Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. Two minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator, the chairman of the committee, for his characteristic courtesy. I rise, Madam President, to express my admiration for Senator Cochran as he assumes the duties of chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Today, I stand with Chairman Cochran in support of his amendment concerning the authority of Congress to designate funding as an emergency. In the Constitution, there is no ambiguity about which branch of Government has the power of the purse. It is the congressional power of the purse which is the central pillar of the system of checks and balances under our Constitution. The budget resolution that is before the Senate includes a provision which makes the ability of the Congress to designate funding as an emergency subject to the approval of the President. The measure that is before the Senate is a budget resolution. It is not a law. It will not be sent to the President for his approval. The Congress should not use a budget resolution to tie its own hands on spending decisions. The Congress should not tie its own hands in determining whether an expenditure for war, or an expenditure for victims of a flood, hurricane, or earthquake is an emergency. The Senate should not have to get on its knees and plead with any President for his permission to designate a provision as an emergency. The Congress is a coequal branch of Government under our Constitution, and it should jealously guard the prerogatives associated with the power of the purse, so wisely preserved for the legislative branch by our Founding Fathers. If the Senate wants to provide emergency funding for agriculture disaster relief, or for responding to a recent flood or hurricane, or to provide additional funding to the Department of Defense for body armor, it must have that authority. The Cochran amendment makes clear Congress retains that authority. I urge adoption of the amendment. Again, I thank the chairman.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this budget comes to Congress from the White House at a time when our country is fighting two wars. In Iraq and in Afghanistan, the young men and women of our Armed Forces are on the front lines, risking life and limb in service to our country. These troops follow in a proud tradition that stretches back for generations. The troops who now serve in Baghdad or Kabul may well have fathers who served in Saigon or the Mekong Delta. The fathers of these fathers may have fought at Okinawa or Normandy, and their fathers might well have served in the second battle of the Marne. But no matter where these troops were sent to defend our country, no matter when they served our country, they have all earned the title, veteran. Veterans have sacrificed for this country, but the budget proposed by the Bush Administration, and the budget resolution being debated on the floor of the Senate, forces more sacrifice upon our veterans. This budget short-changes veterans health care by billions. This budget would force many veterans to pay $250 dollar annual enrollment fees. This budget would require veterans to pay more for prescription medicines. In fact, this budget is intended to drive so-called ``low priority veterans'' out of the VA health care system. The Department of Veterans Affairs budget documents foresee a 16 percent reduction in the number of ``low priority veterans'' that can receive care in VA hospitals. What a shameful phrase that is: ``low priority veteran.'' There were no ``low priority soldiers'' during the Tet offensive. There were no ``low priority sailors'' at the battle of Midway. There were no ``low priority Marines'' at the battle of Fallujah. But when these same soldiers, sailors, and Marines go to the VA hospital to get the health care they earned through serving our country in times of war, the Bush Administration is trying to give some of them the brush-off: ``Go somewhere else,'' this budget says to hundreds of thousands of veterans. ``Your health care is a low priority for the U.S. Government.'' It is no wonder that the Disabled American Veterans call the Bush budget proposal ``one of the most tight-fisted, miserly budgets for veterans programs in recent memory.'' I stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our nation's leading veterans service organizations, as I have always stood with them, in calling for Congress to correct the President's ill-considered budget proposal that under funds veterans health care and raises fees for millions of so- called ``low priority veterans.'' During markup of the budget resolution in the Budget Committee, I voted for an amendment offered by Senator Murray to increase spending on veterans health care by $2.85 billion in the next fiscal year. This amendment would have provided the funds necessary to reverse the administration's policy on cutting access to VA health care by certain veterans. It is shameful that this amendment fell victim to a party line vote. Providing adequate funds to support our veterans should never be a partisan issue. Mr. President, I am proud to once again support an amendment to add $2.85 billion to the veterans health care budget. I commend Senator Akaka and Senator Murray for bringing this important amendment to the floor of the Senate. I stand with the veterans of West Virginia and the 49 other States of the Union in supporting these funds that are owed to those who have served our country in times of war, and I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, for fiscal year 2006, the President's budget seeks the complete elimination of direct subsidies for Amtrak. The budget resolution presumes enactment of the budget proposals for transportation which would result in bankruptcy for Amtrak. My amendment, which has cosponsors on both sides of the aisle, would increase Amtrak funding by $1.05 billion in fiscal year 2006. If Senators really desire all Amtrak services to come to an immediate and grinding halt for lack of a Federal subsidy in 2006, they will vote against the amendment. Across the Northeast corridor, the busiest urban transportation corridor in the Nation, elimination of Amtrak's premier service would be a transportation disaster. Elimination of Amtrak service would have disastrous results in both rural and urban America. The elimination of an Amtrak subsidy is not a recipe for a streamlined railroad; it is not a recipe for a more efficient railroad. It is a recipe for a dead railroad--a dead railroad, dead, dead, dead railroad. I urge Senators to vote for my amendment. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I shall offer an amendment at the conclusion of my remarks. It will be cosponsored by my colleagues as follows: Senators Clinton, Specter, Corzine, Murray, Rockefeller, Carper, Schumer, Durbin, Lautenberg, Kerry, Dorgan, and Obama. Adoption of my amendment will provide a measure of financial stability to our Nation's passenger railroad--Amtrak. My amendment will also provide a measure of certainty regarding the continuation of rail service in our country to Amtrak's 25 million annual passengers and its almost 20,000 employees. Let me be clear: this is not a Democratic amendment or a Republican amendment. It is an American amendment. It is an amendment to help rural America and urban America alike. The Omnibus Appropriations Act for the current fiscal year provided Amtrak with a subsidy of roughly $1.2 billion. That level of funding is anticipated to allow Amtrak to continue to operate for the remainder of this fiscal year, though its cash reserves are expected to continue to deteriorate during that time. For fiscal year 2006, President Bush's budget seeks the complete elimination of direct subsidies to Amtrak. The request for Amtrak as we know it is zero--not a penny. The only funding that the administration has requested for inter-city passenger rail service is $360 million, which would be set aside solely for the purpose of ensuring the continuation of existing local commuter rail services that depend on the use of Amtrak property, once Amtrak, as a company, has ceased to operate. Recently, there has been a great deal of press attention regarding the fact that the administration has proposed to push Amtrak into bankruptcy. Indeed, page 243 of the President's budget is quite explicit regarding the administration's plan. It states that, ``with no subsidies, Amtrak would quickly enter bankruptcy.'' Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta has recently held a spate of press conferences and stated that President Bush is a strong supporter of passenger rail service in our country. Well, all I can say is that the President has found a very strange way to show his support. By eliminating the annual Federal subsidy to Amtrak in its entirety, President Bush has threatened to leave 25 million passengers standing at the platform. He is threatening to push those 25 million passengers onto our already congested highways and runways and he is threatening to isolate dozens of communities across the nation who do not have air service and are now being threatened with being eliminated from the national railroad map. The budget resolution before us assumes that overall domestic discretionary funding will be at the level requested by the President. As such, it also presumes enactment of the President's budget proposals for transportation, including the complete elimination of Amtrak's funding. This amendment would increase the funding for function 400, the transportation function by $1.04 billion in fiscal year 2006. When combined with the $360 million that the President has requested for the continuation of commuter services in the event of Amtrak's termination, my amendment would bring total rail passenger funding up to $1.4 billion in 2006. My amendment would increase the cap over discretionary spending by the commensurate $1.04 billion. The amendment would be completely offset by an increase in revenues through the closing of corporate tax loopholes. Some of my colleagues may be wondering how I arrived at the funding figure of $1.4 billion for Amtrak for 2006. My answer is as follows: When President Bush submitted his budget request for fiscal year 2005, has asked for only $900 million for 2005. But in that same budget, the President recognized that funding should grow to $1.4 billion in 2006 and beyond. So, my proposal to bring Amtrak to $1.4 billion in 2006 is precisely the same number that President Bush had budgeted for Amtrak for 2006 just 1 year ago. This is an important point because certain Senators might be of the misimpression that enacting President Bush's reform bill for Amtrak might result in actual budgetary savings. In fact, the administration has said that if Congress does enact its reform bill, it would be inclined to request far more funding for Amtrak than the railroad currently receives. In an interview with National Public Radio recently, Secretary Mineta said that the administration would be inclined to request between $1.5 and $2 billion for Amtrak. That funding range compares to the $1.2 billion we provided in fiscal year 2005. The budget resolution that we are currently debating, of course, includes none of that increase for a reformed Amtrak. Senator Gregg, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, has not parroted the Bush administration's budget for all spending items. To his credit, Senator Gregg has set aside $50 billion for fiscal year 2006 for the cost of the on-going conflict in Iraq. It was the Bush administration's agenda to ignore the costs of the Iraq war and instead request this funding through a supplemental appropriations act. Senator Gregg, to his credit, said that his budget would not engage in such an indefensible policy. We know that we are going to have to pay for the ongoing conflict in Iraq in 2006 and Senator Gregg has appropriately set the money aside for that purpose. This situation should be no different with Amtrak. The Bush administration's current budget proposes zero dollars for Amtrak's direct subsidy needs in 2006, and zero dollars for every year thereafter. Secretary Mineta, when traveling around the country, has said that the Bush administration will consider requesting adequate funding for Amtrak as part of a supplemental appropriations bill. So, the choice before the Senate could not be clearer. If Senators really desire all Amtrak service to come to an immediate and grinding halt for lack of a Federal subsidy in 2006, vote against my amendment. But, if Senators want to pass a realistic budget that recognizes that, with or without reform legislation, continuing Amtrak service will require continued Federal subsidies in 2006, Senators should vote for my amendment. The elimination of Amtrak's subsidy is not a recipe for a streamlined railroad. It is not a recipe for a more efficient railroad. It is a recipe for a dead railroad. Across the Northeast corridor--the busiest urban transportation corridor in the Nation--the elimination of Amtrak's premier service would be a transportation disaster. Amtrak serves 13 million passengers each year over the Northeast corridor. The highways along this corridor--principally Interstate 95--and the runways along this corridor are already congested beyond words. Imagine for a moment the congestion that will result when an additional 13 million Americans are pushed onto those highways and runways. You are talking about both a transportation and economic disaster. Elimination of Amtrak service would have disastrous results in both rural and urban America. There are over 120 communities all across the Nation that receive regularly scheduled Amtrak service but no air service whatsoever. Several of these communities have seen their bus service eliminated as a result of a national shrinking of the Greyhound network. Amtrak's termination would result in dozens of these communities across the nation being isolated from the national transportation network. Senators should not be fooled by the provision in the President's budget that calls for $360 million for commuter rail services in the Northeast corridor. These funds cannot be used as a matter of law to maintain Amtrak services on the Northeast corridor. They can only be used to maintain local commuter rail services like New Jersey Transit or the Southeast Pennsylvania Transportation Authority that operate over the Northeast corridor. And those funds can only be used as a matter of law to maintain those services and they can only be used in the event that Amtrak ceases operation. Not one penny of the $360 million requested for this purpose can be used to maintain Amtrak service for the 13 million passengers that depend on that service. President Bush has proposed a series of so-called ``reforms'' for Amtrak that principally take the form of passing Amtrak's costs onto the States. These proposals come on top of other proposals in the President's budget, such as so-called reforms in the Medicaid Program that are designed to push additional costs of that program onto the States. As Senators are aware, the Nation's Governors traveled to Washington, DC, earlier this month. Many of those Governors visited their congressional delegations. I doubt that even one of them spoke favorably about the President's plans to push Amtrak's costs onto the States. But whether you agree with President Bush's Amtrak reform proposals or not, I would suggest that all Senators should support this amendment. There may be several disagreements over the merits of these so-called reform proposals. But one thing that is beyond question is that you cannot reform a dead railroad. And that is what the budget before us calls for--a dead, dead, dead railroad. We should provide some stability and some peace of mind to the 25 million passengers who use Amtrak every year. We should provide some stability and peace of mind to the 20,000 Amtrak employees spread across the Nation, so that they will know that they will have employment at the end of the current year. We should provide some stability to Amtrak's finances so that the House and the Senate and the administration can have a meaningful debate over whether Amtrak should be reformed without the distraction of the near-term risk of the railroad lapsing into bankruptcy. I encourage all Members to vote for my amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as original cosponsors to those names that I have already read: Senators Kohl, Kennedy, Jeffords, and Lieberman.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send to the desk the amendment to which I have already referred.

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the following speakers have indicated an interest in making statements concerning their support for the amendment: Senators Clinton, Corzine, Carper, Schumer, and Dorgan. I thank the Chair. I thank all Senators.

Mr. BYRD. I yield such time as the distinguished Senator from New York may consume.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New York for her very lucid, cogent, and persuasive statement. And I thank her for her support of this amendment. I thank her very much. Mr. President, I believe the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett, is prepared to speak on the amendment.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time does the distinguished Senator from North Dakota wish?

Mr. BYRD. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from North Dakota for his very timely, succinct, and persuasive statement. I thank him very much for his support of this amendment. I believe Mr. Corzine wishes to have some time yielded. How much time does the Senator desire?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the very able Senator and look forward to hearing his statement.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I hope the two managers would be willing to put the 1 o'clock beginning of the votes into a unanimous consent request so that we can depend on that hour.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the names of Senators Levin, Biden, and Chafee be added as cosponsors to this amendment.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for his statement. I yield such time as he may wish to have--I understand he wants about 10 minutes--to the very distinguished Senator, Mr. Lautenberg.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, what is the time that I have under the order?

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my time may be extended to a total of 35 minutes and that the final 5 minutes be under the control of the distinguished Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, freedom is a fragile thing and never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again. These words come from the lips of former President Ronald Reagan. I rise today to discuss freedom, not the grandiose worldwide ``freedom talk'' one hears so much about. No. Not far-flung foreign policy goals, but, rather, my concern today is preserving our freedoms right in our own backyard at home. Freedom, like a good garden, needs constant tending. One must watch for the worms in the wood. As Wendell Phillips, the abolitionist, orator, and the columnist, once said, ``eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.'' One must pay the price if one wants the blessing. In a culture where sports metaphors are more common public parlance than historical analogies, our unique form of government, carefully restraining powers while protecting rights, presents a special challenge to maintain. The ``winning is everything'' philosophy so beloved by Americans may, without careful balance, obscure the goal of justice for all that must be the aim of a representative democracy. Demeaning minority views, characterizing opposition as obstructionist-- these are first steps down the dark alley of subjugating rights. Majorities can prevail by numerical force. They do not need protection from minorities. Yet some would have us believe that minority voices threaten the larger public good in the case of Presidential judicial appointments. The opposite is true. It is minorities who are most in jeopardy without fairness from the Federal bench. I am talking about those who are in the minority. The persecuted, the disadvantaged, the poor, the downtrodden--these are the very citizens who need the strong protection of an unbiased legal system. Appointees to the Federal bench should be scrutinized for traces of ideological rigidity or allegiance to political movements which could cloud impartial judgment. I for one do not favor activist judges of any stripe. I do not think the proper role for a judge is to make new law from the bench. My own preference is usually for strict constitutionalists. Conservative judges can hold activist views, just as can liberal judges. Such labels tell us very little. What we should strive for on the Federal bench is blind justice; that is, justice absent a political agenda. Judicial appointments must never be a sure thing for the bench simply because they please the majority party, whether that majority is Democratic or Republican. Federal judges enjoy life tenure. Remember that. Federal judges enjoy life tenure, making decisions of huge importance to the lives and the livelihoods of our citizens. Are they accountable to anyone? No. They are accountable to no one, and no President can fire them. No President can say: Go home, you are sick today. It is ridiculous to suggest that mere superiority of numbers in the Senate should alone guarantee confirmation to a Federal judgeship. Such a claim reduces the constitutional advice and consent function of the Senate to a pro forma rubberstamping of Presidential judicial appointments whenever the President's party controls the Senate. We are talking about a separate branch of the Federal Government. We are talking about a separate branch of the Federal Government here, which wields tremendous power. There is no God-given right to a seat on the Federal bench--no God- given right. There is no God-given right to a seat on the Federal bench. Should a minority have only the recourse of delay to defeat a judicial candidate of concern, that minority is well within its rights to filibuster. In fact, the minority would be derelict in their duty if they did not filibuster. There is no shortage of candidates for the Federal bench, no shortage. Another name can always be offered. Our aim should be to select excellent judges acceptable across a wide spectrum of political views. There was a time in this country when men and women of opposite political parties could reason together to achieve such goals. There was a time when the concerns of honorable men and women serving in this Senate received the respect of fellow Members of the Senate, even though they were in the minority. Now I am very sorry to observe the Senate and the country are so polarized--so polarized, so politicized-- that nearly all dissent is discarded as obstructionist and politically motivated. ``Get out of the way'' is the cry. ``Get out of the way, get out of the way'' is the cry. Few take the time to consider other views. If 41 Members of the Senate have objections to any judicial candidate, perhaps those objections should be heeded. Those are 41 Members. Perhaps that nominee should not serve. Forty-one Members, representing at the very least the people of 21 States, at the very, very least. Perhaps the minority is right. Perhaps the minority is right. Senate service often reminds me of a game of ``red rover.'' We line up like two opposing camps and run as hard as we can at each other to score points. The talk show mavens keep the fires fanned, and through the din, honest discourse is nearly impossible. I worry. Oh, yes, I worry about a country whose major political pastime is not in finding compromise but, rather, in seeking conflict. The people are not well served. The courage to speak out about one's convictions is in scarcer and scarcer supply. Where, oh, where are the 21st century's profiles in courage? President John F. Kennedy's Pulitzer Prize-winning book ``Profiles in Courage'' lionized public servants who did not fear to stand alone, like Senator George Norris of Nebraska. From 1806 to 1917, there was no ability to invoke cloture in the Senate. Why 1806? Because that was when the rule was dropped from the Senate rules asking for the previous question, which would shut off debate. Therefore, it was really from 1789 to 1917 that there was no ability to invoke cloture in the Senate. But, in 1917, a cloture rule passed after a filibuster by 12 determined Senators who opposed U.S. intervention in World War I. That debate began when President Wilson asked Congress for the authority to arm U.S. merchant ships against Germany. The House of Representatives passed Wilson's bill, the ``Armed Ship'' bill, by a vote of 403 to 13. But a handful of determined Senators who opposed U.S. intervention in World War I, including Republican George W. Norris of Nebraska, launched a filibuster with far-reaching consequences. George Norris's filibuster killed President Wilson's bill, though Wilson resurrected its contents by Executive order shortly after the filibuster ended. I was born during the administration of Woodrow Wilson. Nebraskans and, in essence, all States, the entire nation, were consumed with rage at George Norris because of public disclosure that Germany had promised Mexico several United States States if Mexico would align itself with Germany in war against the United States. Well, there was a huge din, a huge outcry. The New York Times called Norris and others ``perverse and disloyal obstructionists.'' Does that recall anything of present-day vintage to Senators? The New York Times called Norris and others ``perverse and disloyal obstructionists'' and editorialized that: . . . the odium of treasonable purpose will rest upon their names forevermore. The Hartford Courant called them ``political tramps.'' The New York Sun called them ``a group of moral perverts.'' The Providence Journal called their action ``little short of treason'' and the Portland Free Press said they should be ``driven from public life.'' Senator George W. Norris, the Nebraskan from the heart of America, suffered merciless abuse, vicious invective and public scorn, tarred by public sentiment, savaged by a strident press and the grip of a public filled with hate of Germany and the start of World War I. Yet he was and is an American hero. George Norris was ``fearful of the broad grant of authority'' that President Wilson sought to go to war, and resentful of the manner in which that authority was being ``steamrolled'' through the Congress. Oh, how history repeats itself. How history repeats itself. In Senator Norris's words: I will not, even at the behest of a unanimous constituency, violate my oath of office by voting in favor of a proposition that means the surrender by Congress of its sole right to declare war. . . . I am, however, so firmly convinced of the righteousness of my course that I believe if the intelligence and patriotic citizenship of the country can only have an opportunity to hear both sides of the question, all the money in Christendom and all the political machinery that wealth can congregate will not be able to defeat the principle of government for which our forefathers fought. That was George Norris speaking. When George Norris went home to explain why he had filibustered in the face of universal criticism, he sought an open meeting in Lincoln, NE. ``I had expected an unfriendly audience,'' Norris wrote, ``And,'' he said, ``it was with some fear that I stepped forward. When I stepped out on the stage, there was a deathlike silence.'' Senator Norris began, President Kennedy tells us, by stating simply: ``I have come home to tell you the truth.'' After more than an hour, the crowd in Lincoln, NE, Kennedy wrote, roared its approval. Many have written extensively and with legitimate fear of what could happen if men without the courage of their convictions simply sat back and let themselves be swept away by a powerful majority, including George Orwell, writing of the horrors of power run rampant, of a world run by ``thought police'' who seek to control not just information but the speech and thoughts of every individual citizen. In ``1984'' Orwell recorded what life would be like under the thumb of Big Brother, with no autonomy of thought or speech. George Orwell's fictional warning against Big Brother should encourage us all to ponder, to cherish and to protect our precious freedom--our precious freedom to think and speak freely. And the means to that end is protecting the right to dissent. Orwell said of liberty: If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. That right will be in jeopardy if a misguided attempt to eliminate the filibuster succeeds. Robert Caro, winner of the Pulitzer Prize for his renowned book about Lyndon B. Johnson, made Orwell's point in a letter to the Senate Rules Committee in June 2003. Many times in America's history the right of extended debate has been used to defend causes with which I profoundly disagree. Nonetheless, great care should be taken in placing new restrictions on that right. Senators who are considering doing so should understand that they will be taking a step that has significant implications for the balance of powers created under the Constitution, and also for another fundamental concern in a democracy: the balance between majority and minority rights. Caro stressed that the Framers gave the Senate strong protections from transient public passions or executive pressures and that the Constitutional Convention kept the Senate small so that it would have, in Madison's words: [less propensity] to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions. Madison believed: . . . there are more instances of the abridgement of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Madison was right. The loss of freedom will not come as a thunderclap. I say again, the loss of freedom will not come as a thunderclap from Heaven. Rather, if it goes away, it will slip silently away from us, little by little, like so many grains of sand sliding softly through an hourglass. The curbing of speech in the Senate on judicial nominations will most certainly evolve to an eventual elimination of the right of extended debate. And that will spur intimidation and the steady withering of dissent. An eagerness to win--win elections, win every judicial nomination, overpower enemies, real or imagined, with brute force--holds the poison seeds of destruction of free speech and the decimation of minority rights. The ultimate perpetrator of tyranny in this world is the urge by the powerful to prevail at any cost. A free forum where the minority can rise to loudly call a halt to the ambitions of an overzealous majority must be maintained. We must never surrender that forum--this forum--the Senate, to the tyranny of any majority. When Aaron Burr said farewell to the Senate, he urged the Senate to do away with the Senate rule that would close debate on the previous question. That previous question has seldom been used in the short time. And in 1806, the Senate carried out the will of Aaron Burr. This house is a sanctuary; a citadel of law, of order and of liberty; and it is here--it is here, in this exalted refuge; here, if anywhere, will resistance be made to the storms of political phrensy and the silent arts of corruption; and if the Constitution-- This Constitution. --and if the Constitution be destined ever to perish by the sacrilegious hands of demagogue or the usurper, which God avert, its expiring agonies will be witnessed on this floor. On March 2, 1805, Aaron Burr stated that prophetic warning. The so-called nuclear option, if successful, will begin the slow and agonizing death spiral of freedom, speech, and dissent, and it will be witnessed on this floor. I yield the floor. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I believe Senator Carper is on his way. He wishes to have 5 minutes under the order following my remarks.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, President Reagan was often fond of saying that ``there's nothing better for the inside of a man than the outside of a horse.'' So he surely would have been proud when, on November 18, 2004, during the closing days of the 108th Congress, the Senate passed a resolution introduced by our former colleague Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell that designated December 13, 2004, as ``National Day of the Horse.'' The resolution encouraged the people of the United States to be mindful of the contribution of horses to the economy, history, and character of our great Nation. The resolution, S. Res. 452, included a provision that stated ``horses are a vital part of the collective experience of the United States and deserve protection and compassion.'' Beginning in the 1950's, public awareness was raised about the cruel and inhumane manner in which wild horses and burros were being rounded up on public lands and subsequently sent to slaughter. Velma B. Johnston, later known as Wild Horse Annie, led an effort to protect this symbol of the American West that captured the imagination of school children across the country. In 1959, which was my first year in the Senate, Congress passed legislation I was pleased to support that prohibited the use of motorized vehicles to hunt wild horses and burros on all public lands. But the bill, which came to be known as the ``Wild Horse Annie Act,'' did not include a program for the management of wild horses and burros in the United States. It was not until 1971 that Congress passed the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act. The law, which I also supported, established as national policy that ``wild free-roaming horses and burros shall be protected from capture, branding, harassment, and death'' and that ``no wild free-roaming horses or burros or their remains may be sold or transferred for consideration for processing into commercial products.'' The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service were tasked with enforcement of the law on public lands. Unfortunately, several reports have documented the failure by the agencies to properly manage these animals. As a result, the BLM currently has approximately 22,000 wild horses and burros in holding facilities where their feeding and care use up nearly half of the agency's budget for wild horse and burro management. The Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act had been the law of the land until President Bush signed the FY 2005 Omnibus Appropriations bill on December 8, 2004. Included in the omnibus appropriations bill was a provision that would require the BLM to put up for public sale any wild horse taken off the range that is more than 10 years old and any horse that has been unsuccessfully offered for adoption three times. The BLM has estimated that about 8,400 mustangs out of 22,000 being kept on seven sanctuaries meet that criteria. Surely there are actions that can be taken by the BLM to ensure the proper operation of the wild horse and burro program without resorting to the slaughter of these animals. Instead of taking the time to make the changes necessary to ensure the proper management of wild horses, this provision reaches for the butcher knife instead. In response, my friend and colleague from West Virginia, Rep. Nick Joe Rahall, has introduced H.R. 297, a bill that would restore the prohibition on the commercial sale and slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros. I am pleased to join with him in his effort to overturn this egregious provision and reinstate Federal protections for one of the enduring symbols of the American frontier. In closing, I quote from British poet Ronald Duncan's Ode to the Horse: Where in this wide world can a man find nobility without pride, friendship without envy or beauty without vanity? Here: where grace is laced with muscle and strength by gentleness confined. He serves without servility; he has fought without enmity. There is nothing so powerful, nothing less violent; there is nothing so quick, nothing less patient. England's past has been bourne on his back. All our history is his industry. We are his heirs; he our inheritance. The Horse.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, President Reagan was often fond of saying that ``there's nothing better for the inside of a man than the outside of a horse.'' So he surely would have been proud when, on November 18, 2004, during the closing days of the 108th Congress, the Senate passed a resolution introduced by our former colleague Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell that designated December 13, 2004, as ``National Day of the Horse.'' The resolution encouraged the people of the United States to be mindful of the contribution of horses to the economy, history, and character of our great Nation. The resolution, S. Res. 452, included a provision that stated ``horses are a vital part of the collective experience of the United States and deserve protection and compassion.'' Beginning in the 1950's, public awareness was raised about the cruel and inhumane manner in which wild horses and burros were being rounded up on public lands and subsequently sent to slaughter. Velma B. Johnston, later known as Wild Horse Annie, led an effort to protect this symbol of the American West that captured the imagination of school children across the country. In 1959, which was my first year in the Senate, Congress passed legislation I was pleased to support that prohibited the use of motorized vehicles to hunt wild horses and burros on all public lands. But the bill, which came to be known as the ``Wild Horse Annie Act,'' did not include a program for the management of wild horses and burros in the United States. It was not until 1971 that Congress passed the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act. The law, which I also supported, established as national policy that ``wild free-roaming horses and burros shall be protected from capture, branding, harassment, and death'' and that ``no wild free-roaming horses or burros or their remains may be sold or transferred for consideration for processing into commercial products.'' The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service were tasked with enforcement of the law on public lands. Unfortunately, several reports have documented the failure by the agencies to properly manage these animals. As a result, the BLM currently has approximately 22,000 wild horses and burros in holding facilities where their feeding and care use up nearly half of the agency's budget for wild horse and burro management. The Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act had been the law of the land until President Bush signed the FY 2005 Omnibus Appropriations bill on December 8, 2004. Included in the omnibus appropriations bill was a provision that would require the BLM to put up for public sale any wild horse taken off the range that is more than 10 years old and any horse that has been unsuccessfully offered for adoption three times. The BLM has estimated that about 8,400 mustangs out of 22,000 being kept on seven sanctuaries meet that criteria. Surely there are actions that can be taken by the BLM to ensure the proper operation of the wild horse and burro program without resorting to the slaughter of these animals. Instead of taking the time to make the changes necessary to ensure the proper management of wild horses, this provision reaches for the butcher knife instead. In response, my friend and colleague from West Virginia, Rep. Nick Joe Rahall, has introduced H.R. 297, a bill that would restore the prohibition on the commercial sale and slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros. I am pleased to join with him in his effort to overturn this egregious provision and reinstate Federal protections for one of the enduring symbols of the American frontier. In closing, I quote from British poet Ronald Duncan's Ode to the Horse: Where in this wide world can a man find nobility without pride, friendship without envy or beauty without vanity? Here: where grace is laced with muscle and strength by gentleness confined. He serves without servility; he has fought without enmity. There is nothing so powerful, nothing less violent; there is nothing so quick, nothing less patient. England's past has been bourne on his back. All our history is his industry. We are his heirs; he our inheritance. The Horse.