Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. It will. It will.

Mr. BYRD. Absolutely.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Illinois. He stood with me when we opposed the Iraq resolution, and we stand together today. Let me say this, Mr. President: This is not the last word with respect to sending our men and women across the seas to fight a war that has been unprovoked. We have not been attacked. We will have more to say about that later. We do need to protect this homeland. This amendment will do that. The Senate is at a crossroads. We face a choice: Will we allow partisan politics to rule the day or will we step up to the responsibility to respond to the growing security crisis facing our country? Of course, this administration is not going to support me in this amendment. The administration has opposed every effort I have made in the past to add moneys for homeland security. The administration, the White House, would not let their key point man on homeland security come before the Appropriations Committee in the Senate last year. They said: He is a staff person. Yes, he was, but he was the administration's point man on homeland security. They kept him from coming. Then when we tried to appropriate more money--unanimously--in the committee, what did we get? We got veto threats from this administration. Now, what does that tell you about this administration? They don't want to work with the Congress. They want to have it their way all the way. They don't want to admit there are weaknesses, admit Congress can be right, and is right on many occasions. No, we don't expect them to support this amendment. They have not supported our amendments in the past. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes, and then I want to yield to the distinguished Senator from Washington. I thank the distinguished Democratic leader for his contribution today. I thank both the leader and the assistant leader for what they have contributed to this debate. Mr. President, we talk about sending our troops, men and women, fathers, brothers, husbands, wives, overseas to fight a war in Iraq. We talk as though it is just a video game. Nobody raised a question. We don't hear a whimper--not a whimper. We see the pictures on television every day. These people are going away. We see them kissing. We see them waving goodbye. We see them shedding tears. We know that those tears are shed at night on those pillows. There seems to be no thought to the sacrifices that may be in the offing for this country. They talk as though it is a video game, just a matter of pushing a few buttons and we will win. Well, now, we may be lucky. If we go to war, we may be lucky. I hope we will be lucky. But what if we are not lucky? Where will those who are silent now be? Why don't they raise their voice now? Why don't we ask questions? I am not one to be driven in a hole. We hear a lot about driving them in the holes and we will go in and get them. Our men--our men--will go in and get them. We talk about driving the enemy into holes in Afghanistan and in Iraq--we will drive them into holes. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. We will drive them in the holes; we will go get them. Who is ``we''? It is not I. I don't think I will be going in those holes, driving anybody out. It is going to be those poor men and women who are giving up their salaries as lawyers, as doctors, as teachers, as security people, as law enforcement people, as firemen--they are the people who are going in those holes in Afghanistan. They are the people who are going to go into those holes and bringing out the enemy. We talk as though it is a video game. I hope and I pray to God that if we do go to war with Iraq, we will be lucky. I hope Saddam will catch the first plane out to Libya or to some other country. I hope he will. But what if he doesn't? We have to contemplate that. So I think it is our responsibility here in the Congress to do two things at least: Raise questions, and provide the money for the security of this homeland. We don't know what will happen to this homeland once we open fire in the hot sands of the deserts in the Middle East. We don't know what may break out in this country. Are our water resources fully protected? Are our energy resources fully protected? Are our nuclear facilities fully protected? Are our borders secure? Are our ports secure? Are our airports secure? Are our people secure? No. And here we strain at a gnat and swallow a camel when it comes to fighting and protecting ourselves on the homeland. How many here, right here in this Chamber today, will feel secure in this very Chamber in the future? I say we had better stop, look, and listen while there is time to stop, look, and listen. I will have plenty more to say on that subject. But on the subject of homeland security, let it not be said that we are not doing our very best to give this administration all the tools it needs, all that it can possibly usefully use, all that it can possibly efficiently use, to protect this homeland of ours. And who will say that this land is fully protected? Who feels secure in this homeland of ours today? Ask your wives. Ask your mothers if they feel secure. And here we are, quibbling over $5 billion. Nobody is going to put you in jail if you don't spend it. But if you need to spend it and don't--don't have it, and if you haven't spent it already, why haven't you? Surely we are not perfect. Surely we are not absolutely secure. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator wish? How much time does the Senator from Washington want?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished chair. I yield time to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. BYRD. I realize my leader is in the Chamber and wishes to speak on leader time, and we have other Senators who wish to speak. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BYRD. Not for the moment. I will shortly. Mr. President, I don't hear a whimper from the Congress which only a short time ago attempted to give up its constitutional power to declare war to one man. He will determine when, how, and where our military forces will be used in an unprovoked war against a sovereign state that has not attacked us in this new doctrine of preemption. It is a new doctrine. This Senator is just not going to take this lying down. I don't care how popular Mr. Bush may be. I answer to my constituents, I answer to my Constitution, and I answer to my conscience. Here we are penny pinching when it comes to protecting the homeland. This administration is not paying enough attention to the protection of the homeland--our country, our people, our institutions, our installations. I think it is time we called the hand of this administration. If the administration says: We don't need any more money, we are awash with money, well, then, if the administration has not spent essential funds approved by the Congress over 1 year ago for homeland security, the Senate Appropriations Committee ought to be holding hearings to find out why. Let's find out why. We need these homeland security resources now to meet real needs that have been authorized by the Congress for port security, airport security, border security, nuclear security. I understand the Senator would like for me to yield. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BYRD. I yield myself whatever time I need from my time. It is time somebody says something about what is going on in this country.

Mr. BYRD. I see my distinguished chairman and I will be glad to yield the floor for now.

Mr. BYRD. I yield myself an additional 2 minutes. The President said: Wait, we can wait until 2003 to begin spending more on homeland security. Now it is 2003. What is the President saying? He is saying: Let's wait until 2004. Now the administration is saying we don't need more money for fiscal year 2003 because the administration has not spent some of the money that was appropriated for fiscal year 2002. The administration is leaving itself wide open to justified criticism when it maintains that. So it is saying we don't need more money because the administration has not spent some of the money that was appropriated for fiscal year 2002. What poppycock. If the administration has not spent essential funds approved by the Congress over 1 year ago for homeland security, then the Senate Appropriations Committee should be holding hearings to find out why. Where does the fault lie? Who is right here? Who is wrong? What are we doing? Very little is being said on the part of the administration these days about protecting the homeland. Everything is go, go, go, go, go. They are sending off our National Guardsmen. We see the tears streaming down the cheeks of the wives and the children and of the guardsmen and reservists themselves. We see this on television every day or so. These people are part-time soldiers, but they are full-time community workers. They are lawyers. They are doctors. They are firemen. They are policemen. They are State policemen. These people are being sent overseas to fight a war in Iraq, an undeclared war on the part of the Congress.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New York. I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Two more minutes.

Mr. BYRD. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. Recently, former Senators Rudman and Hart released a report that concluded that American transportation, water, food, power, communications, and banking systems remain easy targets for terrorist attacks. The report highlighted the vulnerabilities created by the miniscule fraction of trains, ships, trucks and containers that are searched for weapons of mass destruction; poor radio communications and equipment and training for police, fire, and emergency medical personnel; inadequate coordination and focus on threats to food safety; lack of lab capacity to test for biological or chemical contaminants; and insufficient sharing of intelligence information with State and local governments on potential terrorist threats. Not only has President Bush failed--failed, failed--to lead the Nation in addressing these vulnerabilities, he has in fact actively opposed efforts to provide the resources necessary to address these significant weaknesses. The record will show that. When it comes to homeland defense, the President is strong on rhetoric and weak on resources. The record will substantiate that statement of mine. Under pressure from the White House since September 11, 2001, $8.9 billion of critical funding to address the specific concerns identified in the Rudman-Hart report and in our bipartisan Senate Appropriations Committee hearings have been squeezed out of spending bills considered by the Congress. In November of 2001, just 2 months after the attacks of September 11, the President said: Wait.

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

Mr. BYRD. I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. I yield on the Senator's time.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. How much time does the Senator from New York want?

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield? Does the Senator still have time?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. President, I have listened to my distinguished friend, and he is my friend, but remember that my friend from Alaska said in December a year ago: Now, 4 months have already passed. We have 8 months. Let's wait until 2003. We have already gone through 4 months. Let's wait until 2003. Now we are hearing the same argument, may I say, from my dear friend: Let's wait until 2004. We cannot wait. The distinguished chairman refers to the fact that the President will not like this either. Well, I accord this President the same respect I accord any other President. This President is not infallible, nor is any other President we have ever had. The problem with what I see in this administration is they want to have it their way with every comma, semicolon, colon, and hyphen. They do not want the Congress to come forward with anything. They are against anything we propose. They have been against everything we have proposed thus far. Let's take their own argument and turn it on its head. Congress has approved $365 billion for Defense. That is a lot of money. We have never squeezed a penny. We have never denied Defense anything. We do not deny the Defense Department anything they want. When they come up and want more money, we give them more money, almost without questions asked. On top of the $365 billion for Defense that we have provided, this bill adds $3.9 billion. That is $3.90 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. Can the Defense Department spend that money? My distinguished chairman asks, can this Government responsibly spend this additional money that Senator Byrd is asking for in this amendment? Well, I ask the same question: Can the Department of Defense spend the money? Can it spend $3.9 billion more? Yes. We are adding $5 billion for homeland defense on homeland security-- the security of your people, Mr. President, my people, my children, our installations, our institutions, our borders, our country. Can we spend that money, $5 billion for homeland defense and homeland security? Yes, they can spend it, and spend it well. Let something happen, and then we will see what the polls show. If something happens, let the American people then take a look backward and see how this Congress sought to add monies for border security, for airport security, for homeland security, for port security. Those are monies the administration threatened to veto. It turned its back on them. It turned its back on the $2.5 billion last year. The President refused to sign a bill that provided $2.5 billion for emergency planning. He turned the back of his hand. He turned his back on his own country when he turned down that opportunity to give $2.5 billion for homeland security, to put it in the hands at the local level, the law enforcement people, the health personnel, the people at the local level. He flatly rejected it. Let something happen, and then see what the polls show. Then see where the questions are asked. Then hear what the answers will be. I say a stitch in time saves nine. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BYRD. That is true. And not only the agencies in the executive department, but the distinguished Senator from Utah, for example, talked about cybercrime, cyberterrorism, the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett. He is a very knowledgeable Senator on this subject. So in this amendment we have $70,600,000 to combat cybercrime and cyberterrorism. We have taken this from testimony at last spring's homeland security hearings. These are funds that were blocked-- blocked--by the President in the $2.5 billion supplemental. Hear me now. Who asked for this money? Senators on that side of the aisle have maintained that this is a very, very worthy cause; we need to combat cybercrime and cyberterrorism. This amendment is trying to respond to that need that was evidenced by Senator Bennett at the hearings. Everybody knows we have a language translation problem in the services. We have heard that from all sources in the hearings that were held by the Appropriations Committee last spring. We heard it from the people at the local level. They could not talk with one another. And there are problems in language translation. So this was a Hart-Rudman report recommendation, and this amendment is trying to respond to that. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I say to the leader, how long ago was it we heard the President of the United States saying, no price is too great a price to pay for freedom? Right? When they talk about war in Afghanistan, they talk about war in Iraq, no price is too great a price to pay. Where are those voices now from the administration? Where are the voices that say no amount of money is too much to pay? What about this? What amount of money is too much to pay for homeland security? Who knows but when the first shot ricochets in the war against Iraq--which Congress is not declaring--when that first shot is fired, is it possible we may hear some shots fired in our own country; that we may see the terrorists come out of hiding; we may see them come from the veil; we may see them come forward? What will happen then? What will happen then to this Capitol? What saved this Capitol from being demolished on September 11? A few brave men and women on that plane that went down in Pennsylvania saved this Capitol. Who is to say that these terrorists--we don't have them among us now? Who can say there are not terrorists out here now, waiting, just waiting, waiting for the moment? And here the people downtown, when it comes to homeland security, when it comes to the protection of our homeland, when it comes to the protection of our families, when it comes to the protection of our churches, our schools, our stores, our jobs--aha, $5 billion is too much to pay, too much to pay; we don't need it. If you don't need it, don't spend it, and let's have some hearings as to why it isn't spent. No price is too much to pay. No price is too much to pay for the security of this great land of ours. I thank the distinguished leader.

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield.

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield. How much time do I have, Mr. President?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on July 26, 2002, just 6 months ago, the Committee on Appropriations, on a unanimous, bipartisan vote reported a Transportation Appropriations bill that included $1.2 billion in funding for Amtrak. At that time, Amtrak had just weathered a severe financial crisis. Amtrak's President, Mr. David Gunn, testified before the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, just a few weeks into his tenure, and described to us the desperate financial conditions he found when he assumed control of the railroad. It was only through a combination of a $205 million supplemental appropriation that our Committee approved back in July, as well as a temporary loan by the Bush Administration against the railroad's 2003 appropriation, that the railroad survived and continues to run to this day. That Amtrak funding crisis served as a wake-up call for many of us in Congress as well as for the millions of Amtrak riders and the millions of commuter rail riders whose train service depends on a viable operating Amtrak system. However, when the new Republican majority drafted its new appropriations bill for the Transportation Department, it singled out Amtrak for a whopping $374 million cut, a reduction of over 31 percent. Amtrak's new President, David Gunn, has made clear in letters to me and to Senator Stevens, Senator Shelby, Senator Murray, and others that a funding cut of this kind will mean certain bankruptcy for Amtrak by this coming Spring. Now many Senators will speak on this amendment, including a great many that represent the states along the Northeast Corridor. These Members will speak to the impact of an Amtrak bankruptcy on the very fine rail service that we have between Boston and Washington, DC. These Members will speak on what a bankrupt Amtrak means for their daily commuter lines that are either operated by Amtrak under contract or operate over Amtrak's property. But as a Senator from West Virginia, I want to speak today on what Amtrak means to rural America. Amtrak does not just stop in cities like Boston, New York, and Washington, DC. Amtrak serves communities like Beckley, WV; Hinton, WV; Alderson, WV; Charleston, WV; Huntington, WV; Martinsburg, WV, and, Harpers Ferry, WV. These are some of the communities in my state that are served by Amtrak. I can tell you that for a great many of the citizens in those communities, the Amtrak train may be the only way into town and the only way out. When you talk about long-distance travel, the situation is no different in the great many other communities that are served by Amtrak: communities like Pascagoula, MS; Lordsburg, NM; Crestview, FL; Gilman, IL; Wilson, NC; Libby, MT; Winona, MN; Fort Morgan, CO; White Salmon, WA; Sun River, OR; Fulton, KY; Ardmore, OK; and Weaverville, CA. Many of the communities I have just named, like so many communities across the United States, were put on the map by the arrival of the freight railroads as they were built across our country east and west, north and south. Those communities continue to be connected to our national rail network and our national economy through Amtrak. The service may not be the kind of high speed, high comfort rail service that people have come to expect in the Northeast, but it is service that gets grandmothers to their grandchildren; it gets soldiers home to see their parents; it gets college students home for the holidays; and lest we forget, Amtrak moved Americans all over this country, immediately after September 11, when our aviation system was brought to a complete halt. We are now faced with a funding proposal to take all of rural America off of the national rail map and do away with passenger service in its entirety; not just in the heartland of America, but in the Northeast as well. I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to talk to the mayors of their towns on the Amtrak rail map and see how they feel about losing their daily service. At a time when rural communities across the country are suffering from economic isolation, ask the people of those communities if they want even greater isolation by losing their rail service. The Amendment that we have offered here today holds the promise of continued rail service and the promise that Amtrak's new president, Mr. David Gunn, will continue his efforts that he just started in getting the railroad's costs under control and creating a national network of which we all can be proud. I ask all of my colleagues to support this Amendment.