Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. The White House knew, when it sent the budget to the Congress, that the funding relied on a tax hike on air travelers--a tax hike the Congress had already rejected. The Appropriations committees lack jurisdiction to increase the aviation passenger tax, and, of course could not do so in this bill. As a result, despite Chairman Gregg's best efforts, the bill that is before the Senate does not provide the necessary resources for port security. My amendment addresses that shortfall. Just 2 months ago, the Senate approved my $648 million port security amendment to the supplemental. Regrettably, the President threatened to veto the supplemental unless what he characterized as low-priority spending was dropped from the bill. In conference, port security funding was stricken from the supplemental. I hope that the Senate will approve this port security amendment again and that this time, it survives in conference. The amendment is within the allocation available to the subcommittee for fiscal year 2006. The American people expect more than just a paper-thin security plan for our ports. I thank Chairman Gregg for his support. I thank my illustrious chairman, Senator Gregg, for his support, and I urge the adoption of my amendment. Exhibit 1 American Association of Port Authorities, Alexandria, VA, July 10, 2006. To: All Members of the United States Senate. From: Kurt Nagle, President and CEO, American Association of Port Authorities. Subj: Support Port Security Amendment on the Senate Floor. As a member of the United States Senate, I am writing to urge you to support an amendment to the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) FY '07 appropriations bill being offered tomorrow by Senator Byrd to increase funding for port security. This amendment represents a critical opportunity to make port security a higher priority for this nation. The American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) represents the leading public ports in the U.S., handling most of the maritime cargo imported or exported from this country. We strongly endorse this amendment to provide an additional $635 million to enhance port security by providing: an increase in port security grants, additional port security inspectors at foreign and domestic ports, additional cargo container inspection equipment, and improved maritime security through expedited purchase of Coast Guard planes and boats. Earlier this year, Congress and this nation focused its attention on the P&O Ports/Dubai Ports World transaction, which resulted in a nationwide debate on port security and calls for more security funding for this critical transportation asset. In response, the Senate and the House began working on legislation to strengthen maritime security. The Senate Greenlane Maritime Security Act (S. 2459--Collins/ Murray) and the House SAFE Ports Act (H.R. 4954--Lungren/ Harman) both call for significantly more funding for port security. The Senate-based emergency supplemental followed the recommendations in these bills, but much of the port security funding was eliminated due to concerns over the total spending level for the bill. Senator Byrd's amendment is aimed at once again adopting the funding levels in the House and Senate bills and making port security a high priority for this country. AAPA is especially interested in properly funding the Port Security Grant program. The Byrd amendment would bring the funding level up to $400 million for the year. This would help pay for the very costly new regulations DHS has proposed following the Dubai Ports controversy to require all maritime workers and facilities to comply with new Transportation Worker Identification Credential or TWIC requirements. DHS estimates that 40 percent of the $1 billion cost of this regulation will fall on port facilities. By supporting this amendment, Congress will provide federal funds critical to help co-fund this new mandate. With 99% of our international cargo by volume flowing through ports, we urge you to show the nation that port security is a priority in Congress by voting ``yes'' on this port security amendment tomorrow.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask that my amendment be called up and the clerk state it for the consideration of the Senate.

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate has before it the fiscal year 2007 Homeland Security appropriations bill. I commend our chairman. I am debating whether I should say ``who has no peer.'' I think I will stick with that. He has no peer when it comes to knowledge of the subject matter and as one who cares deeply about his country, his committee, its work, and about the needs that exist for appropriating adequate funds. I commend him. I commend his staff. They have done excellent work on this legislation. This chairman makes it his business to know what are the facts concerning the needs out there; who makes it his business, once he knows the facts, to go after the weaknesses, the soft spots, and, with a great determination, to do the task ahead. I commend the thousands of men and women who are on the front lines defending America's homeland. They do serve the Nation every hour of every day. Senator Gregg has tried to allocate limited--and I say limited, I stress the word ``limited''--resources to respond to those threats that present the greatest risk. He does not have the funds to deal with all the threats, but he has sought to respond to those threats that present the greatest risk. In doing so, Senator Gregg has included a number of improvements to the President's budget, particularly with regard to border security, baggage explosives detention, fire grants, and emergency management. However, there is a limitation to the ability of this chairman, or any chairman--a limitation to the ability of the Appropriations Committee--to address the problems in the President's budget. The bill is $515 million below the President's request, and only 4 percent higher than last year. There are funding shortfalls for port security, border security, rail security, and first responder grants. These shortcomings are largely a result of the administration's ill- considered proposal for the Appropriations Committees to enact an increase in the aviation passenger tax. While the President claims credit for a robust budget for securing our borders, his actual budget is hollow, hollow, hollow. The White House knew when it sent the budget to the Congress that the funding relied on a tax hike on air travelers--a tax hike that the Congress had already rejected. How about that. The Appropriations Committees lack jurisdiction to increase the aviation passenger tax and, of course, we could not do so in this bill. As a result of the President's proposal, the funding for homeland security in this bill is not only lean, it is also very lean. So I again commend Chairman Gregg for his masterful work in putting together this bill, but serious security problems remain. The Department of Homeland Security is now in its fourth year of existence, as Senator Gregg has explained. While many of its legacy agencies, such as the Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, and the Secret Service, continue to operate effectively, the Department itself certainly has become the gang that can't shoot straight. Nearly 5 years after 9/11, key issues, such as fixing FEMA, such as establishing chemical security standards, such as inspecting cargo on commercial aircraft and inspecting air passengers for explosives, such as 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, and these problems are not merely bureaucratic hassles. These are issues that imperil the safety of Americans--Americans--as they go about their daily lives. That is you and you and you and you out there in the plains, the prairies, the Rockies, the Alleghenies, you citizens, the safety of you citizens as you go about your daily lives. Only 5 percent of the 11 million cargo containers coming into this country are opened for inspection. We know that terrorists desire to bring a dirty bomb into this country. Over 6 billion pounds of cargo is placed on commercial airlines each year, and virtually none of that cargo is inspected. How about that. Do you feel any safer? How do you feel about that, now that I have said that? The Environmental Protection Agency reports that 123 chemical plants located throughout the Nation--and in particular in the Kanawha Valley in southern West Virginia--could each potentially expose more than a million people if a chemical release occurred. How does that make you feel? Yet according to the Government Accountability Office, only 1,100 of the 15,000 chemical facilities in this country are known to comply with voluntary security standards. Yet the administration has done virtually nothing to either require compliance or create incentives for the chemical industry to secure its facilities. Only 37 of the 448 airports in this country have acquired new technology to inspect airline passengers for explosives as they board airplanes. Does that make you nervous when you go up to the ticket counter to buy a plane ticket? There are in this country, in prisons, more than 550,000 criminal aliens in prisons in this country who have not been identified by the Department for removal from the country. Does that make you feel any safer? How about that. When they get out of prison, they may be walking the streets in your neighborhood. Where? In your neighborhood. They need to be removed from this country as soon as they finish their prison terms. The so-called millennium bomber crossed the U.S.-Canadian border in Washington State intending to blow up the control tower at Los Angeles International Airport. Just last month, 17 homegrown--get that, 17 homegrown--alleged terrorists were arrested in Toronto. Yet there are only 1,000 Border Patrol agents stationed along the northern border. That means that one lonely Border Patrol agent is responsible for patrolling 5.5 miles of the border. Nearly 5 years after 9/11, most of our first responders still do not have interoperable communications equipment. Can you believe that? Nearly 5 years after 9/11, most of our first responders still do not have interoperable communications equipment. Can you believe that? I have pressed for that most basic need for our first responders for nearly 5 years. This subcommittee is on top of its work, but it needs more resources. 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. According to the administration's own statistics, only 27 percent of State and 10 percent of urban area plans were rated as adequate to cope with a catastrophic event. 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. The Department of Homeland Security information systems are not secure. The GAO alone has completed 494 evaluations of DHS programs. The DHS Office of the Inspector General is spread so thinly 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 rather than getting the money out to State and local governments where the money can actually be used to secure our ports and mass-transit systems or to purchase interoperable communications equipment. In the fiscal year 2006 Homeland Security appropriations report, we directed the Department to send Congress a report by February 10 providing an expedited schedule for awarding homeland security grants. Last week, 5 months late, we got the report. The report detailed the Department's plan to award 20 different grant programs in the last month of the fiscal year. Congress approved funds last October, yet the funds will sit here in Washington for almost a year. 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. 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. What is the administration waiting for? Does there have to be another horrendous attack with thousands of deaths before this Department will shake out of its nearly comatose state? The Department's record should cause every citizen--that is you and you and you and you--alarm. The Department's record should cause every citizen alarm. It is a record that was entirely predictable. While I supported the creation of a Department of Homeland Security, I voted against the legislation that created this unwieldy behemoth. In consolidating 22 agencies into 1 department, the Congress created an organization that was destined from the beginning to have failures. This was a department that was created out of political expediency in the basement of the White House, not through careful analysis. In the months following 9/11, the President feared that the Congress was taking the initiative on securing the homeland. So the President directed a small White House team, cloaked in secrecy in the bowels of the White House, to draft a reorganization of homeland security agencies. No security experts were present. The political wizards conjured up this witch's brew. The result was a massive governmental reorganization rushed through the Congress in a matter of months. Do you remember that? I remember it. I expressed my concerns about it. As I said in the fall of 2002--did you get that--in the fall of 2002, 4 years ago: If we take this giant step, our homeland defense system will likely be in a state of chaos for the next few years. People may begin to read in the newspapers about startup problems in this vast new Department. These kinds of high- profile debacles could carry over to the Transportation Security Administration, the Customs Service, FEMA, the Coast Guard, or any of the agencies. That is what I said. For this administration, the illusion of security--like seeing a waterfall in the desert, an illusion--created by this Department and spawned in the White House cellar was more important than a careful plan for actually making Americans safer. Perhaps I should say that again. For this administration, the illusion of security created by this Department and spawned in the White House cellar was more important than a careful plan for actually making Americans safer. For this administration, it is OK to do homeland security on the cheap. For years, I have come to this floor, and others have come to this floor, and documented examples of the ways in which the administration relegates homeland security to a low priority--border security, rail and transit security, port security, chemical security, funds for firefighters, and the list goes on and on. This year, the administration proposed to cut the firefighter grant program by 45 percent. It was proposed to eliminate the SAFER Program, a congressional initiative that helps local governments hire more firefighters. The Department failed to transmit to the Congress the statutorily mandated needs assessment of our firefighters. I wonder whether the report is locked in someone's desk because it concluded that our fire departments still lack the resources necessary to purchase equipment capable of responding to a terrorist attack. Nearly 5 years after 9/11 and nearly 1 year after Hurricane Katrina proved that our first responders are not ready to deal with a catastrophic disaster, the President proposes to cut first responder grants by 13 percent below fiscal year 2006 and 33 percent below fiscal year 2005. There is another example of the rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul approach the administration takes to securing our homeland. Last week, the administration notified the Congress of a serious shortfall within the Federal Protective Service, the agency that secures over 1 million Federal employees and visitors to our Federal buildings. Rather than request additional funding for the shortfall or increase the fees charged to Federal agencies to cover the shortfall, the administration is proposing that we cut funding for explosives countermeasures and for detaining and removing illegal aliens to pay for the shortfall. Can you imagine that? The President tells the Nation that border security is a critical priority for our national security--and he is right, that is what it is. The President pushes the Congress to get tough on illegal immigration, and then his administration proposes to cut funding for detaining and removing illegal aliens. And in a world where we see explosions of improvised explosive devices killing American soldiers every day and with the Madrid and London train bombings, the administration wants to cut funds for developing explosives countermeasures here in the United States. What kind of confusion reigns at the other end of the avenue, at the White House? Does Presidential rhetoric now excuse rolling the dice with the safety of millions of Americans? Today, the Senate has before it the fourth Homeland Security appropriations bill that the Senate has considered since the Department was created. Under the leadership of the first chairman of the subcommittee, Thad Cochran, and under the leadership of the current chairman, Senator Judd Gregg, the Senate has striven to provide the Department with the resources it needs to do its job and to give clear direction for improving its efforts to secure the homeland. And it has been an uphill fight. I am pleased that, in this bill, Chairman Judd Gregg included a number of provisions that will improve the operations of the Department of Homeland Security. I hope that the administration downtown will listen to his lead and that the administration will follow his lead. Hardly a week goes by that the administration does not remind Americans of the continuing threat of terrorist attacks. As we debate the bill this week, I will offer two amendments to fill some of the gaps in border security and port security that were created as a result of the administration's unworkable proposal to finance $1.2 billion of the Department's budget through increased aviation passenger taxes. I will also support amendments that will be offered to increase funding for first responders and for rail and transit security. I encourage Congress to demand more of the Department of Homeland Security and more than rhetoric from the President. Again, I applaud Chairman Gregg for the expertise he brings to the bill, for the labor he expends, for his determination, his concern, and for the foresightedness he brings to the bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend, my longtime friend, the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, for his kind reference to me. I value his friendship. I value his views on the Constitution. I do, indeed, always.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this coming Tuesday is the Fourth of July. Two hundred and thirty years ago, in 1776, our Founding Fathers declared independence from Britain, establishing a nation on fundamentally new principles of government. Those principles, laid out in ringing tones in the Declaration of Independence and given flesh and substance in our Constitution, have stood us well for these last 230 years. That is 84,007 days, including leap years, and we are still going strong. Already, one can see the red, white, and blue bunting decorating stores, and one can see the fireworks for sale in those places where they are permitted. People are purchasing picnic and barbeque makings at the grocery stores and filling the propane tanks that will fuel the backyard grills. Next Tuesday, the Nation's air will be filled with the sizzle and aroma of good old hot dogs and hamburgers, steaks and shishkebobs, and barbeque of infinite regional variety. Sweet, luscious corn on the cob may lay atop the grill, roasting in its own leafy wrapping. Picnic tables will groan under the weight of creamy potato salad--potato salad like they make in Tennessee--tart coleslaw, egg salad or macaroni salad. Cold slabs of watermelon--Mr. President, cold slabs of watermelon--and fresh cherries will tempt some to initiate seed spitting contests. It is hard to imagine a more all-American feast. Even Thanksgiving, with its formality and fine china, does not capture the American spirit in the same manner as a barefoot feast like a Fourth of July picnic. And the entertainment, too, is all-American. In the morning, we line the sidewalks of countless small towns and communities to watch the parades of fire engines and floats. Small children ride on father's shoulders to get a better view, and dogs--yes, like my little dog-- circle below, tangling leashes around legs as they bark happily at the passing show. We wave at bands and we wave at the beauty queens, too, and local politicians before heading home to go boating, fishing, swimming, or just visiting with family in the cool shade of a tall tree. Americans celebrate the Fourth outdoors. In the evening, we gather after our picnics to listen to concerts and wait for the fireworks. The air now is filled with whizzing acceleration followed by an anticipatory pause, then the bursting pop of the exploding sparks. We ooh and ahh and clap. We are, generally, filled with a pride and love of our nation on the Fourth of July. We feel patriotic--yes, we do--in a general and fuzzy sense--a patriotism borne of a full stomach and stirring martial music, tinged with the scent of black powder and wrapped in red, white and blue bunting. This general sense of patriotism and this general sense of love of country is, of course, a good thing. We are the very fortunate few, just 299,062,710 or so of the world's 6,524,438,583 citizens as of June 25, 2006, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. That is just 4.6 percent or so of the world's population. We live in a nation richly endowed by nature, generally temperate in climate, and sparsely populated, though that may not seem true to anyone seeking to leave Washington for the beach this weekend. For 230 years--yes, two centuries and two decades-- America has expanded geographically, economically and intellectually, literally reaching the moon and the stars. We have made great discoveries in the sciences and in medicine. We look after our own and reach out to help others. Our Nation is far from perfect, to be sure, but I doubt that many of us would willingly trade it for another. George William Custis wrote that ``A man's country is not a certain area of land, of mountains, rivers, and woods, but it is a principle and patriotism is loyalty to that principle.'' I think he is only partly correct patriotism is loyalty to that principle as well as to the homeland over which that principle governs. We love our Nation for all that it is physically, the collection of geography and peoples that we know and love. But it is also the principles upon which our Nation was founded 230 years ago--principles to which we must always hold fast, lest they be eroded away. Our Nation was founded on the principles of equality and the rights of man to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is the job of government to ensure and protect these rights, and governments should only be based upon the consent of the people, not some powerful elite. Those fundamental principles should never be taken for granted. Even after 230 years of hearing them, they are not tired, run-of-the-mill, banal, or ordinary. Most of the other 96 percent of the world's population does not enjoy the blessings of those principles. Much of the rest of the world's population must live in the shadow of fear. Their governments have greater power and fewer restraints, and need not pay much attention to public opinion or internal dissent. In too many nations, dissenters can be jailed or simply ``disappeared'' if they dare to raise their voices to question their government's actions or policies. We are blessed to live under a system of government established to serve all of the people. Mark Twain wrote that ``The government is merely a servant merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.'' The orders that it is to obey should come from the people, and from a consensus of what constitutes the common good. That is rare in this world, a treasure to be guarded jealously. Our Founding Fathers drafted our Constitution to defend individual freedom and to provide opportunity for all. It is a government expressly designed to balance power so that no one person can ever become a tyrant unless the people, in their foolishness or their apathy, allow it. Abraham Lincoln once said that ``America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.'' In his book, Notes on Virginia, Thomas Jefferson wrote that, ``If once [the people] become inattentive to public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of general nature, in spite of individual exceptions.'' We the people are the guardians of our own liberty. Power and the trappings of power are as addictive as the strongest drug. When people in power come to believe that they know the interests of the Nation better than the people who are the Nation, and when people cease to listen to the people or to remember the folks back home, a dangerous situation is created. The historian, Henry Steele Commager, said that ``Men in authority will always think that criticism of their policies is dangerous. They will always equate their policies with patriotism, and find criticism subversive.'' Each of us, as citizens of this great land and benefactors of our system of government, must serve as its defenders, against invasion from without, of course, but also against erosion from within. We must be prepared to criticize when government strays from our fundamental principles, when it ceases to be the servant of the people. In doing so, we must be prepared to be called unpatriotic. That is hard to do when we are fired up on barbeque and fireworks and patriotic music. That is hard to do when we have troops in the field and anxious families back home. But criticism is not unpatriotic. Far from it. When we speak up, we emulate our Founding Fathers, who were not afraid to spread criticism where it was warranted. On the Fourth of July and on every day, Americans should feel patriotic in every sense of that word. We have every right to be proud of our Nation and our history. We Americans have every reason to look forward to a bright future, as long as we protect and encourage the right of every American to express his or her views and keep this Nation on the track that has carried us so well for so long. I close with a poem Arthur Nicholas Hosking, ``Land of the Free.'' I wish everyone a Happy Fourth of July. America, O Power benign, great hearts revere your name, You stretch your hand to every land, to weak and strong the same; You claim no conquest of the sea, nor conquest of the field, But conquest for the rights of man, that despots all shall yield. America, staunch, undismayed, your spirit is our might; No splendor falls on feudal walls upon your mountain's height, But shafts of Justice pierce your skies to light the way for all, A world's great brotherhood of man, that cannot, must not fall. America, in God we trust, we fear no tyrant's horde; There's light that leads toward better deeds than conquest by the sword; Yet our cause is just, if fight we must until the world be free Of every menace, breed, or caste that strikes at Liberty. America, home of the brave, our song in praise we bring-- Where Stars and Stripes the winds unfurl, `tis there that tributes ring; Our fathers gave their lives that we should live in Freedom's light Our lives we consecrate to thee, our guide the Might of Right. Mr. President, I hope that all the Senate family will have a safe, joyous Fourth of July The Building of the Ship 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 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 three,--are all with thee! --Henry Wadsworth Longfellow.

Mr. BYRD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend from Illinois. We are here today, once again, to debate the wisdom of amending the United States Constitution, to outlaw the desecration of the American flag. As I have stated repeatedly and sincerely over the years, there are few acts more deeply offensive to any of us than the willful destruction of that American flag which stands there beside the President's desk. The flag is a symbol of our Republic. It is a unique symbol of national unity and a powerful source of America's pride. I love the flag. We all love the flag and all that it represents. We revere the flag because it is a symbol of the liberties that we enjoy as American citizens. These are liberties that are protected by the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights. The Constitution is the instrument that provides for what that flag represents. Now, let me say that again. This Constitution that I hold in my hand is the instrument--there it is--that provides for what that flag represents. It is the Constitution that has been and continues to be the source--the source--of our freedom. We celebrate our freedom every time we pledge allegiance to the flag, every day that this Chamber comes to order and conducts a session. So we pledge allegiance to that flag and to the Republic--not to the democracy but to the Republic--for which it stands; one Nation, one Nation under God--yes, under God-- indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Think of that. Listen to that. One Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Seven years ago, in contemplation of a similar moment when the Senate was confronted with a constitutional amendment banning flag desecration, I spent long hours contemplating both the legal bases and the need for such an amendment. I said at that time, and I say again today, that I know of few subjects that have come before the Senate which have caused me greater anguish and consternation. I knew 7 years ago, and I know today, that many West Virginians, many of my colleagues, many of the people I represent support this amendment. But based on my continued examination of the matter, I believe that I must remain--and I shall remain--opposed to that amendment. I oppose it not because I do not love the flag because I do love the flag. I oppose it not because I fail to respect the sacrifices made by our veterans, our law enforcement officials, and our first responders who, for the benefit of all Americans, have given their lives and who have offered their lives in defense of our country and our flag because I do. Instead, I oppose it because while I agree that desecration of the flag is abhorrent, repugnant, I believe that amending the Constitution to prohibit flag desecration flies in the face--the very face--of first amendment rights like freedom of speech. Men and women have died to protect that freedom of speech, that freedom to express ourselves. Flag desecration remains a rare and isolated event in this large country of ours. The vast majority, the overwhelming majority of Americans respect the flag and they fly it with pride. They do not abuse it. The Senate Judiciary Committee has not held one hearing on this proposal. Let me say that again. The Senate Judiciary Committee has not held one hearing on this proposal. It is especially troubling to me that the Senate would seek to amend the Constitution--yes, this Constitution that I hold in my hand--and the first amendment--without holding even a single hearing on the need for this amendment. Now, I know that some who favor this amendment believe that the burning of the flag is sufficient to justify the adoption of this extraordinary--I say extraordinary--legislative remedy. And I, too, cringe, I shrink from, and I condemn any desecration of the flag. But I do not agree that it is necessary to amend the basic document, the basic organic document, the Constitution, to prohibit it. Furthermore, this constitutional amendment provides no actual punishment of those who desecrate the flag. Plus, if protection of the flag is a pressing concern--and I acknowledge that to many people it is--why do the backers of the constitutional amendment not support pending legislation, of which I am a cosponsor, which could be enacted to prohibit desecration of the flag more quickly? As we all know, a constitutional amendment requires ratification by three-fourths--three- fourths--of all 50 States, which could take up to 7 years, and it is likely that additional legislation to enforce the enactment would have to be enacted after that. I also would not support this constitutional amendment because it continues to be my heartfelt belief--and I wish I were mistaken--that the primary effect of the amendment will be to create more, rather than fewer, incidents of flag desecration, flag destruction. Zealous defenders of the first amendment who are offended, rightly or wrongly, by the passage of this amendment will surely cast themselves in a new role; namely, as provocateurs who, newly inspired, will deliberately seek to test the boundaries established by this proposed amendment if it is adopted. This is more than a matter of symbolism; this is a question of respect, respect for the founding document of the Republic--oh, how precious it is, this founding document, the Constitution of the United States, the supreme law--the supreme law of the land. Any disrespect for the Constitution is a repudiation of the basic principles and laws of our country. I do not relish giving a tiny minority of troublemakers the ammunition to denigrate--yes, denigrate not only the flag but also the Constitution of the United States. As I have stated repeatedly, this does not mean that I believe destruction of the flag is trivial or that encouraging reverence for the flag is not an important goal of our government. I simply do not believe that sporadic instances of flag burning should result in our advocating the course of amending the Constitution, amending the basic organic document on which this Republic was built and on which it stands, as a remedy. As I have recounted in prior speeches on this subject, the Constitutional Convention in 1787 debated in much depth whether there should be any--whether there should be any-- provision for amending the Constitution. Recognizing, however, that occasional revisions might be necessary--and thank God they recognized that occasional revisions might be necessary--the Convention finally agreed upon a compromise that deliberately made it difficult to amend the Constitution by requiring successive supermajorities. To that end, article V of the Constitution sets up a cumbersome troublesome, two- step process to amend the Constitution. The first step is approval either by two-thirds of Congress, or--and this has never been done--by a convention called for by two-thirds of the States. The second step is ratification by three-fourths of the States. So given the hurdles that were deliberately and knowingly and intentionally established by article V, it is no surprise that so few amendments to the Constitution have been approved. There are 27 amendments in all that have been approved, and the first 10 of the 27 were ratified en bloc in 1791. Those 10 constitute our Bill of Rights. Think of it: In the 216 years that have subsequently ensued, there have been just 17 additional amendments. If we disregard the 18th and the 21st amendments, marking the beginning and end of Prohibition, then we are left with only 15 amendments in 216 years. Get that. Only 15 amendments in 216 years. As I have advised my colleagues before, and as they well know, these 15 amendments can generally be divided into two roughly equal categories. One category consists of those amendments that deal with the structure--the structure and the organization of the three branches of Government--the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary. These include the 11th amendment, preventing the Federal courts from hearing suits against States by citizens of other States; the 12th amendment, regarding the election of the President and Vice President; the 17th amendment, establishing the direct election of Senators; the 20th amendment, regulating Presidential terms and related matters; the 22nd amendment, limiting the President to two terms; the 25th amendment, regarding Presidential succession; and the 27th amendment, deferring congressional pay raises until after an intervening election. There is little need to justify the inclusion of these provisions in the Constitution; however we may feel about them personally, their subject matter--namely the structure of the Federal Government--fits perfec1y within that of Articles I through IV. The second category of constitutional amendments consists of those that narrow the powers of government and expand or protect fundamental personal rights. These include the 13th amendment, banning slavery; the 14th amendment, which extended citizenship to all persons ``born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof'' and guaranteed all citizens certain basic protections; and the 15th, 19th, 23rd, 24th and 26th amendments, each of which extended the vote to new groups of citizens. Clearly, the flag desecration amendment goes in a new direction. For constitutional purposes, as I have said before in these debates, it is neither fish nor fowl. It does not address a structural concern; it does not deal with Federal relations between the national and State governments; it extends, rather than narrows, the powers of government and it is antithetical to the whole thrust of the Constitution; and it does not protect a basic civil right. Indeed, many opponents of the amendment argue that it restricts personal liberty, namely the right of freedom of expression. The l3th amendment forbidding slavery may be viewed as the only other amendment regulating the conduct of individuals. The 13th amendment was the product of a bitter, fiercely contested civil war, and it was necessary to end one of the most loathsome and shameful institutions in our Nation's history. This was an exceptional amendment necessitated by exceptional circumstances. I have introduced a resolution in support of a constitutional amendment protecting voluntary prayer in school. This is also an exceptional amendment required by exceptional circumstances. Although the Supreme Court has never expressly prohibited children from voluntarily praying in school, children are discouraged from praying in school. School administrators are loathe to address the issue for fear they will be assailed, wrongly, for having broken the law. Confusion regarding the legal posture of voluntary prayer in school has created an impermissible, exceptional circumstance which, I believe, must be addressed in a way that permits school children to pray voluntarily as they deem appropriate. Consequently, I have proposed this year, as I have numerous times over the past 40 years, a constitutional amendment that simply clarifies that the first amendment neither requires nor prohibits voluntary prayer in school. This amendment would address the exceptional circumstances that afflict thousands of school children, nationwide, who mistakenly believe that prayer should not be a part of their daily lives at school. In the final analysis, it is the Constitution that is the foundation and guarantor of the people's liberties, protecting their rights to freedom of speech and to worship as they please. The flag represents all of the cherished liberties which we as Americans enjoy--liberties explicitly protected by the text of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The flag is a symbol of all that we hold near and dear, and of our Nation's history. It is also a symbol of our Constitutional values. The flag lives only because the Constitution lives. Yet, as I have said in past debates on this issue, the Constitution, unlike the flag, is not a symbol; it is the thing itself. I think it might be well if, in addition to focusing on efforts to protect the flag against injury, injury which, though reprehensible, does not damage Constitutional principles, we make a greater commitment to learning the historical context of our flag as well as the actual text and meaning of the United States Constitution. I do not believe that Americans can participate meaningfully in their government if they do not know the legal foundation and principles upon which it is based. I believe that greater familiarity with the provisions of the Constitution would give all Americans not only an enhanced appreciation of the flag as being a symbol of the liberties that are enshrined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but also a literal understanding of our Government's checks and balances, their purposes, and of the duties of each of our three branches of Government to protect our personal freedoms. Finally, Old Glory lives because the Constitution lives, without which there would be no American Republic, there would be no American liberty, and there would be no American flag. We love that flag. But we must love the guarantees of the Constitution more. For the Constitution is not just a symbol; it is, as I say, the thing itself.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, when I was a boy growing up in Mercer County, WV, I made it a point to read the Bluefield Daily Telegraph. That was more than a few years ago, but I have not stopped reading the Bluefield newspaper. It is a strong instrument of information and education in the southern coalfields of West Virginia. That paper has been fortunate to publish the insights and analysis of many fine reporters. One of the best is Barbara Hawkins, who has announced her retirement after three decades of service. She is not only one of the best reporters from the Bluefield paper; she also is one of the best reporters to walk the hills of West Virginia. Local news media represent a community's window on the school board, city council, and county commission, the State legislature, and the Congress. The local media, more than any other resource, educate people about the issues that directly affect their lives. Barbara Hawkins knows, better than most, how vital a reporter's job is. She understands that newspapers are an instrument to inform the public about the issues and events that affect their daily lives. Through her work, Barbara Hawkins served as a teacher and a counselor, a defender of right and a pursuer of wrong, an advocate, a champion, and a friend to all in southern West Virginia. Now, after three decades of service, Barbara has decided to retire from daily reporting. But, as much as we would expect, she is not giving up the art of writing and informing. Her columns and special projects will continue, allowing all of us to learn from her insights and her experiences. Most of Barbara's work at the newspaper was in the public eye. But, more than anything else, Barbara's strength came from her deep devotion to her family. We have all walked the terrible journey with her after her daughter, Pam, was taken from this world, a victim of domestic violence more than 20 years ago. Barbara has never been shy about that loss nor about her efforts to prevent that shattering experience from touching other families. But what is not in the headlines is Barbara's incredible commitment to her daughter, Kimberleigh, her granddaughter, Pami, and all of the members of her family. While her work at the paper may be a great love of Barbara's, it pales in comparison to her love of family. Barbara's family is her source of strength and inspiration, now and always. On a personal level, I will miss reading Barbara's daily reporting. I made a habit of looking for her byline. She has always shown a keen insight into not only southern West Virginia but also statewide and national issues. Her instincts, her institutional knowledge, and her commentary have always caused me, like so many others, to stop and think and to consider alternate approaches. Her commitment to the greater good in society is something for each of us to emulate. I have often said that as long as there is a forum in which questions can be asked by men and women who do not stand in awe of a chief executive and one can speak as long as one's feet will allow one to stand, the liberties of the American people will be secure. That forum is this Senate. But the same can be said of the news media--the newspapers, radio stations, television stations, and other outlets that provide information that is important to the lives of all Americans. Freedom of the press is a key of this Republic. Without it, the American people can be led to disaster without so much as a whisper. Their freedoms can be trampled; their rights can be subverted. Barbara Hawkins defended that freedom. She exercised it every single day. And all of us are better for her work. I thank Barbara for her many years of service to the people of West Virginia and wish her well in the challenges that certainly are ahead of her in her life's journey.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have come to the floor this evening to congratulate my esteemed colleague, the very distinguished and able and honorable and highly respected chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on the completion of his final Defense authorization bill. He is my chairman, Mr. President. His tenure at the helm of the Armed Services Committee, on which I have the privilege to serve, has been eventful and very distinguished. But then distinguished tenure is not unusual for this Virginia gentlemen--another term I use lovingly and fondly and respectfully because it means something to me, having been in this Senate now for almost 48 years, having been on the Appropriations Committee for almost 48 years, having been on the Armed Services Committee for almost that long. This is a very special man--a Virginia gentleman in every sense of the term. I say this with the utmost admiration. Distinguished tenure is not unusual for this Virginia gentlemen, whose entire life has been spent in the service to his country, to his great State, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the cradle of Presidents. Since his enlistment in the Navy at the tender age of 17, during World War II, John William Warner, Jr., has put his immense and very considerable talents completely--I say completely--at the disposal of his beloved country. He is in a long line of Virginia gentlemen who have put their talents at the disposal of this beloved country of theirs and ours. A Virginia gentleman. What more noble term could be used? A Virginia gentleman. Whether serving in World War II, the Korean conflict, as an officer in the Marine Corps, or on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, John Warner always said, ``Here am I. Send me.'' Look at your Bible. Someone else said that. ``Here am I. Send me.'' John Warner has always said that--``send me.'' John Warner's remarkable career spiraled ever upward, eventually taking him to the office of assistant U.S. attorney, then to the office of Under Secretary of the Navy, then to the office of the Secretary of the Navy from 1972 to 1974, and finally to his present position as senior U.S. Senator from the great State of Virginia, having now won five consecutive elections to the Senate, beginning in 1978. I was then the majority leader of the Senate, yes, when he came to the Senate. This year, my friend John Warner became the second longest serving Senator from Virginia, second only to the illustrious Harry Flood Byrd, Sr., in the 218-year history of the Senate. Senator John Warner--what a man--is currently serving his 27th year in the U.S. Senate. What a record of achievement for his country and my country and your country, Mr. President. And what a shining example of dignity, intellect, style, integrity, and talent Senator Warner presents for the young people of his country and his State and my country and my State. He presents integrity and talent for the young people. Never given to harsh criticism--I have never heard him utter a word of harsh criticism--never given to rhetoric, never succumbing to the rank partisanship which has become so prevalent today in American politics on both sides of the aisle, John Warner is his own man. That is a lot to say. He is his own man. What more noble attribute? He is his own man, and I am proud to serve with him. I enjoy working with him. I shall miss his very steady hand on the wheel, at the helm of the Armed Services Committee. What a great position, what an honorable position-- the helm of the Armed Services Committee. But I will relish the opportunity to work with him for the good of our country in the years to come. Talk about class acts--John Warner is the classiest of class acts, and his comity, his courtesy, his unfailing good humor, and his refreshing bipartisan attitude are of incalculable benefit to this body. May we be blessed in the Senate by many more like him. I salute Senator John Warner for his patriotic service--my, look at that record--his patriotic service. How many times has he put his life on the line for the good old red, white, and blue, for Old Glory? I thank him for his patriotic service and for his selfless--selfless--selfless, I say, selfless, leadership. He is my kind of Senator. May God bless him. He is my kind of Senator. He is the best kind of man. I could say more and more and more about him, and I could say more and more and more about his colleague who works with him on the Armed Services Committee, the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Carl Levin. They are two of a kind. God, give us men! A time like this demands strong minds, great hearts, true faith, and ready hands. Men whom the lust of office does not kill; Men whom the spoils of office cannot buy; Men who possess opinions and a will; Men who have honor; men who will not lie. Men who can stand before a demagogue and brave his treacherous flatteries without winking. Tall men, sun-crowned; who live above the fog, in public duty and in private thinking. For while the rabble with its thumbworn creeds, Its large professions and its little deeds, mingles in selfish strife, lo! Freedom weeps! Wrong rules the land and waiting justice sleeps. God, give us men! Men who serve not for selfish booty; but real men, courageous, who flinch not at duty. Men of dependable character; men of sterling worth; Then wrongs will be redressed and right will rule the Earth. God, give us men! Men like Senator John William Warner.

Mr. BYRD. And I am sorry about that.

Mr. BYRD. Thank you, thank you.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Thank you.

Mr. BYRD. Thank you. Thank you.

Mr. BYRD. Thank you.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Before the Senator does that, may I inject--

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair, and I thank my distinguished friend from Virginia, Senator Warner. I have an amendment. I would at least like to debate it or have some time to speak on it. I was hoping that I might be able to speak for not to exceed 30 minutes on my amendment. I would like to throw that in the mix.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have not heard all of the debate, but from what I have heard, I don't think that another Senator, this Senator, would be precluded from asking for time to explain his amendment. Now if the agreement may preclude other amendments--I don't know whether it does or not. If it does, then that is one thing. But I have an amendment, and I would like to speak on it. I wonder if Senators wouldn't allow me to speak. I have four to six pages. I can do those in 40 minutes or less.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, today the Senate is debating two amendments on Iraq. The first amendment has been offered by Senator Levin. It is a nonbinding sense of the Congress that clearly illustrates that there must be a change in our policy toward Iraq. It states that it is neither in the American nor the Iraqi interest to maintain an open- ended commitment of large numbers of our troops. Some may challenge this idea and stubbornly maintain that we must stay the course, no matter the cost or the consequences. I would point these critics to the op-ed which appeared in the Washington Post on Tuesday, June 20, 2006, written by Iraq's National Security Adviser. Here is what he said: ``The eventual removal of coalition troops from Iraqi streets will help the Iraqis, who now see foreign troops as occupiers rather than the liberators they were meant to be'' and that ``the removal of foreign troops will legitimize Iraq's government in the eyes of its people.'' The distinguished Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, has crafted a good amendment which I will support. We need a change in our Iraq policy. Senator Levin has put his finger directly on the key issues facing our continued military occupation of Iraq. The second amendment which is being debated is an amendment by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry. His amendment proposes that American troops be redeployed from Iraq no later than July 1, 2007. Senator Kerry should be commended for offering his amendment. It is an important amendment, and it deserves a full debate. It directly addresses the most pressing issue facing the American people today. Last week the very distinguished Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, offered an amendment similar to that of Senator Kerry's. It was offered up as a sacrificial lamb, and a procedural motion was made to either kill the amendment or to continue debating it. I was one of six Senators who voted to continue debate on that amendment. Some may seek to ascribe my vote as a vote for the substance of Senator McConnell's amendment. But I shall speak for myself. As I have told Senator Kerry, my vote was not for the substance of Senator McConnell's amendment. My vote was to continue debate on the most important issue in our country today. My vote was in favor of the institution of the U.S. Senate, a temple of debate and free speech. Some may seek to hide from the controversial issue of Iraq, but I will not seek to hide from it. We Senators are sent by the people of our States to debate the critical issues facing our country, not to hide from them. My vote was in the minority on that procedural motion, but I stand by my vote which was in favor of debate on the momentous subject of Iraq. The amendment the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, offers will likely be voted on tomorrow, and I have spoken to Senator Kerry about the substance of his amendment. I know he is seeking a change in the administration's policy toward Iraq, which is acknowledged by most Americans to be a disaster. And he should be saluted for his courage in insisting on offering his amendment, even though he will be criticized--and perhaps even called unpatriotic by some--for speaking his mind. However, I cannot support the substance of his amendment. I do not support setting a drop-dead withdrawal date for our troops from Iraq. I do not believe that this is a wise policy. I have called time and time again for the President to begin bringing our troops home. Our troops cannot be brought home overnight. I also have concerns that this amendment is not strongly tied to the constitutional powers of Congress relating to the conduct of war. So for these reasons, for as much as I support his efforts to make a change in an ill-defined, open-ended, stay-the-course policy in Iraq, I will not support the amendment by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry. But there are other ways to effect a change in direction. So I rise today to ask that I may be given time to offer another amendment on Iraq. There is an urgent need for the U.S. Senate to consider as many options as we can to find an exit strategy with honor for our troops. Our country is polarized. The Senate is polarized. And I fear that we have let the usual partisan warfare put blinders, such as we put on horses, on ourselves and on our purpose. Every Member in this body, I am sure, would like to see a successful end to the war in Iraq. Every Member of this body on both sides of the aisle would like to do something that would speed the return of our troops home to the loving arms of their families. All of us, regardless of party affiliation, want to do the best thing for our country. And we would all do well to remember that both the President, the Chief Executive, and the Congress have important roles to play when it comes to the most critical decisions that can be made by any government; namely, the decision to go to war and the decision to come home from war. The American people are dismayed, as they should be, by this conflict in Iraq. I voted against our entry into that war. I voted against the invasion of that country without any provocation toward our country. Most assuredly, dozens of mistakes have been made and billions of dollars have been spent. Without a doubt, our international reputation has been damaged, and we are losing the support of our own people for a drawn-out commitment in Iraq and more and more loss of precious blood, precious life. Can we not try one more approach? Can we not? Can we not spend just a little more time on the consideration of a way out of Iraq? Can we not? Can we not? Can we not attempt to speak with one voice on the matter? Is that asking too much? I have a third way. This is a fresh approach, I believe. It returns Congress's rightful voice to the warmaking power, yet it avoids the pitfalls of usurping the executive branch's role in an ongoing war. It is respectful of the separation of powers, but it does outline a viable exit strategy for Iraq. The amendment I would like to offer, the amendment I would like to see debated on the Senate floor, is an effort to move the debate over the war in Iraq away from the realm of political mudslinging to the realm of constitutional responsibility. My amendment is a simple, straightforward approach to laying out a roadmap to bring our troops home from Iraq with honor and dignity, the honor and the dignity which they deserve. My amendment establishes the policy that the democratically elected Government of Iraq should assume responsibility for its own security. My amendment sets forth the conditions under which the congressional authority to maintain U.S. troops in Iraq would expire. This amendment is a genuinely fresh approach to unraveling the conundrum of how to disengage the U.S. military from Iraq. My approach does not attempt to micromanage the war. It is not an attempt to set artificial deadlines. It is not based on politically motivated rhetoric. It does not preempt the authority of either the President or the Congress. What it does do is it returns the focus of the debate to the role of Congress in the authorization of war. What my amendment does do is to reassert--yes, reassert--the role of Congress to authorize--or to terminate the authorization of--the use of force. The conditions under which the Iraq use of force authorization would expire are based on circumstances, not on timetables, and they include the following: When the Government of Iraq assumes responsibility for its own security; or if a multinational peacekeeping force were to assume responsibility for security in Iraq; or if the President certifies that the United States has achieved its objectives in Iraq; or if Congress were to enact a joint resolution to terminate the use of force authority. Mr. President, the situation in Iraq has undergone seismic changes since the original use-of-force authorization was granted by Congress in October of 2002. Since that time, our troops have completed the mission of removing Saddam Hussein from power and paving the way for the establishment of a democratically elected government in Iraq. The authorization under which the United States sent its military forces into Iraq--which I voted against--is now painfully outdated. So it is time to update that authorization to provide a statutory framework for returning our troops home, and to acknowledge that the war in Iraq does have an end point and is not an open-ended commitment. Mr. President, it is most important to understand that the amendment I am proposing speaks only to the intent and authority of Congress. So it does not--hear me now--it does not infringe upon, or in any way usurp, the authority of the President. No Senator has to set aside his or her support or opposition to the war in order to support my approach. But this amendment would send a powerful message to the people of the United States and to the people of Iraq, and especially to the democratically elected Government of Iraq. It would send the powerful message that the United States supports the security of Iraq but does not intend to become a permanent occupying force in Iraq. This is a message that the people of Iraq need to hear. It is a message that the people of the United States need to hear. It is a message that the people of the United States are clamoring to hear. My amendment is a realistic roadmap for the United States to remove its forces from Iraq in an orderly manner--a manner consistent with our national security interests. It is a legally enforceable formulation that should be embraced by all who are truly concerned with finding a solution to the problems in Iraq, not just using the debate over the war in Iraq as a political football. Surely, we owe the over 2,500 patriotic souls who have died fighting for our country in Iraq a little more time on this debate. Surely, we can consider the matter of the conflict in Iraq for a few more hours for the sake of the over 18,000 U.S. troops who have been wounded in that country, and the unknown numbers of Iraqi innocents who have been killed or maimed. Surely, we can discuss this matter on a level that is deeper than sloganeering like ``cut and run'' or ``stay the course.'' Mr. President, I hope our two leaders will work together to find a way for the Senate to debate my amendment and allow a vote on its merits. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on June 20, 1863, a new State was added to the Union. Today, 143 years later, we celebrate the birthday of West Virginia. I am always happy to have an excuse to share my love for West Virginia with the rest of the Nation. The story of West Virginia is unique and fascinating, a one-of-a-kind juxtaposition of geography, history, and politics. It is a story as interesting as the State is beautiful. The steeply folded mountain ridges that define the southern edge of the State, and her rich mineral and natural treasures that more than made up for her paucity of flat agricultural terrain, defined her early years and set her apart socially and economically from the rest of Virginia. West Virginia's natural attributes attracted a hardy, can-do breed of opportunistic settlers determined to scratch a living for their families from her rocky hillsides. They mined salt and coal, hunted and trapped, and cut small family farms out of the hillsides. These mountaineers had little in common with the gentrified, land- owning and slave-owning plantation masters of eastern Virginia's tidewater and piedmont regions. Thus, even as the issue of slavery began to strain the relations between the Nation's industrial North and her agricultural South, the contrasts within Virginia were sharp. A child of conflict, West Virginia's birth was surprisingly peaceful. Before the Civil War, the Commonwealth of Virginia was a large State, fraught with its own internal divisions, based largely on geography and economics. The eastern coastal plains and piedmont regions, with their large plantation economies, had much in common with the secessionist Southern States, while the mountainous Blue Ridge and Appalachian western portions of the State were populated by small farmers and woodsmen who had little use for the practice of slavery. Thus, when the convention was held in Richmond, VA, on April 17, 1861, to decide on Union or secession, the farmers and businessmen of western Virginia held with the North on the slavery question and the eastern half of the State held with the South. The matter was put to a statewide vote. Led by Clarksburg's John S. Carlile, Western delegates marched out of the Secession Convention and vowed to form a State government loyal to the Union. From May 13-15, 1861, another convention was held, this one in Wheeling. Delegates from western Virginia decided to wait for the results of the statewide vote, which approved Virginia's secession from the Union on May 23. After the statewide vote, it was proposed that delegates from the western counties be elected to a convention to decide the matter for themselves. The convention, conducted in Wheeling from June 11-25, 1861, established a Restored, or Reorganized Government of Virginia. Francis H. Pierpont was elected Governor. President Lincoln recognized the Restored Government as the legitimate government of Virginia, and senators and representatives were chosen to represent the pro-Union Virginia. In October 1861, residents of 39 counties in western Virginia approved the formation of a new Unionist State. A Constitutional Convention met in Wheeling from November 1861 to February 1862. At the convention, delegates selected counties to be included in the new State. In all, 50 counties were selected. Five additional West Virginia counties--Mineral, Grant, Lincoln, Summers, and Mingo--were formed after statehood to bring the total number of counties in West Virginia to its current 55. Some eastern and southern counties did not support statehood but were included in the new State for political, military, or economic reasons. The mountain range west of the Blue Ridge became the eastern border of the new State, to provide a natural barrier to a Confederate invasion which many feared. The secessionist Eastern Panhandle counties were included in order to control the important Baltimore and Ohio railroad line. The inclusion of secessionist counties in the new State made for a certain amount of tension and any number of fascinating war stories. Perhaps the most interesting war story involves the proclamation of West Virginia as a State. The U.S. Constitution requires that a new State gain approval for its establishment from the original State, which did not happen in the case of West Virginia. Virginia had seceded from the Union and was not, in any case, receptive to the idea of losing any part of its territory to the Union. Since President Lincoln had recognized the Restored Government of Virginia as the legal government of Virginia, it granted permission to itself on May 13, 1862, to form the State of West Virginia. The U.S. Congress approved the West Virginia statehood bill after amending it to assure that another slave State was not created. The Senate passed the West Virginia Statehood Act on July 14, 1862, and on December 10, 1862, the House of Representatives followed suit. President Lincoln signed the bill into law on December 31, 1862. On March 26, 1863, the citizens of the 50 counties approved the statehood bill, and on June 20, West Virginia was officially established. The Restored Government of Virginia, with Pierpont continuing as Governor, moved to Alexandria, VA, from Wheeling, now that Wheeling was no longer in Virginia but in West Virginia. The naming of West Virginia was also up for debate. Several possibilities were debated, including Kanawha, New Virginia, Western Virginia, Alleghany, Columbia, and Augusta, before the name of West Virginia was adopted by a majority of 30 votes. The runner up was Kanawha, which garnered just nine votes, including that of Mister James Henry Brown of Kanawha. Mr. President, these few facts are but a drop of water in the lake of West Virginia's history. I invite the Nation to come and discover more in person. Our history runs deep, from the fossils hidden in the coal seams and rocks to the misnamed New River, which is, ironically, among the oldest rivers on the continent. There are historic sites across the State from frontier forts to Revolutionary War and Civil War battlegrounds. West Virginia boasts an extensive park system that preserves the natural beauty of the State for all to enjoy. Fairs and festivals celebrate food from apple butter, blackberries, ramps, grapes, molasses and maple syrup. Sternwheelers, dulcimers, and even George Washington's bathtub merit their own festivals. People are not ignored, either, as festivals celebrate pioneers and indians, Black history and Celtic culture, as well as the heritage of counties and countries from Ireland to Italy, Greece to Lebanon. Music, from Appalachian string bands to bluegrass to gospel, comes in for its share of the fun. And the great natural treasures of West Virginia are not forgotten. There are festivals and jubilees for trees, rivers, birds, mountains, marble, coal, oil and gas, and even monarch butterflies. One can hardly mention West Virginia without thinking of the State's great craftsmen and women, renowned for stunning handmade products that are featured in many fairs and festivals as well as being available throughout the State in galleries and studios. Quilts, carvings, paintings, pottery and glass are but a few of the selections. Larger commercial firms are also famous for their fine artistry. In honor of West Virginia's birthday, each year the Blenko Glass Company of Milton, WV, produces a limited number of special edition pieces--the number equaling the number of years the State is celebrating. The 2006 edition consists of 143 glass vases, each 11 inches high in a blending jungle green base that fades to a topaz gold mouth, rimmed in cobalt. The beautiful commemorative vase this year was designed by Hank Murta Adams. What a lovely way to mark a special day. West Virginia is a special place. It may seem a little out of the way, but it is surprisingly close to many of the population centers on the east coast. It is full of quiet, peaceful spots--small towns with friendly people and breathtaking vistas of scenic beauty. It has churches and music, small farms and mills, rushing whitewater and still ponds. West Virginia is a place for family exploration, a place where it is easy to pull off the road and reenter the past, to stop and meet a craftsman at work, or just to eat a sandwich under a shady tree beside a cool stream. The more adventurous families might enjoy some of the whitewater rafting that West Virginia is famous for, or rock climbing, or paddling a canoe down a river canyon while watching for eagles overhead. You do not need to go on a crowded, canned cruise or to a hot, line-filled amusement park to find enjoyment. Just come to West Virginia and you will learn to love it as I do. Roy Lee Harmon wrote a poem about West Virginia that I would like to close with. Roy Lee Harmon was from Boone County and lived in Beckley for many years. He held the post of State Poet Laureate from 1937 until 1978, some 41 years, becoming the Poet Laureate Emeritus in 1979. He wrote six books of poetry before he died in 1981. In his last book, published in 1978, he noted that after suffering from a long illness, when he died, ``I shall thank God of all creation who has allowed me to live so long in my beloved hills of West Virginia and write my poems.'' I wish the State and all of her inhabitants, my beloved Mountaineers, best wishes for another year of happiness in their mountain fastness. Happy Birthday, West Virginia, and may God continue to bless you for another 143 years. West Virginia This was no land for lily-fingered men Who bowed and danced a neat quadrille, In towns and cities far beyond the ken Of mountaineers--who loved each rock and rill. It was a place for lean, tall men with love For freedom flowing strongly in their veins, For those attuned to vagrant stars above, To rugged peaks, deep snows, and June-time rains. And so our State was whelped in time of strife And cut its teeth upon a cannon ball; Its heritage was cleaner, better life, Within the richest storehouse of them all. With timber, oil and gas and salt and coal, It bargained in the world's huge marketplace. The mountain empire reached a mighty goal; It never ran a pauper's sordid race. And best of all, it sire a hardy flock Whose fame will grow with centuries to be, Tough as a white-oak stump or limestone rock, The mountaineers who always shall be free. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, banks of day lilies are celebrating their brief moments of glory as they turn their vibrant orange faces to the sun. The days are warm and mellow, not too hot for working in the garden or in the yard. The evenings linger, fading slowly into velvet nights filled with the trill of crickets, the sparkle of lightning bugs and the soft songs of whippoorwills. These are perfect evenings to spend on a country porch, watching the day slide into night. Late spring, almost summer--it is a lovely time of year. On Sunday, June 18, the Nation will celebrate Father's Day. Father's Day does not arrive with quite the same fanfare as Mother's Day. To be sure, stores have been busy reminding us to shop for Father's Day, and the racks are full of Father's Day cards, but there doesn't seem to be the same level of intensity as that which surrounds Mother's Day. The long distance lines will not be as busy. Florists will not be swamped with orders. But fathers around the country will be treated to brunch or to some other family gathering. They will open presents of golf shirts, ties, or cologne bought by family members frustrated because dad always just buys what he really wants whenever he wants it. He is forgiven for this fault only because his family is fairly sure that dad is unaware of the approach of any holiday, including Father's Day. Of course, fathers will put their dramatic skills to the test in order to express their gratitude. The comedian Bill Cosby famously once said, ``Fatherhood is pretending the present you love most is `soap-on-a- rope.' '' This is not to say that Nation does not appreciate men. Far from it. We observe the birthdays of our Founding Fathers. We celebrate the fathers and other men who brave the terrors of distant battlefields to defend the Nation. We have monuments and parks, schools and mountains named after men who have won battles, made important discoveries, or who have contributed to the growth and prosperity of our Nation. But rarely, if ever, are these memorials dedicated to the important role that men play in their own families. The role that fathers play in the lives of their children, in helping to shape the future of the Nation, certainly merits this one day of recognition. The poet William Wordsworth observed: ``Father!--to God himself we cannot give a holier name.'' Fathers carry a heavy load of duty, responsibility and worry. Every day, and during many sleepless nights, they worry about big things, like the state of the economy or the impact of trade agreements on their jobs. Will they be able to support their families and make their mortgages on time? Will they keep their job or lose it to an overseas competitor? Is their pension secure? Will they have health care--not for themselves, for men are not very good about going to the doctor regularly, but for their families. Fathers also worry about small details, like oil level in the lawn mower or that suspicious drip under the sink. Is the prime interest rate going up or down, and how will that affect their ability to pay the monthly bills? Everything that can affect their families is a concern for fathers, who take their role as providers for their families very seriously, indeed. By June 18, children are out of school at last. In days past, that would mean long summer days to while away with swimming and in play, and idle hours spent reading a book in the shade. In today's world, however, summer vacation for children out of school is often a headache for families with two working parents. Summer becomes instead a scheduling nightmare of day camps or sitters, or of latchkey kids who must spend the day indoors behind lock and key because there is no adult available to supervise their play. Instead of two working parents meaning a better life, today two working parents may as easily signal a family working hard just to keep up. Many fathers endure long commutes between work and home so that their families can live in a nicer neighborhood than those same fathers did growing up. Fathers are often portrayed as workaholics who live for their jobs and who see families as a minor annoyance, if they notice them at all. In truth, fathers worry about their jobs because they fear that, if they do not concentrate on their work, they will lose their jobs and not be able to provide for their families. Today's economy is too uncertain, too volatile, and too global to take for granted. This Father's Day, so many fathers are in harm's way in Afghanistan or in Iraq facing daily dangers that have already taken too many other fathers from their wives and children. To them and to their families, I offer my prayers of thanks and of safekeeping. May God bring them safely home. The families for whom this Father's Day will be a mix of loving remembrance and painful loss, I can offer only the comforting words of sympathy and the acknowledgment of their sad, sad loss. These fathers in heaven, for there they surely are, still have an important place in the family. Like all fathers, they teach by example. In this case, their example is one of bravery and sacrifice, patriotism and service. Clarence Budington Kelland once wrote of his father: ``He didn't tell me how to live; he lived, and let me watch him do it.'' These fathers in uniform, like good fathers everywhere, teach by the example of their own lives. ``The words that a father speaks to his children in the privacy of home are not heard by the world, but, as in whispering- galleries, they are clearly heard at the end and by posterity.'' Jean Paul Richter made that observation, and that truism captures the essence of a father's importance. Each day they gird themselves for battle, whether that battle be in Iraq or in an office or a factory. They go, and they return. They do not complain, or at least not much, about how much time they must spend away from home. They simply do the best that they can for their families, day after day, year after year. They love their children. They play with them when they can. They monitor schoolwork and behavior. They set standards and measure performance. They mete out discipline. They scrutinize their children's friends. They say ``yes'' as often as they say ``no.'' Good fathers participate in all aspects of their children's lives. Our families are our Nation's greatest resource and greatest treasure. I am proud each year to take a few minutes to recognize the critical role of mothers and fathers on the days set aside for each of them. It reminds me to think always of how families are affected by the votes I cast here in the Senate. The votes we cast here affect the lives and well being of mothers and fathers and families. We need to make life easier for families, not harder. We should not send fathers into battle without good cause. We should not add to the burden of debt without good cause. Our spending decisions should add to the prosperity and well-being of the Nation and our families, first and foremost. I close with a favorite poem of mine, one that I often recite for Father's Day. I learned it as young boy, and the words and the lesson have come to mean more to me with each passing year: That Dad of Mine He's slowing down, as some folks say, With the burden of years from day to day; His brow bears many a furrowed line; He's growing old--that dad of mine. His shoulders droop, and his step is slow; And his hair is white, as white as snow; But his kind eyes sparkle with a friendly light; His smile is warm, and his heart is right. He's old? Oh, yes. But only in years, For his spirit soars as the sunset nears. And blest I've been, and wealth I've had, In knowing a man like my old dad. And proud I am to stand by him, As he stood by me when the way was dim; I've found him worthy and just as fine, A prince of men--that dad of mine.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote on an emergency supplemental appropriations bill that would bring the total amount of funds appropriated for the war in Iraq to $318 billion. That is $318 for every minute--every minute--since Jesus Christ was born. Think of it. That is a staggering amount of money. The total amount of funds appropriated for the war in Iraq is $318 billion. But that is not the whole story. According to a recent report by the Congressional Research Service, the monthly cost of the war in Iraq is going up, up, up, right into the stratosphere. During the opening phases of the war, the cost of the war was estimated to be $4.4 billion per month. According to the new CRS estimates, that pricetag will rise to an average of $8.1 billion for each month of the next year $8.1 billion. In other words, $8.10, or more, for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. How can this be? How is it that after 3 years of war the cost of operations in Iraq has gone up by 80 percent? Part of the problem is that funding for the war is being hidden--yes, hidden. Where is it?--hidden from the normal budget authorization and appropriations process. Instead of the President providing Congress with an estimate of how much the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--there are two of them--how much the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost each year, the administration has chosen to hide those costs. Where? In emergency spending bills. Since the war in Iraq began in March 2003, the Congress has enacted eight emergency supplemental appropriations bills. None of these measures received the full scrutiny--the full scrutiny--that is so necessary for such massive expenditures. The President refuses to include the full cost of these wars in his regular budget request. Instead, the President sends to the Congress emergency requests with little or no detailed justification. Five times I have offered amendments in the Senate urging the President to budget for the cost of the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Five times. And five times those amendments have been approved, most recently on April 24, 2006, by a unanimous vote--hear me, a unanimous vote--of 94 to 0. However, the White House has shown no sign that it will take the fiscally responsible course of beginning to budget for the cost of the wars. There are two wars going on. One, I supported the war in Afghanistan. The other war in Iraq, I did not support our invasion of Iraq for constitutional reasons. I am pleased to work with my colleague, Senator McCain, to build on my previous efforts to urge the administration to budget for the war. We are there. We are in there. Our men and women are there, and we are going to support them. I didn't support the policies that sent them there, but I support them, the men and women, our men and women who are over there. The amendment before the Senate, of which I am a proud cosponsor, would create a requirement in law to force the administration to give a full year's estimate of the cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. What is wrong with that? The amendment before the Senate, of which I am a proud cosponsor, would create a requirement in law--a requirement in law--to force the administration to give a full year's estimate of the cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The amendment also requires the administration to submit a detailed justification of the administration's budget request. As the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, I expect that this justification would include a breakdown of the funding request by each appropriations account and detailed information about prior years' war spending. The very last thing that Congress wants to see is a gargantuan request of scores of billions of dollars in the form of a slush fund or a no-strings-attached transfer account. This is the people's money. Do my colleagues know that? Think about it. Whose money is this that we are talking about? It is the people's money, those people out there who are watching this Senate through those lenses. That is their money, the people's money that we are talking about, and the American public has the right to demand accountability. With this amendment, the Senate is charging a fiscally responsible course which can generate a real debate on the cost of these wars. That is a debate that is long overdue--long overdue--and I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. Flag Day