Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Plato thanked the gods for having been born a man. He thanked the gods for having been born a Greek. He thanked the gods for having let him live in the same age as Sophocles. And so I thank the benign hand of destiny for allowing me to live at a time and to serve at a time when the great Appropriations Committee of the Senate was chaired by the very distinguished Senator from the great State that is the mother of Presidents, the State of Virginia, a state from which comes the first President of this country, the first Commander in Chief of the Nation, George Washington. I have always admired Senator Warner. He is a gentleman, first of all, and that goes a long way in this body. I thank him for his comments. I thank him for his cosponsorship of this amendment, and I look forward to what he has to say. Right now, I should go to the Hart Building, where a woman who has been my wife for 67 years, 4 months, and 2 days, is waiting to see me. We are going to have lunch together, thank the Good Lord. So if all Senators will allow me to leave the Chamber now, I shall go.

Mr. BYRD. If the Senator will yield, I thank him for his magnificent encomium to my better half, a woman who has guided me and who has served her country and her State so well. I thank the Senator for what he has just said. Amendment No. 3877

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I also thank the distinguished Senator, Ms. Collins, and our distinguished whip, Mr. Reid, who is always to be found on the floor or near it, always ready to assist us, any of us on both sides of the aisle. I thank the distinguished manager of the bill on this side of the aisle for his diligence, for his hard work always in his committee and outside his committee. He is ever ready. Mr. President, I take the floor on a point of personal privilege on behalf of the people of West Virginia. Growing up, we all heard the legend--which was probably mythical--of young George Washington. As the story goes, his father, after seeing a tree chopped down on their land, approached young George and asked if he was responsible. The story continues that the boy responded: ``Father, I cannot tell a lie. I cut down that cherry tree.'' The boy who grew up to be President knew the value of truth. Unfortunately, however, when it comes to Presidential politics these days, telling the truth is seriously out of style. That point was brought home sharply to me last weekend when I traveled to West Virginia, where I learned of a scurrilous campaign being waged in West Virginia to scare voters--think of it--to scare West Virginia voters into registering and voting Republican. Incredibly, the weapon being brandished is the Holy Bible itself. If ever there were one book that should never be used for political gain, if ever there were one book that should never be the subject of lies and deception, it is the Bible, which I hold in my hand. Over my 52 years of serving in the Congress, there have been occasions--few in number--when I brought the Holy Bible on the floor of the body in which I have spoken. I don't claim to be a minister. I would not be worthy of that title. But this is the Holy Bible. It is the King James version, first published in 1611 under the reign of King James I. I will only read this Bible at my house; I don't read any other Bible. Again I say, if ever there were a book that should never, ever be used for political gain, that should not be the subject of deception on the part of politicians, or anybody else, it is the Bible. Yet that is exactly what is happening today. I found, last weekend, that it was happening in West Virginia. I read somewhere that it was also happening in Arkansas. Two weeks ago, the Republican National Committee sent a mass mailing to West Virginia suggesting that liberals--in other words, everyone but Republicans, I suppose--are out to ban the Bible. Get that: Out to ban the Bible. Can you imagine? They are out to ban the Bible. What a ridiculous claim. It is foolish on its face; it is absolutely ridiculous on its face. It is a flatout, no-doubt-about-it, silly, juvenile, sophomoric charge. The Republican National Committee is spreading this tripe--it is putrid, this tripe--to smear Democrats. The President ought to demand that the Republican National Committee apologize to the people of West Virginia. The hypocrisy of the Republican National Committee's desperation tactic is an insult--an insult--to the intelligence of voters in my State. The ninth of the Ten Commandments, passed down from God to Moses, states: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. What could be more false? What could be more false than an advertisement implying that so-called liberals want to ban the Bible? I never knew I was a liberal. When I came to this Senate, I was to the right of Barry Goldwater, and I always considered myself to be a conservative in most things--certainly most things, other than matters affecting the economy. The political hacks behind that blasphemous flyer should be required to reread the Book of Exodus. There is no free pass from the Commandments in an election year. They are still there. There is no waiving of the Commandments in an election year. All West Virginians, from the northern tip of the State to the southern tip, from the east to the west, should be insulted by such dirty tricks on the part of the Republican National Committee. Paid henchmen who talk about Democratic politicians who are eager to ban the Bible obviously must think that West Virginians are gullible, ignorant fools. They must think that West Virginians just bounced off the turnip truck. They must think that spreading nonsense about banning the Bible is a sure-fire way to get votes in an election year. But the people of West Virginia are smarter than that. We are not country bumpkins who will swallow whatever garbage some high-priced political consultant makes up. West Virginians are smarter than that, and they deserve an apology from the Republican National Committee for this insulting mailing. Here it is. Take a look at this. Those of you who are viewing this Senate floor through those electronic lenses, look at this: ``The Bible, banned. This will be West Virginia.'' I suppose the same flyer was used in Arkansas, with a few words changed from West Virginia. Here it is again: ``if you don't vote--if you stay away from the polls--the Bible, banned.'' Such tripe. That is what West Virginians think of that. As a Senator, I am appalled by the Republican National Committee's utter ignorance of the Constitution. I am appalled, let me say it again, by the Republican National Committee's utter ignorance of this Constitution, the Constitution of the United States, which I hold in my hand. Our Constitution--let me say to the people of West Virginia and the people of Arkansas--our Constitution protects this Bible. So never fear, never fear that the Bible will be banned. The first amendment begins: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . . And yet this flier, paid for by the Republican National Committee, features a picture of the Bible, just as I have shown Senators--let me show it again--with the word ``banned'' across its cover. The people of West Virginia should not have to put up with such trash. It is a crass insult to the people and to their faith. Iraq But false claims seem to be the modus operandi in politics these days. The truth gets tailored to fit the occasion. Nowhere is this more evident than on the subject of Iraq. Whether it be weapons of mass destruction or an imminent threat or mushroom clouds, the reason for the war changes faster than the weather. Talk about flip-flops. There you have it. The White House said that our troops would be welcomed with flowers, and yet our soldiers saw mortar attacks and suicide bombings. The White House said the world would be with us in the war and the reconstruction in Iraq, but the coalition of the willing was never that large and has become the coalition of the wilting. How can the American people trust a White House that cannot get its stories straight? The flipping and the flopping from this slippery fish crowd is a sight to behold. Even now, the White House is trying desperately to portray Iraq as a nation that is getting back on its feet. Listen to the September 29 Washington Post. The headline: ``Growing Pessimism on Iraq. Doubts Increase Within U.S. Security Agencies.'' Let me read just the first few paragraphs: A growing number of career professionals within national security agencies believe that the situation in Iraq is much worse, and the path to success much more tenuous, than is being expressed in public by top Bush administration officials, according to former and current government officials and assessments over the past year by intelligence officials at the CIA and the Departments of State and Defense. While President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others have delivered optimistic public appraisals, officials who fight the Iraqi insurgency and study it at the CIA and the State Department and within the Army officer corps believe the rebellion is deeper and more widespread than is being publicly acknowledged, officials say. People at the CIA ``are mad at the policy in Iraq because it's a disaster, and they're digging the hole deeper and deeper and deeper,'' said one former intelligence officer who maintains contact with CIA officials. ``There's no obvious way to fix it. The best we can hope for is a semi-failed state hobbling along with terrorists and a succession of weak governments.'' Yesterday's New York Times reports--what I just read was from yesterday's Washington Post--yesterday's New York Times reports that there have been 2,300 attacks by insurgents. They have been directed against civilians and military targets in Iraq in a pattern that sprawls over nearly every major population center outside the Kurdish north. So there you have it--an average of 80 attacks against our forces each day. The situation in Iraq is far more dire and the future far more uncertain than White House officials are ever going to admit, and so the lives of America's sons and daughters are on the line in Iraq, and still we hear happy talk about success right over the horizon. Misleading scenarios about Iraq or ludicrous nonsense about banning the Bible insult the values and the intelligence of West Virginians and the millions of other Americans who share the beliefs of West Virginians. Such stuff must not be tolerated. The people of this country know about honesty, and they must start demanding it from their leaders. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I recently received a letter from Mrs. Margaret Baker of Hillsboro, WV, who wrote of ``how important wilderness areas are to the quality of life in West Virginia.'' Writing about West Virginia's Cranberry Wilderness Area, she explains that, in this special place ``you can take your children here and actually see what nature looks like when it's not in a neatly labeled museum exhibit, when the animals aren't in cages and the trees aren't trimmed into perfect little bricketts of shrubbery.'' Mrs. Baker's letter continues: My husband and I hike in the Cranberry Wilderness and always see something that is astonishing, a forest of ferns, an abstract art work of lichen or sunset colored mushrooms. You can see a picture of a wilderness area but unless you smell it, and feel the mud under your boots, experience the light shining on it and hear the birds and crickets, you can't really appreciate how amazing the offerings of the planet are. I think West Virginians have a duty to preserve this reminder of what is good and wholesome and worth being optimistic about in our world. Help keep West Virginia wild. I share that letter today for several reasons. The first is that Mrs. Baker's letter gives me the opportunity to boast of the natural beauty of West Virginia, which everyone knows I like to do. One should not doubt that areas like the Cranberry Wilderness are both beautiful and unique. This incredible area of 35,864 acres of broad and massive mountains and deep, narrow valleys is the State's largest wilderness area. As Mrs. Baker's letter so movingly indicates, visitors to the Cranberry Wilderness directly and vividly experience nature. Its wildlife includes black bear, white-tailed deer, wild turkey, mink, bobcat, numerous varieties of birds, and many species of reptiles. The waters of the Cranberry Wilderness are home to brook trout and several species of amphibians. Vegetation in the area includes spruce and hemlock at the higher elevations and hardwood trees such as black cherry and yellow birch and thickets of rhododendrons and mountain laurel in the lower terrain. How exciting and rewarding it is to know that individuals like Mrs. Baker are able to use and enjoy this great wilderness. I certainly agree with Mrs. Baker that we ``have a duty to preserve this [and other] reminders of what is good and wholesome.'' That brings me to my second reason for sharing Mrs. Baker's letter with you. This year, 2004, is the 40th anniversary of the Wilderness Act of 1964, which was enacted to ensure that special places like the Cranberry Wilderness would be protected for future generations. In an era of ``an ever increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization,'' the Wilderness Act declared that we must secure the land where ``the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man and where man himself is a visitor.'' My home State of West Virginia has certainly benefitted from the creation of wilderness areas, and the Cranberry Wilderness is just one of the five wilderness areas in my State. The others include Dolly Sods, Otter Creek, Laurel Fork North, and Laurel Fork South Wilderness Areas, and West Virginia remains wild and wonderful, in part, because of Congress's actions. Furthermore, our Nation's 662 wilderness areas have given Americans a freedom to explore. This freedom has been secured and protected so that future generations also may enjoy the beauty of God's creation. Covered from end to end, and on all sides, by the ancient Appalachian Mountains, West Virginia is exquisite in its natural splendor. It is the most southern of the northern; the most northern of the southern; the most eastern of the western; and the most western of the eastern States. It is where the east says ``good morning'' to the west, and where Yankee Doodle and Dixie kiss each other goodnight. It is only fitting that, on the celebration of the 40th anniversary of the Wilderness Act, we cast our eyes backward so that we might have insight into how to better prepare for future events. On a whole range of important issues, the Senate has always been blessed with Senators who were able to reach across party lines and consider, first and foremost, the national interest. Our late colleague, Senator Hubert H. Humphrey was certainly such a person. He introduced the first wilderness bill in the Senate in 1956 and was there for its passage in 1964. Other former colleagues had this ability, including Senators Scoop Jackson, Clinton Anderson, Frank Church, Richard Russell, and Mike Mansfield. They understood the art of legislating, and they reveled in it. For this and other reasons, I am also honored to be associated with such Senators and to be the recipient of the Hubert H. Humphrey Wilderness Leadership Award that was presented to me earlier this month. As we look back 40 years, we can see how the seeds of legislation have blossomed. This certainly rings true of the passage of the Wilderness Act. Through four Congresses, Members on both sides of the aisle worked through the key challenges and made the right compromises rather than simply succumbing to the purely political tactics and rhetoric that seem to dominate today. The debate on the Wilderness Act should serve as a great example of how Members of both parties in the Senate and the House of Representatives can come together to pass historic pieces of legislation. It is hard for me to believe that 40 years have passed since Congress first approved the Wilderness Act. It is also hard to believe that only Senators Inouye and Kennedy and I remain in the Senate as Members who voted for that original legislation. Yet today we can proudly say that the original designation of 9.1 million acres in that first bill has expanded to more than 105 million acres in 44 States. I believe that this landmark legislation should serve as a lesson for those who are seeking guidance regarding other important measures before this and future Congresses. In closing, I am reminded of the immortal words of one of America's foremost conservationists and outdoorsmen, John Muir: Oh, these vast, calm, measureless mountain days, inciting at once to work and rest! Days in whose light everything seems equally divine, opening a thousand windows to show us God. Nevermore, however weary, should one faint by the way who gains the blessing of one mountain day: whatever his fate, long life, short life, stormy or calm, he is rich forever. . . . I only went out for a walk, and finally concluded to stay out till sundown, for going out, I found, was going in.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, last week, the Senate approved overwhelmingly the fiscal year 2005 Homeland Security Appropriations bill. This bill makes critical investments in our protections here at home. And in light of the constant threat warnings from law enforcement and homeland security officials, those investments cannot be made quickly enough. Yet it has been 10 days since the Senate passed the measure and the House has not even appointed conferees. Why has any progress toward protecting the people hit a brick wall? The legislation is in jeopardy because of the judgment of the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. I do not intend to talk about the chairman in a negative light. But I must point out to Senators that the chairman's actions could jeopardize the entire Homeland Security Appropriations bill. During Senate debate, Democrat and Republican Senators worked to invest additional dollars in homeland security. We must work to close the gaps in our protections here at home. Too many exist, and you can be sure that, if we know where those gaps are, so do the terrorists. That is why it was welcomed on both sides of the aisle when the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, suggested a way to include $784 million in homeland security protections without violating arbitrary congressional spending limits. The Senator from Montana suggested that we help to protect Americans from terrorist attack by extending existing customs user fees that are set to expire in March 2005. It was a commonsense approach, one that I applaud Senator Cochran, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Homeland Security panel, and the majority leader, Senator Frist, for embracing. It was common sense because many of the agreement provided funding to key programs within the Department of Homeland Security, most of which are customs related, and did so without violating the budget caps or adding to the deficit. The Senate adopted that funding, approved the bill, and asked the House for a conference. We were making progress. We were helping to save lives. But then came the disappointment. The Senate was informed that the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee has recommended that the House of Representatives ``blue-slip'' this legislation, returning the measure to the Senate. But the funding will help to protect this country from attack, and we should not allow congressional turf battles to stop it. Congressman Martin Olav Sabo, the ranking member of the House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee, and I have written to the Speaker of the House and urge that the Speaker help to move this legislation forward. We ought to send it to conference, complete our work, and help to protect our country. Delay is unacceptable. The additional funding provides needed investments to protect our borders, equip first responders, enhance air and rail security, and ensure that security measures are provided to harden potential terrorism targets. Specifically, the additional funding will allow Customs and Border Protection to purchase additional radiation detectors to respond to the threat of a nuclear or radiological weapon being smuggled into this country. CBP is far behind on its plan for deploying 2,037 radiation portal monitors at our ports. The additional $50 million provided by this amendment will allow CBP to deploy radiation portal monitors to screen 100 percent of inbound containerized cargo at 30 additional seaport terminals. This investment will provide Immigration and Customs Enforcement with an additional $50 million to address a manpower shortage within the Federal Air Marshal program and be more aggressive in placing air marshals on high-interest flights. The funding being stymied in the House would increase resources to equip and train our nation's firemen by providing an additional $50 million through the fire grants program, which is one of the best run programs in the Federal Government. The money would address the shortage of border employees by providing $150 million for more border inspectors and agents, and immigration and customs criminal investigators. The Department of Homeland Security has not yet met the northern border staffing goals set in the U.S. PATRIOT Act. An additional $50 million is also included for the detention and removal of illegal aliens. This amendment strengthens the northern border by providing an additional $200 million to speed up the development of five air wings along the northern border which will track, identify, and intercept aircraft that are unauthorized to enter U.S. airspace. The funds advance efforts to protect the millions of Americans who use public transportation over 32 million times per work day. The additional $128 million was approved by the Senate so that the Department can pursue investments to harden the security of transit systems by investing in additional law enforcement, canine teams, and training. The legislation invests an additional $56 million to the Emergency Management Performance Grants program to help emergency managers at the state and community level to prepare, respond, and recover from all hazards. Finally, the bill ensures that $50 million goes to high-risk non- profit organizations to develop security plans and make necessary improvements to prevent a terrorist attack. The Department of Homeland Security is working day and night to stop potential terrorist attacks. But the Department cannot operate if it does not have any money. We cannot wait to address gaps in our nation's defenses while this new department is crafted. Terrorists will not wait to attack anew. We cannot afford delay. The Senate has passed this critical legislation; now it requires the approval of the entire Congress. This bipartisan legislation must move quickly to bolster our weaknesses, address our shortfalls, and protect American lives. I urge the Speaker, and the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee to drop this threat of delay. The President, the Vice President, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, the CIA Director, and the FBI Director have each stated quite clearly that the country is at risk of attack. It serves no one's best interests to bicker over turf battles when lives are at stake. For the sake of the people, for the sake of the nation, I urge the House to strengthen the homeland security protections and make life more difficult for the terrorists. Don't blue-slip this funding. Green light it instead.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Plato began ``Book Three'' of The Republic by posing the following question: Have we come here looking for genuine discourse or fool's gold? It is hard to believe Senators are here today looking for genuine discourse. The legislation before the Senate was packaged into a conference report to prevent Senators from offering amendments, even though the Senate never considered legislation to extend these tax cuts. The Senate Finance Committee never reported legislation to extend these tax cuts. This legislation has been rushed to the Senate floor, prohibiting any kind of meaningful debate. I don't deny the allure of tax cuts. A $1,000 child credit for a family of four can provide some benefit for families. Likewise, the elimination of marriage tax penalties can serve a valuable social purpose. I have cosponsored legislation both to eliminate marriage penalties and to expand the child credit. But to promise tax cuts to a worker whose job has been lost overseas, to promise tax cuts to a family that is without health insurance, to promise tax cuts to retirees whose pensions have been lost, and to pretend that a tax cut will address the plight of these working Americans, is to promise fool's gold. The Bush administration has exhausted trillions of dollars on a failed fiscal policy that advocates tax cuts for wealthy above everything else--tax cuts before jobs, tax cuts before health care, tax cuts before pensions, tax cuts before securing out homeland, tax cuts before the needs of working American families. American workers continue to wait for the return of the 3 million jobs lost during the Bush presidency. Unemployed workers whose jobs have been lost overseas are forced to accept low-wage positions without benefits. Today, 45 million Americans lack health insurance. Health care costs have spiraled to prohibitive levels, and those lacking insurance are forced to do without adequate medical care. Even those with insurance are seeing their health care costs increase as employers shift the burden of higher insurance premiums to their employees. Today, workers and retirees counting on the pension benefits promised by their employer must watch helplessly as those promised benefits are cut. These are real issues, and, while a tax cut may put some extra money in taxpayers' pockets, it won't replace a job lost overseas, it won't replace the loss of health insurance, it won't make America safer, and it won't protect against the loss of a pension. Nevertheless, I recognize that, while doing little to address these underlying economic concerns, it will, at least, provide some relief to working American families. Further, it will preserve scarce resources for working families and prevent those resources from being siphoned away to finance tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. I will vote for this legislation, but I caution workers not to be fooled by the rhetoric that will accompany its passage. This administration, this Congress is no friend of the working man. Whatever dollars you receive from these tax cuts, they will not offset the wages that this administration has taken from you by denying you overtime pay, by blocking an increase in the minimum wage, and by refusing unemployment benefits for jobless workers. The Bush administration's fiscal policies have squandered the limited opportunities available to help American families find work, to provide American families with health care, to protect the pensions of retirees. This legislation is throwing a bone to the middle-class after 3 years of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. It is something, but it is far, far less than what is needed and suggests only the callous indifference of this President and this Congress to the needs of working American families.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, earlier today at the United Nations the President of the United States painted a pretty picture of the occupation of Iraq. But the President's picture was far from reality. The reality is the situation facing our soldiers, the very limited Iraqi security forces, and, importantly, the Iraqi people. The reality is that today Iraq is in flames. A horrifying wave of violence has struck yet again, targeting the Iraqi police, Government leaders, innocent civilians, and our very own troops. The death toll in Iraq continues to mount. As of today, more than 1,030 American troops have died in this war, a war that should not have been fought, a war which was wrong in the beginning, wrong today. More than 700 Iraqi police have perished in the short time since the force has existed. The numbers of civilians killed in President Bush's preemptive war is unknown. They may never be known. But it numbers in the thousands--the widows and the orphans who have been left alone, the tears that have been shed. Who is responsible for this bloodshed in Iraq? Is it a small group of religious radicals, or the secret agents of Osama bin Laden, or terrorists who might otherwise sneak out onto the streets of New York City? No, no, and no. An ever growing pile of press reports indicates that the insurgency is larger and more broad than the White House will admit. On Wednesday, September 15, the Wall Street Journal reported that ``Iraq's once highly fragmented insurgent groups are increasingly cooperating to attack U.S. and Iraqi government targets, and steadily gaining control of more areas of the country.'' That was the Wall Street Journal of Wednesday, September 15. Meanwhile, the Commander in Chief, President Bush, seems to be in the dark about the worsening situation in Iraq. Faced with the spread of violence in Iraq, the President continues to speak of Iraq as a country of free people. But what liberty, what liberty, is there to be enjoyed when the police are being killed by the scores, the chances of a peaceful election have been thrown out the window, and many Iraqis are too afraid to send their children to school? One must begin to question whether the President is getting the bad news about what is happening on the streets of Baghdad and Fallujah or if he is simply ignoring it. Surely the Commander in Chief has a responsibility, has the obligation, to change his strategy when it has been proven a failure. Instead, the White House blindly insists that the problems of Iraq will sort themselves out if we simply maintain a resolve to stay the course. Did the American people really want to stay the course that has resulted in the deaths and the injuries of thousands of our troops? Now the President wants to spend another $3.4 billion in reconstruction funds to again try to bolster the same Iraqi security forces that have been outgunned and inadequately trained to take on the insurgents in Iraq. This is even more evidence, is it not, even more evidence that the administration had no plan, that the administration has no plan for postwar Iraq, other than to throw more money at the problem and hope for the best. As the cost of the war continues to spin out of control, we must remember that last fall the Bush administration promised that its request for the biggest foreign aid package in half a century would bring security and stability to Iraq. The White House got enough Members of Congress to vote for $18.4 billion to buy that pig in a poke, and the President got unprecedented flexibility to spend that reconstruction money almost as he sees fit. Has that reconstruction money helped to get our troops out of harm's way? Has it helped to bring our men and our women home? No. In fact, our troops are under a greater number of daily attacks now than they were when the President asked for his massive foreign aid program. As the President wants to spend more and more money in Iraq, our troops are getting sucked ever deeper into the bloody quicksand of the Middle East. Most astonishing yet, the White House has not held anyone in the administration accountable for the mess that has become Iraq. It is business as usual in the White House bubble. The Pentagon botched plans for postwar Iraq as if there ever were any, and the shame of Abu Ghraib has further turned world opinion against the United States. But instead of holding someone at the Department of Defense accountable for those mistakes, the Vice President said that we have the ``best Secretary of Defense the United States has ever had.'' The CIA failed to detect Osama bin Laden's plot to attack New York City and Washington, DC, and then it produced faulty intelligence that the White House used to take our Nation to war against Iraq. The White House misled the American people. It is a war we should never have fought. It was wrong from the beginning; it is wrong today. Instead of holding someone at the CIA accountable for those mistakes, the President praised the former CIA Director as ``a strong leader on the war on terrorism.'' The U.S.-run occupation government in Iraq mistakenly disbanded the Iraqi Army, bungled the management of $18.4 billion in reconstruction funds, and turned a blind eye to the rising flames of anti-Americanism in Iraq. Instead of demanding accountability for mistakes made by the Coalition Provisional Authority, rumors abound that its former head, Ambassador Paul Bremer, could be up for a promotion to Secretary of State. How about that? He didn't have time, he said, to come back before the Appropriations Committee of the Senate--I was there and asked him. No. He said he didn't have time. I will not have time when the time comes to vote for him as Secretary of State if such nomination is ever presented to this body. For all the mistakes that have been made in President Bush's unprovoked war on Iraq under the doctrine of preemption, which is unconstitutional on its face, and therefore it is fundamentally flawed, not a single administration official has been held accountable for the mess that Iraq has become. Not a single administration official has been called to step aside for the mistakes they have made. In fact, the only senior administration official the White House has seen fit to fire is the former Secretary of the Treasury, who dared to question the fiscal responsibility of more massive tax cuts. If this President cannot hold his advisers accountable for their mistakes, then the people should hold this President accountable for his poor judgment. The situation in Iraq has been elevated beyond a crisis. The White House plan for holding Iraqi elections in January 2005 is shaky and becoming more so with each new attack on our troops. Instead of demonstrating the leadership to bring more countries in to assist in rebuilding Iraq, the President pays lipservice to international help. The President has only proposed to sink more taxpayer money into the same failed policies that brought us to this point. We are falling deeper and deeper and deeper and deeper into debt. The President has failed to act to counter the surge in violence that is costing the lives of our men and women in uniform. How long can this bumbling by the White House go on? How long must our troops be tied down in Iraq? How long will we struggle without a plan to end the spreading violence? How long will it take for our country to turn away from this dead-end policy created by the dead- brained thinking in this White House? How long, Mr. President? How long? I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, every event memorable enough to be recorded becomes a part of history. But some events define and shape history with the force of plate tectonics, moving the world onto a new path. On September 17, 1787, just such an event occurred when the Constitution of the United States was signed. I hold this Constitution in my hand. With the adoption of this document, a new and powerful nation was created. That Nation, our Nation, still guided by the powerful hand of God in many ways and certainly still guided by the governmental structure laid out in this Constitution, is the heavyweight champion of world politics and the global economy. Actions of our Government influence world events with a speed and force of a category 5 hurricane. The Declaration of Independence was historic. And I have it, too, here in my little book which I carry in my shirt pocket--the Declaration of Independence. The signers of that Declaration of Independence committed treason against the king. And those brave men-- and they were men--who signed the Declaration of Independence, any one of them, each of them, could have been arrested, thrown into prison, sent to England in chains, and executed. So we ought to ponder those men, their lives and those documents that they signed. We don't often enough think about the sacrifices they made, the risks they were willing to take as they pledged their lives and their fortunes and their sacred honor. The Declaration of Independence was historic, for without it and the events that it set in motion there would be no fledgling United States of America. The surrender at Yorktown on October 19, 1781, was also historic, marking the successful conclusion of the War for Independence. Without that surrender, there would be no United States. But the early days of our new Republic were difficult ones, burdened with war debts and hampered by the weak and ineffective structure that was the Confederation Government. The Nation was independent but not truly united. The central Government was weak, relative to the State governments, dependent on whatever contribution the States chose to make. The national Government could not speak convincingly as the official voice of the whole Nation. It was not until the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia completed its work and constructed in less than 100 days a strong yet flexible governmental structure that our young Nation was ready to make a name for itself on the world stage. Our Constitution is a remarkable document--truly remarkable, this Constitution which I hold in my hand. It is remarkable for its simplicity, and it is remarkable for its astute understanding of human nature. The governmental structure that was devised in Philadelphia did not depend on extraordinary men in order to work but, rather, the system relied upon the ambitions of many ordinary men to check and balance each other, keeping any one man or any one branch of Government from becoming another tyrant like King George. The Framers of the Constitution put the greatest power where? In the people and in their elected representatives--like you and you and you and me--and made those representatives responsible and responsive to the people. That is why, every 2 years, the entire membership of the House of Representatives and one-third of the membership of the Senate face the people--face the people--in an election. The President, as will happen later this year, faces the people every 4 years. Only judges, who must remain independent and free from such public pressures, are appointed for life. The Framers also put a premium on civilian control of the military. Now, we ought to remember that. We hear all these sayings about the Commander in Chief--the Commander in Chief. And some speak with awe of the Commander in Chief. But the Commander in Chief is only the Commander in Chief of the Army, the Navy, and the militia, when it is called into service. But who creates an army? The Commander in Chief would not have any army over which to be commander if the Congress-- this House and the other body--did not create an army and provide for a navy and provide for the calling up of the militia. It is the Congress, you see. So the Framers put a premium on civilian control of the military. Again, this reflected their desire to prevent a military dictatorship from arising. They did not want a President to act as a king, ordering armies to war in remote lands on his say-so alone. Nor did they want a powerful general to seize political power. In their day, and for the first century of our history, the United States did not have a large standing army, only a small navy and marine corps. In the event of an invasion, citizens were expected to grab their guns and form a militia, as was done in the Revolution. The Congress would call up the militia, which only then would be led by the President in his role as Commander in Chief. The President is not the Commander in Chief of industry. He is not the Commander in Chief of the Senate. He is not the Commander in Chief of Congress. The Congress, under the Constitution, provides for the military. Congress is the paymaster, just as the Roman Senate was the paymaster in the days of ancient Rome. No consul could pay his legions of Roman soldiers unless the Roman Senate provided therefore. So Congress is the paymaster, the armorer, and the rulemaking body for the military--not the President, not the Commander in Chief, nor his generals. The President commands the militia only when the militia is called into action by Congress or when necessary to repel an invasion. The Framers ensured that the people--the first three words in the preamble of this Constitution, which I hold in my hand, are: ``We The People.'' That is you; that is you; that is you; that is you; that is you, that is you. ``We The People.'' That is you, the people out there over the broad hills and valleys and mountains of this great Nation who are watching through these electronic eyes and hearing the words that are being spoken on the floor of the Senate--the people. The Framers ensured that the people, through their elected Representatives in Congress would control the military so that it could not become a tool of Government repression against their own people or a way for Presidents to lead the Nation into foreign misadventures. The Framers created a barebones governmental structure--a barebones governmental structure. All rights not expressly given to the Federal Government were to be left to the States and to the people. In the course of ratifying the Constitution, however, it became clear that many people wanted to have these rights codified. And so from this sentiment came the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. How many words are there in the preamble and the original Constitution? How many words? There are 4,379 words in the preamble and the Constitution, as it was signed by the Framers. And then later came the first 10 amendments, and they are known to us as the Bill of Rights. How many words, then, are there in the preamble and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? There are 4,861 words. How few are those words, how few. And so the first 10 amendments, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, include the familiar freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of worship, the right to a speedy trial, the right to bear arms, and others. These rights and freedoms, too, had their immediate roots in the prerevolutionary treatment of the colonists by the tyrant king. If the Constitution is the bones of our national body, then the Bill of Rights must be its heart and soul. These rights are what the colonists fought for, the things for which they were willing to risk losing their lives and their property and their fortunes. These rights are what set the United States above other nations, what make the United States such a shining beacon--such a shining beacon-- for the peoples of other nations to aspire to and to establish for themselves. Our ideals of freedom, set forth and realized in our Constitution, are our greatest export to the world. How about that. Those of you who are sharpest on foreign trade, those of you who pride yourselves on being trade experts, what is the greatest export? What is the greatest export of the United States? Well, our ideals of freedom, realized in the Constitution, are our greatest export to the world. For more than 200 years, our Constitution has demonstrated its unique adaptability. The Nation has grown and changed in ways that the Framers would not have imagined, whatever their greatest hopes and ambitions for the Nation might have been. Our national interests and responsibilities engage us in activities and places that span the globe. We possess a military that is unmatched in size and capability. Our military spending outstrips most of the rest of the world combined. Why? We wonder why. That is food for thought on another day. Our technology, our culture, our humanitarian goodwill reach out into the most remote areas of the world. But our Constitution, despite all these societal changes, continues to provide a government structure that allows us to manage these great enterprises while protecting the individual rights that each of us is guaranteed in the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. Only we--not somebody out there from Mars, some distant planet, only we can erode those rights or change that structure. Our greatest enemy is not armed with guns, you see; our greatest enemy is our own ignorance and our own inattention to the Constitution, this great legacy. Last Friday marked the 217th anniversary of the Constitution's signing. I doubt that many Americans celebrated or even took heed to that occasion, and that is a mistake. For September 17 is more important to our everyday lives than Columbus Day, more important to our everyday lives than Thanksgiving, more important to our everyday lives than the Fourth of July. Our flag is precious to us. There it stands, majestic. How inspiring, that flag. Our flag is precious to us--and never more so than in the days after September 11, 2001. Our flag is celebrated every June 14, but our Constitution is more important than that flag by far. The flag is a potent symbol of our Nation, but this Constitution which I hold in my hand is the soul of the Nation. The Constitution is the foundation upon which each stone of our governmental structure is laid. It is our bedrock. It touches every day of your lives, I say to the pages on both sides of the Chair. This Constitution touches every day, every hour, every minute of your lives. Practically everything you do is made possible by or is guaranteed or is protected by this Constitution. It is the prism through which each act of our Government should be examined and judged. If such an understanding were in place, we would not have to question aspects of the PATRIOT Act that might threaten privacy and due process rights of Americans because those elements would not have been included. But in our fear of terrorism and due to our inattention to the Constitution, we were stampeded into legislation that erodes some of your rights, some of every citizen's rights. Every time the executive assumes powers that are not challenged by the Congress, and every time Congress gives up its powers to the executive, our Constitution is eroded, and we come one step closer to tyranny when that happens, one step closer to the dictatorship of the executive. I believe the Constitution deserves greater prominence in our national life. A survey conducted by Portrait of America in 2000 found--now think of this; I just couldn't believe it until I read it myself--that only half of Americans, just 51 percent, would vote for the passage of the U.S. Constitution if it were presented in ballot form today. That is incredible. Some 22 percent of respondents would vote against the Constitution. I will tell you, that is about enough to make your hair stand on end. And 27 percent were not sure if they would support it. Those are eye-opening findings. I say they are hair- raising, hair-curling findings. That ought to curl your hair. If you don't have any, it ought to make your hair grow where there is none. Twenty-seven percent were not sure if they would support it. Those are eye-opening findings, to be sure. While some attribute this outcome to a general disaffection with Government, I believe that the survey findings are the result of ignorance. Too many citizens do not know what the Constitution does. Many citizens revere the Constitution, but they don't know what is in it. Many Members of this body really don't know what is in the Constitution. They have read some portion. If they are lawyers, they might be very familiar with this portion or that portion, this amendment or that one, but to know about the Constitution, what is in it, what it does, many of us are ignorant. Even fewer know why the Constitution was designed the way it was. Most people do not appreciate all of the safeguards created by the Framers to prevent our new government from becoming like a colonial government, subject to the whims of a tyrant. They do not understand what the checks and balances in our governmental structure are meant to do, nor the importance of maintaining those checks and balances. Frankly, there are too many Members of Congress who do not appear to understand or appreciate those checks and balances. When it comes to the Executive, too many Members of this body want to side with the Executive. They are monarchists, I would say. They almost look upon the President as a king. As a result, over the years, the power of the legislative branch has eroded, while the power of the executive branch has grown. Congress has ceded much of its power, and it does so willingly. It has ceded much of its power willingly to the Executive, to the point that we have few tools remaining with which to rein in an autocratic Executive. When the Constitution was circulated for ratification in 1787, there was active political debate. Pamphlets were written and essays were written. The Constitution was a topic of conversation around dinner tables and at public meeting places. The Federalist Papers were widely printed, widely read, widely discussed. They were the centerpiece of the debate over the form of this new government. I doubt that one could today find many people outside of collegiate American history and politics majors who have read the Federalist Papers. In these days of television, radio, and movies, we no longer have the quiet evenings of discussion that the Founders knew. We are too busy with pseudo ``reality'' shows to spend time worrying about our own reality, our own government. Without such a national debate, the results of a similar survey in 1787 might have been the same as in 2000. As a nation, we are fortunate such a debate took place. The 2000 survey shows unequivocally that greater knowledge about our Constitution is needed. I believe a necessary step in raising the profile of the Constitution involves giving it equal billing with Christopher Columbus, with Flag Day, and with the Fourth of July. September 17, the anniversary of the signing of the Constitution, should be declared a national holiday. And so, Mr. President, on Wednesday of last week I submitted to the desk legislation to do just that. That legislation would declare September 17 ``Constitution Day'' and would encourage citizens to observe the day with appropriate ceremonies, including a reading of the Constitution. Currently, September 17 is designated ``Citizenship Day,'' recognizing all who, by birth or by naturalization, are citizens of the United States. Citizenship in our great Nation is certainly a worthy topic, and it merits recognition. But more importantly, I believe, this is the document that establishes the duties and rights of citizenship, the document that establishes this Nation as one in which all people may aspire to become citizens--the Constitution of the United States. My hope is that observances of Constitution Day would encourage all citizens to learn more about the Constitution and their government. An informed public is our best defense against tyranny. I know that it is late in the legislative session to introduce legislation, but I hope the calendar will not deter the Congress from taking up and adopting this legislation. It is not a partisan matter. The Constitution is there for all Americans, regardless of their political party, irrespective of whatever political events might be on the calendar. In fact, it might be more important because of the upcoming election. During election years, it becomes even more vital that all Americans look at the candidates and ask themselves which one will best support and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. As Americans exercise the fundamental right to choose their representatives, they participate in the enduring system of government set forth in the Constitution. It is fitting and appropriate that we honor the document that established this government, and that we as a nation take steps to ensure that our Constitution and our system of government are known, understood, and cherished by the people they were established to serve. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

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

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate has before it a $32 billion homeland security appropriations bill. Chairman Cochran has put together a fair and balanced bill. Regrettably, the allocation that is available for homeland security programs is simply inadequate. This is not a criticism of Chairman Cochran, nor is it a criticism of full committee Chairman Ted Stevens. The fact is that the overall levels in the allocation constrain our ability to address known threats to the safety of the American people. In response to the threats so often invoked by the President, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the FBI Director, one might anticipate that the President would not be satisfied with a bill that cuts funds for first responders, that leaves first responders unable to communicate, that leaves airline passengers worrying about whether a fellow passenger has brought explosives on board, or that fails to adequately invest in securing our ports and trains. To address these shortcomings, I offered an amendment last week to add $2 billion to the bill. The amendment would have funded authorizations signed by the President; it would have funded 9/11 Commission recommendations; and it would have addressed known vulnerabilities not funded in the committee bill. The amendment was defeated. The principal argument made against the amendment was that it was not paid for. So today, I offer an amendment that provides $470 million for homeland security, and it is fully paid for. Last March, during debate on the budget resolution, an amendment was adopted with support on both sides of the aisle. The amendment would have set up a reserve for homeland security programs. The reserve was paid for by directing the Secretary of the Interior to cancel planned deliveries of oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and to instead sell the oil on the open market in order to finance homeland security programs. As a provision on a budget resolution, that amendment did not have the force of law. Today, I offer an amendment that will make America safer. The amendment adds funds for first responders that, consistent with the 9/11 Commission recommendation, will be allocated based on threat; for securing mass transit systems; for expediting the modernization of Coast Guard ships, planes and helicopters and improving Coast Guard operations; for purchasing equipment for screening passengers and carry-on baggage for explosives; and for port security. The amendment addresses vulnerabilities that we all know exist. And, let there be no doubt, if we know that these gaps exist, so do the terrorists. The amendment includes $125 million for port security grants, bringing the total in the bill to $275 million, the same level assumed in the budget resolution. A 1-month closure of a major port would cost our national economy $60 billion. But because of the tremendous volume of containerized cargo, Customs officials are inspecting only 5 percent of the 9 million containers that come into our ports on vessels each year. With Chairman Cochran's support, we have provided additional resources on the floor for Customs and Border Protection inspectors. But, we must do more for securing the ports. The Coast Guard has estimated that $1.125 billion will be needed in the first year and $5.4 billion will be needed over the next 10 years for the ports to comply with the Federal regulations mandated by the Maritime Transportation Security Act, which was signed into law by President Bush with great fanfare in November 2002. It has been 2 years since the law was signed. If this amendment is adopted and becomes law, Congress will have approved only $770 million for port security, far less than the $1.125 billion Coast Guard estimate for the first year of implementation. It has been more than 2\1/2\ years since Richard Reid, the so-called ``shoe bomber,'' tried to blow up a Miami-bound aircraft over the Atlantic Ocean with explosives he carried onto the aircraft. Last month, two Russian airplanes simultaneously were blown out of the sky, most probably by Chechnyan terrorists who carried the explosives on board the aircraft. The 9/11 Commission Report states clearly and succinctly that the threat posed to passenger aircraft by explosives being carried onto the plane is real. The additional $70 million in this amendment will significantly expand the effort to screen air travelers for explosives. We know that newly developed passenger portals can detect whether passengers are carrying explosives. These systems have been tested and proven to work. We need the money to physically deploy these systems at our Nation's airports. Following the March 11 Madrid railroad bombings, the administration issued security bulletins to law enforcement officials and transit authorities warning of the danger of similar attacks here at home. But they requested no funding to help our mass transit agencies hire more guards, train new canine teams, or install additional cameras. Paper directives and press releases will not stop terrorist bombs. With Chairman Cochran's support, we have provided $278 million for mass transit security grants. But that level does not come close to the level authorized by the Senate Banking Committee, on a bipartisan basis, on May 6, 2004. The committee authorizes $5.2 billion for transit security. On May 21, 2004, the Senate Commerce Committee, also on bipartisan basis, approved S. 2273, which authorizes $1.2 billion for additional rail security activities. My amendment would add $75 million for mass transit and Amtrak security. The 9/11 Commission recommends allocating first responder funds based on threat rather than on population. My amendment adds $100 million to the $875 million currently provided in the Senate bill for urban area security initiative grants. These grants are targeted to cities determined to be at greatest risk of a terrorist attack, that have the highest number of critical assets, such as tunnels, bridges and chemical plants, and that have high population densities. We need to get funds to the places most at risk. My amendment also includes $100 million for the Coast Guard, including $80 million for the Deepwater Program and $20 million for traditional Coast Guard missions, such as search and rescue and protection of our marine resources. The committee bill funds these activities at levels $575 million below the levels just authorized by the Congress and the President. Prior to September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard began to modernize its fleet of assets. Since the attacks on 9/11, the Coast Guard's responsibilities have grown substantially. As a result, assets vital to homeland security are being used more today than ever in the Coast Guard's history. The Government Accountability Office recently reported that ``resource usage as measured by the number of hours the Coast Guard's cutters, boats, and aircraft used to perform its missions--was up almost 40 percent from the pre-September 11 baseline.'' The Coast Guard Commandant, in testimony before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, testified that the current condition of the aging fleet threatens Coast Guard mission performance. He testified that Coast Guard assets are in a ``declining readiness spiral.'' Yet, the President has not responded. My amendment will help address the Coast Guard's ``declining readiness spiral.'' The funding would go to accelerate the Coast Guard's highest priorities, which are to enhance safety and reliability on the HH-65 helicopter, to accelerate the design of the fast response cutter for near shore missions, and to complete design of the offshore response cutter for the high endurance missions of the Coast Guard. The amendment is paid for by suspending the fill of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This step makes economic sense. Using Federal dollars to buy high-priced oil for the reserve does not. Oil prices hit an all-time high on August 20, and oil is currently trading at about $44 per barrel. By filling the reserve in this high-priced environment, we are paying more for oil now than we would if we waited until prices went down. This makes no sense for U.S. taxpayers. Suspending the fill of the reserve in no way threatens our energy security. The reserve is already filled to 96 percent capacity, with 669 million barrels now stored, the highest level that it has ever been. The reserve currently covers 67 days of import capacity. Buying oil when the market is so high makes no economic sense. It is a bad deal for the taxpayer. Failing to fund critical homeland security measures that the 9/11 Commission has recommended and that address clear vulnerabilities is also a bad deal for the taxpayer. This amendment is a good deal. I urge Members to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Montana for his amendment and Senator Frist and Senator Cochran for their cooperation in working on this amendment. This amendment provides $170 million for four homeland security programs, in addition to the $200 million provided for security on the Northern border. First, $50 million is included for the fire grant program. With this amendment, the total in the bill for equipping and training fire personnel is $750 million, an increase of $4 million over fiscal year 2004. Last year, the Department received over $2.6 billion of applications from 20,366 applicants. Clearly, there is a real need for this additional funding. Second, the amendment provides $50 million for the Federal air marshals program. Last year, despite the continuing terrorist threat to our airlines and despite the fact that the number of flights grew by 6 percent last year, the number of Federal air marshals fell by 9 percent. This amendment will reverse that trend and allow the Department to move toward the staffing goal that was established after 9/11. Third, $50 million is provided for grants to nonprofit organizations, to help secure their at-risk facilities. Numerous reports from the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI indicate that al-Qaida has turned its focus to so-called soft targets such as hospitals, universities and houses of worship. Finally, the amendment provides $20 million for the Emergency Management Performance Grants program. This valuable program provides resources to States to prepare for all types of emergencies. The program's all-hazards planning approach ensures that States prepare, not just for terrorist attacks, but also for hurricanes, floods, earthquakes and other types of disasters. Again, I thank the Senators for their cooperation and I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I begin my words today by reading from the 33rd verse of the 18th chapter of the Second Book of Samuel, the King James version of the Holy Bible. And the king was much moved, and went up to the chamber over the gate, and wept: and as he went, thus he said, O my son, Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! Would God I had died for thee, O Absalom, my son, my son! Mr. President, tomorrow will be a day of painful remembrance for our Nation. The passage of time has done little to numb the anguish of that September morning 3 years ago--how we do remember--when 19 ruthless terrorists commandeered four commercial aircraft and transformed them into the stuff of nightmares. The memories are still too raw, the images are still to vivid, the toll of human misery is still too overwhelming. And so we remember, and in our remembrance we pay homage to the victims and the heroes of 9/11. But we owe more. We owe more to those who perished on September 11, 2001, than merely remembrance. And we owe more to the American people than merely paying lipservice to their safety. That is the primary reason that we are here today, debating the Homeland Security funding bill. We are here because of the rescue workers who moved so quickly, so valiantly, to save lives, only to sacrifice their own. We are here because of those thousands of men and women who, on that crystal clear morning of September 11, 3 years ago, were sitting at their desks, walking through the halls, doing their jobs, only to have such brutality abruptly end their lives. We are here, Senators, because we can never forget-- never forget--that day, and because we never want to repeat that day of horrors. Congress has passed a blitz of legislation and appropriated billions of dollars over the past 3 years in response to the 9/11 attacks on America. Congress overcame the objections of the President and created a new Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security. With great fanfare and acclaim, we passed legislation to strengthen both port and border security. We have tightened airport security, turned our most prominent public buildings into barricaded fortresses, and acquiesced in the suspension of basic rights to privacy in the name of security. And frankly, to little avail--to little avail, I say. Today, 3 years out from the 9/11 attacks, we are living under the yoke of an ``imminent'' threat of future attacks. Sectors of New York, New Jersey, and Washington are functioning under a heightened ``orange alert'' threat level while the rest of the Nation perches uneasily under the umbrella of a yellow, or elevated, threat. Security at virtually any major public event--from the political conventions to the Olympics--is oppressive. We quake, we tremble, at the notion that the November elections might spark another devastating terrorist attack on these United States. We can talk until we are blue in the face about all the steps we have taken to enhance security since 9/11, but the bottom line is this: Does anybody really feel safer and more secure than they did 3 years ago? Much of the legislation that Congress has passed since 9/11 was envisioned as a legacy to those 3,000 men and women who lost their lives on that day 3 years ago. Yet, I fear it is becoming a hollow legacy. Congress has been thwarted at every turn by a White House that spends lavishly on rhetoric yet demonstrates a pinch-purse mentality when it comes to delivering on its promises. The Department of Homeland Security that we took such pains to create has been hamstrung from the outset by inadequate funding from the White House. Our port and border security initiatives, so essential to fighting terrorism, are languishing for lack of money. The people hear that their safety, their security, are the paramount priority of this White House. Have you heard that? Yes. Time and again, the people have heard that their security is the paramount priority of this White House down at the other end of the avenue, but then see the very same administration play shell games with security funds. Surely this is not the legacy we want to leave to the victims of 9/ 11. The President crisscrosses the country claiming that he has made America safer. Don't believe it. He has signed legislation intended to protect our airplanes from hijackers. He has signed legislation designed to close the porous borders in our north and south. He has signed bills to stop terrorists from slipping through our seaports. But what he hasn't signed is the check. The President tells the country that we are safer because of him, but he has forced dangerous cuts to the Federal Air Marshal program. The President tells Americans that they can rest easy because of him, but he has refused to approve funds that would help to prevent Madrid- style bombings at our train stations. The President campaigns on an image of being tough on terrorists--the two-gun slinger, the man at high noon, as it were. But he has rejected effort after effort to invest critical dollars in police officers and firefighters. It is as if the President wants our emergency responders to pay for homeland security with bake sales and bingo nights. When it comes to protecting this Nation, there should be no distinction between providing necessary resources for troops in Iraq and for first responders at home in America. To continue this homeland security hoax pays little tribute. To tell the American people that they are safe, when, in fact, they are not, honors few memories of those victims of 9/11. This White House has made an absolute sham of homeland security. And yet there is more. This President has staked his credibility and, to a large extent his Presidency, on the assertion that the war in Iraq is an extension of the war on terror--do not believe it--despite the fact that no Iraqis were among the 9/11 hijackers and despite the fact that no credible evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden has ever been documented. Oh, the President loves to tell us over and over again that America is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power in Iraq, but the President fails to mention that post-war Iraq has become the foremost breeding ground of anti-American terrorism on the globe. The President likes to talk to the troops, and he likes to talk with the background of troops standing behind him. But he doesn't like to talk about the steadily mounting death toll in Iraq. Why are the people mute about the death toll in Iraq? Despite the President's rose-colored view of Iraq, the number and recently the rate of American and Iraqi deaths and injuries are continuing to rise. Yes, Iraq may be free of the yoke of Saddam Hussein, but it is not free of the yoke of violence. As of this very week, the death toll of American military personnel in Iraq has exceeded 1,000. I can hear the cries at night of the fathers and the mothers of those soldiers, marines, and military personnel who have laid down their lives in the hot sands of Iraq. I hear again, as though it were the king, crying: O my son, Absalom, my son, my son, Absalom! Would God I had died for thee, O Absalom, my son, my son! Unlike the mass casualties of September 11, American military personnel in Iraq have died in relatively tiny clusters over the course of the past 18 months, one or two here or five there or seven at a time. In spite of the transfer of sovereignty in Iraq more than 2 months ago, fighting continues to rage on in that crippled country, and American casualties continue to mount. My son, my son, O Absalom, my son, my son! The death toll of American military personnel in Iraq may not yet approach the death toll of civilians on September 11, but it is no less significant and no less heartbreaking. The September 11 terrorist attacks on America may or may not have been preventable. The missed intelligence cues, the missed communications, the ``what ifs,'' will haunt us forever. But the returns are already in on the war in Iraq. This President, President Bush, took this country to war in Iraq for the wrong reasons, based on faulty assumptions, with unanticipated and deadly results for untold numbers of Americans. As we pause to remember the moment when the airplanes struck the World Trade Centers, the Pentagon, and the Pennsylvania field, we will remember the sacrifice of the mothers and the fathers, the husbands and the wives, the brothers and sisters and the children, the firefighters, the police officers, the ambulance drivers. We will remember all of those who lost their lives in that tragic time and those tragic moments, and we will remember those who have been sent to battle in their name against the terrorist forces of al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan. That was the war in which America was attacked. America was invaded by an invader in the form of hijackers in the cockpits of airplanes used as deadly missiles. Tragically, this has become an enemy of our own making, through our own invasion, through our own attack, through our own pernicious doctrine of preemption, an enemy of our own making in Iraq. And the sorrow of those who have given their sons and daughters in that unprovoked war, the sorrows will not end at election day. The sorrows will not end this year or next or next or the next, but the sorrows will continue as long as there are memories of those who once sat in those vacant chairs around the kitchen tables of America. Those mothers and fathers will continue to weep. The tears will continue to fall. Those loved ones will cry out, as did the king, King David, cry out for their sons as David cried out for his. And the king was much moved, and went up to the chamber over the gate and wept: and as he wept, thus he said, O my son, Absalom, my son, my son, Absalom! Would God I had died for thee, oh Absalom, my son, my son. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum

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

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Mr. Leahy, Mr. Reid of Nevada and Mrs. Clinton, I send to the desk an amendment.

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the President of the United States has been out on the campaign trail asking the question, is America safer? That is a good question. Is America safer? That is a good question. President Bush concludes that America is safer. He pats himself on the back, wraps himself in the flag, and tells Americans that he is a war President and that we should trust him. The President is asking himself the wrong question. He asserts that America is safer. Well, safer than what? Safer than we were on September 11, 2001? In August of 2001, while in Crawford, TX, the President read an intelligence report providing clear warnings that al-Qaida was preparing to attack the United States. Yet, tragically, on September 11, 2001, Americans were not safe. Therefore, telling Americans that we are safer than we were on September 11 is not much of an accomplishment. Making America safe is not that simple. The President should be asking himself, in the 3 years since the terrorist attacks of 9/11 have we been taking the prudent steps necessary to address the clear and present dangers that we face right now and that we know of right now? Last week President Bush said: This election will also determine how America responds to the continuing danger of terrorism--and you know where I stand. Three days after September 11 I stood where Americans died in the ruins of the twin towers. Workers in hard hats were shouting to me, ``whatever it takes.'' The President said: Since that day I wake up every morning thinking about how to better protect our country. I will never relent in defending America, whatever it takes. Rhetoric is easy. Rhetoric is cheap. But the followup is hard. If the President meant what he said last week he would not be satisfied with a bill that cuts funds for first responders. He would not be satisfied with a bill that leaves first responders unable to communicate. He would not be satisfied with a bill that leaves airline passengers worrying about explosives on board, or that fails to adequately invest in securing our ports, our chemical facilities, and our trains. We have to match talk with action and I hope the people will remember that, insist on it, and hold us responsible if we don't do it. And that goes for the President as well. In response to authorization bills signed by the President but not funded, in response to 9/11 Commission recommendations, and in order to address well known vulnerabilities not funded in the committee bill, I have offered an amendment today that totals $2 billion and includes $586 million to equip and train our first responders and to address the interoperability radio communications problem. Consistent with the 9/11 Commission recommendation, all of these first responder funds will be allocated based on threat. Moreover, I am adding $350 million to help secure our rail and mass transit system. Also included is $324 million to expedite the modernization of Coast Guard ships, planes and helicopters, bringing funding for the Deepwater program to the level recently authorized by Congress and signed by the President. Also included is $150 million for improved air security for purchasing equipment for screening passengers and carry-on baggage for explosives, consistent with 9/11 Commission recommendations. How many people realize that we do not have the equipment that checks airline passengers for explosives? People may think that we do have it. We do not. We have equipment that checks passengers' carry-on for guns, metal objects, but not explosives. Now, remember that. Keep that in mind. So, included in my amendment is $150 million for improved air security for purchasing equipment for screening passengers and carry-on baggage for explosives. Also, there is $125 million for port security grants, $111 million for border security for additional radiation detectors, additional border patrol personnel and for improved detention and removal, $100 million for hiring additional fire personnel, $100 million for securing our drinking water systems, $100 million for securing chemical facilities. In the Kanawha Valley in south central West Virginia there are chemical facilities. There is a great complex of chemical facilities, as great as any other in the Western Hemisphere, I would say. Also included in this amendment is $50 million for grants to secure nonprofit organizations such as hospitals, colleges, churches and synagogues, and $4 million for hazardous materials and grants. This amendment meets critical needs. It addresses vulnerabilities that we all know exist. And let there be no doubt. If we know that these gaps exist, so do the terrorists know these gaps exist. It has been more than 2\1/2\ years since Richard Reed, the so-called ``shoe bomber,'' tried to blow up a Miami-bound aircraft over the Atlantic Ocean with explosives that he carried onto the aircraft. Only last month, two Russian airplanes simultaneously were blown out of the sky most probably by Chechnyan terrorists who carried the explosives on board the aircraft. The 9/11 Commission report states clearly and succinctly that the threat posed to passenger aircraft by explosives being carried onto the plane is real. Yet the President has not responded, so the Senate must respond. The additional $100 million in this amendment will significantly expand the effort to screen air travelers for explosives and chemical weapons. We know that newly developed passenger portals can detect whether passengers are carrying explosives. These systems have been tested, and these systems have been proven to work. We need the money to deploy these systems at our Nation's airports. Lives depend on it. Those of you who travel on aircraft, your lives depend on it. Following the March 11 Madrid railroad bombing, the administration issued security bulletins to law enforcement officials and transit authorities warning of the danger of similar attacks here at home. So that is what we did. We issued security bulletins. Crowded trains are inviting targets for terrorists. Busy transit stations allow for easy access, anonymity, and quick escape. Yet the administration requested no new funding to secure mass transit facilities. Your lives depend on it. We cannot continue to deceive the American people. The American people believe they are being made safe. They undoubtedly believe the passengers are being examined, tested, and checked for carry-on explosives. Under Secretary Asa Hutchinson said ``millions of Americans travel by rail every day and recent world events highlight the need to ensure they are kept safe from acts of terror.'' Yet this White House proposed no new funds, just an unfunded mandate. Paper directives and press releases will not--will not--stop terrorists bombs. On May 6, 2004, the Senate Banking Committee on a bipartisan basis approved S. 2453 which authorizes $5.2 billion for transit security. On May 21, 2004, the Senate Commerce Committee, also on a bipartisan basis, approved S. 2273 which authorizes $1.2 billion for additional rail security activities. On a broad bipartisan basis, these committees have recognized the overwhelming need for this Congress and this administration to step up to the plate and robustly address the security threat facing our rail and transit systems. The President has not responded. The Senate absolutely must respond. So my amendment includes $350 million for transit security grants. Three years now after 9/11, despite hundreds of firemen losing their lives in the World Trade Center because they could not receive emergency radio messages to evacuate, the Federal Government has contributed little to the efforts to solve the interoperability communications problem. In fact, the President proposes to terminate the Justice Department's Interoperable and Communication Grants Program and proposes no funding for fire departments and other first responders through the Department of Homeland Security. What in the name of Heaven is the President waiting on? This amendment provides $100 million for interoperable communications equipment. The Senate Commerce-Justice-State bill is expected to include $100 million for the COPS Program to improve interoperable communications for police departments. Why not make sure that police, fire, and emergency medical personnel can communicate with one another? The $100 million contained in my amendment meets only a fraction of the need. But it is a critical start. While States can use their first responder grants to solve the interoperability problem, many States have not chosen to use first responder dollars to address this problem because of the complexity of multijurisdiction and multiagency purchases, and because of competing demands on first responder funds. In 2003, according to the Alliance in Support of America's First Responders, only 3 percent of the funding was dedicated for interoperable communications equipment. A separate funding source is required to overcome these hurdles. My amendment accomplishes that goal. The 9/11 Commission recommends allocating first responder funds based on threat rather than on population. My amendment adds $440 million to the $875 million currently provided in the Senate bill for urban areas security initiative grants. These grants are targeted to cities that are determined to be at greatest risk of a terrorist attack, that have the highest number of critical assets such as tunnels, bridges, and chemical plants, and have population density. We need to get funds to places that are most at risk. On August 1, the Department had such specific threat information that it moved northern New Jersey, Washington, DC, and New York City from Code Yellow to Code Orange. We must back up such targeted warnings with funds, and the Urban Area Security Initiative Program allows the Secretary to send funds where they are needed most--not based on formula but based on facts. The Council on Foreign Relations report, authored by former Senator Warren Rudman, found that America will fall approximately $98.4 billion short of meeting critical emergency responder needs in the next 5 years. Cities are spending an additional $70 million per week on personnel costs alone. Funding urban area security initiative grants is the only way to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security can get moneys to the cities that are most likely at risk. My amendment also provides an additional $46 million for the Fire Grant Program to restore the program to current levels and avoid an ill-advised funding cut. In the current threat environment, why in the world would one slash fire grant funding? This year, the Fire Administration received 20,366 applications totaling $2.6 billion from local fire departments. The bill provides $700 million for the program. As one the pillars of the first responder community, it is essential that our firefighters have the best equipment and the best training possible, but because of shortsighted administration budgets, too many fire departments are being left high and dry. What about our borders? What about our national borders? The U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency, CBP, has a 5-year plan for deploying radiation portal monitors at our ports. The plan calls for deployment of approximately 2,000 of these monitors at locations around the country based on assessment of the nuclear smuggling threat, focusing on nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons material, radiation dispersal devices, and other illegal or illicit radioactive material. Why should we wait for a 5-year plan? The additional $50 million in this amendment will allow CBP to deploy radiation portal monitors to screen 100 percent of the inbound containerized cargo at 30 additional seaport terminals, thus completing the deployment of these monitors at America's top 22 seaports and several Southwest border land crossings. Let's start now. My amendment also addresses the need for more personnel on our borders. The USA PATRIOT Act, passed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks, calls for a tripling of the number of border patrol agents as well as Customs Service and Immigration and Naturalization Service inspectors on the northern border. While the border patrol has met the PATRIOT Act requirements to increase the number of agents on the northern border, the number of Customs and Border Protection--CBP--officers remains woefully inadequate. In May of this year, the CBP was 1,428 officers short of the goal. I repeat, in May of 2004, the CBP--Customs and Border Protection--was 1,428 officers short of the goal. Yet, incredibly, the agency has been stuck in a hiring freeze ordered by the administration in March. The $50 million provided in this amendment will add 439 new CBP officers, getting us almost a third of the way toward meeting the PATRIOT Act requirement. My amendment also includes $324 million for the Coast Guard Deepwater Program. Prior to September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard began to modernize its fleet of assets. The program, named Deepwater, called for the modernization or replacement of some 100 cutters and 200 aircraft over a 20-year period. Since the attacks on September 11, the Coast Guard's responsibilities have grown substantially. As a result, assets vital to homeland security are being used more today than ever in the Coast Guard history. The Government Accountability Office recently reported that ``resource usage--as measured by the number of hours the Coast Guard's cutters, boats and aircraft are used to perform its mission--was up almost 40 percent from pre-September 11 baseline.'' The Coast Guard Commandant, in testimony before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, testified that the current condition of the aging fleet threatens Coast Guard mission performance. He testified that Coast Guard assets are in a ``declining readiness spiral.'' Yet the President does not respond. What happened to ``whatever it takes''? The President's budget for the Deepwater Program will take 22 years to complete. This is 2 years slower than the Capital Improvement Program envisioned when Deepwater was conceived prior to the tragic events of September 11. My amendment provides $324 million above the amount provided in the committee bill, the full amount authorized by the Congress and the President just 1 month ago. This funding will address the Coast Guard's ``declining readiness spiral.'' The funding would go to accelerate the Coast Guard's highest priorities, which are to enhance safety and reliability on the HH-65 helicopter, accelerate the design of the fast- response cutter for near-shore missions, and complete design of the offshore response cutter for the high-endurance missions of the Coast Guard. The funding will accelerate the Deepwater Program, finishing it in 15 years instead of the administration's 22-year plan. We must do more to protect our seaports. The top 50 U.S. ports account for 90 percent of all cargo container tonnage entering the United States. A 1-month closure of a major port would cost our national economy at least $60 billion, but because of the tremendous volume of containerized cargo, customs officials are inspecting only 5 percent of the 9 million containers that come into our ports on vessels each year. The Coast Guard has estimated that $1.125 billion will be needed in the first year, and $5.4 billion will be needed over the next 10 years for the ports to comply with the Federal regulations mandated by the Maritime Transportation Security Act which was signed into law by President Bush with great fanfare in November of 2002. However, until this year's budget submission, President Bush had requested no funds-- none--for port security. Last year, Congress provided $125 million for port security grants. Yet, despite telling the people that security is his top priority, President Bush proposes to cut port security funding by 62 percent. Promises are broken once again. Upon adoption of the Levin-Collins amendment last March, the Senate version of the resolution assumed that $275 million would be appropriated for port security grants in fiscal year 2005. The bill before the Senate today provides $150 million. The additional $125 million in this amendment keeps the port security grant promise that was made in the Senate budget resolution. The amendment also includes $100 million to secure our Nation's drinking water systems. The Nation's water infrastructure includes 75,000 dams and reservoirs, 168,000 public drinking water facilities, 16,000 publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities, and thousands of miles of pipes, aqueducts, water distribution and sewer lines. We have a sense of the vulnerability. Why not protect this piece of critical infrastructure? The amendment also includes $100 million for chemical security grants. In March 2003, Homeland Security Secretary Ridge said, ``There is no question that when we take a look at a chemical facility, the possibility that terrorists could use that economic asset and turn it into a weapon is something that we need to be concerned about and are concerned about.'' Apparently that concern has vanished. Since September 11, the Department of Homeland Security has done little to enhance security at the 66,000 chemical plants across this country. This is frightening, when security experts such as Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings institution called the threat to chemical plants a ``ticking time- bomb.'' When Secretary Ridge testified last year he said that the chemical industry was better suited to assess vulnerability and take appropriate security measures than the Federal Government. But earlier this year the Government Accountability Office submitted testimony to Congress saying that ``Despite the industry's voluntary efforts, the extent of security preparedness at United States chemical facilities is unknown.'' When Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Under Secretary Frank Libutti testified in March before the subcommittee, he said the key in working with the chemical industry was ``partnership'' between the Federal Government and the private sector. Yet almost in the next sentence, he said industry needs to ``belly-up'' when it comes to paying for improved security. What kind of partnership is that? We should be taking action now instead of rolling the dice hoping that an attack against a chemical plant does not happen. My amendment also includes $50 million for hiring additional Federal air marshals. The administration has failed to meet its goal for hiring air marshals. In fact, the administration has allowed the number of air marshals to drop by 9 percent this year. With numerous terrorist threats against our airlines and a 6-percent increase in the number of flights, why allow the number of critical flights covered by Federal air marshals to drop? Since 9/11, the administration has increased the threat level risk to Code Orange six times. On September 1, Secretary Ridge spoke before the American Legion's national convention and said: Terrorists in the 21st century represent a daunting enemy. They represent no country, no cause, no flag, no people--yet they have access to a steady supply of technologies, and funds, and willing recruits. They are undeniably methodical and maniacal in both their weaponry and will. They seek to use chemical, biological and nuclear weapons . . . and before them lays a map of the world. Mr. President, according to the New York Times, on September 7, Vice President Cheney said: It's absolutely essential eight weeks from today, on November 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States. What an irresponsible, what an utterly irresponsible statement for a Vice President of the United States, or for any public officer, to make. Think of that. Let's read that again. According to the New York Times, on September 7, Vice President Cheney said: It's absolutely essential eight weeks from today, on November 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States. How utterly irresponsible. What an irresponsible statement for a public officer to make. If the Vice President were all that interested in homeland security, rather than political posturing, he would be urging his Republican colleagues to support this amendment. The President has said he would do ``whatever it takes'' to defend America. If the President was being straight with the American people when he said that, he would be supporting--he would be supporting--this amendment. He would support it. It provides $2 billion for a targeted set of programs. It implements several 9/11 Commission recommendations. The amendment funds programs that have been authorized by the Congress but not funded by the President. We cannot make America safer with empty promises. We cannot make America safer with duct tape. My amendment funds the bricks and mortar of a strong homeland defense. It could save countless lives and it offers real security, not just empty rhetoric. What could be wrong with spending a little more to protect the American people? What could be wrong with keeping a promise? What could be wrong with actually doing ``whatever it takes''? I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. BYRD. I recall it.