Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

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. I thank the Senator. Go ahead.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I would like to ask a question of either the manager of the bill or the majority leader. According to the agreement, an up-or-down vote did not seem to be agreed to on the amendment.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, first, I thank my esteemed colleague and dear friend, Senator Ted Stevens, for his characteristic courtesy, and for his friendship, and for the cooperation he has shown to me over many years of working together. I thank him for joining with me, last year, in reporting out of our committee all appropriations bills before the close of July. I thank all of the Republican members as well as the Democratic members of my committee who voted unanimously to report those 13 bills out of the Appropriations Committee, without a single vote cast against those bills. I am sorry that the situation has developed, as it has, when I must oppose the distinguished Senator's amendment. I always do whatever I have to do to meet my own conscience and to deal with requirements that are incumbent upon me as the chairman of the committee or as the ranking member of the committee, whichever is my role at the particular time. I do not like to be in a position of differing with my friend from Alaska, but there are times when we do have to differ. In this case, I find myself at odds with him, but I want to say here that it is only for the purposes of advancing this bill. It certainly does not cut across our friendship, as far as I am concerned, when I have to differ with Senator Stevens, and differ with him vigorously. He is still my friend. I understand what he has to do, as he sees his responsibilities. And I have to do what I have to do as I see my responsibilities. Our friendship is unaffected. I want to assure him of that, as far as I am concerned. Last July, almost 6 months ago, the Senate Appropriations Committee completed action on all 13 of our appropriations bills, each on a bipartisan unanimous vote. These bills restored essential funding for programs that the President proposed to cut. We provided $1.1 billion more than the President requested for veterans medical care. We restored the $8.6 billion cut proposed by the President in highway funding. The President proposed only a 1 percent increase for education programs. He would have turned the No Child Left Behind bill into another unfunded mandate. Our bill provided a 6 percent increase for education, including key funding to reduce class size. We included sufficient funding to keep Amtrak operating. We restored over $1 billion of cuts that the President proposed for State and local law enforcement programs. We fully funded the President's proposed increases for homeland security programs, but we provided the funds through existing programs that our Nation's fire and police organizations support. We provided a significant increase for the Securities and Exchange Commission in order to investigate corporate fraud. We provided $400 million for election reform. Now this White House believes that these increases represent wasteful and unnecessary spending. Last year this White House worked with the House Republican leadership to slow the appropriations process down. The House has not passed a regular appropriations bill in nearly 6 months. Let me repeat that. The House of Representatives has not passed a regular appropriations bill in nearly 6 months. The domestic agencies of the Government are now operating under the sixth--the sixth--continuing resolution, which expires on Friday, January 31. My friend, Senator Ted Stevens--who is the very able ranking minority member of the Appropriations Committee, who will soon succeed me as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and who has already succeeded me as President pro tempore of the Senate--and I worked together to produce those 13 bi-partisan bills last summer. Each of those 13 appropriations bills was reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee with a unanimous vote--not a single vote cast against any one of the 13 appropriations bills. After the election, however, the President indicated his determination to limit discretionary spending to the arbitrary figure of $751.3 billion. This level will necessitate cuts of $9.8 billion from 11 of the bills approved last July. After providing for modest increases for homeland security programs, the substitute that Senator Stevens is forced to offer provides for a virtual freeze in all other domestic spending. I oppose the $9.8 billion cut that is contained in the substitute. The needs of the American people for homeland security, for education, for transportation, for veterans, for public health, and for other programs have not gone away. The needs are still there as plain as ever. I am not being critical of my colleague, Senator Stevens. I am not being critical of the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Mr. Young of Florida. However, the President has now thrown down the gauntlet and is insisting on a $9.8 billion reduction, resulting in cuts in priority programs designed for what? Designed to defend our homeland, to educate our children, to improve our transportation systems, and strengthen our law enforcement programs. I am extremely disappointed, not with Senator Stevens or the other members of the Senate Appropriations Committee or my friend, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Mr. Young, or his ranking member, Mr. Obey, but with this administration, with this White House and its lack of vision and knowledge regarding the needs of the people of this country. With great fanfare, the President signed numerous authorization bills this year that would increase spending demands for many of these same important programs. Last January he signed the No Child Left Behind Act with great fanfare. The President signed the No Child Left Behind Act which had passed the Senate 87 to 10 and which endorsed additional resources in important education programs for our children. Last May, the President, Mr. Bush, signed a border security bill with great fanfare, which had passed the Senate 97 to nothing, which authorized strengthening glaring and dangerous weaknesses in our border security. Last July, President Bush signed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act which had passed the Senate 89 to nothing, and which addressed shameful corporate fraud that bilks innocent people. In October, Mr. Bush signed the election reform bill with great fanfare which had passed the Senate 92 to 2 to help State governments overhaul the Nation's outdated and corruptible electoral system. In November, President Bush signed legislation which had passed the Senate 95 to nothing to improve security at our ports. Yet in order to reduce our bills by $9.8 billion, the omnibus legislation that we will consider this week will cut education by $1.5 billion. It will cut homeland security programs by $1 billion, including cuts of $627 million for border security, $23 million from port security and $132 million from first responder funds. It will cut Securities and Exchange Commission funding below the levels in Senator Hollings' bill by $94 million. This omnibus legislation will reduce Head Start funding by $202 million. It will reduce job training by $534 million. It will reduce low income home energy assistance by $300 million. The new omnibus bill will cut Amtrak funding by $374 million, a level that will result, I am told, in the termination of Amtrak service. In addition, the bill includes 1.6 percent across the board cut on all domestic programs. This represents a $435 million cut in the National Institutes of Health. It represents a $182 million cut to Education for the Disadvantaged. It represents a $372 million cut in Veterans Medical Care. On top of these cuts, every homeland security initiative in this package is reduced by 1.6 percent. This is no way to govern. We must move forward on this legislation. As much as I chafe about these mindless cuts, we cannot allow the domestic agencies of our government to continue operating on automatic pilot for the rest of the fiscal year. The people elected us to make choices about how we invest their tax dollars. There will be amendments offered in the coming days to restore some of the cuts contained in the substitute to be offered by Senator Stevens for homeland security, for education, and for other worthy programs. I urge Members to consider these amendments carefully and to ponder the impact of the reductions in this bill. These should not be up or down party-line votes. When the Congress passed, with broad bi-partisan votes, and President Bush signed, authorization bills for homeland security, for port security, for border security, for investigating corporate fraud, and for No Child Left Behind, we all recognized that these programs required adequate resources. We did not vote to address these critical problems with rhetoric alone. We have heard plenty of rhetoric. We collectively decided that these were real problems that needed real solutions. To solve these problems requires resources, not empty promises. I urge every Member to reflect on their support of these authorization bills as they decide how to vote on amendments that will be offered in the coming days. Let's make the rhetoric match the resolve. While I oppose the $9.8 billion in cuts which are being required by the administration as the price to move these bills, I recognize that an even worse alternative is to fail in our duty to enact appropriation bills and allow the United States Government to operate without sufficient funding for the remainder of this fiscal year. I believe my colleague, Senator Stevens, is of a similar frame of mind. He is doing what he sees as his duty. He is a good soldier. He has my profound empathy. This is the U.S. Senate. We are 100 Senators who have taken an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. We serve with Presidents. We don't serve under any President, I have served with 11 Presidents, not under any President. The votes that we will take on this important legislation, especially those relating to the defense of our homeland and the education of our children, are not about politics. They are about doing what is right and what was promised to the people of this country. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the $9.8 billion of cuts contained in the substitute compared to the fiscal year 2003 bills reported last July by unanimous vote in the full Appropriations Committee, be printed in the Record.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this Nation faces a turning point as we are challenged once again by the threat of attack on our shores. We know that terrorists live among us. Yet we do not know where they will strike, or when, or how they will strike. With endless warnings in mind, and with a clear realization of our many homeland security gaps, it is time that Congress invest the necessary resources in homeland security to match its rhetoric and to match the rhetoric of this administration. So I have offered an amendment that would accomplish three goals: First, it would restore the $1 billion in reductions in homeland security initiatives made from the original committee-passed appropriations bills and for which every member of the Appropriations Committee voted--every member, 29 members of the Appropriations Committee, with 15 Democrats and 14 Republicans. Second, it would restore much of the $2.5 billion in emergency homeland security funds that passed this Congress overwhelmingly in the summer of last year, but which was rejected by this White House. Finally, this amendment would fund the priorities that Congress has found so necessary and that President Bush has signed into law. This amendment would fund the Airport Security Act that created the Transportation Security Administration and placed rigorous, new safety standards on the Nation's airports. This amendment would fund the border security authorization bill that passed the Senate by a vote of 97 to 0 and that President Bush signed into law last May. This amendment would fund the port security authorization bill that passed the Senate by a vote of 95 to 0 and that President Bush signed into law last November. These dollars address our Nation's most critical needs. These funds would help to shore up our Nation's defenses and save lives at home. The Congress has voted to create the Department of Homeland Security, but that Department is months--if not years--away. I read in the Washington Post today about the slowdown in the fulfillment of that dream, but that Department is months--if not years--away from being a strong defense against terrorist attacks. There are many details to be worked out. We cannot wait to address gaps in our Nation's defenses while this new Department is organized. Terrorists will not wait to attack. We cannot afford delay. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the amendment be printed in the Record at this point so that all Senators, members of the press, and the people at large may read on tomorrow the contents of the amendment.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Yes, he does. I understand that. I had hoped to suggest the absence of a quorum, but he does retain the floor. I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for 1 minute.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, do I have the floor?

Mr. BYRD. He made a request, but he sent something to the desk, didn't he?

Mr. BYRD. Then the resolution is not before the Senate. There is nothing before the Senate that can be amended at this point.

Mr. BYRD. Parliamentary inquiry: Is the resolution before the Senate?

Mr. BYRD. The request is an all-encompassing request. It doesn't give the Senate a chance to amend the resolution? That is what I am trying to find out.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I hope the leaders will provide some time for debate. The majority leader has made a unanimous consent request. Senators are reserving the right to object. They have no right to yield to other Senators when they are reserving the right to object. Let's have an orderly procedure here.

Mr. BYRD. What is the regular order?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. What are the resolutions? Will the clerk state them.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I call attention to the fact that the motion to reconsider is not being made. I think it should be made so that the record will so read. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for his kind words of praise. But let me say some good words about him. That is why I have sought to interrupt him. The Senator has come to the Senate and brings with him a marvelous background of knowledge--knowledge of space, space flight, and our explorations into space. He is not by any means as long in his experience in this great country as I am. I can remember when Lindbergh flew across the ocean in 1927, I believe on May 9. When he launched that flight in the Spirit of St. Louis, the New York Times had a headline, if I remember, that said Lindbergh flew across New York City--or perhaps it was Nova Scotia--at the ``tremendous'' speed of 100 miles an hour. That man, when he flew across the ocean--sometimes 10 feet above the water, sometimes probably 10,000 feet above the water--he had a payload of about 5,500 pounds; he had about five sandwiches, and he ate a half of one on his way across the water. That was a lonely man. But now this man from Florida, who graces this Chamber, flew in space at the tremendous speed, I would imagine, of about 18,000 miles an hour. So as we in high school used to talk about that flivver--there were not many flivvers in that day. A few automobiles were owned by high-ranking officials in the coal mining community, and they spoke of that automobile coming down Sofia Mountain at the speed of a mile a minute. Here is this man who has come to us and has flown at the tremendous speed of 18,000 miles an hour. He has also brought with him a deep respect of the Constitution of the country, a deep respect for this institution. I thank God, as we near Thanksgiving Day, for pioneers like this man, Senator Nelson of Florida. He is a pioneer in space. We have thankfulness to him and other men like him, such as the Presiding Officer who comes from Illinois; they both came over from the other body. So many of us came from the other body, and so many of us, I am sorry to say--especially those who have come lately--seem to think this body should be another House of Representatives. I should not get started on that. But I thank the distinguished Senator, my dear friend, for his kind references to me and the context in which he made those references. I hope I can live up to his faith and his accomplishments. I thank him for the Senator he is and the American that he is as we near Thanksgiving Day in a land for which we have so much to be grateful.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, before the distinguished Senator proceeds, if he would allow me to interrupt him for a comment.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, earlier this year, I wrote to a number of constitutional scholars advising them that I was concerned about reports that our Nation was coming closer to war with Iraq. I asked a number of esteemed academics their opinion as to whether they believed that the Bush administration had the authority, consistent with the U.S. Constitution, to introduce U.S. Armed Forces into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power. All of the scholars I consulted responded by stating that, under current circumstances, the President did not have such authority. Several of the professors I consulted, namely Peter Raven-Hansen of George Washington University Law School, and Philip Trimble, Professor Emeritus of the UCLA School of Law, were kind enough to call and discuss their views on this subject with my office. I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for taking the time to provide me with their thoughts on this matter. While those professors contacted me by phone, others provided written responses. I have previously submitted for the Record the responses of professors Michael Glennon of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts, Jane Stromseth of Georgetown University Law Center, Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School, and William Van Alstyne of the Duke University School of Law. Now, I would like to submit four additional responses I received on this same subject from professors Jules Lobel of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, Thomas M. Franck of the New York University School of Law, Bruce Ackerman of Yale Law School, and Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia. I found their analyses of this important issue to be exceptionally learned and informative. For this reason, I ask unanimous consent that their responses be printed in the Record.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am grateful indeed for these encomiums being said by my colleagues. I deeply appreciate what the distinguished majority leader has just said. I appreciate his friendship on this day and the friendship of so many of my colleagues. I shall always treasure the words he has spoken on this day. Oh, to be 70 again. The Lord has blessed me. I see his blessing in each of us. He has blessed me extraordinarily. Plato thanked the gods for his being a man. He also thanked the gods for his being a Greek. And he thanked the gods for having permitted him to live in the age of Sophocles. Well, I thank God on this day for what he has given to me. And I don't deserve it. I don't deserve the things God has given to me. But for God, but for Him and his gracious mercy, I could have been in a penitentiary today; I could have been dead today many times over. It was a mother's wish that I be given to the wonderful couple who raised me. That mother died on the night of Armistice Day, November 11, 1918. I was just a week short of being a year old. To go on, I thank God for a wife of more than 65 years. I am trying to think of a great Greek. The name starts with an A. He was a great orator. It was not Aristides. It was a very common name in ancient history, but when he in a speech could not think of the right word, he paused until the right word came to his mind. He paused. He was not like today's speakers, many of whom when they cannot think of a right word they say: You know, you know, you know. That is a mind that is not in sync with the tongue--you know, you know, you know. Not this man, a great--Alcibiades. No. Anyhow, I thank God for having spared my life on many occasions and for giving me the opportunity to serve in this body. I say to the distinguished Senator in the Chair, who has been here only a few days and who will be with us but a few days more, I could go home today, and I could write a letter to the Disbursing Office and say I am retiring tomorrow. I doubt that I would know the difference in my check that I get every month, twice a month. I doubt that I would know the difference between that check after I had gone home and sat down with my wife of 65 years, who is probably worrying, and in some manner of thinking that is where I ought to be, but I would get practically the same amount of money I would receive as a Senator. So I am not here today for my payroll, and I probably could earn much more money not being Senator or go on some board or be a lobbyist, if I ever deign to be one. I could probably get a lot more money. I do have grandchildren, and my wife and I have great-grandchildren. I probably ought to try to leave them as much money as I can leave them. But that has never been my desire. Wealth has never been a goal of mine. My only goal is to serve this country, and I have been here 50 years come this January 3. Having studied the history of the Romans, the Greeks, the Persians, the people of the British Isles, and our own colonial forebears, my roots of love and admiration and respect for this country's Constitution, this country's history, colonial history, our forebears is so deep with me. That is why I am here. I want to say that in the vote last evening, of which we had nine votes--who saw the same thing as I saw at the end--I saw on TV this morning that four of those nine were the oldest in seniority Members of the Senate: Byrd, Kennedy, Hollings, and Inouye, the four oldest and senior. Paul Sarbanes, our dear friend from Maryland among the nine, but these are the four senior Democrats, and they voted as I did. Do you think we collaborated about that? Does the Chair think--I am not asking for an answer; the Chair cannot respond--but does the Chair for a moment think that these nine Senators talked ahead of the vote and said: Will you vote this way? I am going to vote this way. I hope you will vote this way. How are you going to vote? Never a word. I never knew who those Senators were going to be and did not know who they were until after the vote. I say that to say this: I serve here because I want to serve here and because the people of West Virginia want me to serve. They do not all agree with me. I do not seek to curry favor at home or here. But I do what I think best, and I like that Constitution. I want to compliment, I want to express my deep appreciation to those other eight Senators on this side of the aisle, one of them an Independent, Jim Jeffords of Vermont. These men gave up something when they did that. They are going to meet that vote down the road probably one day when they run for reelection. Did it deter them? No, not for a moment. Nor did they do it because I asked them to do it. I would not have had the temerity to ask them to do it. I would have no business asking them to do that. I spoke my mind, they spoke theirs, and they voted their way. Some of the Senators came to me afterward and while the vote was going on and said: Senator, I have been with you down to this point, but I am going to vote for this bill. They were kind enough--they did not have to do that. They did not have to come to me and tell me they were going to vote that way. I had them come right here to me and say: Senator, I am going to leave you on this one. I have been with you thus far, but looking at the overall picture, I am going to vote the other way. It was nice of them to do that. I thought it showed a tremendous respect for my viewpoint, and they did it on their own. They did not owe me anything. They did not need to tell me how they were going to vote. But how good of them to come to me and say: I am going to vote the other way. Does the Senator from North Dakota wish to speak again? I will be happy to yield. I have said about everything I want to say. I am going to yield the floor now, but I just want to pay homage to these other eight Senators. I am sure it was more difficult for any one of them to vote against the homeland security bill than it was for me because I cut this out in the beginning. I saw where it was going. I was determined not to be for this kind of thing because it was shifting power from the legislative branch to the executive branch. I am not for that. I was not at the beginning when I first said we ought to have a Department of Homeland Security. That was the course I took. If it meant standing alone, that was all right. I did not mind being the only vote against it. But I never did it with any thought that my speeches would change anybody's mind. That was not it. Why did I speak that way, knowing that this was almost a foregone conclusion? Not because I was trying to convince any of my colleagues or believing that my speeches would. I spoke for my grandchildren, for my grandchildren's grandchildren, and for future Senators who will be in this body. The record that was made will be a record until the crack of doom, be it 1,000 years, 10,000 years, or a million. If this Republic still exists, those words will be there. That is not my words so much that count, but these were words in support of the Constitution of the United States and of the institution of the Senate. That was my total feeling. I was well rewarded, exceedingly well rewarded, with the supporting votes of eight other Senators, and the supporting thoughts and words of Senators on this side even beyond that. So I was well paid. I pay homage to these Senators who stood on their feet and reached this conclusion themselves. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, before the distinguished Democratic whip speaks, I feel I must say this, and I must say it now, right at this point. Here is a true son of Athens. This is a true son of Sophocles, and Socrates and Plato and, yes, one more. I had it on my tongue just a moment ago. Not Alcibiades, but a man whose name I was trying to think of earlier. It came to me while the Senator was speaking. I am sorry because this really is ruined by what I wanted to say. That great Greek who left Athens and who went to the--what was that other part of Greece that had the emphasis always on----

Mr. BYRD. Yes, went to Sparta. He went to Sparta. But anyhow, I just wanted to make reference to that and how this man who has been here--we have worked together so long, and now he said these things. I keep being bothered in what I am saying. I am trying to come up with the name. It will come to me.