Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it has been 3 weeks since President Bush signed into law the 2006 spending bill providing funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs. Unfortunately, his signature was accompanied by a glaring asterisk. Instead of approving the full amount of funding that Congress provided for veterans health care, the President bottled up $1.2 billion in emergency funding that the VA urgently needs to make ends meet. Congress added the emergency money to the bill after discovering that the President's 2006 budget request for the VA was woefully inadequate, compounding a series of errors in funding assumptions by the administration that led to a massive shortfall in VA funding in fiscal year 2005. The $1.2 billion in emergency funding was not some kind of optional Christmas bonus for America's veterans. It is money that the VA needs to cover the baseline cost of veterans health care programs. But that money cannot be released to the VA until the President signs on the dotted line and designates it as an emergency. Unless and until the President acts, the money will simply languish in the Treasury, benefitting nobody while jeopardizing the VA's ability to meet the needs of veterans. Make no mistake about it: without this money, the VA will experience another shortfall in funding in 2006, and veterans will suffer the consequences of diminished services and longer waiting times for health care. So why is the President sitting on this money? When Congress passed the VA funding bill, I wrote to the President urging him to release the emergency funding at the same time, thus assuring veterans that health care services will continue uninterrupted for the next year. But for some reason, the President has chosen not to release the emergency money. Instead of sending the VA the full amount of funding that Congress appropriated for veterans health care in 2006--a total of $22.5 billion--the President has chosen to hold $1.2 billion hostage at the White House. What possible reason could the President have for refusing to relinquish this money to the VA? Does he expect America's veterans to beg for the money? Could he possibly fail to understand the importance of fully funding the VA health care program? Or could he have somehow forgotten the chaos last summer when the VA revealed that it had at least a $1 billion shortfall in health care funding for 2005, and was facing another gaping shortfall in 2006? What kind of a signal does this send to our Nation's veterans, and to our men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan? Congress has worked diligently over the past 6 months to clean up the budget mess in the VA. As a result of amendments that I spearheaded in the Appropriations Committee and on the floor, the Senate seized the initiative to provide emergency funding to cover the shortfall that occurred in 2005 and to head off another shortfall in 2006. The administration, by contrast, had to be dragged to the table and only grudgingly owned up to the catastrophic consequences of its sloppy and inept budget estimates. Congress has acted. Now the ball is in the President's court, and the clock is ticking. Mr. President, I again call on the President to immediately release the $1.2 billion in emergency funding for veterans' health care that Congress has provided.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, last week, I was pleased to join a strong bipartisan majority of the Senate in support of a motion that instructed budget conferees to strike an ill-conceived House provision from the budget reconciliation bill. That provision sought to repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, also known as CDSOA. Last Thursday, the Senate voted overwhelmingly--overwhelmingly--by a vote of 71 to 20 to strike any repeal of CDSOA from the budget reconciliation bill. The Senate supported CDSOA. Why? Because the Senate recognized that any repeal or attempt to abandon this trade law would be a travesty--a travesty--on justice. The House agreed, and last Friday the House passed a similar motion to instruct which contained, among other things, language to strike repeal of CDSOA from the House-passed bill. The vote on that successful House motion to instruct was 246 to 175. What could be clearer than that? The House vote on that motion was 246 to 175. And yet--get this, hear me now--over the weekend--yes, over the weekend literally in the dead of night when all was still, nothing was stirring, in the dead of night--a small number of misguided House and Senate conferees decided to turn their backs--turn their backs, on the American worker. Hear me out there, the American workers all over this country. Hear me, hear me out there on the Great Plains. Hear me out there in the river valleys. Hear me out there in the mountains of West Virginia. Hear me out there in the great Rocky Mountains. Hear me out there on the west coast, the American workers, the American workers. So this small group decided to ignore the will--hear me--ignore the will of both Houses of Congress. That was blatant, was it not? They decided to repeal CDSOA after 2 years. What arrogance, what sheer, unmitigated, raw arrogance. Fie on you. Shame, shame, shame. CDSOA was enacted to save American manufacturing and our agricultural producers from wave after wave after wave of unfairly traded foreign imports. Let me say that again. Hear it again. Hear me again. CDSOA was enacted. Why? To save American manufacturing and American agricultural producers from wave after wave after wave of unfairly traded foreign imports. It is one of the most successful trade programs ever enacted. Alleluia. It enables small and medium-sized businesses and family-owned businesses to invest in their futures. This law preserves an increasingly rare commodity in these United States, a vanishing breed, the American worker. Five years ago, a bipartisan majority of the Senate approved this provision to reimburse U.S. companies injured by unfair foreign trade. Let me say that again. Five years ago, a bipartisan majority, Republican and Democrat, of the Senate approved this provision to reimburse U.S. companies injured by unfair foreign trade. Under the law, each year Customs distributes duties collected from unfair imports to American companies, to American workers, who can prove they have been materially injured by unfair trade. What could be better than that? What could be more fair? What could be more just than that? Under the law, each year Customs distributes duties collected from unfair imports to American companies and workers who can prove that they--these American companies and workers--have been materially injured by unfair trade. CDSOA was enacted to restore conditions of fair trade so that jobs that should stay in the United States are not destroyed by unfair foreign competition. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with that? Hear me. While the amounts distributed under the program are not large, from a budget perspective, approximately $226 million for fiscal year 2005, the law has been critically important--hear me--the law has been critically important to American companies and American workers hurt by dumped and unfairly subsidized imports. I am speaking on behalf of American companies and American workers who have been injured by these unfair imports, these subsidized imports. To receive reimbursement under the law, companies certify in writing that they have made qualifying expenditures in support of their workers and their facilities. The law reimburses them only for those expenditures. I will say that again. The law reimburses them only for those expenditures in support of their workers and facilities. The Customs Service verifies any claims submitted to make certain that requests for reimbursement are valid. Consequently, there are stringent safeguards in place under the law to make certain that funds are distributed under the law legally, honestly, and fairly. Critics of the law--yes, listen to them, critics of the law--argue that the WTO has ruled against it so we should abandon it. Shame. But the WTO had no legal authority to rule against this law. This means that the WTO's ruling was beyond the scope of its legal mandate, and to this day, Tuesday, the 20th day of December in the year of our Lord 2005, the WTO has never articulated a legitimate argument justifying any need for the United States to repeal this law. They have not done it. They cannot do it. They cannot do it. They have not done it. Nearly 800 American companies and workers in nearly every State of the Nation--not just in West Virginia, not just in the steel trade in West Virginia or Pennsylvania or Kentucky or Ohio, workers in nearly every State of the Nation receive distributions under this law's provisions. It is critical to family-owned businesses such as Warwood Tools in Wheeling, WV, and to Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel and to Weirton, WV. It is equally important to the thousands of steelworkers in Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and elsewhere across the Nation. They, and all hard-working Americans, deserve to continue to receive these funds so long as foreign traders keep on dumping illegally. Illegally. If our trading partners do not like this trade law, the solution is easy. The solution is not to repeal the law. If our trading partners are offended by the law, I have only two words for them. Hear me, only two words for them: Stop dumping. It is that simple: two little words: Stop dumping. If you, our trading partners, are offended by the law, bless your hearts, I have two words for you, our trading partners that are dumping: Stop dumping. The United States is working to complete negotiations in the Doha Round of trade talks. What kind of leverage can we maintain over other countries in those talks if we meekly agree unilaterally to disarm, to repeal one of the strongest and most successful trade remedy laws ever enacted in the United States? What a foolhardy, what a simple-minded stunt. Why don't we hand them a sharp stick to poke our eyes out? That would make about as much sense as repealing our trade laws. Now is the time to hold foreign unfair traders more accountable, not less-- more accountable, not less. I urge my fellow Senators, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in voting against this budget bill which contains language that would repeal this critical trade law. While the drafters of the repeal of this law argue that it will permit certain duty distributions to continue--at least for the next 2 years--the text is not exactly clear on this point. So I ask my colleagues: Why tamper with a law that works? There is no reason to undermine the statute as it is now written. There is no need to repeal the law today. There is no need to repeal the law 2 years from now, or ever. Therefore, with all my heart, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against the budget reconciliation bill, to make certain that one of America's most successful trade laws stays on the books as it is currently written. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Alabama. On many issues, we are together, and that is as it should be. On other issues, we, perhaps, do not agree. But I always--I always--hold his opinions in great respect, great respect. I admire him. And I admire the heritage he brings to us from that great State of Alabama. I thank him always for his service.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, perhaps the greatest oration ever delivered was the Oration on the Crown, delivered by Demosthenes in the year 330 B.C. In that inimitable oration, it seems to me the question was posed: Who least serves the state? And the question was answered in that oration: He who does not speak his mind. In this day, we should remember that. And I shall attempt to honor that credo. Mr. President, Americans have been stunned at the recent news of the abuses of power by an overzealous President. It has become apparent that this administration has engaged in a consistent and unrelenting pattern of abuse against our country's law-abiding citizens and against our Constitution. We have been stunned to hear reports about the Pentagon gathering information and creating databases to spy on ordinary Americans whose only sin is to choose to exercise their first amendment right to peaceably assemble. Those Americans who choose to question the administration's flawed policy in Iraq are labeled by this administration as ``domestic terrorists.'' Shame! We now know that the FBI's use of national security letters on American citizens has increased exponentially, requiring tens of thousands of individuals to turn over personal information and records. These letters are issued without prior judicial review, and they provide no real means for an individual to challenge a permanent gag order. And through news reports, my fellow Americans, through news reports we have been shocked to learn of the CIA's practice of rendition and the so-called black sites, secret locations--hear that, secret locations--in foreign countries where abuse and interrogations have been exported to escape the reach of U.S. laws protecting against human rights abuses. We know that our Vice President, Dick Cheney, has asked for exemptions for the CIA from the language maintained in the McCain torture amendment banning cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment. Thank God, Vice President Cheney's pleas have been rejected by this Congress. Now comes the stomach-churning revelation, through an Executive order, that President Bush has circumvented both the Congress and the court. Get that. Shame! Shame! He has usurped the third branch of Government, the branch charged with protecting the civil liberties of our people, by directing the National Security Agency to intercept and eavesdrop on the phone conversations and e-mails of American citizens without a warrant, which is a clear violation of the fourth amendment. Get that. He has stiff-armed the people's branch of Government, this branch, the people's branch. He has rationalized the use of domestic civilian surveillance with a flimsy claim that he has such authority because we are at war. The Executive order, which has been acknowledged by the President, is an end run around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which makes it unlawful for any official to monitor the communications of an individual on American soil without the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. What is the President thinking? What is the President thinking? Congress has provided for the very situations which the President is blatantly exploiting. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, housed in the Department of Justice, reviews requests for warrants for domestic surveillance. The court can review these requests expeditiously and in times of great emergency. In extreme cases, where time is of the essence and national security is at stake, surveillance can be conducted before the warrant is even applied for. This secret court was established so that sensitive surveillance could be conducted and information could be gathered without compromising the security of the investigation. The purpose of the FISA Court is to balance the Government's role in fighting the war on terror with the fourth amendment rights afforded to each and every American. Yet the American public is given vague and empty assurances by the President that amount to little more than ``trust me.'' But we are a nation of laws and not of men. Where is the source of that authority the President claims? I defy the administration to show for the record where in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or where in the United States Constitution they are allowed to steal into the lives of innocent American citizens and spy. When asked recently what the source of that authority was, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had no answer. Secretary Rice seemed to insinuate that eavesdropping on Americans was acceptable because FISA was an outdated law and could not address the needs of the Government in combating the new war on terror. This is a patent falsehood. The USA PATRIOT Act expanded FISA significantly, equipping the Government with the tools it needed to fight terrorism. Further amendments to FISA were granted under the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2002 and the Homeland Security Act of 2002. In fact, in its final report, the 9/11 Commission noted that the removal of the pre-9/11 ``wall'' between intelligence officials and law enforcement was significant in that it ``opened up new opportunities for cooperative action.'' But the President claims--hear me!--that these powers are within his role as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. Make no mistake, the powers granted to the Commander in Chief in this Constitution are specifically those as head of the Armed Forces. These warrantless searches are conducted not against a foreign power but against whom? Against unsuspecting and unknowing American citizens--like you, like you, like you, and like you! They are conducted against individuals living on American soil--not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan. There is nothing within the powers granted in the Commander in Chief clause that grants the President the ability to conduct clandestine surveillance of American civilians. Nothing. We must not allow such groundless, foolish claims to stand unchallenged. Now, the President claims boundless authority, an unlimited authority through the resolution that authorized war on those who perpetrated the September 11 attacks. But that resolution does not give the President unchecked power to spy on our own people. Read it. That resolution does not give the President unchecked power to spy on our own people. That resolution does not give the White House, this administration, the power to create covert prisons for secret prisoners. That resolution does not authorize the torture of prisoners to extract information from them. That resolution does not authorize running black hole secret prisons in foreign countries to get around U.S. law. That resolution does not give this President, or any President, the powers reserved only for kings and potentates. I continue to be shocked and astounded by the breadth with which this administration undermines the constitutional protections afforded to the people--the people--and the raw arrogance with which it rebukes the powers held by the legislative and judicial branches. The President has cast off Federal law enacted by Congress, often bearing his own signature, as mere formality. He has rebuffed the rule of law, and he has trivialized and trampled upon, trampled under foot the prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures guaranteed to Americans by the United States Constitution. This Constitution still lives. This Constitution was made for all time, for all administrations, for all Presidents, for all Senators. We are supposed to accept these dirty little secrets, and we are told that it is irresponsible to draw attention to President Bush's gross abuse of power and constitutional violations. But what is truly irresponsible is to neglect to uphold the rule of law. We listened to the President speak last night on the potential for democracy in Iraq. The President claims to want to instill in the Iraqi people a tangible freedom and working democracy, at the same time that he violates our own U.S. laws and checks and balances. President Bush called the recent Iraqi election ``a landmark day in the history of liberty.'' I daresay in this country we may have reached our own sort of landmark. Never have the promises and protections of liberty seemed so illusory, so fleeting. These renegade assaults on the Constitution and our system of laws strike at the very core of our values and foster a sense of mistrust and apprehension about the reach of Government. I am reminded of Thomas Payne's famous words: ``These are the times that try men's souls.'' These astounding revelations about the bending, the twisting, the stretching, and contorting of the Constitution to justify a grasping, irresponsible administration under the banner of ``national security'' are an outrage. Congress can no longer sit on the sidelines. It is time to ask hard questions of the Attorney General. It is time to ask hard questions of the Secretary of State, of the Secretary of Defense, and of the Director of the CIA. The White House should not be allowed to exempt itself from answering the same questions simply because it might assert some kind of ``executive privilege'' in order to avoid further embarrassment. The practice of domestic spying on citizens should stop immediately. Oversight hearings need to be conducted. Judicial action may be in order. We need to finally be given answers to our questions: Where is the constitutional and statutory authority for spying on American citizens? Where? Where is that authority to be found? What is the content of these classified legal opinions asserting that there is a legality in this criminal usurpation of rights? Who is responsible for this dangerous and unconstitutional policy? How many American citizens' lives have been unknowingly affected? Mr. President, fellow Senators, let us in our day remember the words of Brutus to Cicero: Our ancestors scorned to bear even a gentle master! Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Lord Byron said, ``Thank God I have done my duty.'' May I say to the Senator from New Jersey, he has done his duty. He is a good Senator. We will miss you. I will. Thank you for standing up for what you believe. Thank you very much. Bless your heart.

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Right.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished Senator from Minnesota for his kindness and his courtesy in yielding to me. I want to say there is one thing I am sorry about with respect to the Senator from Minnesota. He made a bad decision some time ago. I wish he had not made it, and I begged him to retract on it and say he would not do it. He says he is not going to run again. I am sorry about that. He is one of the immortal 23 Senators who voted against that resolution that the Senator from California is talking about. I voted against it. I have been in the Senate for 47 years, and that is the vote of which I am most proud because in voting that way, I stood for this, the Constitution of the United States. That Constitution does not give any President the power to declare war. It says Congress shall have the power to declare war. I voted against that resolution, the best vote I have cast in 47 years in this Senate, and I am proud that the Senator from Minnesota can carry that tribute with him to the grave. I thank him and congratulate him. Again, I thank him for yielding to me. Mr. President, I believe in America. Let me say that again. I believe in America. I believe in the dream of the Founders and Framers of our inspiring Constitution. I believe in the spirit that drove President Abraham Lincoln to risk all to preserve the Union. I believe in what President Kennedy challenged America to be--America, the great experiment of democracy. Where the strong are also just and the weak can feel secure, the soul and promise of America stands as a beacon, praise God, of freedom and a protector of liberty which lights and energizes the people around the world. Today, sadly, that beacon is dimmed. This administration's America is becoming a place where the strong are arrogant and the weak are ignored. Fie on the administration. Yes, we hear high-flung language from the White House about bringing democracy to a land where democracy has never been. We seem mesmerized with glorious rhetoric about justice and liberty, but does the rhetoric really match the reality of what our country has become? Since the heinous attacks of September 11, I speak of the actions of our own Government, actions that have undermined the credibility of this great Nation around the world. These actions taken one at a time may seem justified, but taken as a whole they form an unsettling picture and tell a troubling story. Do we remember the abuses at Abu Ghraib? They were explained as an aberration. Do we remember the abuses at Guantanamo Bay? They were denied as an exaggeration. Now we read about this so-called policy of rendition--what a shame--a policy where the U.S. taxpayers are funding secret prisons in foreign lands. What a word, ``rendition.'' What a word, ``rendition.'' Shame. It sounds so vague, almost harmless. But the practice of rendition is abhorrent. Let me say that again. It sounds so vague, almost harmless, but the practice of rendition is abhorrent--abhorrent. The administration's practice of rendition is an affront, an affront to the principles of freedom, the very opposite of principles we claim we are trying to transplant to Iraq and to other rogue nations. The administration claims that rendition is a valuable weapon in the war on terror. But what is the value of having America's CIA sit as judge and jury while deciding just who might be a threat to our national security? Such determinations receive no review by a court of law--none. The CIA simply swings into action, abducts a person from some foreign country and flies them off to who knows where, with no judicial review of guilt or innocence. A person can be held in secret prisons in unnamed countries or even shipped off to yet another country to face torture at the hands of the secret police of brutal governments. Is that what we want? Is this the America that our Founders conceived? Is this the America that Nathan Hale died for, when he said I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country? Is this the America that he died for? Is this the America that our Founders conceived? Is this the America of which millions of people dreamed? Is this, I ask the Senate, the beacon of freedom inspiring other nations to follow? The United States should state clearly and without question that we will not torture prisoners and that we will abide by the treaties that we signed, because to fail to do so is to lose the very humanity, the morality that makes America different, that makes America the hope for individual liberty around the world. The disgusting, degrading, and damaging practice of rendition should cease immediately. Is this what Patrick Henry was talking about--give me liberty or give me death? It is not about who they are. ``It's not about who they are. It's about who we are.'' Those are the words of my colleague Senator John McCain, bless his heart. Senator McCain is a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He is a former prisoner of war. He knows what it is all about. And he is exactly right. There is no moral high ground in torture. There is no moral high ground in the inhumane treatment of prisoners. Our misguided, thuggish practice of rendition has put a major blot on American foreign policy. Now comes this similarly alarming effort to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act, retaining provisions that devastate many of our own citizens' civil liberties here at home. What is happening? What is happening to our cherished America? Let us stop and look and listen and think. What is happening to our cherished America? Any question raised about the wisdom of shredding constitutional protections of civil liberties with roots that trail back centuries is met with the disclaimer that the world has changed and that the 9/11 attacks are, in effect, a green light. Get that, a green light to trash this Constitution, to seize private library records. Hear that. Suppose I want to get a book out of the library. Suppose I want to read ``Loves Labors Lost.'' The disclaimer that the world has changed and that the 9/11 attacks are in effect a green light to trash the Constitution, to seize private library records--suppose I want to read about ``A Tale of Two Cities.'' They are going to seize those library records? To search private property--how about that--without the knowledge of the owner? If you want to go in my house without my knowledge, without my wife's knowledge, to spy on ordinary citizens accused of no crime in a manner is a sick--a sick, s-i-c-k, perversion of our system of justice and it must not be allowed. Paranoia must not be allowed to chip away at our civil liberties. Don't let it happen. The United States of America must not adopt the thuggish tactics of our enemies--no. We must not trash the fourth amendment because the Senate is being stampeded at the end of a congressional session. No. Government fishing expeditions with search warrants written by FBI agents is not what the Framers had in mind. It is not what Benjamin Franklin had in mind. It is not what Morris had in mind. It is not what James Wilson had in mind. Spying on ordinary, unsuspecting citizens-- not with that in mind. Without their knowledge? No. That is not what the Framers had in mind. Handing the Government unilateral authority to keep all evidence secret from a target so that it may never be challenged in a court of law is not what the Framers had in mind. Yesterday, I believe it was, we heard reports that the military has spied on Americans simply because they exercised their right to peaceably assemble and to speak their minds. What disgrace. What a shame. Today we hear, yes, we hear today that the military is tapping phone lines in our own country without the consent of a judge. Can you believe that? Here in this country, where liberty is supposed to prevail. Go and ask that Statue of Liberty. Is that what it stands for? No. Labeling civil disobedience and political dissent as domestic terrorism is not what the Framers had in mind. Read history. What is the matter with us? Have we gone berserk? Read history. That is not what they had in mind. Our Nation is the most powerful nation in the world. Why? Because our Nation was founded on a principle of liberty. Benjamin Franklin said ``those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.'' Our Founding Fathers, intent on addressing the abuses they had suffered at the hands of an overzealous government, established--yes, it did--established a system of checks and balances, ensuring that there is a separation of powers--there is a separation of powers. Read it in the Constitution, article I, article II, article III--a separation of powers so that no one body may run amok with its agenda. These checks are what safeguards freedom for you, Mr. President, and for me and for all others in this land. These checks are what safeguard freedom, and the American people are looking to us--yes, they are looking through those lenses there, they are looking at us, yes. The people out on the broad prairies, out on the plains, out in the valleys, out on the great shores, the frozen wastes of the North Pole, and, yes, that liberty extends everywhere. That American liberty extends everywhere. And nobody may run amok with its agenda. These checks are what safeguard freedom, and the American people are looking to us--you, and me, Senator, you, Senator, and you, Mr. President--looking to us now to restore and protect that freedom. So many have died protecting those freedoms. And we owe it to those brave men and women to deliberate meaningfully and to ultimately protect those freedoms that Americans cherish so deeply. The American people deserve nothing less. Earlier today, the Senate voted to stop a bill that would have allowed the abuses of American civil liberties to continue for another 4 years. Shame. The message of this vote is not just about the PATRIOT Act but the message that the Senate can stand up, the Senate can stand against an overreaching Executive of any party, any party, any party that has sacrificed our liberties and stained our standing before the world. The PATRIOT Act has gone too far. It has gone too far. Secret renditions should be stopped. Torture must be outlawed. Our military should not spy on our own people. The Senate has spoken. Let us secure our country but not by destroying our liberties. Thank Almighty God for this Constitution and the Framers who wrote it, and the Founders of our Nation who risked their lives and their fortunes and their sacred honor. Thank God for checks and balances. Thank God for the Senate, and may it always stand for the right. I thank all Senators. I again thank the distinguished Senator from Minnesota. I want to tell him that I wish he and his family and loved ones a merry Christmas, a merry Christmas. I thank him.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in my book, ``Child of the Appalachian Coal Fields,'' I discussed the Senate class of 1958. That class, which included 15 Democrats and 3 Republicans, constituted the largest turnover over in Senate history, and from that class of Senators came a number of Senate leaders and Presidential candidates. Most important, I pointed out, while elected during the Eisenhower administration, the class of 1958 ``tackled some of the greatest foreign and domestic problems ever to face the Nation, and they played critical roles in enacting the Great Society programs and ending the war in Vietnam.'' One of the most remarkable members of that remarkable class was Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota, who passed away this weekend. He played critical roles both in enacting the Great Society programs and ending the war in Vietnam. It was my privilege and my pleasure to serve with Eugene McCarthy in the U.S. House of Representatives and here in the Senate as members of the class of 1958. While serving together, I came to appreciate that Senator McCarthy was a truly gifted and talented person with an extraordinary background. He was, without question, one of the more unusual Members to sit in this chamber. He was a poet, professor, philosopher, and author, and had been a military intelligence official during World War II and a semiprofessional baseball player. In the Senate, as throughout his life, Senator McCarthy did not hesitate to go his own way. He did not hesitate to stomp out of a Senate hearing, and he was willing to espouse unpopular views. But he always did so with an open heart, an open mind, and deep sincerity and dedication. Therefore, even when I disagreed with him, which was quite often in those early years, my respect for him continued to increase. And I developed a deep appreciation for his abilities, his wit, his warm personality, and his strong determination to make ours a better country. One of his first assignments in the Senate was chairing the Select Committee on Unemployment, which helped focus national attention on the problems of joblessness and poverty throughout the country. By holding hearings in Beckley, Welch, Fayetteville, and Wheeling, WV, as well as other economically distressed regions of the country, the Select Committee helped undermine the false claims of the so-called Republican prosperity of the 1950s, and, as a result, helped provide the ground work for the Great Society legislation that came a few years later. As I said earlier, it was members of the class of 1958 who also helped to end the war in Vietnam. Although all of us had voted for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, many of us came to regret it. Senator McCarthy, to his great credit, was one of the first to speak out against the war. He did so by announcing his break with the Johnson administration, and running against the President for the Democratic presidential nomination. ``The Administration,'' he said, ``seems to have set no limit to the price which it is willing to pay for a military victory.'' No one expected much from McCarthy's challenge. He was a little-known Senator taking on President Johnson, who at the time, seemed all powerful. But, as most of us know, in the 1968 New Hampshire Democratic primary, Senator McCarthy stunned the Nation and shocked the political world. His near victory helped to drive President Johnson out of the Presidential race. That contest showed how unpopular the war was. It focused attention on, despite the administration's claims to the contrary, just how disastrous its policies were in Southeast Asia. It brought home to the American people an issue that was dividing the country and costing billions of dollars and thousands of American lives. Furthermore, Senator McCarthy's campaign helped embolden a generation of young Democratic Party activists. When Senator McCarthy announced that he would be leaving the Senate in 1970, I was one Senator who approached him and tried to change his mind. When I was unsuccessful, I came to the Senate Floor to pay tribute to him. Senator McCarthy, I said, ``has made his mark upon our party, he has made his mark upon our country, and he has made an indelible mark upon the hearts of all in the Senate who are privileged to call him friend.'' I said, ``he proves the truth of that verse of Scripture that states, `He that hath friends must show himself friendly.' '' I have never wavered in those opinions that I expressed 35 years ago. In fact, our friendship became stronger, as did my admiration of him. Mr. President, our country has lost a good and talented man, and a great American. I will miss my friend. Our country needs more men like him. 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, It's 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!

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, before we adjourn, the Congress will be asked to vote on an across-the-board cut for every agency and program in the Federal Government. The Congressional majorities have put this Nation on an irresponsible fiscal path, one that promises years of record-breaking red ink, inflationary pressures, and multiplying Federal debts. Instead of making tough choices on spending priorities, or perhaps limiting the massive tax breaks going to Nation's richest citizens, or finding ways to lessen the burden of the war in Iraq on the American citizens, the Republican Congressional leadership is expected to take the expedient route of an across-the-board funding cut. This may not seem like a big deal. What's 1 or 2 percent? But to the families across this country, that 1 or 2 percent can mean a world of difference, especially when it is coupled with the freeze in services that has already been applied to Federal initiatives. Take, for an example, community health centers which provide basic health care for some of our most isolated citizens. This arbitrary Republican plan would mean that 55 clinics would be shuttered, and 73,000 Americans would see their health care held hostage by budget games. A 2 percent cut in the Food and Drug Administration budget would force unacceptable delays in the amount of time that it takes to approve new lifesaving drug and medical devices. At a time when the Congress is considering tax cuts for the wealthy, after a 2 percent cut, food packages for 65,922 elderly participants would vanish. A 2 percent cut in the WIC program would reduce the number of meals for 175,234 economically struggling women, infants, and children. More than 35,000 families would lose access to safe and affordable housing. Under this Congressional leadership, the rich get richer, while tens of thousands of poor and the elderly have to struggle for food and shelter. The House has passed four tax cut bills, totaling $95 billion, and the Senate has passed tax cuts which add up to $58 billion. The vast majority of these tax cuts are aimed at improving the economic portfolios of the wealthiest Americans at the expense of those Americans who are barely scraping by. At the same time that this Congress is pushing forward with unwise tax cuts, these across-the- board cuts would weaken further the Nation's crumbling infrastructure and rob the economy of new jobs. In fact, a $720 million cut in highway construction, as put forward under the Republican blueprint, would slash more than 34,200 construction jobs from our economy. How many headlines about companies cutting payrolls by the tens of thousands will it take before this Congress stands up and puts the American people first? American families deserve to know that the safety net is not filled with holes. But instead of offering assurances, this Republican plan only serves to jeopardize the future of many Americans. Children in school districts with a high median income would also suffer. These school districts, which receive title I funding, would have to scramble to fill a $257 million reduction. That kind of cut would hamstring the education of more than 200,000 students around the country. At the same time, special education funding would drop by $214 million, and the number of children in Head Start would be cut by 19,000. Cutting the funds for classroom education may achieve short- term fiscal goals for the Republican majority, but it creates long-term problems for the Nation's future. Don't care about the classrooms? Think that school districts can absorb this cut with higher property taxes? Then what about our veterans? Each day, new veterans come home from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They join our proud men and women who have served in World War One and World War Two, in Korea, in Vietnam, in the first Gulf War, and in so many places around the world. These men and women have made us proud. Many of these 21st century veterans have specialized health care needs. The battlefields of today are inflicting wounds unlike those experienced by the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines of past wars. Veterans' health care is a responsibility that we must never shirk. But what do these veterans get in return for their service? More budget cuts from this Congressional majority. The GOP plan means cuts in treatment for approximately 236,000 patients. It means that 1.4 million outpatient visits would disappear. Waiting lists would likely rise by about 176,000 veterans. In addition, the VA will not be able to expand specialty and mental health services at existing sites as planned. But the short-sighted effects of this Republican cut to America's working families, classrooms, and veterans are only one aspect of backwards priorities of this Republican funding plan. Just this week, the President reiterated his effort to protect the American people from future terrorist attacks. But how much safer will the American people be if the Republican blueprint for budget cuts is signed into law? How much safer will the Nation be with 800 fewer FBI agents? Similar cuts would face the Drug Enforcement Agency. Under this Republican scheme, the DEA would be forced to cut its planned force by 200 agents. The President and his team have stated that drug profits contribute to terrorism. Does anyone think that it is a good idea to cut more than 200 agents from the DEA? Border Security would be cut by $96.5 million. As a result, 200 of the promised new border agents would go unhired. Detention and removal efforts for illegal aliens would be sliced by $20 million. All of us know that the U.S.-Mexico border already is terribly porous. But, instead of investing in new agents and tightening security on our borders, this Republican effort would undermine our effort to secure our borders. What about our airport security? That is not immune from these Republican budget games. The Transportation Security Administration, which is responsible for the screening of passengers at our airports, would also be targeted for stiff reductions. As a result of this misguided GOP blueprint, more than 1,000 TSA screeners would lose their jobs. This is on top of the 2,000 person reduction in screeners already approved by this Congress. At the same time, funding for explosive detection equipment for baggage and passengers would be decreased by $12 million. And safety in the skies would be placed at risk. We all watched the Coast Guard perform marvelously after Hurricane Katrina devastated Mississippi and Louisiana. But rather than reinforcing the Coast Guard's ability in future disasters, the 2 percent rollback would reduce cutter patrol hours by at least 10,000 hours and aircraft hours by at least 2,000 hours. And military recruiting would be reduced by 60 percent--or 1,158 Coast Guard personnel. I urge my colleagues to think again about this fiscal foolishness. Think about what it means for our children and for the safety of our families. Think about what it means for our veterans and for our security. The American people elect Members of Congress to lead, to make tough choices, and to place the best interests of the Nation at the forefront of our work. This across-the-board cut is not leadership, and it is not in the best interests of the Nation.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish to join my Republican colleagues, Senator DeWine, Senator Specter, and Senator Craig, all of whom have already spoken so eloquently in support of a motion introduced by Senator DeWine yesterday to instruct conferees on the budget bill to strike an ill- conceived House provision that would repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, also known as CDSOA. To repeal or abandon this trade law would be a travesty. The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act was enacted to save American manufacturing and our agricultural producers from wave after wave of unfairly dumped foreign imports. CDSOA remains one of the most successful trade programs ever enacted. It maintains America's corporate competitiveness; it enables small and medium-sized businesses--and family-owned businesses--to invest in their futures. It keeps American workers employed, so they can receive health and pension benefits. This law is about American jobs. As Senator DeWine said yesterday, this law is not about rewarding special interests: It is about keeping American jobs. Five years ago, a bipartisan majority of the Senate approved our amendment to give U.S. companies injured by unfair trade the ability to invest in their factories and workers with funds collected by the Customs Service from unfairly traded imports. I particularly appreciate the continued strong support that Senator DeWine and many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to express in support of this law. In fact, three-fourths of the Senate has publicly pledged support for the law. Before this law was enacted, the Customs Service imposed antidumping and countervailing duties on dumped and unfairly subsidized imports--to make foreign exporters stop dumping and charge a fair price. Despite Customs' efforts, unfair foreign traders refused to trade fairly. Instead, they continued to dump--year after year. And the prices of the dumped foreign imports from China, Canada, the European Union, Japan, and other countries continued to unfairly undercut the prices of American-made products sold here in the United States. Faced with eroding U.S. market share, American producers struggled to stay afloat, unable to invest in new plants or equipment or to meet their payrolls. This was particularly true for small businesses and many of our Nation's family farmers, ranchers, and aquacultural producers. Even today, valiant producers of shrimp and crawfish continue to suffer from having endured a double whammy: unending unfair trade and Hurricane Katrina. CDSOA was enacted to restore conditions of fair trade, so that jobs that should stay in the United States are not sent overseas or ``outsourced'' as the result of unfair competition. Under the law, each year, Customs distributes duties collected from unfair imports to those American companies and workers who can prove that they have been materially injured by unfair trade. While the amounts distributed under the program are not large from a budget perspective---approximately $226 million for fiscal year 2005-- the law is critically important to American companies and workers who continue to work hard to stay in business, even when foreign producers refuse to stop dumping. American companies that rightfully receive distributions under the law include producers of crawfish, garlic, furniture, honey, lumber, wheat, shrimp, catfish, semiconductor chips, bearings, mushrooms, crawfish, pasta, steel, raspberries, cement, and a long list of others--all of which deserve to be reimbursed under the law for having suffered the negative effects of bringing successful trade cases against illegally traded imports year after year after year. There was a claim on the Senate floor earlier this week that CDSOA claims may be fraudulent. That shows a basic misunderstanding of the law. To receive reimbursement under the law, companies must certify, in writing, that they have made qualifying expenditures in their workers and facilities. CDSOA reimburses them for those expenditures. And Customs may verify any claim submitted to make certain that a request for reimbursement is valid. So there are very careful safeguards in place under the law to be certain that funds are distributed fairly, honestly, and legally. Critics of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act also argue that the WTO has ruled against the law, so we should abandon it. But the WTO was wrong in opposing it. The WTO was overzealous in ruling against the law; it overreached. The WTO decision against this trade authority was technically beyond the scope of the WTO' legal mandate. The WTO incorrectly read into international agreements a prohibition against our law that was never agreed to by any U.S. trade negotiator. The WTO has no legal basis to request that the United States repeal this law. Nearly 800 American companies and workers in nearly every State of the Nation receive distributions under its provisions. It is critical to family-owned businesses, like Warwood Tools in Wheeling, WV, and to Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel, and to Mittal Steel's facilities in Weirton, WV. It is equally important to the thousands of steelworkers in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere across the Nation. They, and all hard- working Americans, deserve to continue to receive these funds so long as foreign traders keep dumping. If our trading partners don't like this trade law, I have only two words for them: stop dumping. In the fiscal year 2004 and 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Acts-- and, now, in the fiscal year 2006 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act--both Houses of Congress included language that directs the administration to negotiate a solution to the WTO dispute concerning this law. In fact, the conference report on the CJS bill that contains this language was approved by the Senate on November 16 by an overwhelming vote of 94 to 5. Pursuant to these congressional directives, the administration last year put this trade law on the table in the Doha Round of trade negotiations, and the USTR even told our trading partners that it agrees it is ``beyond question that countries have the sovereign right to distribute duties as they deem appropriate.'' Even if the WTO disagrees with the law, any retaliation by other countries against us is negligible--equal to only a few hours of trade among a few of our trading partners. Currently, the United States and other nations are seeking to complete negotiations in the Doha Round of international trade talks by the end of 2006. Now is not the time to weaken the hand of our trade negotiators by attempting to repeal one of our Nation's most prominent and effective trade laws. In fact, now is the time to do more to hold foreign unfair traders accountable, not less. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in support of this motion to instruct the conferees to strike from the budget reconciliation bill any provision that would repeal this critical trade law.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Some of them did.

Mr. BYRD. That has never been the rule here. Senators have a right to talk, to filibuster.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. The Constitution doesn't say that.

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. Will the leader yield to me?

Mr. BYRD. I will be glad to take on both Senators in defense of the Constitution.

Mr. BYRD. Yes, let the decision stand.

Mr. BYRD. I am not sure about that.

Mr. BYRD. I am not sure about that history.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. That is not history. That is not even recent history.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the majority leader. I hope my PA system is on here. This country is a great country, but it has never perfected a good PA system. I think this one is working. May I say to the distinguished Senator, on vote No. 37, 106th Congress, on the nomination of Richard A. Paez to be U.S. circuit judge, vote on cloture on March 8, 2000, the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Frist, voted to filibuster. The question was on a cloture motion to end a filibuster. Cloture was agreed to by three- fifths vote, but the distinguished Senator from Tennessee chose to exercise his right, and he voted against cloture. He voted to filibuster. So the worm turns. The day may come when the Senator may want to filibuster. He will never find me on the side of saying I will cut off your right to talk.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?