Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have listened to this discussion with considerable dismay. I hope that both leaders will not leave the floor. I cannot understand why we can't proceed a little at a time. If we are seeking to--

Mr. BYRD. Yes. May I retain my right to the floor?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this says that he, the President, shall have the power to nominate and, by and with the consent of the United States Senate, shall appoint. To give consent, we may vote. But to deny consent doesn't require a vote. It does not require a vote and the record shows that. The record shows that Republicans and Democrats have, from time to time, the leadership has denied a vote to a nominee simply by bottling up that nominee in the committee. That denies the nominee a vote. The Senate speaks, as it were, and refuses to give its consent by just saying nothing; thus, keeping those nominees in the committee. That has been done from time immemorial and more recently in increasing measure. Many nominees under the Clinton administration were not given an up- or-down vote. They were sent up here by the President of the United States. They were not given an up-or-down vote. They were kept in committee.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what does the Constitution say? By and with the consent, the President shall have the power, and by and with the consent of the United States Senate, shall appoint. Now, we can wrangle until the crack of doom about why so and so and so and so were not given an up-or-down vote in the Senate. One could ask that question ad infinitum about those many nominees that were sent to the Senate by President Clinton. They never got up-or-down votes. I didn't take the floor and urge that they deserved this or that. The Senate should be guided by this Constitution. If it elects not to confirm by simply withholding its voice, it can do so. I commend both leaders for their efforts. But I am telling you, the American people deserve something. That is what we should think about. The American people deserve action by the Senate to get on with the business of the people. Look at these high gas prices. We can talk about immigration policy. We can talk about access to health facilities. The American people deserve action on the part of the Senate, and here we are wrangling over a half-dozen nominations for judgeships. That is just a shirttail full of nominations, and they have been sent to the Senate already. In the first administration, if the Senate saw fit not to give its confirmation to them, why should the President send the same nominations back up to the Senate? There are plenty of people in this country who are able--many lawyers and judges who are able. There are plenty of people the President could nominate that would not have a problem getting confirmation in the Senate. Why do we have to send the same ones back here? That is up to the President. If he wants to send the same ones, he can. I am saddened by this threat to use the so-called nuclear option. The distinguished majority leader prefers to call it the ``constitutional option.''

Mr. BYRD. Not yet. I have not said much on this question, but I want to say a few things today. The Republican leader refers to it as the ``constitutional option.'' I refer to it as ``constitutional folly.'' We talk about freedom of speech in the Senate. Roots run deep with respect to freedom of speech. When the distinguished Republican leader first became leader, and even before he became leader, he visited my office and we had a good conversation. I believe he asked my thoughts on whether he might be a good leader of the Senate. I said give the Senate the opportunity to debate and to amend. That is what we are talking about here--the right to amend, the right to debate. Yet they are talking about the nuclear option. Don't kill freedom of speech in the Senate. That great compromise that was entered into on July 16, 1787, is why we are here today. If it hadn't been for that compromise, the Senator who sits in the chair would not be sitting there. The distinguished Democratic leader would not be the leader in this body. There would be no Senate, and there probably would not be a Republic. The great compromise said there shall be two Houses, and the membership number of one shall be determined on the basis of population; the other will be a forum of the States in which each State is equal to every other State and each Senator is equal to every other Senator. We talk a lot about tradition. I say to my good friend--and he is my friend--the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, I have heard a good many Senators on the floor talking about tradition. Well, tradition in the Senate means freedom of debate going back to the beginning of this Republic; and the Articles of Confederation, the first Constitution of the United States--going back to the Articles of Confederation, back to the House of Commons, the people of England who were in this country, especially those who decided on this Constitution, were British subjects. So the roots of freedom of speech are deep. They go back to 1689, to the time when the English offered to William III, of Orange, and Mary the opportunity to be joint sovereigns. The proposition was that there must be freedom of speech in the Senate. Those two sovereigns--that was one of the items that was to be agreed to, freedom of speech in the House of Commons. That was on, I believe, February 13, 1689. On December 16 of that year, a statute was passed incorporating those rights into a statute. That was the Bill of Rights of our English forebears. As I say, that common thread of freedom of speech runs deep, deep in the House of Commons, and we ought to honor it here. We are talking about cutting off the rights of Senators and about what the nominees deserve. What do the American people deserve? Well, let's adhere to tradition. There wasn't any limitation on speech until 1917 in the Senate. First, they had the previous question. Aaron Burr said in 1805, when he made his departing speech from the Senate--I am just hoping I might have the attention of Senators. I have not had much to say on this question, although it has kept me awake many nights. I have spent sleepless hours worrying about this thing of killing debate, freedom of speech in the Senate. Who wishes, Mr. Leader, to have that kind of a legacy to confront him--to help to kill freedom of speech in the Senate? You don't want that legacy. I don't want to see you have that legacy--freedom of speech in the Senate killed. Aaron Burr urged the Senate to do away with the previous question. They still have the previous question in the House of Representatives and in the House of Commons in England. The previous question had been on the books for a few years, but it hadn't been used, so Aaron Burr, in 1805, urged the Senate to do away with the previous question by which they could shut off debate. In 1806, in that first revision of the Senate rules, it was left out. No more could a Senator move the previous question in this body. That was the end of it until 1917. Then, when President Wilson sought to arm merchant ships, there was a filibuster by a few Senators. Thank God. I came over here from the House like a lot of Senators have. Some want to make the Senate another House of Representatives. The Founding Fathers did not want to do that. But when I came to the House, I did not come over here chewing at the bit to change the Senate rules and make this a second House of Representatives, only smaller. I said thank God for the U.S. Senate many times when I was in that other body. Thank God for the U.S. Senate. Why did I do that? Because over here, a man or woman may stand on his or her feet so long as their lungs, their brass lungs, will carry their voice, and they can object. And may I say to the distinguished majority leader, he made mention of the late Senator Smith from Maine. I was here when she was here. What a grand woman that one, a great Senator, Margaret Chase Smith. I wish she were here today, Margaret Chase Smith. I wish those Senators of that day were here. They would not stand still for a minute to throttling freedom of speech in the U.S. Senate. May I say to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, please think about this. Think about this. Don't leave this as your legacy. No, try to find a way around this freedom of speech in the United States Senate. Let's don't throttle it. We have come to a time, we say we are going to try to work this out. This ought not be all that difficult to work out. As I said to the President of the United States in the presence of the distinguished Senator from Tennessee: Mr. President, tell your leadership up there not to push this, not to push this on the American people. It is their freedom. The day may come when--and it has been in the past--the day may come when the Senator from Tennessee wishes to stand and use that filibuster. The filibuster is not a very popular thing out there in the country maybe.

Mr. BYRD. Not yet, if I may respectfully decline. I will shortly. The Senator from Tennessee may wish to stand on his feet and defend the beliefs, the opinions, the rights of the people of Tennessee from a majority. Over there is the majoritarian body, the House of Representatives. There is where majority rules. This is the forum of the States. It is a forum for minorities, where we can have dissent on the part of a minority. The majority is not always right. The majority has been wrong before. And so I say, let's protect the rights of the minority to filibuster, if I may use that word. Yes, we have engaged in filibusters on judicial matters before. I was here when the President of the United States wanted to make Abe Fortas the Chief Justice. I voted on that. That was a filibuster.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, yes, I yield. I ask unanimous consent that I can yield under the rules for a question, without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. BYRD. He offered him all the land he could cover in a day for a thousand rubles. He thought, this is my chance. So he took off on an early morning and he had never seen land so rich as this was. So he decided he would walk 3 miles. He left his servant there with the stranger. The 64-dollar catchword was, he had to be back at the starting point before the sun went down or he would lose his thousand rubles. So he started out and he decided he would walk 3 miles. After he walked the 3 miles, it looked so good he thought he would walk 3 more miles, and he walked 3 more miles until he had covered 27 miles before he turned up on the second side. He covered the second side, and he sat down and he ate from the humble bag of provisions that his good wife had prepared for him, a little cheese and bread, and then he launched out on the third side of the square and he covered the third side. But as the long afternoon wore on, the land became less hilly, more rocky. So he struggled to reach the end, to reach the starting point before the sun went down because otherwise he would lose all. He would lose his thousand rubles, and he would lose the land that he covered. Mr. President, I see the leader has left. He left me all alone here. What about this? Hey, where is my adversary? Where is my worthy adversary? Come on now. Where is the leader? Am I to be left here alone to be gored by the horns of those--where is my adversary? He is not to be found. Anyhow, let me bring this long story to an end. In the end, the man was crawling on his hands and knees. The sun was going down. He looked ahead of him and he saw the starting point. He saw the dim face of the stranger waiting on him at the starting point, the stranger who had offered him all the land that he could cover in a day for a thousand rubles. He saw a grim smile on the face of that stranger. So, painfully, he inched himself forward little by little. His arms were bleeding from the rocks and the briers and the sticks that had gone through his skin. He reached the starting point just as the Sun went down, but he fell dead on the spot. The stranger said: I promised him all the land he could cover. You see how much it is: 6 feet long and 2 feet wide. The stranger, called Death, said: I have kept my pledge. So, Tolstoy asked, How much more do you want? How many nominees have we confirmed in this Senate? How many? May I ask the question without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. BYRD. And how many have not been confirmed?

Mr. BYRD. And 7 of those are back before the Senate, out of 218? My, how much land does a man need? How many nominees do they want? Mr. President, just send up some new nominees; it is that simple. Mr. President, I thank all Senators. I am ready to proceed on the amendment, if the Senator would like.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I may speak for 1 minute.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. BYRD. Twenty minutes. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume within that 20-minute limitation. I again thank Chairman Thad Cochran for his patience in the processing of this supplemental appropriations bill when it came before the Senate. He was especially patient during the Senate consideration in seeing that all who wanted to offer amendments were afforded the opportunity to be heard. The members of the Appropriations Committee have had a longstanding sense of cooperation, comity, and civility. There is always give and take, live and let live, on both sides of the aisle. And that was the same with regard to the Senate processing of this supplemental. Everybody did not get everything he or she wanted in this supplemental, but Members were treated fairly in a bipartisan manner. However, when it came to processing the supplemental in conference, several members were severely disappointed that the conference was recessed subject to the call of the Chair. As a result, several Senators were precluded from offering their motions and their amendments. A number of Members on this side of the aisle have expressed disappointment that the conference did not have any open debate on the immigration provisions, including the REAL ID legislation, that found their way into the bill, and that neither the majority nor the minority of the Senate Appropriations Committee participated in the formulation of the REAL ID immigration provisions. These REAL ID provisions were formulated behind closed doors by the House and Senate Republican leadership. After the conference had recessed subject to the call of the Chair, a 55-page modified version of the REAL ID authorizing legislation was laid into the conference report. It was simply grafted onto the emergency supplemental appropriations bill that provides funding for our military operations and our troops, without debate or participation by the conferees. I do not fault the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. This was not his doing. This was done by the House and Senate Republican leadership. The bill totals approximately $82 billion, which comes in at about $1 million below the request. Virtually the entire bill is designated as an emergency, thus increasing the deficit. Department of Defense totals $75.9 billion, $0.9 billion above the request. International assistance totals $4.1 billion, which is $1.5 billion below the request, but it grew in conference to levels $866 million more than the House and $42 million more than the Senate. Border security funding totals $450 million of new emergency spending. This compares to my conference motion to include $665 million for border security. In order to increase the size of the border security effort, staff identified $100 million of low priority homeland security funds to use as offsets, bringing the total package to $550 million. Despite having taken credit for improving security on our borders when he signed the Intelligence Reform Act in December, the President requested no actual funding for border security. My initiative, with the support of Homeland Security Subcommittee Chairman Judd Gregg and Senator Larry Craig, will result in 500 more Border Patrol agents, 218 new immigration investigators and detention officers, 1,950 more detention beds, 170 support personnel, and funds for training and housing the new personnel. Many of the President's requests for expanded flexibilities were substantially reduced in the Senate bill and sustained in conference. The President's request for $5 billion transfer authority for Defense Department funds contained in the supplemental bill was reduced to $3 billion. In combination, under the conference report, the Secretary of Defense has transfer authority in fiscal year 2005 of $10.7 billion, down from a total of $14.7 billion requested. The President's request for authority to spend contributions to the Defense Cooperation Account in fiscal year 2005, without subsequent approval by the Congress, was rejected as it should have been. The President's request for a $200 million slush fund, entitled the Global War on Terrorism, GWOT, Fund, under the control of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, was rejected as it should have been. The President's request for a $200 million ``Solidarity Fund'' for the Secretary of State, under Peacekeeping Operations, to reimburse coalition partners--such as, Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Hungary, and Bulgaria--for defense costs, was approved at a level of $230 million, of which $30 million can be used for GWOT-type activities. However, the act requires consultation and notification of the Congress prior to using the money. The conference report includes language that I authored prohibiting executive branch agencies from creating prepackaged news stories unless the agency clearly identifies that the story was created and funded by an executive agency. It troubles me greatly that there has been a proliferation of executive branch agencies creating so-called news stories and then distributing them without identifying the story as having been produced with the taxpayer's money. We trust the media to provide us with independent sources of information, not biased news stories produced by executive branch agencies, at whose expense, taxpayer expense. On February 17, 2005, the Government Accountability Office issued a legal opinion to the executive agencies stating that such prepackaged news stories violated the law. Regrettably, on March 11, 2005, the Office of Management and Budget issued a memorandum to agency heads specifically contradicting the opinion of the Government Accountability Office. This conference report ``confirms the opinion of the Government Accountability Office dated February 17, 2005.'' I am pleased that the conferees and now the Congress have agreed to this clear message that taxpayer dollars should not be used to create prepackaged news stories unless the story includes a clear message that the story was created by a Federal agency and paid for by taxpayer dollars. I was also pleased that the conferees agreed to my sense of the Senate language on budgeting for the war in Iraq. The conference report says that the President should submit a budget amendment for fiscal year 2006 by September 1, 2005, and should include funds in his fiscal year 2007 budget for the war when it is transmitted in February. Congress has now appropriated over $210 billion. That is $210 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. Think of that. Congress has now appropriated over $210 billion in four different emergency supplementals for the war in Iraq. That is a lot of money, and it is your money, $210 billion. It is your money, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, your money. Two hundred ten billion dollars for the war in Iraq, and there is no end in sight. We should not continue to fund the war through ad hoc emergency supplemental bills that are funneled through the Congress quickly when our troops are running out of funding. The conference report also includes my proposed 3-month extension of the Abandoned Mines Land Program. Last fall, I offered, and the Congress approved, a 9-month extension of the program in order to give the authorizing committees time to act. Unfortunately, since last fall, the authorizers have held no hearings and considered no bills on the matter. So once again I urge the authorizing committees to approve this legislation that is important to West Virginia and important to all other coal-producing States. Finally, I thank the staff on both sides of the aisle. On the majority side, I thank Keith Kennedy, Clayton Heil, Les Spivey, Sid Ashworth, Paul Grove, Rebecca Davies, and all of the others. On my own side, the minority side, I thank that man from Notre Dame, our minority staff director, Terry Sauvain. I thank his very able deputy, Charles ``Chuck'' Kieffer. These are two the likes of which you will never see again. I also thank Charlie Houy, Tim Rieser, B.G. Wright, Chad Schulken, and all of the others on the minority side who worked the long hours--I mean long hours--to assist Senators in the production of the final conference report. Mr. President, there were some problems in conference, most notably the recessing at the call of the Chair and not returning, which left some of our members unable to offer motions. During the recess, 55 pages of modified REAL ID immigration legislation were inserted into the conference report, sight unseen, by the conferees. Now, can you imagine that? That would not have happened when I was chairman of the Appropriations Committee. That would not have happened when I was majority leader of the Senate. I will tell you, I don't blame our chairman or any committee members for this situation, but I do acknowledge that there were problems. Nevertheless, the conference report provides the necessary funds for our troops in the field in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. I will always support money for our troops, may God bless them. I support them. We must support our troops, our men and women. They didn't ask to go there. They are doing their duty. They are answering the call. I do not support the policies that sent them there. I did not support it in the beginning. I did not vote to authorize this President or any other President to use the military of this country as he might see fit. I did not cast my vote there. I never, at any time, believed that Saddam Hussein, for whom I did not carry any brief--or the country of Iraq posed a national security threat to our country. I said so then, I say it now, and I believe that. So I did not vote for the policies that sent them there and keep them there. There is no end in sight. It bleeds our country of money and blood. No, I don't support that policy, and I didn't support it when the President sent our men and women there. But I do support the troops. I support them and will always support the troops of our country--may God bless them. Nevertheless, the conference report, as I say, does provide the necessary funds for our troops in the field in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. I supported the war in Afghanistan because there was al- Qaida. Al-Qaida attacked us. Al-Qaida invaded our country when it toppled the Twin Towers, and struck the Pentagon, and drove a plane into the ground in Pennsylvania. I supported that war. But there are two wars, the one in Afghanistan and the second war in Iraq--a country which did not invade our country, a country which did not strike our country, and a country which posed no security threat to our country. But that is neither here nor there when it comes to our troops. That is something else. We will support our troops. I thank the Chairman for his excellent work, for his cooperation and fine leadership in our Committee, and for his support of the troops likewise. I urge the adoption of the conference report. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from North Dakota and I thank the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. The Senator from Massachusetts has been waiting prior to my arrival on the floor. I have no problem with waiting until he is recognized.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank again my friend from Massachusetts. I will try to be brief so that I do not impose on the Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. President, in his book, ``Profiles in Courage,'' John F. Kennedy recalls the tale told by Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar, a U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi. And I read from John F. Kennedy's book: Lamar, in the company of other prominent military and civilian officers of the Confederacy, was on board a blockade runner making for Savannah harbor. Although the high-ranking officers after consultation had decided it was safe to go ahead, Lamar related, the Captain had sent Sailor Billy Summers to the top mast to look for Yankee gunboats in the harbor, and Billy said he had seen ten. That distinguished array of officers knew where the Yankee fleet was, and it was not in Savannah; and they told the Captain that Billy was wrong and the ship must proceed ahead. The Captain refused, insisting that while the officers knew a great deal more about military affairs, Billy Summers on the top mast with a powerful glass had a much better opportunity to judge the immediate situation at hand. ``Profiles'' quotes Senator Lamar: Thus it is, my countrymen, you have sent me to the topmost mast, and I tell you what I see. If you say I must come down, I will obey without a murmur, for you cannot make me lie to you; but if you return me, I can only say that I will be true to love of country, truth, and God . . . So ends the quote from John F. Kennedy's book, ``Profiles in Courage.'' Mr. President, I have been to the topmost mast. As the senior member of the Appropriations Committee that must implement this budget, as a Senator from a State that will suffer under this budget, as a taxpayer who must bear the debt burden of this budget, I see herein calamity, tragedy, and callous indifference. Budget deficits, we now know, are not short-term aberrations emanating from an economic recession or the attacks of September 11, as some have long maintained. They are the inevitable result--the inevitable result--of structural imbalances embedded deep within this administration's failed fiscal policies. From $158 billion 3 years ago, to $375 billion 2 years ago, to $413 billion last year, to $427 billion this year, this administration proposes record deficits for today, for tomorrow, and for the indefinite future. So this talk about cutting the deficit in half is fiction, nothing else but fiction. This budget excludes the long-term costs of military operations in Iraq. It excludes the costs of Social Security reform. It looks no further than 5 years down the road, effectively concealing the consequences of the administration's proposals for more tax cuts. The American people must think Congress is out of its mind to believe that a budget that proposes such enormous deficits, while excluding so much, could serve as an example of tough decisions. Well it ``ain't'' so. Rising deficits suggest just the opposite--an inability to make tough decisions. For that matter, cheap shots at programs for the elderly and poor and for rural America hardly represent tough choices. The administration has been clear that despite the deteriorating budget, it will not sacrifice its political priorities. The sacrifice, it insists, must come from others, must come from somebody else, must come from somewhere else; from veterans, who need health care; yes, from families who cannot afford to heat their homes; yes, from students who require Federal loans; oh, yes, from our police and firefighters who need training and equipment to cope with new dangers. In my State of West Virginia, this budget will result in tens of millions of dollars in cuts for our schools, tens of millions of dollars in cuts in nutritional childcare and family services for lower income families. It will eviscerate economic development programs, likely resulting in half a billion dollars in cuts for the State and its localities over 5 years. Yes, let them suffer the cuts. It requires cuts in Medicaid. It requires cuts in other programs that will deny affordable health care to seniors and to families across the States. All together, the cuts included in this budget amount to nickels and dimes within the context of the $2.5 trillion budget. They do not fix the deficit problem. Talk about cutting the budget deficit in half, they do not fix the deficit problem. Even with these cuts, this budget will worsen the deficit by $33 billion this year. Think about that. The Congress is proposing to cut investments that are essential to the care of our seniors, essential to our veterans, essential to our schoolchildren, and the result is a $33 billion increase in the budget deficit. Our constituents must wonder for what they are being asked to sacrifice. A few simple phrases describe this budget: High deficits and debt, more tax cuts for the wealthy that we cannot afford, more cuts to programs for the elderly, more cuts to programs for veterans, more cuts to programs for the schoolchildren, and not a dime to ensure the solvency of the Social Security and Medicare Programs. I think highly of the Senator from New Hampshire. I am very fond of him. I admire him greatly. He has done yeoman's work as chairman of the Budget Committee. I cannot support this budget. I defer to that great Senator's expertise on many budgetary matters. He is absolutely superb as a chairman, but the only right vote that I can see from the topmost masts that I have climbed is a vote against this budget. I again thank my friend from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Washington, like most of the Nation, is awash in green. Lawns are lush and verdant. The new leaves on the trees are bright green, soft, and whole--not yet the tough, sun- and insect- scarred veterans of late summer, but as delicate as a baby's skin. The dogwoods and lilacs are blooming, and the azaleas are putting on their magnificent show. In a few days, it will be May. May is a beautiful month in the Nation's capital, just as it is in the hills of West Virginia. It is, perhaps, the most beautiful month. It is a gentle, nurturing month, full of tenderness and promise. It is fitting that such a month be graced with a day to honor mothers. Sunday, May 8th, is Mother's Day. On this day, tender thoughts of affection and gentle acts of kindness and appreciation are showered upon our mothers, who have sustained us all with their gentle hands, warm hearts, and forgiving natures. To be sure, women have as many facets as a brilliantly cut diamond. They can be tough and demanding professionals, fierce competitors in any field of endeavor, stoic and enduring in the face of great hardship, and outstanding performers in the arts, medicine and science. The news as well as history is full of stories of the accomplishments of women. But on this one day, we celebrate the side of women that is most like this lovely month of May--the mothering side. It is the side that kissed our baby feet, that saved locks of hair from our first haircuts and our first baby teeth. It is the side whose tender touch soothed our hurts, whose unwavering belief in our talents sustained us through sports failures, painful piano recitals, and countless hours of practices and tantrums. It is the side that sang to us, baked us cookies, and patiently helped build our science project volcanoes out of soda bottles and plaster of Paris. It is the side that glowed as we received our diplomas, went out on our first dates, accepted our first jobs; the side that held us as we lost jobs, lost loved ones, lost faith in our dreams. Our mothers never lose faith. In business or at work, women might be efficient, even ruthless, judges, quickly assessing and sorting through problems, but at home, as mothers, we depend on their faith and support to find solutions for our problems. Next weekend, mothers will be feted with cards, flowers, and Sunday brunches. They will begin to get some of the backlog of hugs that are their due, a down payment on the debt of gratitude we owe them for taking on such a monumental task. The only instruction that women receive on how to be a good mother comes from their own mother. It is a remarkable achievement that so many women learn this complex job so effortlessly, and manage to perform it so well. Women from around the globe, women who will never break a world record, invent a new technology, discover a new fact, will share with those record breakers in the phenomenally important job of motherhood. Society utterly depends on how well mothers and fathers manage the task of parenting. It is a heavy responsibility to lay upon such rank amateurs. I can well recall the early days of my own marriage. I have been blessed to have been married to the same kind and forgiving woman for almost 68 years. We are now proud great grandparents. But nearly seven decades ago, we were the rankest of amateurs at marriage and parenthood. Erma has always been my touchstone. Her faith in me has never wavered, and she took to mothering me as effortlessly as she took to mothering our daughters. In Erma Ora James Byrd runs the blood of a great line of mothers--fierce in their devotion to their families, vigilant in their care, loving in their manner. That same fierceness, vigilance, and devotion can be seen in women who bring their mothering skills to the office as well. I am so often impressed at the energy and ability of working mothers. Their ability to focus on their two big jobs--work and family--takes real dedication, precise time management, and grueling endurance. Single mothers require those qualities in even greater measure. They often do not have someone who can help with the homework, share in the driving to school and practices, take turns staying home with sick children, put the children to bed or read them stories, or do any of the so-called ``father's jobs'' of taking out the trash, mowing the lawn, fixing the car, or even drying the dishes. It takes superhuman strength to keep up that level of effort at home while still earning a living. I do not think that, as a society, we have made it easy for mothers, and especially for single mothers, to do their twin jobs. We need to find better ways to help women balance work and motherhood. We need their skills and talents in the workforce, but we also need their skills and talent at home, building our Nation's future. I know of some women, in West Virginia and throughout the country, who have found themselves in the single mother category after the tragic loss of their husbands in battles in Afghanistan and Iraq. They have had to deal with their own and their children's grief, the loss of their husband's income, and making a new home for themselves outside of the military, plus the sudden loss of their partner in childrearing. They and their children should not be forgotten after the furled flag is handed to them at a military funeral. We deservedly call their husbands heroes for the sacrifice they made for our Nation, but their families are left to be heroes each and every lonely day thereafter. They need and merit the support and comfort from all of us, on Mother's Day and every day. Children are sometimes, and rightly, referred to as our greatest national treasure. They are our future, the great hope for the continued success and enduring values of our Nation. But if that statement is true, then it is also true that good mothers are our Nation's greatest national resource. Without mothers dedicated every day to this monumental task, our future would be bleak indeed. Though the Senate will not be in session next week, I am proud to call attention to the coming of Mother's Day. I hope that others will join me in applauding the noble calling of motherhood, and in recognizing the hard work and love that mothers demonstrate day after day. I would like to close with a poem by Strickland Gillilan, called ``The Reading Mother,'' as it speaks to the simple, lasting gifts that mothers give their children. The Reading Mother I had a Mother who read to me Sagas of pirates who scoured the sea, Cutlasses clenched in their yellow teeth, ``Blackbirds'' stowed in the hold beneath. I had a Mother who read me lays Of ancient and gallant and golden days; Stories of Marmion and Ivanhoe, Which every boy has a right to know. I had a Mother who read me tales Of Gelert the hound from the hills of Wales, True to his trust till his tragic death, Faithfulness blent with his final breath. I had a Mother who read me the things That wholesome life to the boy heart brings-- Stories that stir with an upward touch, Oh, that each mother of boys were such! You may have tangible wealth untold; Caskets of jewels and coffers of gold. Richer than I you can never be-- I had a Mother who read to me.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time might I have under the order?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask that I may proceed to speak out of order for as long as I need to speak and that it not be over 15 minutes.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, from the book of Matthew, chapter 7, verses 25, 26, and 27 of the King James version of the Bible, I read as follows: And the rain descended and the floods came and the winds blew and beat upon the house, and it fell not for it was founded upon a rock. And everyone that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell; and great was the fall of it. Mr. President, 70 years ago the Social Security Program was founded upon a rock. It was designed to shelter workers in their old age and to withstand the storms that can wipe away their savings. For 70 years, the Social Security Program has stood as a protector of workers and families. It is their safeguard against economic peril. Social Security provides the essential support for 405,000 West Virginians. In every county across the State, men and women, workers and retirees, their spouses and their children rely on their monthly Social Security check, and it comes as regularly as the mail man runs. And so it is with great trepidation that they listen to apocalyptic tales about Social Security's future. It is difficult to understand, and perhaps incomprehensible to comprehend, how workers could spend their lifetime contributing to the Social Security Program only to find that the benefits promised to them may not be available when they retire. Demographic projections show that the next generation of workers cannot support the retirement and disability benefits promised to this generation of workers. The Social Security trustees warned us that this demographic storm would erode the rock upon which the retirement security of workers has been built. Soon the rain will descend. Soon the floods will come. Soon the winds will blow. Our challenge is to keep that house from falling. And our challenge is great. It is within this context that President Bush has proposed changing the scope of the Social Security Program, adding personal accounts to wean workers from the traditional program. He offers the opportunity for higher returns in the financial markets in exchange for workers relinquishing a portion of their benefits guaranteed under the current system. Be careful. Needless to say, the outcry to such a proposal has been deafening. In the State of West Virginia, thousands and thousands of constituents are contacting my office--phone calls, e-mails, letters--in opposition to the President's Social Security plan. These people fear that personal accounts are a scheme to take away their Social Security benefits. They fear it is an effort to crack open Social Security and break it apart, piece by piece. I, too, fear such efforts. Feeding that fear is the secret that permeates the administration's plans. The X factors are multifarious, impacting every worker and every employer who pays into the Social Security Program, every future retiree and every future disabled worker who expects one day to receive Social Security benefits. My constituents are right to be leery of a scheme to privatize Social Security, particularly when efforts to learn more about Social Security's reforms are being stonewalled. We cannot get that information. If we knew the answers, if we knew for certain the retirement security of our constituents would be protected, that would be one thing, but this proposal for personal accounts seems a lot like the kind of telephone scams we hear about when folks are told they have won a prize and then are asked for their bank account number. Hold on here. We are all enticed by the idea of ensuring the solvency of Social Security, but what are workers being asked to give up? No one in the administration, no one in the White House is willing to tell. Hear me when I say I will oppose this plan as well as any plan where the costs are undefined and the benefit cuts so uncertain. Four months of high-publicity tours and photo-ops by President Bush and members of his Cabinet all across America, including stops in West Virginia, have yielded little new information about how the President's plan would affect workers' benefits. We do not know. We have not been told. We cannot get the answers. We ask for the plan, we ask for the details, and nothing happens. What level of benefit cuts is the President advocating? How much of their guaranteed benefits is the President asking workers to relinquish? On this subject the White House has been evasive. The White House has been equivocating. What about the volatility of the financial markets? Recent news reports serve as a vivid reminder that the stock market has severe ups and downs. What happens when it comes time to retire and a worker discovers that he or she does not have enough saved to ensure a decent, respectable living? What guarantee would the administration support to ensure a minimum benefit from each individual account? The White House will not respond to this question. There is not a sound to be heard by way of answering that question. What are the costs of the President's Social Security plan? The White House Budget Office has $754 billion, but the Vice President says trillions of dollars. How about that? How can this administration reconcile mounting debt and its own warnings about the need to limit the further growth of deficits with a plan that requires borrowing trillions of dollars more? Again, the White House has no response to the question. This week, the Senate Finance Committee began hearings on the President's plan. I hope these hearings will yield more information. Our senior citizens need answers to these questions. I sent a letter to this President earlier this year urging him to send a detailed legislative proposal to the Congress. Send it up, a detailed legislative proposal. I have asked questions of the Secretary of the Treasury at Appropriations Committee hearings as recently as this week. The Congress and the people have been patient in waiting for answers, but still no answers come forth. Honesty and candor are now required. We cannot legislate on rumors and guesses. The ducking and the dodging on the part of the administration serve only to fuel speculation that it is hiding something--yes, hiding something--from the public or, worse, seeking to cut benefits surreptitiously. Fortunately, any legislation submitted by the President to change Social Security will require 60 votes to pass the Senate; that is, as long as the nuclear option has not descended upon the Senate, as long as the filibuster is still around. Any legislation submitted by the President to change Social Security will require 60 votes to pass the Senate. Long live the filibuster. It may be needed to protect Social Security. The danger of the nuclear option becomes crystal clear as we contemplate the momentous debate on Social Security which looms just down the road, just up ahead. Only the Senate, here in this forum, only the Senate has the ability to insist on its right to unlimited debate. I hope the Senators will stop, look, and listen. Only the Senate, may I repeat, has the ability to insist on its right to unlimited debate. Let's maintain that right. It has been there for 217 years. Its roots go back to the English Bill of Rights to which William III and Mary subscribed on February 13, 1689, 100 years before our own Republic began, the Bill of Rights, enacted on December 16 in Parliament. The Bill of Rights guaranteed freedom of speech in commons, and our own Constitution in section 6, article I, guarantees that right which cannot be questioned in any other place. Retain it, maintain it, keep it, hold it, collapse it to thy breast. Only the Senate has the ability to insist on its right to unlimited debate. No Social Security legislation will fly through this Senate without thorough scrutiny, unless the nuclear option is employed. Senators can insist and Senators will insist on the time they need to probe the details of the President's plan and to extract answers to their questions. The Senate will have the opportunity to amend, the Senate will have the opportunity to debate, and then, if it desires, the Senate will have the opportunity to amend and debate some more. And then some more. The threat of a filibuster means that no legislation will be enacted into law without bipartisan support in this Senate, which means that no benefits will be cut, no taxes will be increased, and no radical change codified without adequate debate. The Senate will require a compromise if and when Social Security reforms are ever enacted, fulfilling its role exactly as the Founding Fathers envisioned. Yes, yes, that is why we have a Senate. Thank God for the Great Compromise which was agreed to on July 16, 1787. Praise God for that Great Compromise. But for it, the Presiding Officer would not be sitting at the desk. But for it, I would not be standing here. But for it, this might never have been a Republic. That is why we have a Senate with its rules for unlimited debate--Lord, God, keep it, save it, collapse it to thy heart--to forge compromise and to ensure moderation in the laws enacted. To those who advocate chipping away at that rule, limiting Senators' right to debate in regard to judicial nominees, hear me when I say the crucial need for keeping those rules strong in order to encourage compromise and moderation is right before us as the Senate proposes to debate changes in Social Security. Hear me out there in the Plains, in the prairies, across the rivers from the Atlantic to the Pacific. We ought to engage in a genuine effort to end the rumors and help the public understand exactly what is being asked of them with regard to their Social Security benefits--your benefits. I urge this administration to lay its case before the American people. Come on, open up, lay the case before the American people. Tell us what your plan is. Give us the details of your plan. The last thing we need at this late point with the Social Security storm looming on the horizon is to find another house has been built upon the sand. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to say goodbye to a remarkable friend, and an outstanding West Virginian, Mr. George Fumich, who passed away last week. George Fumich was born in Pennsylvania, but he grew up in Morgantown, WV, and graduated from the West Virginia School of Law. Like so many who come to our State from elsewhere, he developed a passion for West Virginia that lasted a lifetime. As an officer in the United States Army during World War II, he served in the Italian campaign. His division was the first to move into Rome and was instrumental in the liberation of that magnificent city from Nazi occupation. He was later captured by the Germans in Northern Italy, but Italian partisans liberated him from his Nazi captors. For his distinguished military service, George Fumich was awarded two Bronze Stars, a Silver Star, the European African Middle Eastern Service Medal, a POW medal, and as Presidential Unit Citation. After the war, Mr. Fumich became corporate counsel for the Christopher Coal Company, and then began a successful political career. His political accomplishments included being elected to the West Virginia House of Delegates and serving as Senator John F. Kennedy's campaign manager for northern West Virginia during the historic 1960 West Virginia Democratic primary. After Kennedy's election, Mr. Fumich began a successful career with the Federal Government. He served as Director of the Office of Mineral Exploration at the Department of Interior, as the first Director of the Office of Coal Research at the Interior Department, and from 1975 to 1977, he was the Director of Fossil Energy at the Energy Research and Development Administration. In 1977, he was appointed Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy. After leaving the Federal Government, he was appointed Dean of the College of Mineral and Energy Resources, and then served as president of George Fumich Associates, an energy consulting firm. His interest in coal, his love of West Virginia, and his devotion to West Virginia University all merged. Over the years, it has been rare to attend any event at which the coal, the State, and the university converge, without seeing George Fumich. He was an enthusiastic booster of anything he set about to promote, yet he had a gentle way about him that earned the trust and respect of others. I will miss seeing George making the rounds at coal events here in Washington. His was a remarkable career for a remarkable man. This kind, brave and honorable man had been a military officer, a politician, a POW, a dean, an administrator, an attorney, a politician, and a Federal official. But above all else, he was a loving and caring father and husband who will be deeply missed by his multitude of friends, and his wonderful family, of which he was so proud. West Virginia University alumni have lost an energetic supporter for all things WVU. The people of Clarksburg and Morgantown have lost a good neighbor. The State of West Virginia has lost an outstanding citizen. I have lost a dear friend. My wife Erma and I extend our deepest heartfelt condolences to his wife of 46 years, Marie Fumich, and their children and grandchildren.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as we bring to a close the debate on the emergency supplemental, H.R. 1268, I thank my good friend from the State of Mississippi, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Thad Cochran. Senator Cochran was recently installed as the new Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and, although he has managed numerous bills on the floor in the past, this is the first appropriations bill that he has managed as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I compliment Senator Cochran for a job well done, and I especially thank him for his patience. In fact, all of the Members should thank him for his patience. We have been on this bill for the better part of 2 weeks, and we have given consideration to many, many amendments. Throughout all of these many days of debate on the underlying bill and on the numerous amendments offered by both sides, Senator Cochran has kept a level head, and he has shown patience in seeing that this supplemental is processed in an orderly manner and that no Member is denied an opportunity to have input on this bill. I also join with Senator Cochran in expressing gratitude to the staff members on both sides of the aisle who helped us with processing this bill and all those amendments. They worked late into the evening hours on some of these matters, and I appreciate not only their hard work but also their unstinting dedication to this institution. Mr. President, this is only one in a series of supplemental requests that have come from the administration asking the Congress to appropriate more funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and for reconstruction efforts in those countries. With approval of this supplemental, we will have approved over $280 billion for the two wars through emergency supplemental bills. We should not continue to fund these wars in this way. This is not the chairman's fault. He can only respond to the administration's proposals. It is evident that many of my colleagues are in agreement that funding for war activities should be processed in regular annual appropriations measures, not through emergency supplementals. This was clearly and emphatically expressed again in of the sense of the Senate amendment earlier this week. I hope that this administration will take serious note of the Senate's strong view in this regard. I assure my colleagues here today and the people of this country that I fully and wholeheartedly support our men and women in uniform. I give these troops my gratitude and my respect. I wish that we could give them more--I wish that we could give them a clearly defined mission, with a clearly defined strategy for ending the war in Iraq and coming home. But, this administration is not winding down its military operations in Iraq--that is evident from the size of this most recent request submitted by the President. To the contrary, it appears that the United States may be gearing up either to accommodate a permanent military presence in Iraq or to establish a launching pad for other military operations in the region. This, certainly, would be the wrong message to send to the people of Iraq and others in the region. I pray that this is not the case. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner. Amendment No. 516

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, when Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001, the Enhanced Border Security Act of 2002, and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Congress recognized, on a bipartisan basis, the need to provide more people and more resources to patrol and secure our borders. The PATRIOT Act called for tripling the number of Border Patrol agents and Immigration and Customs investigators on our northern border. The Enhanced Border Security Act called for an additional 200 investigators a year--on top of the PATRIOT Act increases--for fiscal years 2003 through 2006. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act authorized the hiring of an additional 2,000 Border Patrol agents and 800 new ICE immigration investigators, and provided for another 2,000 detention bed spaces per year for 5 years. Together these laws reflect a consensus in the Congress that more needs to be done. But a consensus and a series of authorization bills produces only promises of progress, but promises do not make our borders more secure. In written testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 16, the Department's then-Deputy Secretary, Admiral James Loy, cited recently received intelligence as the reason for his concern about the threat facing the Mexican border. He said the intelligence ``strongly suggest(s)'' that al-Qaida ``has considered using the Southwest border to infiltrate the United States. Several al-Qaida leaders believe operatives can pay their way into the country through Mexico and also believe illegal entry is more advantageous than legal entry for operational security reasons.'' On March 10, 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said: There is no secret that al-Qaida will try to get into this country. . . . They're going to keep trying on our southern border. They're going to keep trying on our northern border. In his December 6, 2004, letter to Congress urging final passage of the Intelligence Reform Act, the President said: I also believe the Conference took an important step in strengthening our immigration laws by, among other items, increasing the number of border patrol agents and detention beds. Remarkably, despite the threat to our borders as enunciated by senior administration officials, despite the clear intent of Congress in three separate authorization laws, and despite the President's commendation of the intelligence reform conferees for increasing the number of Border Patrol agents and detention beds, the President included virtually nothing in his budget to actually hire and train those Border Patrol agents or to hire and train immigration investigators or to purchase or construct detention facilities for illegal aliens. Our citizens are concerned about the security gaps along our borders. It has reached such a fever pitch in some locations that private groups, such as the self-proclaimed ``Minutemen,'' are banding together to form watch groups along the borders to act as additional ``eyes and ears'' and report suspicious border crossings to the Border Patrol for appropriate response. While perhaps not reaching the level of vigilante activity, this is a clear expression of the frustration felt by many citizens along the border areas that the Federal Government is asleep at the switch and failing to address a key Federal function. Even our military is concerned about border security. According to an April 7 CNN report, Marines preparing for combat in Iraq or Afghanistan have lost significant amounts of training time because undocumented immigrants from Mexico have constantly wandered onto a bombing test range at the Marine Corps air station near Yuma, AZ. The range has been shut down more than 500 times over this past 6 months for a total of 1,100 training hours lost. Last year, more than 1,500 illegal immigrants were caught in the training area. In the first 3 months of this year, more than 1,100 have already been apprehended. Today, I am offering a bipartisan amendment, cosponsored by Senator Craig of Idaho, that will fund the real work of securing our borders. The amendment provides $389.6 million for border security, and the amendment is paid for by reducing funding for diplomatic and consular programs the Department of State has indicated is not necessary until fiscal year 2006. The amendment begins to address the security gap on our borders by funding the hiring of 650 new Border Patrol agents, and this number may fall short of the authorization goals set by the various acts, but it is a responsible level which Customs and Border Protection can meet in the coming months. During an April 4, 2005, interview on C-SPAN's Washington Journal, Customs and Border Patrol Commissioner Robert Bonner said, ``The Border Patrol is almost . . . being overwhelmed by illegal immigration. This is like a sinking ship with a hole in it. You've got to plug the hole. You've got to stop the illegal migration into the United States. . . .'' The agency responsible for enforcing our immigration laws, known as Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, has been forced to endure a hiring freeze and funding shortfall for more than a year. Vehicles are not being replaced. Body armor is not being purchased. Travel to pursue immigration investigations has been curtailed. ICE continues to lose personnel, and the agency has not been able to fill those positions because of a hiring freeze. Through the end of January alone, ICE lost a total of 299 personnel. My amendment--and it is cosponsored by several senators--would give ICE the resources that are so vital to beginning the process of hiring and training the personnel it needs to enforce our immigration laws. This amendment also provides funds for deploying unmanned aerial vehicles along the Southwest border. The Border Patrol has tested and operated, for a limited period of time this year, unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, along the Southwest border. Using funds provided to it by the Congress, the Border Patrol conducted successful tests using UAVs to assist in the surveillance and detection of individuals attempting to enter the U.S. illegally. The operation, known as the Arizona Border Control Initiative, used these drones to monitor and patrol a 350-mile long swath of the desert border. More than 350,000 illegal immigrants crossing into the U.S. were apprehended during the operation. Regrettably, this program was shut down on January 31 of this year. The funds provided in this amendment would allow for the immediate resumption of these surveillance and detection operations. Finally, the amendment includes funds for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Border Patrol Academy in Artesia, NM, to train the new personnel. The case for this amendment is clear; the need for it is critical; and the support for it should be bipartisan. This amendment is focused and targeted to address key border security shortfalls. The Border Patrol's role is to apprehend those illegally entering this country. They also work with ICE investigators to crack down on illegal immigration. They then turn over those who are here illegally to ICE, which needs the detention bed space and to deportation officials to hold, process, and then remove these individuals. We must start now. This cannot wait. The job of our immigration officers is staggering, and their resources are meager. Along the 2,000 miles of land border with Mexico, the United States has deployed only 1,700 agents at any given time. That is one agent, just one, guarding more than one mile of border. Of the 10 million illegal aliens in the country, 2,000 interior enforcement agents are charged with locating and arresting them. That is one agent, just one, charged with locating and arresting 5,000 illegal aliens. Of the 10,000 border patrol agents authorized in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, the President's budget included funds to hire just 210. Of the 4,000 interior enforcement agents authorized, the President's budget included funds to hire only 500 of them. Of the 40,000 detention beds authorized, the President's budget included funding for a mere 5 percent of them. However, in every case, the very modest proposed increases for 2006 will barely make up for the 137 border patrol positions lost during the first two quarters of fiscal year 2005, the 299 ICE personnel lost and the 2,000 detention beds that do not exist, for lack of funding. We ask how and why illegal aliens continue to pour into our country, and the answer lies in every border patrol increase we do not fund, every agent we do not hire, and every illegal alien we release due to lack of detention space. This is our opportunity to reverse that sorry record. This is our opportunity to strengthen our border defenses. This is our opportunity to support a substantive, concrete effort to address the alarming rise in illegal immigration. Sir Edward Coke wrote that a man's house is his castle, for where shall a man be safe if not in his own home? The United States is home to 296 million people. They, by right, demand that their Government secure their castle against the unknown threat seeking to infiltrate its sanctuary. I urge adoption of the amendment. It is cosponsored by Senators Craig, Baucus, Dorgan, Lieberman, Obama, Leahy and Feinstein. I yield the floor.