Floor Statements

Madam President, along with millions of Americans, I am acutely sensitive to the values of saving and hard work. Like citizens all across our country, many West Virginians devote their lives to acquiring and nurturing a family business or farm in order to pass it on to a son or daughter. These forward-looking Americans ought not to have to worry about their heirs losing the family heritage

because of the demands of the tax code. While I oppose full repeal of the estate tax, I had hoped to support a compromise measure that would exempt small businesses and farms.

In order to debate the estate tax repeal, and work on an amendment exempting small businesses and farms, I had hoped to vote for cloture on the motion to proceed. However, if cloture on the motion to proceed to the estate tax bill had been invoked, a compromise would not have been possible. The majority leadership indicated an intent to immediately file cloture on the underlying bill, and then to limit votes on amendments. The Senate would have then been forced to accept legislation that could have cost the U.S. Treasury up to $1 trillion over 15 years.

If a realistic estate tax repeal is ever to be enacted, the Senate must be allowed to fully debate and amend the estate tax repeal. Such a sweeping tax repeal should not be forced down the throat of the Senate without a thorough debate and the offering of reasonable amendments. Until such time as an understanding is reached to fairly debate the matter--including the offering of amendments--I must oppose taking up the bill.

Mr President, today I voted to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to debate the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Let me be clear: I have always strongly opposed same-sex marriage. I believe that there is much confusion about the role of the Federal Government and the institution of marriage, and that the public should have the benefit of a debate on the matter. It is my belief that the State of ``marriage'' can exist only between a man and a woman. The Bible tells us that marriage must be defined this way, and that the marriage vow between a husband and wife, meaning between a man and a woman, is sacred. I believe it. I have lived it. My darling wife Erma and I were married for nearly 69 years.

I also believe that any substantive debate on this issue must examine not only the marriage relationship between a man and a woman but also the constitutional relationship between States and the Federal Government. It is the role of the Federal Government to preserve each State's prerogative to make laws concerning marriage and the family, since this is an area of the law traditionally left to the States. This is the essence of federalism. The job of the Congress is to preserve and protect the legislative authority of each State, so that, for example, unions legal in another State cannot be foisted onto the God- fearing people of West Virginia.

Largely because I believe so strongly in protecting West Virginia's ability to legislate in this area, I have been, and continue to be, an ardent advocate of the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA. This law, which was passed by a bipartisan majority of the U.S. Congress and became law in September 1996, makes it clear that no State, including West Virginia, is required to give legal effect to any same-sex marriage approved by another State. DOMA also defines marriage for Federal purposes as being ``a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife,'' and a spouse as being only ``a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.''

I strongly endorse the principles codified by DOMA. Not surprisingly, in 2000, West Virginia enacted its own law against same-sex marriage, similar to DOMA. Thus, title 48 of the West Virginia Code now precludes the State of West Virginia from giving legal effect to unions of same- sex couples from other jurisdictions.

As a consequence, both State and Federal law now prevent same-sex marriage in West Virginia. With these laws on the books, I do not believe it is necessary to amend the U.S. Constitution to address this issue. States such as West Virginia already have the power to ban gay marriages. State marriage laws should not be undermined by the Federal Government. Thus, our goal should not be to lessen the power of the several States to define marriage, but to preserve that right by expressly validating the role that they have played in this arena for more than 200 years.

Mr. President, throughout the annals of human experience, the relationship of a man and woman joined in holy matrimony has been a keystone to the stability, strength, and health of human society. I believe in that sacred union to the core of my being.

Mr. President, among the beautiful, rolling-green hills of northern West Virginia is a little town with a big history. I am speaking of the town of West Union, the county seat of Doddridge County.

Once a center for railroading and other forms of transportation, as well as oil drilling, coal mining, and and other forms of businesses and manufacturing, West Union was an important and thriving commercial center in the late nineteenth century. Unfortunately, like too many small towns in West Virginia and across the country, West Union has fallen into some hard times.

Nevertheless, West Union retains its rich and colorful history. Indeed, the entire downtown district of West Union has been placed on the National Register of Historic Places. The downtown section contains buildings that feature a wealth of architectural styles, with four of them having been listed on the National Register. These historic buildings include the Doddridge County Court House with its Romanesque architecture, and the Silas Smith Opera House which was built at the turn of the last century and now serves as the county library.

For a small town in the hills of West Virginia, the town of West Union has been the home of a number of prominent American citizens. General Bantz Craddock, who rose to be the Commander of U.S. Southern Command and is responsible for military operations in the Caribbean, Central America, and South America, was raised in West Union.

For many years, West Union was the home to Clyde Ware, a novelist who has been actively involved in television and film production. In fact, Mr. Ware wrote and directed many episodes of what was one of my favorite television series, ``Gunsmoke.''

The town's most famous historic resident was the legendary Ephriam Bee. Mr. Bee was a pioneer, a blacksmith, the U.S. Postmaster for West Union, and the owner of a highly popular inn and restaurant, appropriately referred to as the ``Bee-Hive.'' At the age of 60, Mr. Bee served as captain of the Doddridge militia which protected the area from Confederate forces, thieves, and outlaws.

In 1863, Mr. Bee was elected to the West Virginia State Legislature, defeating Joseph H. Diss Debar, the person who later designed the State seal of West Virginia, which is still in use today, without change.

Another contest that Mr. Bee won was being named the Ugliest Man in the State of West Virginia. For that victory, he was awarded a beautiful pocket knife, a proud possession which he was forced to relinquish a few years later when the State found a man whom it deemed to be even uglier.

In 1845, Mr. Bee originated the Ancient and Honorable Order of E. Clampus Vitus, ECV, of which he became Grand Lama. ECV was originally formed as a secret order for playing practical jokes, but as it spread across the country, it took on different purposes and missions. Today, ECV has become an important historic preservation society, with more than 100,000 members.

Mr. Bee also operated an important station on the underground railroad. He hid his guests in a nearby cave until it was filled, then, it appears, he used ECV to create a diversion so that the escaped slaves could be sent on their way to freedom.

What became the town of West Union was originally settled in 1807. It was incorporated on July 20, 1881, which means the town of West Union will be celebrating its 125th anniversary this summer. The town will be using this milestone anniversary in an effort to promote and celebrate the town's history and as a jump start toward the economic revitalization of the town. The festivities are planned for July 22, and they promise to be a time of fun, entertainment, and education as the town wants to share its unique and colorful history with the world.

The town of West Union has adopted as a slogan, ``We love our history--that's why we're still making it!'' With its history--and its energetic, creative residents, I am confident that the town of West Union will be making history for a long time into the future.

I wish them the best on their 125th anniversary.

Mr. President, for how long am I to be recognized?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I yield to my distinguished friend from Montana so that he may speak for not to exceed 10 minutes, and that I then be recognized in my own right.

Mr. President, I thank my dear friend, Senator Baucus, for his kind remarks.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, for that lovely thought to which he refers by the great poet Longfellow, in his alluding to our former fellow colleague, Lloyd Bentsen.

I thank the Senator from Montana for speaking as he has about our late former colleague, Lloyd Bentsen.

Lloyd and I served in the House together, too. We had a great admiration for him there. I said, ``There is a young man going places''--and he went. He went places.

I join with my colleague, Senator Baucus, today in his message as words of reverence for Lloyd Bentsen, and for B.A., Lloyd's lovely wife. I suppose she is in Texas today.

I want to associate myself, again, may I say, with my colleague in every word he has chosen to speak about Lloyd Bentsen.

Mr. President, for how much time am I recognized?

Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I speak today in memory of our fallen heroes. Next Monday, the last Monday in May, the Nation honors the men and women who have given their lives in battle.

In the aftermath of the Civil War, the practice of decorating the graves of those who died in battle was already an established custom in many places, especially in the South, but it was a tribute to the healing of the Nation that both sides were able to put aside their past differences to mourn the fallen together after that terrible conflict.

Although many communities lay claim to being the birthplace of Memorial Day, since World War I, when the holiday changed from honoring just those who died fighting in the Civil War to honoring those who were lost in battle in any war--those Americans--Memorial Day belongs to us all.

Mr. President, death knows no divisions or political views. Death knows no distinctions between uniforms or battlegrounds. The Nation knew that all too well after the Civil War. Death unites the fallen-- death unites the fallen--in God's care. And death heaps grief and loss in equal measure on all those left to mourn.

It is a lesson that some strident few today need to be reminded of, as they use military burials as a place of protest. No matter what views one may hold about the current conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, or indeed of any conflicts anywhere, there is no place for intrusions during these solemn rites, no cause worth offering further pain to the families of the fallen.

The men and women in our military who don the uniform of the United States are not, as someone has so inelegantly put it, ``the deciders.'' They must, instead, put aside their personal views and focus on working seamlessly with the other members of their unit, so that the unit survives.

Every death is accompanied by stories of heroism, from the one who sacrificed his all to keep his fellow soldiers safe, to the heroes who brought the fallen home. No protests can change, and none should mar, those acts of bravery or those honored dead.

Memorial Day is a day to put aside our own schedules and to spend some time remembering those who have risked all and lost all in service to the Nation. It is a day to recall and revere their bravery, their duty, their strength, and their humanity. It is a day of tribute to them, and to their families, to whom the Nation owes so much.

The poet Joyce Kilmer, himself a sergeant with the ``Fighting 69th'' Division, who lost his own life in 1918 during World War I, wrote a poem called ``Memorial Day.''

The bugle echoes shrill and sweet,

But not of war it sings to-day.

The road is rhythmic with the feet

Of men-at-arms who come to pray.

The roses blossom white and red

On tombs where weary soldiers lie;

Flags wave above the honored dead

And martial music cleaves the sky.

Above their wreath-strewn graves we kneel,

They kept the faith and fought the fight.

Through flying lead and crimson steel

They plunged for Freedom and the Right.

May we, their grateful children, learn

Their strength, who lie beneath this sod,

Who went through fire and death to earn

At last the accolade of [Almighty] God.

In shining rank on rank arrayed

They march, the legions of the Lord;

He is their Captain unafraid,

The Prince of Peace . . . Who brought a sword.

Mr. President, all too often these days, Memorial Day is just another 3-day weekend, an opportunity to work on the yard a little bit, an opportunity to go shopping, or to host a backyard barbecue. Fewer and fewer Americans honor the men and women in uniform and their fallen compatriots. Fewer, still, visit military cemeteries or actually decorate graves in the old-fashioned way.

But for those who went to Arlington National Cemetery on Thursday, May 25, I say you may have witnessed the beautiful scene known as ``Flags-In.'' Just prior to each Memorial Day weekend, every available soldier from the 3rd U.S. Infantry Division, the Old Guard, honors their fallen brethren by placing a small American flag before each of the more than 220,000 gravestones and 7,300 niches at the cemetery's columbarium. An additional 13,500 flags are set in place at the Soldier's and Airman's Home National Cemetery, also in Washington, DC.

Flags are placed at the graves of each of the four individuals at the Tomb of the Unknowns by the tomb sentinels. Then, in order to ensure that each flag remains in place and standing proudly, the Old Guard patrols the cemetery throughout the weekend, watching over their fallen comrades. It is a stirring sight to see that, truly, none of these great sacrifices are forgotten, and to witness how seriously these young soldiers take their duty.

There will be speeches on Memorial Day--formerly referred to as Decoration Day. And I have made many of those speeches in my long years on Memorial Day. And on this coming Memorial Day, there will again be speeches, and wreaths will be laid. A moment of silence will be observed. For these few moments, our Nation both mourns and celebrates. Privately, we mourn the loss of so many young men and women, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, friends and relatives.

Our hearts and our prayers go out to all the families who have lost a loved one in the Nation's service, and especially to those families who have borne their tragedies so recently and whose tears are still so close to the surface.

The Senate's thoughts and prayers are also with those whose family members have been wounded and who fight now for their lives.

As a nation, we celebrate and we honor the patriotism and the heroism that have kept us free, kept us united, and kept us strong for these past two and a third centuries. It is on the shoulders of these brave legions of the fallen and their comrades in uniform, past and present, that our Nation is carried to greatness.

Technological and scientific progress is a source of pride and strength, economic prosperity a boon, and our Constitution--thank God-- a blessing. But none of these gifts is sustainable without the will and the resolve to defend them, to the death if necessary.

Those we honor on Memorial Day have gone that extra mile. They have worn the uniform with pride, and they have won and kept our freedom with their effort and their sacrifice. They have fought together around the globe, in the dark, in the mud, in the dust, on holidays, anniversaries, and weekends. Some have missed the births of their children. Some have missed growing old with their loved ones. They will enjoy no more 3-day weekends, no family vacations, no backyard barbecues. But in our moment of silence, as the flags snap in front of the rows upon rows of marble markers, let us think on all that they have given for us, and be humbled.

Edgar Guest, a prolific poet of the first half of the last century, wrote many favorite poems of mine. His work was published in the newspapers, for he worked for the Detroit Free Press. His poem, Memorial Day, suggests a fitting tribute to all those we honor on Memorial Day.

Let me read a few lines.

The finest tribute we can pay

unto our hero dead today,

is not a rose wreath, white and red,

in memory of the blood they shed;

it is to stand beside each mound,

each couch of consecrated ground,

and pledge ourselves as warriors true

unto the work they died to do.

Into god's valleys where they lie

at rest, beneath the open sky,

triumphant now o'er every foe,

as living tributes let us go.

No wreath of rose or immortelles

or spoken word or tolling bells

will do to-day, unless we give

our pledge that liberty shall live.

Our hearts must be the roses red

we place above our hero dead;

today beside their graves we must

renew allegiance to their trust;

must bare our heads and humbly say

we hold the flag as dear as they,

and stand, as once they stood, to die

to keep the stars and stripes on high.

The finest tribute we can pay

unto our hero dead today

is not of speech or roses red,

but living, throbbing hearts instead,

that shall renew the pledge they sealed

with death upon the battlefield:

that freedom's flag shall bear no stain

and free men wear no tyrant's chain.

Mr. President, I have another statement which I must give. I see the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, on the floor. I will yield to him if he wishes.

I thank the distinguished Senator for his characteristic courtesy.

Mr. President, Monday next is Memorial Day. Monday next, being May 29, my memory goes back to May 29, 1937. It was a Saturday. I was working in the meat shop as a meat cutter at the Koppers Store in Stotesbury, Raleigh County, WV. It was a coal mining community. I started working there in the gas station for Koppers Store for $50 a month. I walked 4 miles to work and 4 miles back home, unless I might catch a bread truck or a milk truck.

But on that Saturday, May 29, 1937, at 5 o'clock p.m., my two senior meat cutters at the Koppers Store in Stotesbury, WV, and I closed up the meat department and went home. I put on my best suit--actually, my only suit--and where did I go? I headed off to Sophia, 4 miles away, to the house of the local hard-shell Baptist preacher U.G. Nichols. And there I met with my high school sweetheart, Erma Ora James. May God bless her sweet memory. She was the beautiful daughter of a coal miner. This was a coal miner who helped to teach me to play the old fiddle tunes long ago: ``Sally Goodin,'' ``Mississippi Sawyer,'' ``Arkansas Traveler,'' and ``She'll Be Comin Round the Mountain,'' and so on.

At 6 o'clock that evening, Preacher Nichols pronounced Erma--God bless her sweet name--and me ``husband and wife.'' That union, I am very proud to say, endured for 68 years, 9 months, and 24 days. So on May 29, 3 days from now, Erma and I would have celebrated our 69th wedding anniversary. That is something to brag about. Dizzy Dean said it was all right to brag, if you have done it, and Erma and I did it. Erma didn't quite go all the way. But on May 29, Erma and I would have celebrated our 69th wedding anniversary. That is something not heard about very often these days, a 69th wedding anniversary.

The Scriptures tell us that ``whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing and obtaineth favour of the Lord.'' Well, on that blessed day in 1937--a long time ago--I certainly found a good thing. In looking back on the life that Erma and I shared, I can say, in accordance with the scriptural passage, that I must have been favored by the Lord.

``The joys of marriage are the heaven on earth,'' wrote the English dramatist, John Ford, five centuries ago. How right John Ford was. When I think of Erma, I still think of the beautiful line from a song that I used to hear and play, I believe, when I played the fiddle: ``She came like an angel from the sky.'' For almost 69 years, this angel from the sky not only tolerated me, but she was the guiding light for me. She was my teacher. She taught me how to drive an automobile. She was my banker, my accountant.

Very early in our marriage, as a matter of fact, on Sunday, the day after the Saturday evening on which Erma and I made our vows, I turned to her and said: ``Here is my wallet.'' I think I had saved up probably $300. I said: ``You keep it. When I need a dollar, I'll come to you and ask for it.'' That is the way it was, and that is the way it has been throughout our 69 years.

What a job she did from the meager paychecks, and they were meager. Can you imagine. I started at $50 a month, and by the time I married, I had advanced. I was getting $70 a month when I married that sweetheart. She bought from this meager paycheck the things that we needed, our groceries. She paid the bills. She saved some money for a rainy day, and she gave me a monthly allowance.

Erma was my greatest critic, and she was my greatest supporter.

When I left the West Virginia Legislature to come to Congress, the other body, the House of Representatives, and this body, which also makes up the Congress, I was carrying 22 credit hours at Marshall College, now Marshall University, but she, Erma, managed our little grocery store. She took care of our two daughters, and she kept the home fires burning.

When I was attending law school while serving in the U.S. Congress, she would drive from our home at that time in Arlington, VA. She would meet me on Capitol Hill here, around 5:30 p.m., and she would give me my supper. She brought it to me in a paper bag. I would eat my supper while Erma drove me in our car to American University Law School for my classes at 6 p.m. Then she would return later that evening, 8 o'clock or 9 o'clock, to pick me up and take me to our home in Arlington.

I also said, quite truly, that Erma had put three kids through school: our two daughters and me. Erma was the mother of two most wonderful children, my daughters Mona Carole and Marjorie Ellen. Marjorie Ellen was here yesterday with me as we had lunch with some friends in recognition--one might call it celebration, but I call it in recognition--of our 69th wedding anniversary. These two daughters have grown up to become outstanding women and mothers themselves. Marjorie was here with me and with her husband, John Moore. Like me, those daughters owe so much to the marvelous and wonderful woman they called ``mother.''

Through the years, Erma was my constant companion. She was there with me, by my side, on the campaign trails. She was with me in 1958 when, as

a Congressman, I made a tour of the economically depressed areas of the State and other parts of the country. She was with me in April 1969, in Mexico City, Mexico, when I served as a delegate to the Mexico-United States Interparliamentary Conference. She was with me on all my trips to Europe and Asia. She was always there. Erma was always there with me at my side.

She is with me today, I know. For nearly 69 years, that woman, the greatest woman I ever met--I have met queens and great women of the world--was with me. She was always with me. She is with me now, I know. For nearly 69 years, she was my comfort in times of sorrow. She was stoic and brave. She never flinched in times of trouble.

We have lived and loved together through many changing

years; we have shared each other's gladness and wept each

other's tears; I have known ne're a sorrow that was long

unsoothed by Erma; for thy smiles can make a summer where

darkness else would be.

I quoted from the lines of Charles Jeffries, ``We Have Lived and Loved Together.''

This quiet, self-contained coal miner's daughter confronted demonstrators and protesters in front of our home in Arlington. She spent many evenings alone when I had to stay late at the Capitol attending the Nation's business. She always was most comfortable with the unassuming, down-to-earth West Virginia folks, back in the hills of West Virginia, like those back in the hills of Kentucky from which my friend, Senator Mitch McConnell, comes. She met with kings and shahs, princes and princesses, Governors and Senators, Presidents. She entertained the high and the mighty, the powerful and the wealthy of this Nation in a foreign land because it was important to her husband who served as the majority leader of this Senate and various other Senatorial offices. She did it all with an innate, inherent graciousness, incredible patience, and a soft, warm smile. She was a remarkable lady of great wisdom, but most of all, great gentleness, yet she could be tough when she saw injustice or unfairness.

I was always so proud of her. In fact, the entire State of West Virginia took pride in Erma. That is why she was named West Virginia Daughter of the Year in 1990. Oh, could we call back the vanished years. And she was named West Virginia Mother of the Year a few years later.

Marriage is a sacred institution. It is more than the result of repeating a few vows. Marriage is an oath, an oath before God. I have admired the ancient Romans so much, as did Montesquieu, because they would not break an oath. They would go to their death rather than break an oath. The ancient Romans. So marriage is an oath before God, a sacred and noble contract between a man and a woman. Read it in the Bible.

It is a glorious commitment, a commitment of love, of caring, and of sacrifice. It is a commitment that Erma and I honored and enjoyed for almost 69 years, through the bad times as well as the good, down the rough roads as well as the smooth ones. Our life's journey was not always smooth and easy traveling. In fact, it was as bumpy at some times and as curvy as a West Virginia mountain road. But over the years, Erma and I learned that the challenge of a marriage is the ability to overcome imperfections, not just to ignore them. We always remembered our devotion to each other, despite our shortcomings and despite the difficulties we encountered along life's way.

And when Erma and I married on that blessed Saturday evening nearly 69 years ago, we were so proud and we were so poor that I could not even take a day off from work. We did not have the money for a honeymoon, so after the wedding we went to a square dance, where I played the fiddle and she danced. On Monday morning, where was I? I was back at work in the grocery store in that coal-mining camp of Stotesbury. I was back at the meat counter in a coal-mining camp of Stotesbury. Although our fortunes did change, allowing us the opportunity to celebrate our anniversary in more special ways over the years, my Erma, my Erma never changed. She never changed. From being the wife of a meatcutter at the Koppers store in Stotesbury, WV, to being the wife of the majority leader of the U.S. Senate, Erma never stopped being herself. Her enduring patience and her steadfast support were the stabilizing constants in our marriage.

Could I have made this journey without her? Could I have accomplished as much as I have accomplished--whatever that may have been--without her? I think not. The more important point is that I did it with Erma, and I would not have had it any other way. She was God's greatest gift to me.

I don't know what I ever did to deserve her, but somewhere along the line, I must have done something that was especially good. The good Lord, the King, the Lord of Hosts, smiled down on me at 6 o'clock in the evening on May 29, 1937.

So may I close with these few words that come from a poem, ``An Old Sweetheart of Mine,'' by James Whitcomb Riley.

Is this her presence here with me,

Or but a vain creation of a lover's memory?

A fair, illusive vision that would vanish into air,

Dared I even touch the silence with the whisper of a prayer?

Nay, let me then believe in all the blended false and truth--

The semblance of the old love and the substance of the new,

The then of changeless sunny days--the now of shower and

shine,

But love forever smiling--as that old sweetheart of mine.

Mr. President, I simply say that I give thanks to Almighty God for a long and good marriage and the richness which that hallowed institution has given to my life because of one very extraordinary woman.

May God bless her and hold her to his bosom in Heaven until I come to be with her--this extraordinary woman, the daughter of a coal miner, Erma James Byrd.

Mr. President, these are a few lines which were the favorite lines of Erma. The author's name is Isla Pascal Richardson. The lines are these:

If I should ever leave you,

Whom I love

To go along the silent way,

Grieve not,

Nor speak of me with tears.

But laugh and talk of me

As if I were there beside you.

For I will come--I'll come!

Would I not find a way?

Were tears and grief not be barriers?

And when you hear a song or see a bird I loved,

Please do not let your thoughts of me be sad.

For I am loving you just as I always have . . .

You were so good to me.

There are so many things I wanted still to do--

So many things to say to you . . .

Remember, that I did not fear death.

It was just leaving you that was so hard to face.

We cannot see beyond this life

But this you know . . . I loved you so

Never doubt that I am with you still!

Mr. President:

Love does not die with the body

And nothing in heaven or on earth

Can keep apart those who love one another.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate from my heart the kind words of my dear friend, Senator Mitch McConnell, from our neighboring State of Kentucky. I am not sure that I was meant to have all these blessings, but I am sure of one thing: Erma was the perfect woman, the greatest woman I have ever met. And today I have no doubt that she is in Heaven. I also have no doubt that I can meet her.

Let me thank again my friend, Mitch McConnell. How lovely were his words. How nice of him. I thank the Senator very much.

Mr. President, I shant leave this floor until I have said thank you to my noble friend, the able Senator from Michigan, the chairman of

the committee on which I serve, the committee which authorizes the expenditures we must make if we are to keep our Nation strong, the Armed Services Committee. I thank him. He has been and is an inspiration to me. His dedication, his thoughtfulness, his courtliness--I thank him for all.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I want to do that at a time that will accommodate him and the Senate. So if the Senator would let me know right now, if he might, when might be the best time to accommodate him and the Senate.

I thank the Senator.

Madam President, what is so lovely as a day in June? I repeat my question. What is so lovely as a day in June? Of course, the Presiding Officer, who graces the Chair this afternoon, she is--I have said enough. People have caught on already. I am talking about somebody who is as lovely as a day in June. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder, they say.

Mine Safety

Madam President, this morning the Senate unanimously passed critical mine safety legislation in response to the coal mine tragedies that robbed the State of West Virginia of 18 of its sons this year. A process that began with the introduction of the West Virginia delegation's mine safety bill has taken a significant step forward today. We have learned from the tragedy at Sago, and we have learned from the subsequent mining fatalities in West Virginia, Kentucky, Utah, Alabama, and Maryland.

If the House acts quickly on legislation and the Federal mine regulators are quick in implementing the bill, the miners of our Nation, the miners of our country, will soon have the oxygen--yes, the oxygen--communications, and rescue teams necessary to save lives and to prevent future tragedies. We saw in Kentucky over the weekend that these mine accidents can happen at any time, so the Senate's quick and unanimous passage of the Senate committee-reported bill this morning is greeted by all who mine coal with welcome relief.

On behalf of the many grateful coal miners and their families in West Virginia, I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Senators Mike Enzi and Ted Kennedy. I thank them, yes, I do, on behalf of these people.

I was raised in the home of a coal miner. I married, 69 years ago, the daughter of a coal miner. I know about the lives--the joys and the sadnesses that come to the lives--of the men and women who work in the mines. They are a special breed. They are going to a mine, where an explosion has just occurred, to risk their own lives for other men and women who may be trapped in that mine. A special breed.

So I thank Senators Enzi and Kennedy for their great work. They have performed a mission. I also thank Senators Isakson and Murray, the chairman and ranking members of the full committee and the Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety, who committed themselves to the task of producing a mine safety bill. They were unyielding in that effort.

Along with Senator Isakson, Chairman Enzi and Senator Kennedy visited the Sago and Alma mines in West Virginia. Yes, they did. I thank them again. Along with Senator Isakson, Chairman Enzi and Senator Kennedy visited the Sago and Alma mines in West Virginia. They talked with the families of those who had perished. What a sad day. They took a personal interest in the safety of the coal miners of my State.

When it came time to draft a committee bill, the chairman and ranking member graciously solicited the ideas of Senator Rockefeller and myself. Senator Rockefeller has been away for a while recovering from back surgery. He has been away for several weeks now. Senator Rockefeller is a true friend of the coal miners of West Virginia and the miners throughout the Nation. Senator Rockefeller has been recovering from back surgery for several weeks now, but he contributed much--yes, much--to the discussions that produced this bill.

Even in recovery, Jay Rockefeller, my esteemed colleague, is a strong presence. He has been and is a strong presence in the Senate, and throughout his career he has been a very forceful advocate for the safety of coal miners, the miners of West Virginia.

With Senate passage today, our hopes are high that the House of Representatives will act quickly on legislation that can be enacted into law. The sooner Congress passes legislation, the safer our coal miners will be at work, and the greater the likelihood the future disasters can be prevented. Our Nation's coal miners and their families deserve no less.

Amendment No. 4127

Madam President, I will be offering the Byrd-Gregg amendment to fund border security and interior enforcement efforts. For those Senators who want to secure the borders, here me now, those Senators who want to secure the borders, this is the amendment that will help to provide a source of funding to make it happen.

Of the 12 million illegal aliens in the country, it is estimated that one in four were lawfully admitted to the United States, but they overstayed their visas to remain here illegally. Of the 19 terrorists who carried out the September 11 attacks, 4 were illegal aliens who had overstayed their visas. Let me say that again for emphasis: Of the 19 terrorists who carried out the September 11 attacks, 4 were illegal aliens who had overstayed their visas. They came as students, tourists, or business travelers.

It is estimated that 400,000 illegal aliens who have been ordered deported by an immigration judge have disappeared--get that-- disappeared into the interior of the country. Let me say that again: It is estimated that 400,000--yes, you heard me, 400,000--illegal aliens have been ordered deported by an immigration judge but have disappeared, have faded into, have blended into the interior of the country.

Our border and interior enforcement personnel have asked for additional resources and personnel to apprehend and deport these aliens, but those law enforcement agencies have consistently been made to do with less than what they need to do their job. It is a dismal record.

To make matters worse, the pending bill grants amnesty to up to 12 million illegal aliens by rewarding them with temporary worker status. The expectation and promise is that many of these illegal aliens who have already successfully circumvented our immigration laws will eventually adjust their status to legal permanent resident or leave the country when their temporary worker status expires.

Given the failure to prevent other immigrant workers from overstaying their temporary visas in the past, it is difficult to take such assurances seriously. The pending bill authorizes appropriations of $25 billion--that is a lot of money--over the next 5 years for border and interior security efforts. Yet there is little hope that such funds will ever be made available.

The President has consistently underfunded--yes, Senators heard me correctly--the President has consistently underfunded border and interior enforcement in his annual budgets, and he has consistently opposed efforts to replace those funds in the appropriations process. The funding for our border and interior enforcement agencies has been so severely neglected that the President has been forced to deploy the National Guard to our southern border with Mexico. This is a real national security threat that will grow alarmingly worse if this amnesty proposal is carried into effect. Our border security requires real resources not more unfunded mandates.

Today, I offer an amendment, along with Senator Gregg, my esteemed colleague--when I say ``esteemed'' I say that with great fervor, my esteemed colleague--the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security Appropriations, to help provide a source of funding to secure our border.

The Byrd-Gregg amendment, or the Gregg-Byrd amendment, would require the illegal aliens who would benefit from this amnesty bill to help pay its costs. What is wrong with that? It would require the illegal aliens who would benefit from this amnesty bill to help pay its costs. That sounds pretty good to me. It would require illegal aliens to pay a $500 fee before gaining any benefit from the amnesty provisions of this bill. That is not too high a fee. This fee would be in addition to the other fees and penalties included in this bill.

The Gregg-Byrd amendment would dedicate those moneys to the appropriations accounts where border and interior security efforts are funded. Our amendment makes available almost $3 billion.

That is no small sum of money: $3 billion. That is $3 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born; $3 for every 60 seconds since our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was born. That is a lot of money.

Our amendment would make available almost $3 billion in the next 2 fiscal years to apprehend and detain those aliens who are inadmissible and deportable under the Immigration Act. It would make funds available to help our Border Patrol acquire border sensor and surveillance technology. It would provide funds for air and marine interdiction, operations, maintenance, and procurement; for construction projects in support of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, to train Federal law enforcement personnel, and for maritime security activities.

These are essential border security equipment needs that have been neglected for too long--too long--and continue to be neglected. So I think it is only fair and appropriate that the illegal aliens who have created the need for these funds help to finance them. Yes, this is a necessary amendment if Senators hope to secure the border.

The Byrd-Gregg amendment would help to provide some certainty that the law enforcement mandates of this bill would be carried into effect. It is not enough to authorize border security. We need to fund it. We need to fund border security. The Senate must ensure that the aliens who are supposed to leave are made to leave, and that the agencies charged with that responsibility have the resources that those agencies need to do their job.

I urge the adoption of the Byrd-Gregg amendment.

Madam President, I call up amendment No. 4127.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Thomas be added as a cosponsor.

Madam President, I would. May I defer to my distinguished colleague, Mr. Gregg, that he might speak at this time on the amendment.

I would be agreeable to a time agreement. And I believe my colleague, Senator Gregg, would be willing--he has nodded in the affirmative.

Madam President, did I hear the Senator include the provision that there be no second-degree amendments?

I thank the Senator. That is fine.

Madam President, the bill authorizes $25 billion over 5 years in appropriations. This amendment by Senator Gregg and myself funds $3 billion of that amount. This is a modest sum, a modest amendment, a modest fee increase that Senator Gregg and I are asking for. The pending bill would provide amnesty for the illegal aliens who would benefit from the bill. It would provide a path leading to U.S. citizenship. It would provide access to taxpayer-funded benefits such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, unemployment compensation, food stamps. Illegal aliens who would benefit from the bill are getting a lot, significantly more than what they are being asked to pay into the system. I don't believe that it is too much to ask that they help to fix the border security system that they sought to undermine.

This amendment is specific. It targets those areas identified by the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee that are most in need of funds. I also note that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill would authorize $25 billion in appropriations over the next 5 years. Six billion of that is authorized for fiscal year 2007, and Senator Gregg and I, as the chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, are going to be asked to fund many of these border security authorizations. We need a source of revenue with which to do it. So the purpose of this amendment is to provide a source of funding for our border security needs and to do it as quickly as possible.

This amendment would make almost $1 billion available for border and interior security needs for the fiscal year 2007, which the Appropriations Committee can provide this summer when it writes the bill. This amendment

would make another $2 billion available in the fiscal year 2008.

We can't afford to delay this critical funding any longer. I hope Senators will support this amendment.

(Mr. DeMint assumed the chair.)

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the Byrd-Gregg amendment would provide $3 billion for border security and interior enforcement by assessing a $500 fee on the illegal aliens who would benefit under title VI.

The bill authorizes appropriations for $25 billion over the next 5 years with no means to pay for it. The Byrd-Gregg amendment is a modest fee increase that would help to provide essential border security funds.

So for Senators who want to secure the border, this is the amendment that will provide a source of funding to make it happen.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote on an amendment to authorize the use of the National Guard along the Southwest border of the United States. Last week, in hearings before the Appropriations Committee and the Armed Services Committee, I asked senior administration officials from the Department of Defense, the Border Patrol, the National Guard Bureau, and other military leaders about my concerns that this mission would detract from the ability of the National Guard to respond to emergencies in their home States.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Chief of the National Guard Bureau General Steven Blum, and other witnesses gave their assurances that this plan to deploy troops to the border would not create a new, strenuous deployment of the Guard, it would not leave our States in a bind should a disaster strike while troops were on deployment, and it would allow Governors to make the final call as to whether National Guard units from their States should be used in support of the Border Patrol. Those witnesses also testified that National Guard units would only be used in missions and roles for which the troops are already trained.

I expect the administration to hold firm to these assurances, and the amendment before the Senate would help to limit the scope of the missions for which the Guard may be deployed.

While I still have questions about how the National Guard will carry out the missions that are assigned to it, we must not overlook the fact that the administration has missed many opportunities to tighten controls at our borders without depending on our citizen-soldiers to do the job. Since September 11, I have offered nine amendments to provide more funds to hire more Border Patrol agents, strengthen security at our borders, and stop the flow of illegal immigrants and contraband into our country. The administration opposed each one of my amendments, labeling them to be ``extraneous,'' ``unnecessary'' spending that would ``expand the size of government.'' If my amendments had been approved and supported by the administration, there would be thousands more Border Patrol agents on the job today.

Real homeland security cannot be found in a patchwork of quick fixes. Sending troops to the border is at best a Band-Aid solution to a serious problem. I will support this amendment, but I will also continue my efforts to provide the funds that are needed to provide lasting improvements to our border security.

action consistent with president's plan

Probably 20 minutes.

Madam President, today the Senate finds itself considering yet another amnesty for illegal aliens. After the defeat of a similar amnesty proposal last month, I had hoped that the Senate had seen the last of these efforts. I had hoped that the Senate, when given the time to consider the overwhelming opposition of the American people to amnesty, would pass a clean border security bill like the House did without amnesty, without a guest worker program, and without an increase in the annual allotment of permanent immigrant visas.

Sadly, the Senate is embarking on a path that contradicts everything we know--everything we know--about the position of the American people on this issue. It is an unpopular approach. It is the wrong approach.

The other night in his address to the Nation, the President endorsed the Senate amnesty plan to award U.S. citizenship to illegal aliens, and he announced the deployment of up to 6,000 guardsmen to the U.S. border with Mexico. The deployment of U.S. troops is intended to suggest an urgency about gaining control of the border that has been missing for many years, even since the September 11 attacks. Nevertheless, I have my doubts and concerns.

Guardsmen have been sent overseas two times, even three times--no, even

four times--and have come home fatigued and stressed out. They have been forced to sell businesses and to endure financial hardships because of their long absences.

Just a few months ago, the White House proposed to cut the National Guard by nearly 18,000 soldiers. The adjutants general of many States are reporting that they were not involved in discussions about the deployment of the Guard to our borders. So what assurances are there that sending troops to the border won't hamper our ability to respond to the floods in New England, another Hurricane Katrina, or another natural disaster?

The National Guard might be able to lend support to our border security, but that role must not be at the expense of the thousands of communities around the country that also depend on our Guard should disasters strike those towns or counties.

Press reports indicate that the Guard men and women will not be empowered to arrest aliens who attempt to cross our borders. I cannot help but wonder if this move to detail guardsmen to our borders is a political stunt to look tough at the expense of the brave citizen- soldiers who serve in the Guard.

The President would not have to call out the National Guard to secure the borders if he had supported even some--even some--of the nine-- nine, nine--separate amendments that I have offered since September 11 to hire and train more Border Patrol agents. If these amendments had been adopted--I say, if they had been adopted--the law enforcement agents would be in place right now helping to secure the borders.

Instead, the administration has consistently opposed these efforts as unnecessary and extraneous spending, saying that those funds would expand the size of Government. When I included $400 million in the fiscal year 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for border security, the President refused to spend it saying:

I made my opposition clear . . . We'll spend none of it.

That is what he said. That is what the President said. He said:

I made my opposition clear . . . We'll spend none of it.

As recently as last September, on a party-line vote, the majority defeated an Obey-Byrd-Sabo motion in conference on the fiscal year 2006 Homeland Security appropriations bill to add $100 million for border security. The administration opposed--yes, you heard me correctly--the administration opposed the Byrd-Craig amendment to the fiscal year 2005 supplemental appropriations bill to add $389 million for, what? For border security--border security. Fortunately, the amendment was approved and subsequently, despite administration opposition, the conferees approved $274 million. And as a result, there are now 500 more Border Patrol agents, 218 more immigration agents and investigators, and 1,950 more detention beds in place helping to secure our borders.

I will support any realistic effort to secure our borders, but I have to question the sincerity behind sham attempts that accomplish a token presence which only impose further hardship on our National Guard and may put communities at risk from natural disasters.

The sense of urgency that comes with deploying the National Guard is belied by the administration's consistent opposition to providing the necessary resources that our border security agencies need to do their job. Last month, I joined Senator Gregg in offering an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill for Iraq to provide $1.9 billion for the Border Patrol to hire the agents and secure the equipment that they need to better secure the border. The President has threatened to veto the supplemental bill. It is difficult to believe that the President would oppose funding our border agencies sufficiently to do the job they were created to do, but that is the situation.

Immigration enforcement in our country remains a decidedly half- hearted effort. The administration claims to strengthen border security in one area, and then completely undermines it in another with amnesty proposals. That dangerous inconsistency is at the root of my opposition to the misguided amnesty proposal before the Senate.

I oppose this amnesty bill. I oppose it absolutely. I oppose it unequivocally. I oppose this effort to waive the rules for lawbreakers and to legalize the unlawful actions of undocumented workers and the businesses that illegally employ them.

Amnesties are the dark underbelly of our immigration process. They tarnish the magnanimous promise enshrined on the base of the Statue of Liberty. Amnesties undermine that great egalitarian and American principle that the law should apply equally and should apply fairly to everyone. Amnesties perniciously decree that the law shall apply to some but not to all.

This bill would create a separate set of immigration laws for those who choose not to follow the regular process that everybody else had to go through. It is a slap in the face to every immigrant who had to wait abroad to come to American shores, and to every immigrant who had to struggle and work to become a U.S. citizen.

It is a false promise to the many tens of millions of immigrants who would be authorized to settle in the United States under this bill with the infrastructure of our Nation--our schools, our health care system, our transportation and energy networks--increasingly unable to absorb this untenable surge in the population. Many employers are more than willing to take advantage of the cheap labor that this bill would provide, but the responsibility would fall on the Nation as a whole to make the public investments necessary to ensure that these workers do not fall into a state of poverty once they have arrived. We have our own problems to address without having to assume this additional burden to help American businesses find cheaper labor.

Amnesties beget more illegal immigration--hurtful, destructive illegal immigration. They encourage other undocumented aliens to circumvent our immigration process in the hope that they, too, can achieve temporary worker status. Amnesties sanction the exploitation of illegal foreign labor by U.S. businesses and encourage other businesses to hire cheap and illegal labor in order to compete.

President Reagan signed his amnesty proposal into law in 1986. At the time, I supported amnesty based on the same promises that we hear today; namely, that legalizing undocumented workers and increasing enforcement would stem the flow of illegal immigration. It didn't work then; it won't work today. The 1986 amnesty failed miserably. After 1986, the illegal immigrant population more than quadrupled from 2.7 million aliens to 4 million aliens in 1996, to 8 million aliens in 2000, to an estimated 12 million illegal aliens today.

In that time, the Congress continued to enact amnesty after amnesty, waiving the Immigration Act for lawbreakers. The result is always the same: For every group of illegal aliens granted amnesty, a bigger group enters the country hoping to be similarly rewarded. This bill encourages individuals on both sides of the border to flout the law. It is a congressional pardon for lawbreakers--both for illegal aliens and the unscrupulous employers who hire them.

What is backward about the pending bill is that it would actually expand benefits to illegal aliens rather than curtail them. It authorizes illegal aliens to work in the country. It grants illegal aliens a path to citizenship. It pardons employers who illegally employ unauthorized workers. It even repeals provisions in current law designed to deny cheaper, in-State tuition rates to illegal aliens.

The pending bill is an invitation to immigrants and employers alike to violate our immigration laws and to get away with it. Amnesties are dangerous proposals. Amnesties open routes to legal status for aliens hoping to circumvent the regular security checks. By allowing illegal aliens to adjust their status in the country, we allow them to bypass State Department checks normally done overseas through the visa and consular process. One need only look to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, where one of the terrorist leaders had legalized his status through an amnesty, to know the dangers of these kinds of proposals.

Our immigration system is already plagued with funding and staffing problems. It is overwhelmed on the borders,

in the interior, and in its processing of immigration applications. It only took 19 temporary visa holders to slip through the system to unleash the horror of the September 11 attacks, and the pending proposal would shove many tens of millions of legal and illegal aliens--many of whom have never gone through a background check-- through our border security system over the next decade, in effect, flooding a bureaucracy that is already drowning.

It is a recipe for disaster, and 6,000 National Guardsmen without the power to enforce our immigration laws and arrest illegal aliens are not going to make the difference between success and failure. Our Nation's experience shows that amnesties do not--do not--work. They encourage illegal immigration. They open our borders to terrorists. Our experience shows that we cannot play games with our border security or American lives could be lost.

I will oppose this amnesty bill, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, West Virginians are both a prayerful and a prideful people. We cherish our State, honor its unique heritage, and revere its citizenry. Our respect for one another and for our joint accomplishments is apparent in every cornr and cranny of this wondrous State, filled with unparalleled scenic beauty, old-fashioned hospitality, and a sincere commitment to excellence. Our belief in ourselves and in our abilities is apparent when we welcome our troops home from service overseas; when we watch our sons and daughters receive their high school diplomas; when our communities band together to overcome tragedy; or when we gather together to celebrate shared and lofty achievement. It is always the same: Mountaineer pride runs strong and deep in West Virginia.

West Virginia pride is particularly on display today in Buffalo, WV, where Toyota Motor Manufacturing, West Virginia, TMMWV, is celebrating its 10th anniversary. I commend Toyota on its commitment to West Virginia, and I heartily congratulate the company on its celebration of 10 years in the Mountaineer State.

I have seen, over the past decade, how hundreds of West Virginians each day have committed themselves to their work at Toyota. The high standards that have been set by the men and women who work at Toyota's facility in Buffalo show that our State, though small in size, successfully plays host to one of the world's largest, most successful, and well-respected companies. Toyota's plant in Buffalo truly deserves its fine reputation, based on its gains in productivity, its high standards for fine quality, and its unfailing commitment to the future.

Toyota Motor Manufacturing established its operations in West Virginia in 1996, and currently produces four-cylinder engines for the Toyota Corolla, the Matrix, and the Pontiac Vibe. It also produces V6 engines for the Toyota Sienna and Solara. The plant also manufactures automatic transmissions for the U.S.-built Solara, Sienna and Avalon, the Canadian-built Lexus RX 350, and the Japan-built Highlander, providing quality jobs for over 1,000 West Virginians. And employment there is projected to grow to 1,150 workers when the existing transmission plant is expanded as promised.

In fact, last year Toyota announced that it would undertake a $120 million expansion of its engine and transmission plant in Buffalo. As a result, beginning in 2007, Toyota Motor Manufacturing in West Virginia will build 240,000 additional automatic transmissions per year. This will bring the plant's total automatic transmission capacity to 600,000 units, and this fifth expansion by Toyota in West Virginia will bring its total investment there to near the $1 billion mark.

Every day, in Buffalo, hundreds of West Virginians commit themselves to superior performance. Toyota has become a highly valued member of the West Virginia business community, and the company's commitment to its continued expansion in our State sends a clear message to the world not only that West Virginia's workforce is top of the line, but also that communities throughout West Virginia make our State a beacon for business, including international investment. The employment provided by Toyota at Buffalo constitutes exactly the type of well-paying jobs, with accompanying health and pension benefits, that West Virginia workers so richly deserve.

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to once again congratulate Toyota on its 10th anniversary in West Virginia. I thank Dr. Toyoda for believing in West Virginia. I also congratulate Toyota Motor Manufacturing, West Virginia President Yutaka Mizuno and the men and women of this plant for its all of its truly spectacular achievements in its first decade in our fair State.

I would also like to thank my dear friend and colleague, Senator Jay Rockefeller, who worked so tirelessly and in such good faith to bring Toyota to West Virginia. Jay and I, and all West Virginians, are pleased and proud to have Toyota in Buffalo, WV. May this be the first of many more decades of partnership and accomplishment for our State and for Toyota Motor Manufacturing.

Mr. President, I voted to support the Isakson amendment which would have delayed the implementation of the amnesty provisions of this bill until the Secretary of Homeland Security had certified that the bill's security measures are fully operational.

I oppose amnesty for illegal aliens--absolutely and unequivocally. Therefore, I support those measures, such as the Isakson amendment, that would prevent the amnesty provisions of this bill from taking effect.