must be more than just a political slogan in this campaign year. Do you know this is a campaign year? I do. I am running. Border security must be one of the Nation's top priorities. The people out there watching through those lenses will agree with that. Border security must be one of this Nation's top priorities. The United States is on track to hire over 6,500 new Border Patrol agents and immigration enforcement officers. But what happens once they are on the job? Do we send them to the border without weapons, without radios, without trucks and Jeeps? Without this amendment, without these resources, we will be telling our Border Patrol agents in essence to stem the tide of illegal immigration with little more than a polite smile--little more than a polite smile. Asking illegal immigrants to please turn around just won't cut it. Our Border Patrol must have the law enforcement resources to get the job done. If we are truly serious about securing our borders--and not just engaging in hollow rhetoric--then we will put real dollars on the border. I commend my chairman, Senator Gregg, for his support, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my chairman for his support. I ask unanimous consent that further consideration of the amendment be waived.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the President of the United States, in his January State of the Union Address, told America: ``The enemy has not lost the desire or the capability to attack us.'' He was right. I am sure the President is correct about that. But some of the speech writers and policy writers for the administration seem to be living in alternative worlds. After the administration's decision to allow Dubai Ports World to operate terminals in six major U.S. ports, the administration asserted that it has a robust, layered security system for our ports. Yet the White House has proposed for the second straight year now to eliminate the Port Security Grant Program. How serious is the administration about port security when it decides to allow Dubai Ports World to control six major U.S. ports? How serious is the administration when it underfunds port security? How serious are they about port security when Customs and Border Protection inspects only 5 percent of the 11 million containers that come into the country each year? How serious is the administration about port security when the Coast Guard inspects only one-third of the foreign ports that trade with our country? How serious is the administration when the Coast Guard Deepwater budget for replacing its ships, planes, and helicopters will not be completed until 2026? How old will I be then, in 2026? Well, it really doesn't matter. That is 20 years away. How serious are they when it takes over 11 months to make grant funds available to ports for needed security measures? My amendment would provide $648 million to fill critical gaps in our paper-thin--paper-thin--do you see how thin this paper is--our paper- thin port security programs. The amendment would provide resources for more container inspection equipment and personnel, more port inspections, more Coast Guard ships, more Coast Guard planes that are essential to securing our borders, and more port security grants. Currently, only 5 percent of all of the cargo containers entering the United States are physically inspected by opening the containers. Now, this is paper-thin security. My amendment would fund 60 more cargo container imaging machines at our seaports and rail border crossings that can view inside a container. It will also fund the hiring of 354 additional Customs and Border Protection officers to inspect these containers and address anomalies in cargo containers that may be triggered by the radiation portal monitors deployed at the ports. Currently, the Coast Guard has only 82 inspectors to conduct facility investment compliance at domestic ports and 34 inspectors to review security plans at foreign ports. Of the 144 countries that conduct maritime trade with our country, the Coast Guard has assessed security at only 51. At the current rate of inspections, Coast Guard inspectors will visit countries that trade with the United States only once every 4 years. Now, this is paper-thin security. Under my amendment, the Coast Guard would complete the assessment of all 144 countries every 2 years. My amendment would also provide the Coast Guard with funding to conduct random spot checks of all domestic port facilities and assess the vulnerability of our most strategic ports here at home. Domestically, the Coast Guard inspects the 3,064 U.S. facilities that are subject to the Maritime Transportation Security Act regulations just once per year. The Coast Guard has no funding to conduct random spot checks of these facilities. My amendment includes funding for approximately 80 new positions to establish a robust spot check program at each Coast Guard sector office, an important element in any enforcement regime, wouldn't you think so? The Coast Guard has completed vulnerability assessments at 55 militarily and economically strategic ports. Currently, no funding is available to update these assessments which were completed 2 years ago. But my amendment would allow the Coast Guard to reassess the vulnerability of approximately 10 ports. The condition of Coast Guard ships and planes is declining rapidly. These assets spend more and more time out of service. For example, total patrol boat hours in 2004 were 25 percent lower than in 1998. Current Coast Guard maritime patrol airplanes can only provide half of the hours required to meet operational commitments. At the same time, funding constraints require maintenance on these aging assets to be deferred more and more every year. My amendment provides $184 million for the Coast Guard to buy new patrol boats, maintain existing cutters, buy new maritime patrol aircraft, and arm its helicopters for homeland defense in U.S. ports and harbors. Coast Guard Patrol boats are operating in theater less today than they were in 1998. Total boat hours were only 75,000 in 2004, compared to the 1998 baseline of approximately 100,000 hours. The decline in operational hours has been the result of aging assets and the loss of 8 patrol boats deployed to the Middle East for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Under the Coast Guard's Deepwater modernization plan, this gap won't be closed until 2012 at the earliest. Funding in my amendment would enable the Coast Guard to purchase 2 additional patrol boats for a total of 5 in fiscal year 2007. This will provide the Coast Guard with 6,000 desperately needed Deepwater patrol boat hours in drug and migrant transit zones. Finally, my amendment includes $190 million for port security grants, which would bring fiscal year 2007 funding to $400 million. The Coast Guard estimates that $5.4 billion is needed through 2012 for security at our ports. To date, only 15 percent of that amount has been funded despite the fact that United States ports handle over 95 percent of U.S. overseas trade. Last year, Homeland Security was able to fund only 24 percent of the projects requested. This is paper-thin security. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the American Association of Port Authorities supporting the amendment be printed in the Record.