[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 92 (Wednesday, July 10, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6518-S6520]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TRIBUTE TO TED WILLIAMS
Mr. KERRY. Senator Kennedy and I are delighted to join in a
resolution paying tribute to a unique American who passed away last
Friday at the age of 83--a fighter to the end, and really a rather
remarkable and fascinating individual--Ted Williams.
Over the span of 21 amazing years with the Boston Red Sox, Ted
Williams redefined baseball's greatness. Everyone knows about his .406
batting average in 1941. Not everyone knows that he had an option to
settle that year for a less than .400, or that he would have been
rounded up to a .400 batting average. It was about .399.
In the last day of season, with the doubleheader, a day that he was
offered the opportunity to sit it out so he wouldn't lose his .400 if
he had a bad day, there was no way he would do that. It was not his
style. He stepped up to bat, and hit 6 for 8 and took his average up to
the .406, which now stands as a memorable and unequaled batting average
since that period of time. He had 521 career home runs; a .344 lifetime
batting average; 2 of the 4 Red Sox Triple Crown Awards, twice the
American League's Most Valuable Player; 6-time American League Batting
Champion, 18 American League All-Star appearances; and a member of the
Baseball Hall of Fame.
He was quite literally the father of the Red Sox nation, and, for
millions of us, he came to live out what was his greatest wish--that if
people ever saw him walk down the street they would say, There goes the
greatest hitter who ever lived. Indeed, that is what people would have
said.
Beyond the statistics and awards, which speak volumes about what he
accomplished in a Red Sox uniform, so many of us in this country have
an even deeper respect for the individuality he expressed in almost
everything he did: His uniqueness as a fisherman; his uniqueness in his
contributions to the Jimmy Fund to raise funds for fighting cancer to
help others; but especially what he did in the 5 years he spent wearing
the uniform of his country, reminding each of us of what it means to be
a citizen soldier, to leave a citizen's life to go out and fight for
your country and then come back to resume what you did before.
No one knows, but lots of people have speculated about what kind of
career numbers this man might have posted, what records he would have
broken, if it had not been for those 5 years during the prime of his
baseball career while he served as a pilot and a member of the greatest
generation.
All of us would wonder. He walked away from the major leagues to
serve his country as a fighter pilot. He flew as a wingman beside our
colleague, Senator John Glenn, during Korea, performing a memorable
emergency landing in a damaged plane that was on fire. And when he was
later asked why he didn't just bail out, he told people he was fearing
the fact that he might injure his knees--as you punch the button to
bail out and you pull out of the cockpit. If you were tall, your knees
often would be broken hitting the edge of the cockpit itself. He would
sooner have died than not have been able to play baseball because of
that potential injury. It was a conscious choice. Another time, he
escaped to safety after being hit with anti-aircraft fire.
Ted Williams was a courageous person, bigger than life, tough as
nails, and he had that rare ability to sum up perfectly in his
character so many things that speak about a generation, about our
country, and about a game that is known as our national pastime.
We all hope we will find citizens such as him and ballplayers such as
him again. We join in mourning his loss and reflect on all that he gave
to his country.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator from Massachusetts yield for a unanimous
consent request? I would consider it an honor if the two Senators would
allow me to be a cosponsor of this resolution dealing with one of my
heroes, Ted Williams.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we thank our leaders and we thank our
colleagues for giving Senator Kerry and me a moment to bring to the
attention of the Senate and to the American people once again the
extraordinary sense of loss that the Williams family feels, the
incredible sense of loss that people in Boston feel, the incredible
loss that those who love baseball feel and those who served in the
Marine Corps feel at the loss of Ted Williams.
His stories on the baseball field have been well documented, although
they bear repeating. For example, his extraordinary lifetime average of
over .406: When we think today of all the various baseball records that
are being broken, every single one is being broken almost annually in
so many different areas, but no one has even coming close to his. We
know he was on a level of excellence in terms of that sport that I
don't think will be replicated again.
His service in the military was, as my colleague pointed out,
exemplary service to our country. Then the service as well to the Jimmy
Fund, the Dana-Farber program--the Jimmy Fund that was just getting
started. People didn't give a great deal of attention to the fact of
children's cancer, but now you can't travel anyplace in this country,
or probably in the world, and not find people who haven't heard of the
Jimmy Fund or the Dana-Farber Center as an extraordinary place of
excellence that has given great focus and attention and, most
importantly, hope and life to hundreds of thousands of children,
including one of my own who had serious cancer, osteocarcinoma, and was
able to benefit from the extraordinary research and the gift of life
that that center provides. The time Ted Williams would spend down in
that center without any kind of fanfare, greeting and welcoming
children, giving them a new sense of hope, was a real reflection of his
humanity.
This is an extraordinary American, someone of whom baseball is proud,
Boston is proud, all of Massachusetts is proud. We salute his family,
we salute him, and we thank our Ted Williams for all the good things he
has done for baseball and for our country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that an equal time for my speech be
given to the Republican side because they were to control half the time
in this morning business hour.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator from West Virginia yield?
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. REID. I have been told by the Republican staff that Senator
Domenici and Senator Brownback wish to speak. How long does Senator
Domenici wish to speak?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thought I was speaking earlier. I
would like 10 to 15 minutes.
Mr. REID. Senator Brownback wants 15 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Did we not have a certain amount that some of our
Senators--
Mr. REID. The Republican time was to start around 10 o'clock.
Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct.
Mr. REID. Senator Wellstone is here also.
Following Senator Byrd, Senator Domenici will be recognized for 15
minutes, Senator Brownback will be recognized for 15 minutes, and then
we will be on the bill. Senator Wellstone, being the timely person he
is, came to speak at 10:30. He will not be able to do that now unless
Senator Brownback is late; we will be on the bill at that time.
I ask unanimous consent--the two managers are not here, but I do not
think I am doing anything untoward--that he speak on the bill--he is
not offering an amendment--that he be recognized as soon as the bill is
called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I, too, am proud of Ted Williams. I hope the
two Senators will allow me to cosponsor the resolution.
As one who grew up in the Great Depression, I liked baseball. It was
1927.
[[Page S6519]]
May I say to my two Senators from Massachusetts, it was 1927 when Babe
Ruth, the Sultan of Swat, beat his own home run record when he swatted
60 home runs. I can remember those days when I watched for the baseball
scores. I watched for Babe Ruth. I watched for Lou Gehrig. I watched
for the Murderous Four on the New York Yankees team. That was the year
in which Jack Dempsey fought Gene Tunney to regain the title.
May I say to my dear friend, Ted Kennedy, Jack Dempsey was a hero of
the coal miners. He mined coal in Logan County, WV. So my foster father
told me we would go down to the community grill, which was a place
where one could buy Coca-Colas or a soda. I mean they were good Coca-
Colas in those days, and you got them for 5 cents, a bottle of Coke for
5 cents. So he said we would go down to the community grill and listen
to that fight.
Well, we went on that night. And there were fully 30 or 40 coal
miners around that radio. I went home a disappointed lad because Jack
Dempsey was my hero at that point as far as sports figures were
concerned, as well as Babe Ruth. And I went home a disappointed lad
because Jack Dempsey did not win the fight.
I did not hear the fight. There was only one set of earphones, and
Julius Sleboda, who was the manager of the grill--that was 75 years
ago, he was the manager of the grill--he listened to the fight, but he
didn't tell the rest of us anything about what was going on.
So, lo and behold, Mr. C.R. Stahl, a Scotsman who was the general
manager of the coal mining operation, came into that room and took the
earphones from Julius, put them on, and gave to those of us who were
standing around with open eyes, open ears, and open mouths, a blow-by-
blow account of the greatest prize fight, as far as I am concerned,
that ever occurred in the United States--Jack Dempsey. And he lost the
fight. That was 1927.
May I say to the distinguished Senator from Illinois, something
happened in 1927. I can see the bulletins that were tacked up on the
wall of the company store, the coal company store: ``Lindbergh Crosses
the Atlantic.'' He flew across the Atlantic in the Spirit of St. Louis.
He started out, I believe it was May 9, 1927. The New York Times had a
headline which said that he flew over Nova Scotia at the tremendous
speed of 100 miles per hour in the Spirit of St. Louis. That was
Lindbergh. He had a plane that had a load of 5,500 pounds. He had five
sandwiches. He ate one-half of a sandwich on the way. Part of the time,
he flew 10 feet above the water; part of the time, 10,000 feet above
the water. He flew across the Atlantic in a single-engine plane, the
Spirit of St. Louis. That was 1927.
That was the year Ford brought out the Model A Ford. It was also the
year in which Sacco and Vanzetti were executed--1927, a great year.
Let me switch now to 2002. Congress had been requested to appropriate
more than $10 billion in fiscal year 2003 funds for a reserve fund from
which the Department of Defense will draw to pay for its operations in
the war against terrorism. Now, watch out. This war against terrorism
is a terrible war, but watch out. Many things are being done under the
rubric of the war on terrorism. We had better watch out. Let me tell
you about this one. The President requested this huge amount of money,
free of any restrictions.
Now, Senators, we have to watch this stampede to legislate a new
Department--and I am for a new Department--but in this so-called
reorganization plan that the President sent up to the Senate and the
House, watch out, this is a reorganization plan. Let's be careful we
don't reorganize the checks and balances in our constitutional system.
I have seen a fair number of requests for blank checks in my time, but
this one takes the cake.
The President's request for a large reserve fund for the military is
not unprecedented. Just within the last decade, Congress established
reserve funds for military operations in Kosovo, Bosnia, and the
Persian Gulf region. From 1996 to 2001, Congress appropriated funds to
the overseas contingency operations transfer fund to pay for our
peacekeeping missions in the Balkans and the enforcement of no-fly
zones over Iraq. The result was an accounting nightmare.
As the General Accounting Office reported on May 22, 2002, the
reserve fund for operations in the Balkans and the Persian Gulf was
used for ``questionable expenditures.'' That is an understatement. The
GAO report details how this reserve fund was used in 2000 and 2001 to
buy cappuccino machines--there are three Appropriations Committee
members on the floor right now on this side of the aisle, and another
one is coming in on the other side of the aisle. The GAO report details
how this reserve fund was used in 2000 and 2001 to buy cappuccino
machines, golf club memberships, decorator furniture, and even a bingo
console. President Bush says he needs the reserve fund to move money
around quickly with a minimum of congressional intrusion. But would
some congressional oversight have stopped the purchase of a bingo
console with defense funds? How about that?
That is your money, I say to the taxpayers who are watching this
Senate floor right through those cameras there. That is your money.
How did these funds, intended for important military missions, become
diverted to Government waste? As the GAO report says:
There is limited oversight--
We don't give enough time to oversight, and we have an administration
that doesn't want us to give much time to oversight. That is my view of
it.
There is limited oversight and a corresponding lack of visibility
over how contingency operations funds are used that has also
contributed to questionable uses of contingency funds.
That is not Robert Byrd talking, that is the GAO report, the General
Accounting Office, an arm of the Congress. It is no wonder Congress
refused to put any more money into this reserve fund in the Fiscal Year
2002 Appropriations Act.
We should also put this in the proper context of how the Department
of Defense manages and accounts for the money that is appropriated to
it. It is a miserable record. Twelve years after the enactment of the
Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, the Pentagon is unable to produce
annual audited financial statements. It is a financial scandal that
goes beyond the accounting chicanery perpetrated by the fallen giants
of corporate America. In January 2001, the General Accounting Office
reported that the Pentagon was unable to reconcile a $7 billion
difference--not $7 million, but $7 billion--the Pentagon was unable to
reconcile a $7 billion difference between its available fund balances
and the balances kept by the Department of the Treasury; that the
Department made $2.3 trillion--this is still the General Accounting
Office report talking--that the Department made $2.3 trillion in
unsupported accounting entries in fiscal year 1999, and that the
Pentagon was not able to keep track of all of their weapons systems and
support equipment. Now, get that. Simply put, if the Pentagon were a
corporation, its stock would be crashing and the Dow Jones would be in
really serious trouble.
We should all know by now that the Pentagon's accounting mess
requires closer oversight. It is a massive operation, and the Secretary
of Defense has indicated it is a massive operation. Not all of this
happened on his watch. He wants to try to get control over it, but how
can he? It is so massive: Establishing a $10 billion reserve fund for
the war on terrorism, with no restrictions, no limitations, no controls
on how the money can be spent. We are talking about $10 billion; that
is $10 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. It would be
throwing gasoline on a fire that is already raging out of control. With
the Government ledgers filling up with red ink, we need not only fiscal
responsibility, but also accounting responsibility.
My concern with the reserve fund proposed by the President is not
limited to its gross invitation for waste, fraud, and abuse, to use a
hackneyed term.
As a Member of the Senate and chairman of the Appropriations
Committee, I want to know how this money will be used because $10
billion is a lot of money, looking at it from the standpoint of my
background and my State. It is a lot of money. Will it be used for
rooting out the terrorists who remain in Afghanistan? Will it be used
for the creation of an Afghan national army? Will it be used to
increase our military presence in the Philippines, Georgia, or Yemen?
What about an invasion of Iraq? Is that what it is going to be used
for? We don't know.
[[Page S6520]]
On July 3, 2002, President Bush sent a letter to congressional
leaders to provide further details on how the $10 billion fund might be
used. This supposed explanation left me scratching my head. I bet it
left the Senator from New Mexico scratching his head. Nobody in this
Senate understands this budget and the appropriations process any
better than he does, if as well as he does. But it left me scratching
my head--even more than I had scratched it before. The letter from the
President talks about $10 billion being requested for a reserve fund
with no controls and no oversight. But get this:
This request will improve collection, analysis,
coordination, and execution of intelligence priorities and
plans, as we expand into new theaters--
Oh, oh--
of operation and build new relationships.
That is not my quote. That is the quote in the message from the
President.
Let me say that again. Hear me, Senators. The letter from the
President states:
This request--
For $10 billion of your money; your money; your money--
This request will improve collection analysis,
coordination, and execution of intelligence priorities and
plans as we expand into new theaters of operation and build
new relationships.
Mr. President, there is no clarification on what is meant by
``expanding into new theaters of operation.'' Our imaginations are left
to run wild. Are we talking about Iraq? If so, Mr. President, let's
hear it. Tell us. The American people are entitled to know where their
money is going to be spent, where their boys and girls, the young men
and women of this country, are going to be sent. Tell us.
Our imaginations are left to run wild. An accompanying letter from
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Mitch Daniels,
proposes to elaborate, he is going to explain, explain a bit more, on
how the $10 billion is going to be used. He is a favorite of us Members
on the Appropriations Committee in both Houses. Mitch Daniels, the OMB
Director, is a great favorite of ours.
According to Mr. Daniels' letter, the reserve fund would contain--
listen to this--the reserve fund would contain ``up to $2.550 billion
for military personnel accounts; up to $5.570 billion for operation and
maintenance accounts, as well as military construction on working
capital funds; and up to $1.880 billion for procurement or research,
development, test, and evaluation account.''
While this may be seen by some as making some progress in specifying
how the requested funds might be used, the devil is still in the
details, and we do not have them.
Under the President's proposal, the allocations could be changed by
the Secretary of Defense, after consultation with the Director of the
OMB. Now get that, get that, pay close attention: Under the President's
proposal, the allocations could be changed by the Secretary of Defense,
after consultation--get that--after consultation with the Director of
OMB and 15 days after providing notification--not a request--but
notification to the congressional defense committees. Ha, ha, ha. What
are we going to do next?
It is not hard to see how that $10 billion reserve fund could start
out for a legitimate purpose, such as paying the Guardsmen who have
been mobilized for homeland security missions, but then be reallocated
to fund any program that could be twisted around and redefined to
encompass a defense against terrorism.
I suppose that additional missile defense spending could fall within
that rubric, as would military action against Iraq. Watch out; be
careful while you are back home in August. Be careful.
I could not imagine that a $10 billion reserve fund would be
considered for any other agency in our Government but the Department of
Defense. I doubt that any of us would seriously consider a $10 billion
reserve fund that could be spent on health care, prescription drugs, or
highway construction. The fiscal conservatives in Congress would hit
the roof. ``Where is the accountability?'' they would say. If any
Member of this body proposed on an appropriations bill a $10 billion
reserve funds for education, with no limits on how those funds would be
used, I have no doubt that the President would assail that Member for
fiscal irresponsibility and ready his veto pen.
It is true that we are engaged in a war on terrorism, and that war is
expensive. At the height of our military operations in Afghanistan, we
were spending more than $1 billion a month. But there is already a
well-established means of providing that money without resorting to
blank checks and reserve funds. Congress passes supplemental
appropriations bills to provide additional funds to address
contingencies that were not anticipated in the regular appropriations
process.
The Senate passed a supplemental appropriations bill on June 7 of
this year that fully funds the President's request for additional funds
for the military to pay for the war on terrorism. At his news
conference earlier this week, President Bush criticized the Congress
for delays in final action on the supplemental bill, but he failed to
mention that his administration is greatly responsible for at least
partially delaying the legislation.
The administration slowed the supplemental bill down months ago by
repeatedly refusing to allow Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge to
testify about the funding request. Most recently, the administration,
claiming that the supplemental bill invests too much in homeland
security, has threatened to veto the legislation, despite its
overwhelming 71 to 22 vote in the Senate. What our country needs is
responsible leadership, and Presidential threats about a veto of
homeland security funding is nothing short of irresponsible.
This supplemental appropriations bill does not include a reserve fund
that will subvert government accountability for how taxpayer money is
spent. But the administration continues to seek such a fund for the
fiscal year 2003 Defense appropriations bill. I deeply regret this
indication that the administration continues to view Congress as an
impediment to the national interest, rather than a coequal branch of
our Government with its own, non-delegable authorities and
responsibilities under the Constitution.
The Founding Fathers granted Congress the power of the purse and the
responsibility to provide for our national defense.
Accountability for how the funds are spent must be demanded by
Congress as the directly elected representatives of the people. We were
not sent here by an electoral college. We are directly accountable to
our constituents. If this $10 billion defense reserve fund is misused,
who will have to answer to the letters and the phone calls from John Q.
Public? It will not be the Secretary of Defense. It will not be the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget. It will be us, the
Members of Congress. We have a responsibility to see that funds we
appropriate are well spent. We cannot allow ourselves to shirk that
responsibility. It is the people's tax dollars.
If the people are being told these dollars are to go to fight global
terrorism, this Congress must never allow these funds to buy cappuccino
machines instead.
I again thank all the Senators, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
____________________