Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this Sunday, April 9, is Palm Sunday, thank God. It marks the beginning of the Christian holy week and Easter. The Senate will recess today so that Members might celebrate this holy week in the home churches, among their families, friends, and constituents. Before we adjourn, I would like to give a little consideration to those world-shaping events of some 2,000 years ago. Whether one counts himself or herself as a Christian of any denomination or a follower of any other faith, one must admit that the man, the person, at the center of the Easter celebration was and is a figure of historical import, just as are the founding figures of the rest of the world's religions. There are today, by some estimates, approximately 2.1 billion Christians of all denominations, more than any other religious affiliation, and almost twice as many as those who describe themselves as secular, nonreligious, agnostic, or atheist--1.1 billion. By way of contrast, there are approximately 1.3 billion adherents of Islam and just 14 million of Jesus' Jewish faith. That one man's example and teachings have affected so many people so deeply and for so many years is a testament to his faith. On Palm Sunday, a rabbi from Galilee, whom we know best today as Jesus, made a public entrance into Jerusalem to celebrate the Jewish holiday of Passover. In doing so, Jesus surely knew what was in store for Him. He knew--He knew--He was a wanted man. He knew He was a wanted man--He knew it-- marked for arrest by the civil authorities who feared that He would incite a rebellion that would lead to Roman occupation and unprotected by religious authorities who feared His teachings and who could not countenance His refusal to deny being more than human. But still He came. Still He came and the people cheered and threw palm leaves, a symbol of triumph and the national symbol of an independent Palestine, before his path. What a remarkable act of faith. What a remarkable act of faith to come willingly to one's tragic end, seeing through the suffering to the miracle of resurrection. The miracle; the miracle of resurrection. What a remarkable act of courage, to remain silent and smiling at the people He knew would not or could not aid Him in His final hours. Some 2,000 years later, those 2.1 billion Christians around the world commemorate Jesus' final entry into Jerusalem by making crosses out of palm fronds, combining the triumphant entrance with the lasting image of Jesus Christ on the cross. By Thursday, called Maundy Thursday or Holy Thursday, Jesus' freedom ended after His last meal, when He was arrested and imprisoned, betrayed--yes, betrayed--by Judas for 30 pieces of silver. Foreknowledge could not have made those fateful moments any easier to bear. On Good Friday, Christians will solemnly remember His suffering and death upon the cross. Candles and lights will be extinguished in memory of His final hours. Good Friday remains a sad, dark day despite the knowledge of His resurrection to leaven the terrible suffering He endured. Holy Saturday is a day of vigil, as Christians figuratively keep watch over Christ's tomb and await the glorious resurrection to come. And Easter Sunday, or Resurrection Sunday, is a joyful, glorious day of reaffirmed faith, of promises kept, of hope restored. I read now from the Book of St. Matthew, the 28th chapter, the first through the seventh verses, the King James version of the Holy Bible: In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightening, and his raiment white as snow: And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where [Jesus] lay. The scriptures say: Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, He ``goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see Him: Lo, I have told you.'' For the next 40 days, Christ proved to his followers that He had, indeed, risen from the dead. Then He ascended into Heaven, fulfilling the final promise of His wondrous life. As John 3:16 so beautifully summed up the central promise of the Christian faith, ``For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.'' In Jesus' resurrection and ascension, God offers the greatest and only proof of His love and His promise that in death, there is life in faith. That--that, not chocolate bunnies and colorful eggs--is the great gift of Easter. Its comfort and solace linger on in the soul even longer than chocolate does on the lips. It warms us even more during sad times--yes--than does the spring sun after a cold and cheerless winter. And so it is because of this great gift, this promise--yes, this promise of everlasting life and the heart-searing proof through sacrifice that Christianity survived the passing of its founder. Nearly 2,000 years later, the words and example of the Rabbi from Galilee motivate and support over 2 billion--over 2 billion--people around the world. Governments have tried to stamp Him out, but still He endures in the hearts of His devout followers. Technology has tried to distract us, but still His word--yes, his word--beckons. I am sure that whatever trials and tribulations lie ahead, His teachings and faith will offer comfort and hope no matter how bleak the future might appear. In all of the moments of our lives, large and small, joyful and desolate, triumphant and abject, He--yes, He is there at our side with support and hope. I do feel for those 1.2 billion people who do not have faith to sustain them and give them strength. It is a deep, deep well of support and nourishment for the weary soul--for the weary soul. Mr. President, I close my speech with the words of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow from his poem ``Christus: A Mystery.'' In the poem, Prince Henry is speaking to Elsie as they cross the square: This is the day, when from the dead our Lord arose; and everywhere, out of their darkness and despair, triumphant over fears and foes, the hearts of his disciples rose, when to the women, standing near, the angel in shining vesture said, ``The Lord is risen; He is not here!'' And, mindful that the day is come, on all the hearths in Christendom the fires are quenched, to be again rekindled from the sun, that high is dancing in the cloudless sky. The churches are all decked with flowers, the salutations among men are but the Angel's words divine, ``Christ is arisen!'' And the bells catch the glad murmur, as it swells, and chant together in their towers. All hearts are glad; and free from care the faces of the people shine. See what a crowd is in the square, gayly and gallantly arrayed! Mr. President, let me close--and I hope I have not imposed too long on the Senate and on my friends who may have been waiting--let me close with these words spoken by William Jennings Bryan in his speech on immortality. Now is the time to think about it. That is what Easter is: the promise of immortality. If the Father deigns to touch with divine power the cold and pulseless heart of the buried acorn, and make it burst forth from its prison walls again in the mighty Oak, will He leave neglected in the Earth the soul of man, who was made in the image of his Creator? If He stoops to give to the rosebush, whose withered blossoms float upon the autumn breeze, the sweet assurance of another springtime, will He withhold all the words of hope from the sons of men when the frosts of winter come? If Matter, mute and inanimate, though changed by the forces of Nature into a multitude of forms, can never die, will the imperial spirit of man suffer annihilation after a brief visit to this tenement of clay? No. Rather, let us believe that He who, in his apparent prodigality, wastes not the raindrop, the blade of grass, or the evening's sighing zephyr, but makes them all to carry out His eternal plans, has given immortality to the mortal. Amen. in thanks to jay and sharon rockefeller Mr. President, at this time of Easter, at this time of rejoicing in the promise of eternal life, I also rejoice in the friendship that I share with my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Jay Rockefeller, and his lovely wife, Sharon. Jay and Sharon Rockefeller are jewels. They have always opened their doors and their hearts to me and to my darling wife, Erma. For more than 20 years, Jay Rockefeller and I have worked in partnership for the people of West Virginia. There have been good times and bad; moments of great joy and moments of great hardship. But at each turn, we have stood together for our State, the Mountain State, West Virginia, where Mountaineers are always free. In the past few years, when my wife battled against illness, Jay Rockefeller always took the time to ask about her. He and Sharon always wanted to know how Erma was. Stand her side-by-side with Jay, and Erma probably didn't reach his chest. But she had a place in his and Sharon's heart, just as he and Sharon did in hers. Today, Senator Jay Rockefeller is recovering from back surgery. He has missed some time in the Senate, and we have missed him here. I know that Jay will be back on his feet soon. And, when he walks through the Senate door, I shall welcome him with open arms. I wish Senator Jay Rockefeller and his charming wife, Sharon, a most blessed Easter, and I thank them for their long and warm friendship toward Erma and me. I thank all Senators, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today, I speak on the Specter-Leahy substitute to S. 2454, the Frist border security bill. At the present time, the Frist bill contains no amnesty for illegal aliens. However, if the Specter-Leahy substitute is adopted, it would effectively attach a massive amnesty for 8 to 12 million illegal aliens and provide those illegal aliens with a path to U.S. citizenship. According to immigration experts, the pending substitute amendment-- with its guest-worker program and amnesty for undocumented aliens-- would open the gates to 30 million legal and illegal immigrants over the next decade. I oppose this amnesty proposal--absolutely and unequivocally. I urge the Senate to pass a clean border security bill like the House did-- without amnesty, without a guest-worker program, and without an increase in the annual allotment of permanent immigrant visas. For more than 4 years, the Nation has wondered how 19 terrorists managed to penetrate our border defenses to carry out the September 11 attacks. It chills the blood to think of those terrorists crossing our borders not once, but several times, in the months before the attack-- easily outsmarting our border security checks to plot their dastardly scheme. They walked among us as tourists, students, and business travelers. Three of them even stayed in the United States as illegal aliens. Today, more than 4 years later, our country remains dangerously exposed to terrorists seeking to penetrate our border defenses. Since September 2001, an estimated 2 million new illegal immigrants have successfully beaten our border and interior security, and are now settled in the United States. That's 2 million new illegal immigrants since the Government pledged to regain control of the border after the 9/11 attacks. Our immigration agencies are plagued with management and morale problems. They still do not have an exit-entry system with interoperable, biometric watch lists to accurately identify who is entering the country. We still cannot tell who is leaving the country. The requirement for foreign visitors to use biometric, machine-readable passports continues to be delayed, exempting millions of aliens each year from background checks. The administration, still, stubbornly refuses to support the resources our border and interior enforcement agencies need to effectively do their jobs. Meanwhile, the immigrant population continues to surge. The Center for Immigration Studies calculates that 1.5 million immigrants are settling both legally and illegally in the United States each year. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that immigration will be a major cause of the population of the United States increasing to 400 million people in less than 50 years. The National Research Council estimates that the net fiscal cost of this massive immigration ranges from $11 billion to $22 billion per year, with the infrastructure of our Nation--our schools, our health care system, our transportation and energy networks--increasingly unable to absorb this untenable surge in the population. Many tout the additional border and interior enforcement personnel authorized since September 2001, but the President's budget has not come anywhere close to funding those authorizations. Homeland security expenditures have been capped at levels that prohibit the Congress from adequately filling the gaps. Senator Gregg and I have had to fight for every additional nickel and dime that goes into our border security. It is never enough. Immigration enforcement in the United States remains decidedly half- hearted. We are pulling our punches. Tougher border security mandates are signed into law, but then not fully funded. Statutory deadlines are set, but then indefinitely postponed. Undocumented aliens are denied Social Security cards, but then issued driver's licenses and taxpayer identification numbers. Employers are warned not to hire illegal labor, but then allowed to sponsor, without penalty, their illegal workforce for legal status. Funds are not requested to perform even the barest level of work site enforcement. We send troops abroad ostensibly so that we don't have to fight terrorists on American streets, but then we turn a blind eye to millions of unauthorized, undocumented, unchecked aliens--any one of whom could be a potential terrorist. When lawmakers and the so-called pundits comment that our current system is unworkable, it's because we haven't really tried to make it work. The contradictions in our immigration policies are undeniable. Lawmakers decry illegal immigration, but then advocate amnesty proposals which only encourages more illegal immigration. Advocates may try to distance themselves from that word--``amnesty''. They may characterize their proposals as ``guest worker'' programs or ``temporary visas'', but the effect is the same--to waive the rules for lawbreakers, and to legalize the unlawful actions of undocumented workers and the businesses that illegally employ them. Amnesties are the dark and sinister underbelly of our immigration process. They tarnish the magnanimous promise of a better life enshrined on the base of the Statue of Liberty. They minimize the struggle of all those who dutifully followed the rules to come to this country, and of all those who are still waiting abroad to immigrate legally. Amnesties undermine that great egalitarian and American principle that the law should apply equally and fairly to everyone. Amnesties perniciously decree that the law shall apply to some, but not to all. Amnesties can be dangerous, dangerous proposals. Amnesties open routes to legal status for aliens hoping to circumvent the regular security checks. By allowing illegal aliens to adjust their status in the country, we allow them to bypass State Department checks normally done overseas through the visa and consular process. One need only look to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, where one of the terrorist leaders had legalized his status through an amnesty, to clearly see the dangers of these kinds of proposals. Our immigration system is already plagued with funding and staffing problems. It is overwhelmed on the borders, in the interior, and in its processing of immigration applications. It only took 19 temporary visa holders to slip through the system to unleash the horror of the September 11 attacks. The pending proposal would shove 30 million legal and illegal aliens--many of whom have never gone through a background check--through our border security system, in effect, flooding a bureaucracy that is already drowning. It's a recipe for utter disaster. Amnesties beget more illegal immigration--hurtful, destructive illegal immigration. They encourage other undocumented aliens to circumvent our immigration process in the hope that they too can achieve temporary worker status. Amnesties sanction the exploitation of illegal foreign labor by U.S. businesses, and encourage other businesses to hire cheap and illegal labor in order to compete. President Reagan signed his amnesty proposal into law in 1986. At the time, I supported amnesty based on the same promises we hear today-- that legalizing undocumented workers and increasing enforcement would stem the flow of illegal immigration. It didn't work then, and it won't work today. The 1986 amnesty failed miserably. After 1986, illegal immigrant population tripled from 2.7 million aliens, to 4 million aliens in 1996, to 8 million aliens in 2000, to an estimated 12 million illegal aliens today. In that time, the Congress continued to enact amnesty after amnesty, waiving the Immigration Act for lawbreakers. The result is always the same: For every group of illegal aliens granted amnesty, a bigger group enters the country hoping to be similarly rewarded. The pending substitute amendment embodies this same flawed model. It's more of the same: More amnesties, more guest worker programs, more unfunded mandates on our immigration agencies. We ought to be focusing on how to limit the incentives for illegal immigration, and erase the contradictions in our immigration policies that encourage individuals on both sides of the border to flout the law and get away with it. What's backwards about the pending substitute amendment is that it is actually rewarding illegal aliens. It rewards illegal behavior. It authorizes illegal aliens to work in the country. It grants illegal aliens a path to citizenship. It pardons employers who illegally employ unauthorized workers. It even repeals provisions in current law designed to deny cheaper, in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens. The pending amendment is a big welcome mat for illegal immigrants. It is a misguided and dangerous proposal that would doom this Congress to the failures of previous Congresses. The economist John Maynard Keynes once described the qualification for an economist as being the ability to study the present, in the light of the past, for the purpose of looking into the future. Patrick Henry echoed those sentiments more than a century earlier when he said: I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging the future but by the past. Our Nation's experience shows that amnesties do not work. They are dangerous proposals that reward and encourage illegal immigration. Our experience shows that we cannot play games with our border security or American lives could be lost. I will oppose the Specter-Leahy substitute amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask to speak not to exceed 3 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, one of the greatest orations ever uttered was the oration on the Crown. And it can be said that the theme of that oration was a question: Who least serves the State? Demosthenes answered that question: He who does not say what he thinks. Socrates was asked which great oration of Demosthenes he liked best. Socrates answered, ``The longest.'' In other words, he liked the longest oration Demosthenes ever uttered. The Greeks taught the world to think. This man who is going to leave us after this term, regrettably, and to our great loss, has always impressed me as a thinker, one in the train of Demosthenes. Paul Sarbanes is a great Senator, a great Senator. I can remember when he went with me and other Senators to Panama. There we talked to Torrijos and the other leaders of Panama, including our own people. It was there that I changed my mind about the Panama Canal Treaty. Paul Sarbanes was one of those who was there, who walked with us, who talked with us, who was on plane with Torrijos. Paul Sarbanes has not only been a thinker, he has been a great inspiration to those who have served with him. He will be missed. He will not be replaced. There are no more Paul Sarbanes. I shall never forget him. He leaves a great void when he goes. One might say: Whence cometh another?

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Monday, March 20, marks the vernal equinox and the first day of spring. On Monday, night and day are equal in length, marking the midpoint of our climb out of the dark winter into the glorious long days of spring. Lovely, lovely spring. It takes a cold heart indeed not to love the springtime. Spring is the morning of the year, And summer is the noontime bright; The autumn is the evening clear, That comes before the winter's night. The Golden Rod, by Frank Dempster Sherman. Though most of the United States has enjoyed an unseasonable winter with mild temperatures and even thunderstorms in February, it is comforting to see the plants and animals around us heeding the celestial timetable even if the mercury in the thermometer is not. Right on schedule, this year as last year and in all the years before, the crocus and the daffodil burst through the leaf mold and lawn thatch, staining the subdued winter landscape with vibrant color, like Easter eggs hidden in the grass. In time for Saint Patrick's day, the grass put on a deep cloak of Irish green. Day by day, the skeletal tree limbs and branches are swelling and budding with soft, new leaves whose iconic color can only be named ``spring green.'' Next week, the Nation's Capital will be celebrating the Cherry Blossom Festival. These lovely trees, a gift from the Government of Japan, delight jaded commuters as well as visitors with the ethereal beauty of their graceful blooms reflected against the dark water of the Potomac River or framing the elegant marble columns of the Jefferson Memorial. Oh, fair to see Bloom-laden cherry tree, Arrayed in sunny white: An April day's delight, Oh, fair to see! Oh, Fair to See by Christina Rossetti. Deep within the earth, the soil warms, ready for priming for the germination of crop and flower seeds. The ageless cycles of agriculture and horticulture are rumbling into action across West Virginia and the Nation. The Bible says, ``The hay appeareth, and the tender grass sheweth itself, And herbs of the mountains are gathered.'' I know that I am not alone in appreciating the rhythmic patterns of a freshly plowed field while anticipating the mouthwatering goodness of the crops to come. For 2,000 years and more, mankind has rejoiced in the promise of spring. Even now, home gardeners are sowing early spring crops of peas and starting more tender shoots under lights. Fertilizer and weed killer are in short supply at garden stores, while bedding plants are starting to arrive. And it is not just the farmers and gardeners among us who revel in the signs of emerging springtime. All of God's creatures feel the pull of the warming sun, the warming of the waters, the melting of the snow and ice. The penciled Vees of Canada geese hew to the seasonal timetable as their formations power their way northward, honking to announce their passing as they drive to their northern nesting grounds. The dainty goldfinches that mob our winter feeders are changing, too, shedding their drab winter garb for brilliant springtime yellow as they chatter and flit about. As the longer, warmer days advance, more and more birds appear, and the sky fills with their vernal songfest. The poet, Percy Bysshe Shelley, famously captured the beauty of birdsong in his poem, ``To a Skylark:'' Hail to thee, blithe spirit! Bird thou never wert, That from heaven, or near it, Pourest thy full heart In profuse strains of unpremeditated art. Higher still and higher From the earth thou springest Like a cloud of fire; The blue deep thou wingest, And singing still dost soar, and soaring ever singest. In the golden lightning Of the setting sun O'er which clouds are brightening, Thou dost float and run Like an unbodied joy whose race is just begun. Deer, once a common sight along the roadsides and fields in the later afternoon dusk, are retreating into the woods, nibbling new shoots as they seek out hidden coverts in which to secret their wobbly-legged fawns. The deer's place along the road seems, alas, to have been taken over by amorous skunks seeking their springtime love. In cities as well as rural areas, the spring shows itself. In the stone flower beds around the Capitol, the tulip bulbs are sending green spears up through the soil as the squirrels race about in an exuberant display of spring energy. The spring sunshine and warmth energize us all. Parks and playgrounds are welcoming young shoots of humankind to play among the swings and slides while contented parents keep watch. Even our dogs affect a more jaunty air as they soak up the fresh scents and nibble on the green shoots of new grass. Later, as the summer heat saps our energy and lawn chores become more tiresome, as the children get sweaty and the dogs pant in the shade, we may long for the dark cold days of winter. But now, in the gentle warmth of spring sunshine, it seems as if our prayers are answered with the blooming of the flowers. Winter is passing, and spring is here. Welcome, welcome spring. Mr. President, I close with another poem about spring. This one from Robert Frost, one of the 20th century's leading American poets. His poem, ``A Prayer in Spring,'' beautifully captures the ephemeral pleasure of an early spring day with a word of thanks to the Creator of it all. A Prayer in Spring Oh, give us pleasure in the flowers today; And give us not to think so far away As the uncertain harvest; keep us here All simply in the springing of the year. Oh, give us pleasure in the orchard white, Like nothing else by day, like ghosts by night; And make us happy in the happy bees, The swarm dilating round the perfect trees. And make us happy in the darting bird That suddenly above the bees is heard, The meteor that thrusts with needle bill, And off a blossom in mid-air stands still. For this is love and nothing else is love, The which it is reserved for God above To sanctify to what far ends He will, But which it only needs that we fulfill.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Schumer be added as a cosponsor to my amendment.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, once again the White House has proposed a level of funding for Amtrak that will result in bankruptcy for the company, endangering rail service in every region of the Nation. Two amendments have been offered to increase Amtrak's funding to a level of $1.45 billion. My amendment, which is fully paid for, would provide the additional funds necessary for the Appropriations Committee to approve $1.45 billion for Amtrak. The amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania pretends to pay for the increase by cutting something called function 920 allowances. It assumes deeper cuts for education, for low-income home energy assistance, for border and port security, and for our troops. I urge Members to show support--real support--for Amtrak by voting for my amendment.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, this amendment adds $550 million to the fiscal year 2007 budget for Amtrak. All aboard for Amtrak. Amtrak. The Bush administration's budget for the coming year assumes that Amtrak will be handed a funding cut of almost $400 million--a whopping cut of more than 30 percent. As in past years, there is absolutely no inherent logic underlying this budget request. Every observer who has testified before the Congress regarding Amtrak's financial needs has concluded that dramatic cuts--dramatic cuts--of this kind would result in Amtrak being thrown into bankruptcy, endangering rail service in every region of the Nation, including the Northeast corridor. Amtrak is not just a high-speed train service for the residents of Boston, MA, New York City, and Washington, DC. Amtrak is also a network that links cities such as Portland, ME, and Wells, ME, with that Northeast corridor. It also links communities such as Prince, in Raleigh County, WV, with cities such as Cincinnati, OH. It connects White Fish, MT, with St. Cloud, MN. It connects rural America with the central transportation and economic networks of our country. This amendment would restore Amtrak's funding to the level of $1.45 billion. This funding level stands some $150 million higher than the current funding level. However, it also is $150 million below the level that has been requested by Amtrak's board of directors. I should point out that every member of Amtrak's board of directors was appointed by President George Bush and this slate of Bush appointees is telling us they need $1.6 billion to invest adequately in the railroad, guarantee quality service, and restore this increasingly aging infrastructure of the Amtrak system. This amendment would provide $1.45 billion. That is the precise funding level that 97 Senators across the political spectrum, Republican and Democrat alike, voted for when we passed the Transportation-Treasury Appropriations bill less than 5 months ago. I hope today, with the passage of this amendment, we can make the same affirmative bipartisan statement to our States and communities that their Amtrak service will be secure for yet another year. Amtrak recently reported that it had achieved a record year for ridership for the third year in a row. The number of citizens using the Amtrak network grew to 24.5 million last year. Amtrak is growing in popularity in all regions of the country. For example, on Amtrak's Empire Builder--which serves Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana, Idaho, and Washington--ridership has grown by more than 14 percent over the last year. The Downeaster service in Maine grew by 10 percent, while the Heartland Flier service between Oklahoma City and Ft. Worth, TX, grew by a healthy 23 percent. For those of my colleagues who like to complain that Amtrak is a bloated, excessively costly railroad, I point out that just as Amtrak has achieved record ridership in each of the last 3 years, so has it reduced its employment levels over each of these years. Between 2001 and 2005, Amtrak has reduced its workforce by over 22 percent. If the Senate adopts this amendment this afternoon, we can make an affirmative statement to these millions of Amtrak riders across the entire country that we will not allow them to be left standing at the platform next year because of the White House's budgetary shenanigans. I understand the junior Senator from Pennsylvania is expected to offer an amendment concerning Amtrak. The amendment by the Senator from Pennsylvania would do nothing to help Amtrak or the millions of riders who rely on Amtrak. The amendment purports to help Amtrak but it does no such thing. The amendment does not increase the allocation to the Appropriations Committee. Instead, the amendment pretends to pay for increased Amtrak funding by cutting something called function 920 allowances. When it comes to the real work of passing appropriations bills, the Senate has to cut real programs. We cannot cut something called ``allowances.'' This amendment is a magic asterisk. It is not fiscal discipline. My amendment is paid for by eliminating loopholes in the Tax Code, loophole closures that have been voted on by a majority in this body on several occasions. In reality, what the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania would be asking the Senate to do is pass an amendment that will force cuts in critical programs. What programs would the Senator have us cut? Funds for the troops? Funds for medical care for our veterans? Funds for educating our children? Would the Senator have the Senate cut border or port security? Would he have the Senate cut grants for Low Income Home Energy Assistance? The budget resolution that is before the Senate provides discretionary funding that is so limited for domestic programs that cuts in such critical programs are just not likely, they are inevitable. The amendment by the Senator from Pennsylvania would precipitate even deeper cuts. I urge Senators to vote for this amendment, the Byrd amendment, cosponsored by myself and the other Senators listed. I send the list to the desk.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, the Snowe-Wyden amendment purports to create a reserve fund within the budget that could be used to allow the Federal Government to improve its negotiating position with respect to lowering the price of prescription drugs. I will vote in favor of this amendment because much more needs to be done to insure that Americans will not be forced to give up their medications because of rising prices. However, I know that a number of veterans in West Virginia are concerned about what a Governmentwide prescription drug negotiation program would mean to the prices of medicines dispensed through hospitals in the Department of Veterans Affairs. There are concerns that veterans would lose access to the medications they need at advantageous prices. It is important for West Virginians to understand that the Snowe- Wyden amendment does not have the force of law, and, even if it should be adopted today, the amendment would have no impact on the VA's ability to negotiate favorable drug prices for our veterans. Additional legislation would have to be passed by Congress and signed into law before any changes to the VA's prescription drug negotiating power could be made. I will continue to keep the concerns of West Virginia's veterans in mind should the Senate take up a debate on legislation that relates to the price of prescription drugs.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague for his kind remarks. At this time, I offer an amendment cosponsored by myself and Senators Lautenberg, Clinton, Dorgan, Lieberman, Kerry, Biden, Durbin, Menendez, and Jeffords.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on March 15, West Virginia State University will dedicate its new research institute in honor of the commissioner of the West Virginia Department of Agriculture, the legendary Mr. Gus R. Douglass. This is a wonderful and fitting tribute to a great West Virginian and outstanding public servant. Commissioner Douglass has served now 10 terms in his position, the longest reigning agriculture commissioner in the history of West Virginia, and, indeed, in the entire Nation. During his tenure, he has always demonstrated a sincere commitment to the farmers and to the people of West Virginia. His long and admirable record includes his support of programs designed to maintain family farms and new farming technologies and efforts to preserve a way of life that has become all too uncommon in our country. His work on behalf of our State's farmers has helped to improve the lives of all West Virginians. In his remarkable career, Commissioner Douglas has brought national recognition to West Virginia. He has served as the national president of Future Farmers of America, the first president of the national FFA Alumni Association, the president of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, and chairman of the Southern Regional Committee for Food and Agriculture, as well as numerous other positions. Meanwhile, Gus and his lovely wife, Anna Lee, have maintained their own family farm at Grimm's Landing in Mason County, WV. Along with their four children, and their families, they have done their part to continue the tradition upon which this great Nation was founded. The Gus R. Douglass Institute at West Virginia State University will be a lasting legacy to the outstanding and unwavering commitment of Commissioner Douglass to public service. I thank West Virginia State University for bestowing this honor upon him. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter which I wrote to Commissioner Douglass congratulating him on this well deserved recognition be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, historian and author Henry Adams wrote that ``practical politics consists in ignoring facts.'' Here is a fact. Without offsets, we cannot afford to continue to cram hundreds of billions of dollars of new tax cuts into the federal budget. To create the illusion of affordability, this budget already excludes the costs of the war in Iraq beyond next year. It excludes the costs of protecting middle-income taxpayers from the alternative minimum tax beyond next year. It excludes the costs of putting Social Security and Medicare on sounder footings. It excludes a host of critical domestic investments--everything from education funding to highway maintenance-- and continue to postpone them year after year. Even while it excludes or hides all of these inevitable costs, this budget still projects that our national debt will continue to rise to stratospheric levels. Here is another fact. Relying primarily on domestic discretionary funding cuts will never, never seriously reduce the annual spending-spree deficits of this administration. The part of the federal budget known as domestic discretionary spending comprises only one-sixth of the total federal budget. The squeeze on domestic discretionary spending these past few years has already produced funding shortfalls that are not only impractical, but also wholly irresponsible and damaging to our country's future. These cuts have real-world consequences. They are not just accounting exercises. Look at what happened to FEMA's ability to respond to natural disasters. Look at the shortfalls in the LIHEAP program affecting so many needs of our citizens in our States. Look at the costly reduction of federal mine safety inspectors, and at the spike in mine fatalities this year. Look at the paltry amount included in the budget to prepare and respond to a possible Avian Flu Pandemic--one of the most dangerous health threats confronting the United States today. Medical experts warn that a global, cataclysmic pandemic is not a question of ``if,'' but ``when.'' Like any natural disaster, it could strike at anytime. Avian flu could take the lives of tens of millions of people, and deliver a devastating $675 billion blow to the U.S. economy. Yet, we are failing to adequately safeguard the American people because of political convenience and lust for cuts in domestic spending. Look, for instance, at the shortfalls in veterans funding, with the administration trying to backfill by raising copayments and fees for veterans health care services, not to mention the submission of a supplemental budget amendment last year to avoid emergency cuts in VA medical care and services. Witness the gaping holes in our border security, marked by federal agents releasing or not even bothering to pursue illegal aliens because of lack of detention space and personnel. We can only hope and pray that those determined folks who daily circumvent our border security are not al-Qaida operatives. Congested roads, overcrowded schools, deteriorating rail and transit systems, corroding and structurally deficient bridges, functionally obsolete locks and dams, overflowing sewers and wastewater mismanagement, energy bottlenecks causing higher prices and electricity failures and power outages--these are the festering signs of a nation's infrastructure being slowly starved. Meanwhile, our once strong and proud manufacturing sector is buckling from intense foreign competition by companies heavily subsidized by their governments. Health care and education expenses are both rising to prohibitive levels for families and their employers, and the United States of America is becoming more and more addicted to foreign capital and immigrant labor to power our economy. For years we have been determinedly squeezing the wrong pieces of the federal budget in order to fund other pieces, and believe me the chickens are coming home to roost. This week, the Congress will vote to raise the debt ceiling to $9 trillion--the fourth nasty increase in 5 years. President Reagan said a $1 trillion debt ``can only be compared to the universe because it, too, is incomprehensible in its dimensions.'' One way to put that number in perspective is to imagine counting $1 trillion at the rate of $1 per second. At that rate, it would take 32,000 years to count $1 trillion. Imagine, 32,000 years to count $1 trillion, and then, when finished, counting it eight more times to reach the total debt of this country. Such massive debt, and what have we to show for it? An editorial in The Washington Post last year described the situation: ``[We] have let the nation's plumbing rust, its wiring fray, its floor joists warp and its walkways crumble . . . Sooner or later, though, we're going to have to pony up . . . If you continue to ignore that drip, drip, drip in the upstairs bedroom, pretty soon you're going to be pricing a new roof.'' And don't forget, we will have to borrow to pay for that roof. This editorial appeared only weeks before Hurricane Katrina. The investments we delayed and postponed for years in New Orleans are now costing tens of billions of dollars in repairs and new building. It is a painful lesson, and the government of this country does not seem to learn very fast. We are foolishly ignoring the drip, drip, drip in the upstairs bedroom, while the plaster weakens and costs for repairs mount. I sympathize with the plight of the chairman of the Budget Committee. Chairman Gregg didn't craft the budget submitted by the administration, but he has made the loyal decision to adopt and defend the president's discretionary spending limits. I say to my colleagues that the Congress cannot fund this great country's essential needs within those limits. Too much of that money is eaten by fighting wars without allied assistance, and by waste in the defense discretionary budget for contracts that rip off the taxpayer and skimp on essential services for our troops. Within a few days, I will offer two amendments to accommodate the critical investments that we must not continue to postpone. I will propose amendments for mine safety, and Amtrak. Today, I offer the first of those two amendments, which would add $184 million to the budget for mine safety inspectors and rescue technology. West Virginia has lost 16 miners this year. Their emergency communications and breathing equipment proved insufficient, and the federal mine regulator, known as the Mine Safety and Health Administration, MSHA, of the U.S. Department of Labor, is operating on an insufficient budget. There is no question that the federal coal enforcement budget has been squeezed in recent years, and that the attrition of federal mine safety inspectors has been ignored as part of an effort to carve out more room in the budget for non-essential tax cuts. Those budget cuts have resulted in gross deficiencies at the Department of Labor. The miners trapped underground at the Sago and Alma mines had only a one-hour oxygen supply to last through a 40-hour rescue. The miners trapped underground could not communicate with the rescue effort on the surface, and the rescue effort on the surface could not locate the miners trapped underground. Meanwhile, the number of safety inspectors charged with enforcing the Mine Act has dwindled since 2001, with 217 fewer inspectors today to ensure the safety of miners, and the vigorous enforcement of the Mine Act. These budget cuts have had real and deadly consequences for coal miners. Ask the families about how that feels. This amendment, which I offer with Senators Rockefeller and Kennedy, would be sufficient to replace the 217 safety inspectors that have been lost since 2001, and to help get emergency communications and breathing equipment into the mines rapidly. In the wake of 21 coal mining deaths this year, and the closure of mines for emergency safety inspections, it is essential that the Congress provide the Department of Labor with the funds it needs to keep our nation's coal mines operating safely. I am also hopeful that we will soon see legislation from the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, HELP, Committee to address the other mine safety initiatives that still have not been implemented by the Department of Labor--emergency communications and tracking requirements, increased and minimum penalties for habitual violators, a suspension of belt-air ventilation for the working areas of mines. These components are addressed by the West Virginia Delegation mine safety authorization bill that still awaits action by the HELP Committee and the Senate. I, and the miners and mining widows of my state, continue to urge the HELP Committee to act quickly on this essential legislation. We could have more deaths in the mines any day. In the meantime, we have an opportunity today to address the mine safe1y budget. It is a critical piece of our infrastructure that we dare not continue to ignore. The fact is that cuts in domestic discretionary spending are weakening mine safety efforts. Decency demands that we not wait until more miners die before we do something about it. I urge Senators to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how long am I recognized for?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Byrd pertaining to the introduction of S. 2362 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') prescribed PSE

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, before the Presidents Day recess, I spoke about recent egregious examples of domestic surveillance by the executive branch, and I announced my intention to introduce legislation to establish a commission to investigate the instances of warrantless wiretapping and spying on U.S. citizens by the National Security Agency and other departments of Government. I am not the lone voice raising questions about the legality of this program and its effect on the rights of law-abiding American citizens. I am only one--only one--in a growing chorus--a growing chorus--of concerned individuals. Since the New York Times broke the story of the NSA's wiretapping program, many in this Chamber on both sides of the aisle have questioned the legality of the warrantless wiretapping and have called for investigations into possible violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as well as other transgressions against the spirit or the letter of our revered Constitution. Many of our country's foremost constitutional scholars and professors of law have expressed their categorical opposition to the NSA's program, citing possible violations of both the Constitution and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They agree that ``the program appears on its face''--on its face--``to violate existing law.'' These concerns have, of course, been dismissed by the same branch of Government that hatched the domestic spying program. Did you hear that? I will say it again. These concerns have been dismissed by the same branch of Government that hatched the domestic spying program. But this stonewalling--yes, that is stonewalling--this stonewalling is only part of the story. Important questions about NSA's program have been answered with strained and tenuous justifications or claims of the dire need for secrecy and, as a result, Congress's access to information has been severely--severely, severely--curtailed, by whom? By whom? Guess what, by the administration; by the administration. There are some things we do know. We know that top officials in the Department of Justice who were concerned about questions of legality and lack of oversight of the program refused to endorse continued use of the NSA's wiretapping. That isn't all. We also know because of these concerns this secret program was suspended. Do you get that? This secret program was suspended temporarily due to questions about its legality. What most Americans don't know is that FBI agents complained about the utility of the wiretapping program. Voluminous amounts of information and records that were gleaned from this secret eavesdropping program were sent from the National Security Agency to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and FBI officials repeatedly complained that they were being drowned by a river of useless information that diverted their resources from pursuing important counterterrorism work. Such complaints raise the question of whether the domestic wiretapping program may have backfired by sending our top counterterrorism agencies on wild-goose chases, thus making our country less secure instead of making our country more secure. We know that one member of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, Judge James Robertson, resigned--yes, resigned--4 days after the New York Times first detailed the NSA's warrantless--warrantless-- domestic surveillance. We know that only the chief judge of the FISA Court, the secret court charged with approving requests to conduct domestic surveillance, had any knowledge of this clandestine wiretapping program. The other judges, who are sworn to strict secrecy, learned of the program just as many of our citizens did--through reports in the press. Yes, thank God for a free press. We know that although most of the judges of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court were kept in the dark about the program, at least one of the judges was tipped off by an attorney within the Department of Justice that some of the information being presented to the court to secure warrants was improperly obtained, meaning the Government had apparently circumvented a court-ordered screening process to eliminate tainted evidence. We know that in a February 28 letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, Attorney General Gonzales admitted that the Justice Department's legal justification for the wiretaps has ``evolved over time.'' What does that mean? Does it mean that there actually was no legal basis for the NSA to spy on American citizens when it first began the surveillance? Does it mean the Department had to gin up some legal basis for the spying once the program became public? Does it mean the administration's reliance on the use-of-force resolution to justify its snooping was simply a ploy--just a ploy--an ``after the fact'' face- saving device meant to give the administration cover for having violated the civil liberties of Americans? We know that earlier this week, 18 Members of the House of Representatives sent a letter to President Bush requesting that he appoint a special counsel to investigate the NSA's warrantless surveillance of our citizens. In their letter, the House Members noted that with no clear information coming from the administration, they and all of America have been forced to rely primarily on press reports to determine the scope of the NSA's activities. With so many questions unanswered by the administration, it is absolutely imperative that there be an objective investigation of this program and any violations of law that may have occurred. We are in a supercharged political year--we know that, you know that, everybody knows that--an election year for one-third of the Senate, including this Senator from West Virginia, and for the entire House of Representatives. And the Senate Intelligence Committee as of today has refused to initiate a serious investigation into this matter. But an investigation has to go forward. The efficacy of our laws and our Constitution is at stake. That is why I am proposing legislation to establish a nonpartisan commission to review and investigate domestic surveillance in America, along with serious allegations of abuse. In this way, we will be sure to safeguard our first and fourth amendment rights as enumerated in this Constitution, as well as evaluate the actual effectiveness of such programs in combating terrorist threats. James Madison wrote in his essay, ``Political Reflections,'' that ``[t]he fetters''--the fetters, f-e-t-t-e-r-s--``[t]he fetters imposed on liberty at home have ever been forged out of the weapons provided for defense against real, pretended, or imaginary dangers from abroad. No one is suggesting that the threat of terrorist attacks is anything but a real threat, and one that must be of the Congress's utmost priority. But the suggestion that the American people would be safer in their homes if they just forego their constitutionally protected rights is a deliberately deceptive assertion that may forge the fetters that bind law-abiding citizens. Make no mistake about it: It is these ill- conceived strictures that may ultimately destroy precious liberties. In fact, it is because our forefathers were fearful of re-creating the same tyrannous form of government from which many of them had fled, that the Bill of Rights--the Bill of Rights, those first 10 amendments--the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to better secure for all time--all time--the freedom from oppression that ever looms from an overly powerful executive. Get that. Get that. Let me say that again. It was because our forefathers, thank God, were fearful of re-creating the same tyrannous, the same tyrannical form of government from which many of them had fled that the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to better secure, for all time, the freedom from oppression that ever looms from an overly powerful executive. And you better believe it. You better believe it. Hear me. Hear me now. I will always speak out against an all-powerful executive, under either party. In a climate of fear, liberties have been sacrificed time and again under the guise of keeping the Nation from harm. Fear. Yes, fear is a powerful tool for manipulation; useful for easing the American people out of their liberties and into submission. Fear. When the public is confronted with a situation, real or imagined, that inspires fear, the public rightfully look to their leaders--look to their leaders, Mr. President--for protection from foreboding consequences. The claim of wartime necessity always strengthens the hands of a President. Let me say that again. The claim of wartime necessity always strengthens a President, any President, Republican or Democrat. And often facts are sealed from the prying eyes of Congress by a purported need for secrecy. But Senators, and that includes this Senator from West Virginia, Senators have a sworn duty--a sworn duty, a sworn duty--sworn right up there at that desk with their hand on the Bible--the holy Bible, the holy Bible, the holy Bible--with their hand on the Bible to check executive power. We have to be on guard every moment of every day. The executive branch, whether it be Democratic or Republican, is always reaching--always reaching, always reaching--always grabbing more power, more power, more power, and we have to be on guard. We have a sworn duty to check executive power and, as long as I live, I am going to stand for the checking of the executive power; I don't care whether it is a Democrat or Republican in the White House or an Independent. It makes no difference. We have a sworn duty. We swear. We put our hand on the Bible before God and man, and we swear to check executive power at all times--at all times--in times of crisis or otherwise. Each of us here, and there are 100 here, and each of this 100, 100 Senators, we are each bound to defend the Constitution and each bound to defend the liberties that the Constitution gives to all Americans, at all times, in times of peace and in times of war. History has shown us many times that a climate of fear can take a hefty toll on our freedoms. That is your freedoms. That is your freedoms. That is your freedoms. Worse still are liberties surrendered in vain, resulting in little added security. There is no doubt that constitutional freedoms will never be abolished in one fell swoop--never--for the American people cherish their freedoms, and they would not tolerate such a loss if they could perceive it; if they could see it coming, if they could hear it, if they could feel it, if they could perceive it. But the erosion of freedom rarely comes as an all-out frontal assault; rather, it is gradual, noxious, creeping, cloaked in secrecy and glossed over by reassurances of greater security. The American people are a people born of sacrifice, and the sacrifices that the American people are willing to endure speak well of the tenacity and the strength that makes the United States of America what it is. Some may be tempted to accept on blind faith the administration's--any administration's, any administration's--promise of increased security, and they may see it as a duty to capitulate their rights for that flimsy promise. May we all pause to reflect on the hard-won liberties--the hard-won liberties--for which earlier generations fought and died. Remember Nathan Hale. He died. He regretted that he had but one life to give, to lose, one life to lose for his country. Remember Patrick Henry: ``Give me liberty or give me death,'' he said. John Paul Jones: ``We have only begun to fight.'' So may we all pause to reflect, as we have just done, on the hard-won liberties for which earlier generations fought and died before we easily accept convincing rhetoric. Rhetoric is cheap. Talk is cheap. To suggest that innocent Americans surrender rights to preserve freedom is a false choice. It is also a slippery slope, one that is fraught with ever more secrecy and the certainty of egregious abuses of our Bill of Rights and of our laws over time. The commission that I propose would determine how to best protect the homeland, as well as the most effective ways of gathering needed intelligence. It will examine the procedures for the NSA's use and retention of intelligence obtained without warrants, and the method and scope of dissemination of such information to other agencies. It will investigate any questions raised by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court concerning the legality of the domestic spying program. It will examine the obligation of the President--do you get that? Do you hear that, Mr. President? Republican or Democrat. It will examine the obligation of the President to brief Members of Congress-- not just one or two or three or four--on warrantless surveillance of American citizens. It will lift the fog--lift the fog--of secrecy and clandestine government activity misaimed at law-abiding citizens and perhaps, most importantly, it will shed much needed sunshine--let the sunshine in--much needed sunshine on any unlawful or unconstitutional executive--executive, executive intrusions into the lives of ordinary Americans.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, before the Presidents Day recess, I spoke about recent egregious examples of domestic surveillance by the executive branch, and I announced my intention to introduce legislation to establish a commission to investigate the instances of warrantless wiretapping and spying on U.S. citizens by the National Security Agency and other departments of Government. I am not the lone voice raising questions about the legality of this program and its effect on the rights of law-abiding American citizens. I am only one--only one--in a growing chorus--a growing chorus--of concerned individuals. Since the New York Times broke the story of the NSA's wiretapping program, many in this Chamber on both sides of the aisle have questioned the legality of the warrantless wiretapping and have called for investigations into possible violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as well as other transgressions against the spirit or the letter of our revered Constitution. Many of our country's foremost constitutional scholars and professors of law have expressed their categorical opposition to the NSA's program, citing possible violations of both the Constitution and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They agree that ``the program appears on its face''--on its face--``to violate existing law.'' These concerns have, of course, been dismissed by the same branch of Government that hatched the domestic spying program. Did you hear that? I will say it again. These concerns have been dismissed by the same branch of Government that hatched the domestic spying program. But this stonewalling--yes, that is stonewalling--this stonewalling is only part of the story. Important questions about NSA's program have been answered with strained and tenuous justifications or claims of the dire need for secrecy and, as a result, Congress's access to information has been severely--severely, severely--curtailed, by whom? By whom? Guess what, by the administration; by the administration. There are some things we do know. We know that top officials in the Department of Justice who were concerned about questions of legality and lack of oversight of the program refused to endorse continued use of the NSA's wiretapping. That isn't all. We also know because of these concerns this secret program was suspended. Do you get that? This secret program was suspended temporarily due to questions about its legality. What most Americans don't know is that FBI agents complained about the utility of the wiretapping program. Voluminous amounts of information and records that were gleaned from this secret eavesdropping program were sent from the National Security Agency to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and FBI officials repeatedly complained that they were being drowned by a river of useless information that diverted their resources from pursuing important counterterrorism work. Such complaints raise the question of whether the domestic wiretapping program may have backfired by sending our top counterterrorism agencies on wild-goose chases, thus making our country less secure instead of making our country more secure. We know that one member of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, Judge James Robertson, resigned--yes, resigned--4 days after the New York Times first detailed the NSA's warrantless--warrantless-- domestic surveillance. We know that only the chief judge of the FISA Court, the secret court charged with approving requests to conduct domestic surveillance, had any knowledge of this clandestine wiretapping program. The other judges, who are sworn to strict secrecy, learned of the program just as many of our citizens did--through reports in the press. Yes, thank God for a free press. We know that although most of the judges of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court were kept in the dark about the program, at least one of the judges was tipped off by an attorney within the Department of Justice that some of the information being presented to the court to secure warrants was improperly obtained, meaning the Government had apparently circumvented a court-ordered screening process to eliminate tainted evidence. We know that in a February 28 letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, Attorney General Gonzales admitted that the Justice Department's legal justification for the wiretaps has ``evolved over time.'' What does that mean? Does it mean that there actually was no legal basis for the NSA to spy on American citizens when it first began the surveillance? Does it mean the Department had to gin up some legal basis for the spying once the program became public? Does it mean the administration's reliance on the use-of-force resolution to justify its snooping was simply a ploy--just a ploy--an ``after the fact'' face- saving device meant to give the administration cover for having violated the civil liberties of Americans? We know that earlier this week, 18 Members of the House of Representatives sent a letter to President Bush requesting that he appoint a special counsel to investigate the NSA's warrantless surveillance of our citizens. In their letter, the House Members noted that with no clear information coming from the administration, they and all of America have been forced to rely primarily on press reports to determine the scope of the NSA's activities. With so many questions unanswered by the administration, it is absolutely imperative that there be an objective investigation of this program and any violations of law that may have occurred. We are in a supercharged political year--we know that, you know that, everybody knows that--an election year for one-third of the Senate, including this Senator from West Virginia, and for the entire House of Representatives. And the Senate Intelligence Committee as of today has refused to initiate a serious investigation into this matter. But an investigation has to go forward. The efficacy of our laws and our Constitution is at stake. That is why I am proposing legislation to establish a nonpartisan commission to review and investigate domestic surveillance in America, along with serious allegations of abuse. In this way, we will be sure to safeguard our first and fourth amendment rights as enumerated in this Constitution, as well as evaluate the actual effectiveness of such programs in combating terrorist threats. James Madison wrote in his essay, ``Political Reflections,'' that ``[t]he fetters''--the fetters, f-e-t-t-e-r-s--``[t]he fetters imposed on liberty at home have ever been forged out of the weapons provided for defense against real, pretended, or imaginary dangers from abroad. No one is suggesting that the threat of terrorist attacks is anything but a real threat, and one that must be of the Congress's utmost priority. But the suggestion that the American people would be safer in their homes if they just forego their constitutionally protected rights is a deliberately deceptive assertion that may forge the fetters that bind law-abiding citizens. Make no mistake about it: It is these ill- conceived strictures that may ultimately destroy precious liberties. In fact, it is because our forefathers were fearful of re-creating the same tyrannous form of government from which many of them had fled, that the Bill of Rights--the Bill of Rights, those first 10 amendments--the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to better secure for all time--all time--the freedom from oppression that ever looms from an overly powerful executive. Get that. Get that. Let me say that again. It was because our forefathers, thank God, were fearful of re-creating the same tyrannous, the same tyrannical form of government from which many of them had fled that the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to better secure, for all time, the freedom from oppression that ever looms from an overly powerful executive. And you better believe it. You better believe it. Hear me. Hear me now. I will always speak out against an all-powerful executive, under either party. In a climate of fear, liberties have been sacrificed time and again under the guise of keeping the Nation from harm. Fear. Yes, fear is a powerful tool for manipulation; useful for easing the American people out of their liberties and into submission. Fear. When the public is confronted with a situation, real or imagined, that inspires fear, the public rightfully look to their leaders--look to their leaders, Mr. President--for protection from foreboding consequences. The claim of wartime necessity always strengthens the hands of a President. Let me say that again. The claim of wartime necessity always strengthens a President, any President, Republican or Democrat. And often facts are sealed from the prying eyes of Congress by a purported need for secrecy. But Senators, and that includes this Senator from West Virginia, Senators have a sworn duty--a sworn duty, a sworn duty--sworn right up there at that desk with their hand on the Bible--the holy Bible, the holy Bible, the holy Bible--with their hand on the Bible to check executive power. We have to be on guard every moment of every day. The executive branch, whether it be Democratic or Republican, is always reaching--always reaching, always reaching--always grabbing more power, more power, more power, and we have to be on guard. We have a sworn duty to check executive power and, as long as I live, I am going to stand for the checking of the executive power; I don't care whether it is a Democrat or Republican in the White House or an Independent. It makes no difference. We have a sworn duty. We swear. We put our hand on the Bible before God and man, and we swear to check executive power at all times--at all times--in times of crisis or otherwise. Each of us here, and there are 100 here, and each of this 100, 100 Senators, we are each bound to defend the Constitution and each bound to defend the liberties that the Constitution gives to all Americans, at all times, in times of peace and in times of war. History has shown us many times that a climate of fear can take a hefty toll on our freedoms. That is your freedoms. That is your freedoms. That is your freedoms. Worse still are liberties surrendered in vain, resulting in little added security. There is no doubt that constitutional freedoms will never be abolished in one fell swoop--never--for the American people cherish their freedoms, and they would not tolerate such a loss if they could perceive it; if they could see it coming, if they could hear it, if they could feel it, if they could perceive it. But the erosion of freedom rarely comes as an all-out frontal assault; rather, it is gradual, noxious, creeping, cloaked in secrecy and glossed over by reassurances of greater security. The American people are a people born of sacrifice, and the sacrifices that the American people are willing to endure speak well of the tenacity and the strength that makes the United States of America what it is. Some may be tempted to accept on blind faith the administration's--any administration's, any administration's--promise of increased security, and they may see it as a duty to capitulate their rights for that flimsy promise. May we all pause to reflect on the hard-won liberties--the hard-won liberties--for which earlier generations fought and died. Remember Nathan Hale. He died. He regretted that he had but one life to give, to lose, one life to lose for his country. Remember Patrick Henry: ``Give me liberty or give me death,'' he said. John Paul Jones: ``We have only begun to fight.'' So may we all pause to reflect, as we have just done, on the hard-won liberties for which earlier generations fought and died before we easily accept convincing rhetoric. Rhetoric is cheap. Talk is cheap. To suggest that innocent Americans surrender rights to preserve freedom is a false choice. It is also a slippery slope, one that is fraught with ever more secrecy and the certainty of egregious abuses of our Bill of Rights and of our laws over time. The commission that I propose would determine how to best protect the homeland, as well as the most effective ways of gathering needed intelligence. It will examine the procedures for the NSA's use and retention of intelligence obtained without warrants, and the method and scope of dissemination of such information to other agencies. It will investigate any questions raised by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court concerning the legality of the domestic spying program. It will examine the obligation of the President--do you get that? Do you hear that, Mr. President? Republican or Democrat. It will examine the obligation of the President to brief Members of Congress-- not just one or two or three or four--on warrantless surveillance of American citizens. It will lift the fog--lift the fog--of secrecy and clandestine government activity misaimed at law-abiding citizens and perhaps, most importantly, it will shed much needed sunshine--let the sunshine in--much needed sunshine on any unlawful or unconstitutional executive--executive, executive intrusions into the lives of ordinary Americans.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield my time to Senator Leahy.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in his radio address on December 17, 2005, President Bush disclosed that after September 11, 2001, he authorized the National Security Agency, NSA, to undertake wiretapping of American citizens to try to prevent terrorist attacks. The President argued that his actions were, in his words, ``fully consistent'' with his constitutional responsibilities. The President wrongly asserted--Mr. President, the President wrongly asserted--that his authority to order warrantless electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens on American soil is supported by his inherent Presidential powers and the joint congressional resolution that authorized the use of force after September 11. A huge swath--a huge swath--of America, including many expert legal minds, does not--I say, does not--agree with the arguments put forth by the administration. These arguments are transparently contrived, intellectually deficient, indefensible excuses being served up like tripe to silence legitimate criticism of the White House. Let me say that again. A huge swath of America, including many expert legal minds, does not agree with the arguments put forth by the administration. These arguments are transparently contrived, intellectually deficient, indefensible excuses being served up like tripe to silence legitimate criticism of the White House, a White House so infused with its own hubris that it has talked itself into believing that its inhabitants are above the law. But they are not. They are not above the law. President Bush is not above the law. No President is above the law. No United States Senator is above the law. No man is above the law. No one in the United States of America is above the law. Remember, this is a nation of laws, not of men. Yesterday, the Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence jettisoned its constitutional responsibility to make certain that our laws are not being breached, and that the spirit and text of our revered Constitution remain in force. It is a sad day, indeed, to see such an important committee wilt under political pressure applied by the Vice President in partisan meetings held behind closed doors. The committee adjourned last night without considering a Democratic proposal to begin an investigation of the warrantless spying program, even though Senator Jay Rockefeller, the vice-chairman of the Intelligence Committee, had been assured that his proposal would receive a vote. I want to commend my colleague, Senator Rockefeller. He has worked hard to protect the people's liberties, to make sure that this administration, even in its most secret circles, follows the law and the Constitution. It has not been an easy task, but it is one that Senator Rockefeller has carried diligently. Like Senator Rockefeller, I will not sit idly by and allow the President's possible breaking of the law to be swept under the rug. I refuse to go quietly into the night, abdicating my responsibility as a U.S. Senator to a secretive executive branch, which refuses to brief the Congress of the United States on its clandestine spying on U.S. citizens without a warrant--an administration that believes it can, on its own, nullify constitutional provisions intended to protect the freedoms of millions of Americans for over 200 years. This travesty must not stand. The peeping and snooping and spying must be investigated. I am today announcing my intention to submit to the Congress legislation that will establish a nonpartisan, independent, 9-11-style commission to investigate and determine the legality of the President's actions. There is a critical need for a thorough investigation of all domestic surveillance programs. As I stated on Wednesday in my remarks on this subject, we, the American people--not just the NSA or the White House--have a legitimate need to know what is being done, by whom, and to whom. If there is a justifiable and valid reason to surveil a potential terrorist in the U.S., we certainly can find a way to do it legally. If there is a need to provide more efficient tools to fight terror, Congress has the responsibility to deliberate and, if warranted, to approve them. The President should ask Congress for them; not seize new powers that have never been enumerated by any U.S. court. Congress would be pleased to entertain his request, as we have in the past, by updating FISA and the PATRIOT Act, but not--I repeat, not-- before a full investigation to determine if laws have been broken--an investigation which will give members a fuller understanding of just what these surveillance programs entail. A little sunshine on this process is long overdue. Congress cannot fix what the White House does not want us to fully understand. Congress needs to know if the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or any other U.S. law has been broken, and whether the constitutional rights of thousands of Americans have been violated without cause. It is essential that Congress obtain the answers to these questions, not for partisan political reasons, but because our system of checks and balances requires it. James Madison advised in Federalist 47 that: the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. The assumption of power by an unchecked executive, who arrogantly believes that he can seize the authority to spy on innocent Americans and wantonly violate the fourth amendment is the beginning of the tyranny Madison so feared. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the fourth amendment of the Constitution be printed in the Record.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I should first propound an inquiry of the Chair: What is the situation? What is the order of business?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as the Senate considers legislation to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act, I am concerned that these efforts fall far short in protecting the constitutional rights of American citizens. Last December, a bipartisan group of Senators, including myself, was rightly concerned about the PATRIOT Act conference report's failure to safeguard civil liberties, and the Senate rightly rejected that conference report. Now we have a bill that purports to address those earlier concerns but in fact fails to do so. It is unfortunate that valiant efforts by Senators on both sides of the aisle have not produced more meaningful changes to the PATRIOT Act. Now we are faced with an alternative that is weak and unacceptable. This bill does not make the essential adjustments needed to protect the rights of the American people. While this bill makes some changes, such as clarifying that recipients of national security letters do not have to disclose to the FBI whether they consult an attorney, most of the so-called improvements are anemic. Worse still, section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which casts the net of surveillance so wide as to ensnare virtually any law-abiding citizen's business or medical records, has remained untouched and unimproved. This bill pays lip service to judicial review of gag orders placed on recipients of section 215 business records and the national security letters. However, the bill goes on to set a nearly insurmountable barrier to Americans who wish to challenge the gag order or the seizure of their records. The bill requires that the recipient prove that the Government acted in bad faith in obtaining the information. An individual may not challenge a gag order for a year, infringing on that individual's right to seek redress in their own defense. Under the current ``improvement'', the Government may conduct ``sneak and peek'' searches, without notifying individuals for 30 days. This is more than a three-fold increase in the time period for notification that the Senate bill allowed. Safety, the American people are told, involves a trade. They are told they must surrender their liberty in order to preserve their safety. This Orwellian compact is an insult to the constitutional liberties guaranteed to American citizens. Let me be clear. No one in this Chamber discounts the responsibility of government to keep the American people safe in their homes. Keeping the homeland safe obviously must be of the utmost concern for the Nation and this Congress. But such efforts cannot come at the expense of civil liberties. Freedom and safety are not mutually exclusive. All Americans know the threat that al-Qaida poses to our country. Osama bin Laden and his ilk must be prevented from executing another terrorist attack on our country. But there are many ways to fight al- Qaida. One of the ways is to protect those same freedoms that the Taliban took away from the people of Afghanistan living under their tyrannical rule. When Americans are free to speak our minds, when we are free from the intrusions of Big Brother, when we are free to exercise--rather than sacrifice--our most prized protections, that is a blow against those who seek to denigrate our country and our Constitution. If there is any question about the seriousness with which we as a body hold our Nation's security, let us recall last July, when 100 hundred Senators stood together--something virtually unheard of in the current divisive and partisan climate. On July 29, 2005, the Senate came together to protect the Constitution and the basic rights it affords our citizens. Senators from every State of the Union, from every political persuasion, agreed to a version of the PATRIOT Act that would reauthorize the provisions that were set to expire and which provided the Government with the tools to aggressively pursue the war on terror, while protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens. We demonstrated that as a bipartisan body, we could stand strong against the enemy while preserving the privacy of our citizens. Sadly, the strength and zeal with which we once came together have languished, and the hopes of meaningful improvement of the PATRIOT Act have been abandoned. We must continue to make national security our top priority, as it always has been, but we can do that without sacrificing sacred liberties. I cannot support this watered-down version of an improved PATRIOT Act. The safeguards in this bill are regrettably thin, and we must not claim that such shabby protections of the constitutional rights of our people are the best that we can do.