Editing Robert Byrd (section)

==Political views==

===Race===
[[File:Robert Byrd Majority Portrait.jpg|thumb|upright|Portrait of Byrd as Majority Leader]]

Byrd initially compiled a mixed record on the subjects of race relations and [[Desegregation in the United States|desegregation]].<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Draper |first=Robert |date=July 31, 2008 |title=Old as the Hill |url=https://www.gq.com/story/senator-robert-byrd-congress |magazine=[[GQ (magazine)|GQ]]|access-date=September 10, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170817121552/https://www.gq.com/story/senator-robert-byrd-congress |archive-date=August 17, 2017 |url-status=live }}</ref> While he initially voted against [[civil rights]] legislation, in 1959 he hired one of the Capitol's first Black congressional aides, and he also took steps to integrate the [[United States Capitol Police]] for the first time since [[Reconstruction Era|Reconstruction]].<ref name="Old as the Hill">{{Cite web |url=https://www.gq.com/story/senator-robert-byrd-congress |title=''Old as the Hill'' |date=July 31, 2008 |access-date=September 10, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170817121552/https://www.gq.com/story/senator-robert-byrd-congress |archive-date=August 17, 2017 |url-status=live }}</ref> Beginning in the 1970s, Byrd explicitly renounced his earlier support of [[racial segregation]].<ref name=slatebyrd>{{cite magazine| title = What About Byrd?| magazine = Slate| date = December 18, 2002| url = http://www.slate.com/id/2075662| access-date = September 17, 2007| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20071001010816/http://www.slate.com/id/2075662/| archive-date = October 1, 2007| url-status = live}}</ref><ref>"Sen. Robert Byrd Discusses His Past and Present", ''[[Inside Politics]]'', [[CNN]], December 20, 1993</ref> Byrd said that he regretted [[filibuster]]ing and voting against the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]]<ref name="Civil Rights Act of 1964">{{cite web|url=http://finduslaw.com/civil_rights_act_of_1964_cra_title_vii_equal_employment_opportunities_42_us_code_chapter_21|title=Civil Rights Act of 1964|publisher=Finduslaw.com|access-date=June 28, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101021141154/http://finduslaw.com/civil_rights_act_of_1964_cra_title_vii_equal_employment_opportunities_42_us_code_chapter_21|archive-date=October 21, 2010|url-status=dead}}</ref> and would change it if he had the opportunity. Byrd also said that his views changed dramatically after his teenage grandson was killed in a 1982 traffic accident, which put him in a deep emotional valley. "The death of my grandson caused me to stop and think," said Byrd, adding he came to realize that African Americans love their children and grandchildren as much as he loved his.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.c-span.org/capitolhistory/ram/byrd.ram|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060928192148/http://www.c-span.org/capitolhistory/ram/byrd.ram|archive-date=September 28, 2006 |title=C-SPAN |access-date=June 28, 2010}}</ref> During debate in 1983 over the passage of the law creating the [[Martin Luther King Jr. Day]] holiday, Byrd grasped the symbolism of the day and its significance to his legacy, telling members of his staff "I'm the only one in the Senate who ''must'' vote for this bill".<ref name="Old as the Hill"/>

Of the seven U.S. senators to vote on the confirmations of both [[Thurgood Marshall]] and [[Clarence Thomas]] to the [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] (the others being [[Daniel Inouye]] of Hawaii, [[Ted Kennedy]] of Massachusetts, [[Quentin Burdick]] of North Dakota, [[Mark Hatfield]] of Oregon, and [[Fritz Hollings]] and [[Strom Thurmond]] of South Carolina), Byrd was the only senator to vote against confirming both of the first two African-American nominees to the Court in its history.<ref name="Congressional Record 8-30-1967" /><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=102&session=1&vote=00220|title=U.S. Senate Roll Call Vote 102nd Congress - 1st Session|website=Senate.gov}}</ref> In Marshall's case, Byrd asked [[Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI Director]] [[J. Edgar Hoover]] to look into the possibility that Marshall had either connections to [[Communism|communists]] or a communist past.<ref>Johnson, Scott. [http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/676wfxsr.asp Saying Goodbye to a Great One] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070914195556/http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/676wfxsr.asp |date=September 14, 2007 }}, ''Weekly Standard'', June 1, 2005.</ref> With respect to Thomas, Byrd stated that he was offended by Thomas's use of the phrase "high-tech [[Lynching in the United States|lynching]] of uppity blacks" in his defense and that he was "offended by the injection of racism" into the hearing. He called Thomas's comments a "diversionary tactic" and said, "I thought we were past that stage". Regarding [[Anita Hill]]'s [[sexual harassment]] charges against Thomas, Byrd supported Hill.<ref>Byrd, Robert. [http://matrix.msu.edu/~amvoice/view_audio.php?pbd=amvoices-a0a4b9-a Robert Byrd Speaks Out Against the Appointment of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court], ''American Voices'', October 14, 1991. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120319170824/http://matrix.msu.edu/~amvoice/view_audio.php?pbd=amvoices-a0a4b9-a |date=March 19, 2012 }}</ref> Byrd joined 45 other Democrats in voting against confirming Thomas to the Supreme Court.<ref>"[https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=102&session=1&vote=00220 On the Nomination (Nomination – Clarence Thomas)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180407085736/https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=102&session=1&vote=00220 |date=April 7, 2018 }}. United States Senate.</ref>

On March 29, 1968, Byrd criticized a [[Memphis, Tennessee]], protest: "It was a shameful and totally uncalled for outburst of lawlessness undoubtedly encouraged to some considerable degree, at least, by his [Dr. King's] words and actions, and his presence. There is no reason for us to believe that the same destructive rioting and violence cannot, or that it will not, happen here if King attempts his so-called [[Poor People's March]], for what he plans in Washington appears to be something on a far greater scale than what he had indicated he planned to do in Memphis".<ref>{{cite book|title=Thurgood Marshall: Supreme Court Justice|page=168|first=Joseph|last=Nazel|year=1993|publisher=Holloway House Publishing Company|isbn=978-0-87067-584-3}}</ref>

In a March 2, 2001, interview with [[Tony Snow]], Byrd said of race relations:
{{blockquote|They're much, much better than they've ever been in my life-time&nbsp;... I think we talk about race too much. I think those problems are largely behind us&nbsp;... I just think we talk so much about it that we help to create somewhat of an illusion. I think we try to have good will. My old mom told me, 'Robert, you can't go to heaven if you hate anybody.' We practice that. There are [[white nigger]]s. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time, if you want to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnO6ai0Ktro&t=1m13s Senator Robert Byrd interviewed by Tony Snow], Fox News, taped on March 2, 2001, originally broadcast on March 4, 2001 (posted to YouTube on Jan 17, 2009)</ref><ref name="CNN030401">"[http://edition.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/04/byrd.slur/ Top Senate Democrat apologizes for slur]," [[CNN]], March 4, 2001. {{Cite web |url=http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/04/byrd.slur/ |title=Archived copy |access-date=February 16, 2006 |archive-date=June 29, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130629084024/http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/04/byrd.slur/ |url-status=bot: unknown }}</ref>}}

Byrd's use of the term "white nigger" created immediate controversy. When asked about it, Byrd's office provided this in a written response,
{{blockquote|I apologize for the characterization I used on this program&nbsp;... The phrase dates back to my boyhood and has no place in today's society&nbsp;... In my attempt to articulate strongly held feelings, I have offended people that I never intended to offend.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnO6ai0Ktro&t=1m31s Senator Robert Byrd interviewed by Tony Snow], Fox News, taped on March 2, 2001, originally broadcast on March 4, 2001 (posted to YouTube on Jan 17, 2009)</ref><ref name="CNN030401"/>}}

For the 2003–2004 session, the [[National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]] (NAACP)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://action.naacp.org/page/-/washington%20bureau/108thCongress.pdf|title=NAACP|access-date=May 6, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160727193022/http://action.naacp.org/page/-/washington%20bureau/108thCongress.pdf|archive-date=July 27, 2016|url-status=dead|df=mdy-all}}</ref> rated Byrd's voting record as being 100% in line with the NAACP's position on the thirty-three Senate bills they evaluated. Sixteen other senators received that rating. In June 2005, Byrd proposed an additional $10,000,000 in federal funding for the [[Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial]] in Washington, D.C., remarking that, "With the passage of time, we have come to learn that his [[I Have a Dream speech|Dream]] was the [[American Dream]], and few ever expressed it more eloquently".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://byrd.senate.gov/speeches/2005_june/06_27_2005.html |title=Robert Byrd Senate Office |publisher=Byrd.senate.gov |date=June 27, 2005 |access-date=June 28, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100702083411/http://byrd.senate.gov/speeches/2005_june/06_27_2005.html |archive-date=July 2, 2010 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> Upon news of his death, the NAACP released a statement praising Byrd, saying that he "became a champion for civil rights and liberties" and "came to consistently support the NAACP civil rights agenda".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.naacp.org/press/entry/naacp-mourns-the-passing-of-u.s.-senator-robert-byrd/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100707183755/http://www.naacp.org/press/entry/naacp-mourns-the-passing-of-u.s.-senator-robert-byrd/|url-status=dead|archive-date=July 7, 2010|title=NAACP Mourns the Passing of U.S. Senator Robert Byrd {{!}} Press Room|website=www.naacp.org|access-date=August 27, 2016}}</ref>

===Clinton impeachment===
Byrd initially said that the [[Impeachment of Bill Clinton|impeachment proceedings]] against Clinton should be taken seriously. Although he harshly criticized any attempt to make light of the allegations, he made the [[motion to dismiss]] the charges and effectively end the matter. Even though he voted against both articles of impeachment, he was the sole Democrat to vote to [[Censure in the United States|censure]] Clinton.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_106_1.htm |title=U.S. Senate |publisher=Senate.gov |access-date=June 28, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100708102744/http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_106_1.htm |archive-date=July 8, 2010 |url-status=live }}</ref>

===LGBT rights===
Byrd strongly opposed Clinton's 1993 efforts to allow homosexuals to [[Don't ask, don't tell|serve in the military]] and supported efforts to limit [[Same-sex marriage in the United States|gay marriage]]. In 1996, before the passage of the [[Defense of Marriage Act]], he said, "The drive for same-sex marriage is, in effect, an effort to make a sneak attack on society by encoding this aberrant behavior in legal form before society itself has decided it should be legal. […] Let us defend the oldest institution, the institution of marriage between male and female as set forth in the [[Bible|Holy Bible]]".<ref name=":1">{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/11/us/senators-reject-both-job-bias-ban-and-gay-marriage.html?pagewanted=all |work=The New York Times |title=Senators Reject Both Job-Bias Ban And Gay Marriage |first=Eric |last=Schmitt |date=September 11, 1996 |access-date=May 22, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130520195051/http://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/11/us/senators-reject-both-job-bias-ban-and-gay-marriage.html?pagewanted=all |archive-date=May 20, 2013 |url-status=live }}</ref>

Despite his previous position, he later stated his opposition to the [[Federal Marriage Amendment]] and argued that it was unnecessary because the states already had the power to ban gay marriages.<ref>[http://byrd.senate.gov/newsroom/news_june/marriage_amdt.html Robert Byrd Senate Office] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090104220045/http://byrd.senate.gov/newsroom/news_june/marriage_amdt.html |date=January 4, 2009 }}</ref> However, when the amendment came to the Senate floor, he was one of the two Democratic senators who voted in favor of [[cloture]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.hrc.org/voteno/files/060607_FMAvote.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101231132539/http://www.hrc.org/voteno/files/060607_FMAvote.pdf|archive-date=December 31, 2010 |url-status=dead|title=Human Rights Campaign |access-date=June 28, 2010}}</ref>

===Abortion===
On March 11, 1982, Byrd voted against a measure sponsored by Senator [[Orrin Hatch]] that sought to reverse ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' and allow Congress and individual states to adopt laws banning [[Abortion in the United States|abortions]]. Its passing was the first time a congressional committee supported an anti-abortion amendment.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1982/03/11/us/abortion-curbs-endorsed-10-7-by-senate-panel.html|title=Abortion Curbs Endorsed, 10–7, By Senate Panel|date=March 11, 1982|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=March 17, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180927160058/https://www.nytimes.com/1982/03/11/us/abortion-curbs-endorsed-10-7-by-senate-panel.html|archive-date=September 27, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1982/03/28/magazine/howard-baker-trying-to-tame-an-unruly-senate.html|title=Howard Baker Trying to Tame an Unruly Senate|date=March 28, 1982|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=March 17, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180927222009/https://www.nytimes.com/1982/03/28/magazine/howard-baker-trying-to-tame-an-unruly-senate.html|archive-date=September 27, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In 1995, Byrd voted against a ban on [[intact dilation and extraction]], a [[Late termination of pregnancy|late-term abortion]] procedure typically referred to by its opponents as "partial-birth abortion".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://votesmart.org/bill/2752/7841/53359/partial-birthlate-term-abortion-ban-act-of-1995#.Wx6UQUgvzIU|title=HR 1833 – Partial-Birth/Late-Term Abortion Ban – National Key Vote|website=votesmart.org|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180612153302/https://votesmart.org/bill/2752/7841/53359/partial-birthlate-term-abortion-ban-act-of-1995#.Wx6UQUgvzIU|archive-date=June 12, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> In 2003, however, he voted for the [[Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act]], which prohibits intact dilation and extraction.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00402 |title=U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 108th Congress – 1st Session |publisher=Senate.gov |access-date=June 28, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161001235535/http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00402 |archive-date=October 1, 2016 |url-status=live }}</ref> Byrd also voted against the 2004 [[Unborn Victims of Violence Act]], which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of a crime of violence.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00063|title=U.S. Senate: Roll Call Vote|website=www.senate.gov|access-date=January 9, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161110133931/http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00063|archive-date=November 10, 2016|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Richard Nixon era ===
In April 1970, the [[United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary|Senate Judiciary Committee]] approved a plan to replace the [[United States Electoral College]] with direct elections of presidents. Byrd initially opposed direct elections on the key vote and was one of two senators to switch votes in favor of the proposal during later votes.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1970/04/24/archives/senate-unit-asks-popular-election-of-the-president-amendment-to.html|title=Senate Unit Asks Popular Election of the President|date=April 24, 1970|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 14, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180816235805/https://www.nytimes.com/1970/04/24/archives/senate-unit-asks-popular-election-of-the-president-amendment-to.html|archive-date=August 16, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In April 1970, as the [[United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary|Senate Judiciary Committee]] delayed a vote on Supreme Court nominee [[Harry Blackmun]], Byrd stated that "no nomination should be voted on within 24 hours after the hearing" after the previous two Supreme Court nominees had delays and was one of the 17 committee members who went on record of assuring Blackmun's nomination would be reported favorably to the full Senate.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1970/05/01/archives/senators-put-off-vote-on-blackmun-decision-by-judiciary-panel.html|title=Senators Put Off Vote on Blackmun|date=May 1, 1970|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 14, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180914204906/https://www.nytimes.com/1970/05/01/archives/senators-put-off-vote-on-blackmun-decision-by-judiciary-panel.html|archive-date=September 14, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In October 1970, Byrd sponsored an amendment protecting [[Member of Congress|members of Congress]] and those elected that have not yet assumed office. Byrd mentioned the 88 political assassinations in the United States and said state law was not adequate to handle the increase in political violence.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1970/10/09/archives/rush-of-crime-bills-voted-by-senate-in-night-session-anticrime.html|title=Rush of Crime Bills Voted By Senate in Night Session|first=Marjorie|last=Hunter|newspaper=The New York Times|date=October 9, 1970 |access-date=September 14, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180915001749/https://www.nytimes.com/1970/10/09/archives/rush-of-crime-bills-voted-by-senate-in-night-session-anticrime.html|archive-date=September 15, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In February 1971, after [[Fred R. Harris]] and [[Charles Mathias]] requested the [[United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration|Senate Rules Committee]] change the rules to permit selection of committee chairmen on a basis aside from seniority, Byrd indicated through his line of questioning that he saw considerable value in the seniority system.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1971/02/13/archives/harris-and-mathias-ask-seniority-curb.html|title=Harris and Mathis Ask Seniority Curb|date=February 13, 1971|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 18, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180919030423/https://www.nytimes.com/1971/02/13/archives/harris-and-mathias-ask-seniority-curb.html|archive-date=September 19, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In April 1971, after Representative [[Hale Boggs]] stated that he had been tapped by the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]] and called on FBI Director [[J. Edgar Hoover]] to resign, Byrd opined that Boggs' imagination was involved and called on him to reveal any possible "good, substantial, bona fide evidence".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1971/04/08/archives/kleindienst-assails-boggs-invites-inquiry-into-fbi-us-aide-assails.html|title=Kleindienst Assails Boggs; Invites Inquiry Into F.B.I.|date=April 8, 1971|newspaper=The New York Times}}</ref>

In April 1971, Byrd met with President Nixon, [[Hugh Scott]], and [[Robert P. Griffin]] for a briefing that after which Byrd, Scott, and Griffin asserted they had been told by Nixon of his intent to withdraw American forces from [[Indochina]] by a specific date. White House Press Secretary [[Ronald L. Ziegler]] disputed their claims by stating that the three had not been told anything by Nixon he had not mentioned in his speech the same day as the meeting.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1971/04/09/archives/3-senators-aver-nixon-said-he-had-pullout-deadline-but-white-house.html|title=3 Senators Aver Nixon Said He Had Pullout Deadline|date=April 9, 1971|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 14, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180915001955/https://www.nytimes.com/1971/04/09/archives/3-senators-aver-nixon-said-he-had-pullout-deadline-but-white-house.html|archive-date=September 15, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In April 1971, [[Jacob Javits]], Fred R. Harris, and [[Charles H. Percy]] circulated letters to their fellow senators in an attempt to gain cosponsors for a resolution to appoint the Senate's first girl pages. Byrd maintained that the Senate was ill-equipped for girl pages and was among those that cited the long hours of work, the carrying of sometimes heavy documents and the [[Crime in Washington, D.C.|high crime rate in the Capitol area]] as among the reasons against it.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1971/04/11/archives/3-senators-press-girlpage-drive-resolution-barring-denial-of-job.html|title=3 SENATORS PRESS GIRL-PAGE DRIVE|date=April 11, 1971|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 18, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180919030357/https://www.nytimes.com/1971/04/11/archives/3-senators-press-girlpage-drive-resolution-barring-denial-of-job.html|archive-date=September 19, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In September 1971, Representative [[Richard H. Poff]] was under consideration by President Nixon for a Supreme Court nomination, Byrd warning Poff that his nomination could be met with opposition by liberal senators and see a filibuster emerge. Within hours, Poff announced his declining of the nomination.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1971/10/06/archives/senator-warned-poff-of-a-floor-battle.html|title=Senator Warned Poff of a Floor Battle|date=October 6, 1971|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=August 13, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180813212040/https://www.nytimes.com/1971/10/06/archives/senator-warned-poff-of-a-floor-battle.html|archive-date=August 13, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In April 1972, Senate Majority Leader Mansfield announced that he had authorized Byrd to present an amendment to the Senate for a fixed deadline for total troop withdrawal that the Nixon administration would be obligated to meet and that the measure would serve as an amendment to the State Department‐United States Information Agency authorization bill.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1972/04/16/archives/new-senate-war-debate-seen-on-mansfield-pullout-measure.html|title=New Senate War Debate Seen On Mansfield Pullout Measure|date=April 16, 1972|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 16, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180917034322/https://www.nytimes.com/1972/04/16/archives/new-senate-war-debate-seen-on-mansfield-pullout-measure.html|archive-date=September 17, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In April 1972, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the nomination of [[Richard G. Kleindienst]] as [[United States Attorney General]], Byrd being one of four Democrats to support the nomination.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1972/04/28/archives/senate-unit-114-again-approves-kleindienst-post-way-is-cleared-for.html|title=Senate Unit, 11–4, Again Approves Kleindienst Post|date=April 28, 1972|newspaper=The New York Times}}</ref> On June 7, Byrd announced that he would vote against Kleindienst, saying in a news release that this was Nixon's first nomination that he had not voted to confirm and that testimony at hearings investigating Kleindienst's tenure at the [[ITT Inc.|International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation]] displayed "a show of arrogance and deception and insensitivity to the people's right to know".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1972/06/08/archives/top-democrat-asks-kleindienst-defeat.html|title=Top Democrat Asks Kleindienst Defeat|newspaper=The New York Times|date=June 8, 1972|access-date=August 13, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180813212206/https://www.nytimes.com/1972/06/08/archives/top-democrat-asks-kleindienst-defeat.html|archive-date=August 13, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> During the confirmation hearings of Kleindienst's successor [[Elliot Richardson]], Byrd insisted on the appointment of a [[special counsel]] to investigate the Watergate scandal as a condition for his appointment, eventually leading to the [[Archibald Cox]] investigation.<ref>Graff, Garrett M. (2022). ''Watergate: A New History'' (1 ed.). New York: Avid Reader Press. pp. 393. {{ISBN|978-1-9821-3916-2}}. {{OCLC|1260107112}}.</ref>

In a May 1972 luncheon speech, Byrd criticized American newspapers for "an increasing tendency toward shoddy technical production" and observed that there was "a greater schism between the Nixon Administration and the media, at least publicly, than at any previous time in our history".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1972/05/31/archives/senator-scores-newspapers-for-shoddy-production.html|title=Senator Scores Newspapers For 'Shoddy' Production|date=May 31, 1972|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 16, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180917034301/https://www.nytimes.com/1972/05/31/archives/senator-scores-newspapers-for-shoddy-production.html|archive-date=September 17, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In May 1972, Byrd introduced a proposal supported by the Nixon administration that would make cutting off all funding for American hostilities in Indochina conditional upon agreement on an internationally supervised cease‐fire. Byrd and Nixon supporters argued modification would bring the amendment more in line with President Nixon's proposal to withdraw all American forces from Vietnam the previous week and it was approved in the Senate by a vote of 47 to 43.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1972/05/17/archives/senate-4743-adds-ceasefire-to-amendment-to-halt-the-war.html|title=Senate, 47-43, Adds Cease-Fire To Amendment to Halt the War|date=May 17, 1972|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 16, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180917034353/https://www.nytimes.com/1972/05/17/archives/senate-4743-adds-ceasefire-to-amendment-to-halt-the-war.html|archive-date=September 17, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In September 1972, [[Edward Brooke]] attempted to reintroduce his war ending amendment that had been defeated earlier in the week as an addendum to a clean drinking water bill when he discovered that Byrd had arranged a unanimous consent free agreement prohibiting amendments that were not relevant to the subject. Brooke charged the Byrd agreements with impairing his senatorial prerogatives to introduce amendments.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1972/09/29/archives/panel-resubmits-vetoed-hew-bill-seeks-to-make-nixon-pick-programs.html|title=PANEL RESUBMITS VETOED H.E.W. BILE|date=September 29, 1972|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 16, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180917034424/https://www.nytimes.com/1972/09/29/archives/panel-resubmits-vetoed-hew-bill-seeks-to-make-nixon-pick-programs.html|archive-date=September 17, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

During the [[1972 United States presidential election|1972 general election campaign]], Democratic nominee [[George McGovern]] advocated for partial amnesty for [[Draft evasion in the Vietnam War|draft dodges]]. Byrd responded to the position in a November speech the day before the election without mentioning McGovern by name in saying, "How could we keep faith with the thousands of Americans we sent to Vietnam by giving a mere tap on the wrist to those who fled to Canada and Sweden?" Byrd said the welfare proposals were part of "pernicious doctrine that the Federal Government owes a living to people who don't want to work" and chastised individuals that had personal trips to Hanoi rather than official missions as "the [[Ramsey Clark]]s in our society who attempt to deal unilaterally with the enemy".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1972/11/07/archives/democratic-whip-criticizes-mcgovern-campaign-views.html|title=THE 1972 CAMPAIGN|date=November 7, 1972|newspaper=The New York Times}}</ref>

In January 1973, the Senate passed legislation containing an amendment Byrd offered requiring President Nixon to give Congress an accounting of all funds that he had impounded and appropriated by February 5. Byrd stated that President Nixon had been required to submit reports to Congress and that he had not done so since June, leaving Congress in the dark on the matter.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1973/01/07/archives/senate-vote-calls-on-nixon-to-report-impounded-funds.html|title=Senate Vote Calls on Nixon To Report Impounded Funds|date=January 7, 1973|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 19, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180919094550/https://www.nytimes.com/1973/01/07/archives/senate-vote-calls-on-nixon-to-report-impounded-funds.html|archive-date=September 19, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In February 1973, the Senate approved legislation requiring confirmation of the director and deputy director of the [[Office of Management and Budget]] in the White House in what was seen as "another battleground for the dispute between Congress and the White House over cuts in social spending programs in the current Federal budget and in the Nixon Administration's spending request for the fiscal year 1974, which begins next July 1". The legislation contained an amendment sponsored by Byrd limiting the budget officials to a maximum term of four years before having another confirmation proceeding. Byrd introduced another amendment that required all Cabinet officers be required to undergo reconfirmation by the Senate in the event that they are retained from one administration to another.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1973/02/06/archives/senate-votes-to-require-approval-of-budget-aides-move-to-seek.html|title=Senate Votes to Require Approval of Budget Aides|first=James M.|last=Naughton|date=February 6, 1973|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 19, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180919094547/https://www.nytimes.com/1973/02/06/archives/senate-votes-to-require-approval-of-budget-aides-move-to-seek.html|archive-date=September 19, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In March 1973, Byrd led Senate efforts to reject a proposal that would have made most critical committee meetings open to the public, arguing that tampering with "the rides of the Senate is to tamper with the Senate itself" and argued against changing "procedures which, over the long past, have contributed to stability and efficiency in the operation of the Senate". The Senate voted down the proposal 47 to 38 on March 7.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1973/03/07/archives/senate-47-to-38-retains-a-limit-on-open-hearings-senate-retains.html|title=Senate, 47 to 38, Retains A Limit on Open Hearings|first=David E.|last=Rosenbaum|newspaper=The New York Times|date=March 7, 1973 |access-date=September 19, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180919095945/https://www.nytimes.com/1973/03/07/archives/senate-47-to-38-retains-a-limit-on-open-hearings-senate-retains.html|archive-date=September 19, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

On May 2, 1973, the anniversary of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's death, Byrd called on President Nixon to appoint a permanent successor for Hoover as FBI Director.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1973/05/03/archives/hoover-anniversary-is-ignored-by-fbi.html|title=Hoover Anniversary Is Ignored by F.B.I.|date=May 3, 1973|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 19, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180919095941/https://www.nytimes.com/1973/05/03/archives/hoover-anniversary-is-ignored-by-fbi.html|archive-date=September 19, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In June 1973, Byrd sponsored a bill that would impose the first Tuesday in October as the date for all [[Federal elections in the United States|federal elections]] and mandate that states hold [[Partisan primary|primary election]]s for federal elections between the first Tuesday in June and the first Tuesday in July. [[United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration|Senate Rules Committee]] approved the measure on June 13 and it was sent to the Senate floor for consideration.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1973/06/14/archives/panel-passes-bill-to-cut-campaigns.html|title=PANEL PASSES BILL TO CUT CAMPAIGNS|date=June 14, 1973|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 19, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180919095929/https://www.nytimes.com/1973/06/14/archives/panel-passes-bill-to-cut-campaigns.html|archive-date=September 19, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In June 1973, along with [[Lloyd Bentsen]], Mike Mansfield, [[John Tower]], and [[Jennings Randolph]], Byrd was one of five senators to switch their vote on the foreign military aid authorization bill to assure its passage after previously voting against it.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1973/06/27/archives/senate-approves-military-aid-bill-votes-770million-after-rejecting.html|title=Senate Approves Military Aid Bill|date=June 27, 1973|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 19, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180919094532/https://www.nytimes.com/1973/06/27/archives/senate-approves-military-aid-bill-votes-770million-after-rejecting.html|archive-date=September 19, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In October 1973, President Nixon vetoed the request of the [[United States Information Agency]] for $208 million for fiscal year 1974 on the grounds of a provision forcing the agency to provide any document or information demanded. Byrd introduced a bill identical to the one vetoed by Nixon the following month, differing in not containing the information provision as well as a ban on appropriating or spending more money than the annual budget called for, the Senate approving the legislation on November 13.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1973/11/14/archives/senate-approves-altered-usia-bill.html|title=Senate Approves Altered U.S.I.A. Bill|date=November 14, 1973|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 19, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180919132207/https://www.nytimes.com/1973/11/14/archives/senate-approves-altered-usia-bill.html|archive-date=September 19, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In November 1973, after the Senate rejected an amendment to the [[National Energy Emergency Act]] intending to direct President Nixon to put gasoline rationing into effect on January 15, Byrd indicated the final vote not coming for multiple days.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1973/11/16/archives/senate-rejects-gas-deadline-blocks-bid-to-force-nixon-to-impose.html|title=Senate Rejects 'Gas' Deadline|date=November 16, 1973|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 19, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180919094608/https://www.nytimes.com/1973/11/16/archives/senate-rejects-gas-deadline-blocks-bid-to-force-nixon-to-impose.html|archive-date=September 19, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In June 1974, the Senate confirmed [[John C. Sawhill]] as [[Federal Energy Administration|Federal Energy Administrator]] only to rescind the confirmation hours later, the direct result of [[James Abourezk]] wanting to speak out and vote against the nomination due to the Nixon administration's refusal to roll back [[Price of oil|crude oil prices]]. Abourezk confirmed that he had asked Byrd for notice of when he could assume the Senate floor to deliver his remarks. Byrd was absent when present members passed the nomination as part of their efforts to clear the chamber's executive calendar and rescinded the confirmation.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1974/06/18/archives/senators-hold-up-sawhill-approval.html|title=Senators Hold Up Sawhill Approval|newspaper=The New York Times |date=June 18, 1974|access-date=September 14, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180914203357/https://www.nytimes.com/1974/06/18/archives/senators-hold-up-sawhill-approval.html|archive-date=September 14, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

==== Nixon resignation ====
In May 1974, the House Judiciary Committee opened [[Impeachment process against Richard Nixon|impeachment hearings against President Nixon]] after the release of 1,200 pages of transcripts of White House conversations between him and his aides and the administration became engulfed in the scandal that would come to be known as [[Watergate scandal|Watergate]]. That month, Byrd delivered a speech on the Senate floor opposing Nixon's potential resignation, saying it would serve only to convince the President's supporters that his enemies had driven him out of office: "The question of guilt or innocence would never be fully resolved. The country would remain polarized — more so than it is today. And confidence in government would remain unrestored". Most of the members of the Senate in attendance for the address were conservatives from both parties that shared opposition to Nixon being removed from office. Byrd was among multiple conservative senators who stated that they would not ask Nixon to resign.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1974/05/14/archives/leading-senators-refuse-to-press-nixon-on-quitting-conservatives-of.html|title=LEADING SENATORS REFUSE TO PRESS NIXON ON QUITTING|date=May 14, 1974|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 27, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180928044005/https://www.nytimes.com/1974/05/14/archives/leading-senators-refuse-to-press-nixon-on-quitting-conservatives-of.html|archive-date=September 28, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> Later that month, Republican attorney general [[Elliot L. Richardson]] termed Nixon "a law and order President who says subpoenas must be answered by everyone except himself," the comment being echoed by Byrd who additionally charged President Nixon with reneging on his public pledge that the independence of the special prosecutor to pursue the Watergate investigation would not be limited without the prior approval of a majority of congressional leaders.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1974/05/27/archives/bar-leader-urges-president-to-heed-justices-on-tapes-smith-says-he.html|title=BAR LEADER URGES PRESIDENT TO HEED JUSTICES ON TAPES|date=May 27, 1974|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 27, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180928003354/https://www.nytimes.com/1974/05/27/archives/bar-leader-urges-president-to-heed-justices-on-tapes-smith-says-he.html|archive-date=September 28, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

On July 29, Byrd met with Senate Majority Leader [[Mike Mansfield]], Minority Leader [[Hugh Scott]], and Republican whip [[Robert P. Griffin]] in the first formality by Senate leaders on the matter of President Nixon's impeachment.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1974/07/30/archives/senate-leaders-prepare-for-impeachment-trial-working-quietly.html|title=Senate Leaders Prepare|first=Richard L.|last=Madden|newspaper=The New York Times|date=July 30, 1974 |access-date=September 14, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180914203841/https://www.nytimes.com/1974/07/30/archives/senate-leaders-prepare-for-impeachment-trial-working-quietly.html|archive-date=September 14, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> Byrd opposed Nixon being granted immunity. ''The New York Times'' noted that as [[Chairman of the Republican National Committee]] [[George H. W. Bush]] issued a formal statement indicating no chance for the Nixon administration to be salvaged, Byrd was advocating for President Nixon to face some punishment for the illegal activities of the administration and that former vice president [[Spiro Agnew]] should have been imprisoned.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1974/08/07/archives/decline-in-senate-dole-says-president-now-has-no-more-than-20-votes.html|title=Decline in Senate|date=August 7, 1974|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 27, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180928044038/https://www.nytimes.com/1974/08/07/archives/decline-in-senate-dole-says-president-now-has-no-more-than-20-votes.html|archive-date=September 28, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> The Senate leadership met throughout August 7 to discuss Nixon's fate, the topic of immunity being mentioned in the office of Hugh Scott.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1974/08/08/archives/senators-unable-to-agree-on-any-move-over-nixon-senators-unable-to.html|title=Senators Unable to Agree On Any Move Over Nixon|first=David E.|last=Rosenbaum|date=August 8, 1974|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 27, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180928003412/https://www.nytimes.com/1974/08/08/archives/senators-unable-to-agree-on-any-move-over-nixon-senators-unable-to.html|archive-date=September 28, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> Nixon announced his resignation the following day and resigned on August 9.<ref>{{cite news| newspaper = The Washington Post| title = Nixon Resigns| series = The Watergate Story| url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/watergate/part3.html| access-date = July 16, 2011| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20161125171439/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/watergate/part3.html| archive-date = November 25, 2016| url-status = live}}</ref> The resignation led to Congress rearranging their intent from an impeachment to the confirmation of a new vice presidential nominee and the Senate scheduled a recess between August 23 to September 14, Byrd opining, "What the country needs is for all of us to get out of Washington and let the country have a breath of fresh air".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1974/08/11/archives/congress-will-shift-focus-to-vicepresidency-vote-funding-veto-by.html|title=Congress Will Shift Focus To Vice-Presidency Vote|date=August 11, 1974|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 27, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180928003327/https://www.nytimes.com/1974/08/11/archives/congress-will-shift-focus-to-vicepresidency-vote-funding-veto-by.html|archive-date=September 28, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> By August 11, Hugh Scott announced he was finding fewer members of Congress from either party committed to criminally prosecuting former president Nixon over ''Watergate'', Byrd and Majority Leader Mansfield both indicating their favoring for Nixon's culpability being left in the consideration of Special Prosecutor [[Leon Jaworski]] and the ''Watergate'' grand jury.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1974/08/12/archives/scott-says-capitol-leaders-oppose-nixon-prosecution-approve-a.html|title=Scott Says Capitol Leaders Oppose Nixon Prosecution|date=August 11, 1974|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 27, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180921120811/https://www.nytimes.com/1974/08/12/archives/scott-says-capitol-leaders-oppose-nixon-prosecution-approve-a.html|archive-date=September 21, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Gerald Ford era===
On November 22, 1974, the Senate Rules Committee voted unanimously to recommend the nomination of [[Nelson Rockefeller]] as [[Vice President of the United States]] to the full Senate. Byrd admitted that he had preferred sending the nomination with no recommendation but was worried the act would apply prejudice to the nominee.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1974/11/23/archives/senate-panel-90-backs-rockefeller-for-confirmation-byrd-and-allen.html|title=SENATE PANEL,9-0, BACKS ROCKEFELLER FORCONFIRMATION|date=November 23, 1974|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=August 13, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180813213622/https://www.nytimes.com/1974/11/23/archives/senate-panel-90-backs-rockefeller-for-confirmation-byrd-and-allen.html|archive-date=August 13, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In January 1975, after President Ford requested $300 million in additional military aid for [[South Vietnam]] and $222 million more for the [[Khmer Republic]] from Congress, Byrd said Ford and Secretary of State [[Henry Kissinger]] had described the aid as "imperative" and that congressional leaders had been told [[North Vietnam]] would take over [[Ho Chi Minh City|Saigon]] "little by little" if additional ammunition and other aid were not provided by the US to Saigon.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1975/01/29/archives/new-indochina-aid-is-asked-by-ford-president-formally-urges.html|title=NEW INDOCHINA AID IS ASKED BY FORD|date=January 29, 1975|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=August 14, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180814040635/https://www.nytimes.com/1975/01/29/archives/new-indochina-aid-is-asked-by-ford-president-formally-urges.html|archive-date=August 14, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> In February, along with Mike Mansfield, [[Hugh Scott]], and [[Robert P. Griffin]], Byrd was one of four senators to sponsor a compromise modification of the Senate's filibuster rule where three-fifths of the total Senate membership would be adequate in invoking closure on any measure except a change in the Senate's rules.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1975/03/01/archives/leaders-in-senate-back-a-compromise-on-filibuster-rule.html|title=Leaders in Senate Back a Compromise On Filibuster Rule|date=March 1, 1975|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=August 14, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180814040210/https://www.nytimes.com/1975/03/01/archives/leaders-in-senate-back-a-compromise-on-filibuster-rule.html|archive-date=August 14, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> In March, while the Senate voted on reforming its filibuster rule, [[James Allen (U.S. senator)|James B. Allen]] and other senators used their allotted time to speak at length and also force a series of votes. In response, Byrd said the group was engaging in an "exercise in futility" and that the chamber had already made up its mind.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1975/03/08/archives/filibuster-rule-reformed-by-senate-in-5627-vote-action-is-completed.html|title=Filibuster Rule Reformed By Senate in 56-27 Vote|date=March 8, 1975|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=August 13, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180814011327/https://www.nytimes.com/1975/03/08/archives/filibuster-rule-reformed-by-senate-in-5627-vote-action-is-completed.html|archive-date=August 14, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> In April, after President Ford and his administration's lawyers contended that Ford had authority as president to use troops under the [[War Powers Act of 1941|War Powers Act]], Byrd and [[Thomas F. Eagleton]] objected by charging that Ford was establishing a dangerous precedent.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1975/04/11/archives/embassy-in-saigon-told-to-begin-staff-reduction.html|title=Embassy in Saigon Told To Begin Staff Reduction|date=April 11, 1975|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=August 14, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180814103806/https://www.nytimes.com/1975/04/11/archives/embassy-in-saigon-told-to-begin-staff-reduction.html|archive-date=August 14, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> Byrd issued a statement on the Senate floor admitting his "serious reservations" pertaining to the Ford administration's intent to bring roughly 130,000 South Vietnamese refugees to the United States, citing cultural differences and unemployment as raising "grave doubts about the wisdom of bringing any sizable number of evacuees here".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1975/04/29/archives/military-bases-in-arkansas-florida-california-to-house-refugees.html|title=Military Bases in Arkansas, Florida, California to House Refugees|date=April 29, 1975|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=August 14, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180814043600/https://www.nytimes.com/1975/04/29/archives/military-bases-in-arkansas-florida-california-to-house-refugees.html|archive-date=August 14, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> In May, after President Ford appealed for Americans to support the [[Indochina refugee crisis|resettlement of 130,000 Vietnamese and Cambodians in the US]], Byrd told reporters that he believed that President Ford's request for $507 million for refugee transport and resettlement would be reduced, citing its lack of political support in the United States.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1975/05/07/archives/ford-asks-nation-to-open-its-doors-to-the-refugees-president-in-tv.html|title=FORD ASKS NATION TO OPEN ITS DOORS TO THE REFUGEES|first=David|last=Binder|date=May 7, 1975|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=August 13, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180813210452/https://www.nytimes.com/1975/05/07/archives/ford-asks-nation-to-open-its-doors-to-the-refugees-president-in-tv.html|archive-date=August 13, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> In September, Byrd sponsored an amendment to the appropriations bill that if enacted would bar the education department from ordering busing to the school nearest to a pupil's home and sought to hold the Senate floor until there was an agreement among colleagues on his proposal. This failed, as the time limit for debating various proposals ran out.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1975/09/24/archives/senate-liberals-fail-to-shut-off-debate-on-a-measure-that-would.html|title=Senate Liberals Fail to Shut Off Debate On a Measure That Would Curb Busing|first=Richard L.|last=Madden|newspaper=The New York Times|date=September 24, 1975 |access-date=August 14, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180814043359/https://www.nytimes.com/1975/09/24/archives/senate-liberals-fail-to-shut-off-debate-on-a-measure-that-would.html|archive-date=August 14, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> On November 10, Byrd met with President Ford for a discussion on the New York loan guarantee bill.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1975/11/11/archives/cityaid-measure-gains-in-senate-top-democrats-claim-votes-to-halt.html|title=CITY-AID MEASURE GAINS IN SENATE|first=Martin|last=Tolchin|newspaper=The New York Times|date=November 11, 1975 |access-date=August 14, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180814040309/https://www.nytimes.com/1975/11/11/archives/cityaid-measure-gains-in-senate-top-democrats-claim-votes-to-halt.html|archive-date=August 14, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In April 1976, Byrd was one of five members of the Senate Select Committee to vote for a requirement that the proposed oversight committee would share Its jurisdiction with four committees that had authority over intelligence operations.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1976/04/28/archives/panel-trims-intelligence-oversight-plan-senate-panel-trims.html|title=Panel Trims Intelligence Oversight Plan|date=April 28, 1976|newspaper=The New York Times}}</ref> In June, after the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to send a bill breaking up 18 large oil companies into separate production, refining and refining‐marketing entities to the Senate floor, Byrd announced his opposition to divestiture and joined Republicans [[Hugh Scott]] and [[Charles Mathias]] in confirming their votes were to report the bill.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1976/06/16/archives/oil-breakup-bill-goes-to-senate-87-committee-vote-sends-plan-to.html|title=Oil Breakup Bill Goes to Senate|first=Edward|last=Cowan|newspaper=The New York Times|date=June 16, 1976 |access-date=August 14, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180814232836/https://www.nytimes.com/1976/06/16/archives/oil-breakup-bill-goes-to-senate-87-committee-vote-sends-plan-to.html|archive-date=August 14, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> In September, Congress overrode President Ford's veto of a $56 billion appropriations bill for social services, Ford afterward telling Byrd and House Speaker [[Carl Albert]] that he would sign two bills supported by the Democrats.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1976/10/01/archives/congress-overrides-fords-veto-of-bill-on-social-services.html|title=Congress Overrides Ford's Veto of Bill on Social Services|first=Richard D.|last=Lyons|newspaper=The New York Times|date=October 1, 1976|access-date=August 14, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180814040414/https://www.nytimes.com/1976/10/01/archives/congress-overrides-fords-veto-of-bill-on-social-services.html|archive-date=August 14, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

Byrd was elected majority leader on January 4, 1977.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1977/01/05/archives/senate-democrats-pick-byrd-as-leader-gop-elects-baker-humphrey-bows.html|title=Senate Democrats Pick Byrd as Leader; GOP Elects Baker|date=January 5, 1977|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=August 14, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180814103847/https://www.nytimes.com/1977/01/05/archives/senate-democrats-pick-byrd-as-leader-gop-elects-baker-humphrey-bows.html|archive-date=August 14, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> On January 14, President Ford met with congressional leadership to announce his proposals for pay increases of high government officials, Byrd afterward telling reporters that the president had also stated his intent to recommend that the raises be linked to a code of conduct.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1977/01/15/archives/ford-to-ask-pay-rise-for-major-officials-congress-chiefs-say.html|title=Ford to Ask Pay Rise for Major Officials, Congress Chiefs Say|date=January 15, 1977|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=August 14, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180814103958/https://www.nytimes.com/1977/01/15/archives/ford-to-ask-pay-rise-for-major-officials-congress-chiefs-say.html|archive-date=August 14, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> Days later, after the Senate established a special 15‐member committee to draw up a code of ethics for senators, Byrd told reporters that he was supportive of the measure and that it would be composed of eight Democrats and seven Republicans who would have until March 1 to issue a draft code that would then be subject to change by the full Senate.<ref name="nytimes1977">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1977/01/19/archives/15member-panel-named-to-draft-ethics-code.html|title=15-Member Panel Named To Draft Ethics Code|date=January 19, 1977|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=August 14, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180814104829/https://www.nytimes.com/1977/01/19/archives/15member-panel-named-to-draft-ethics-code.html|archive-date=August 14, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Jimmy Carter era ===
In January 1977, after President-elect Carter announced his nomination of [[Theodore C. Sorensen]] to be [[Director of Central Intelligence]], Byrd admitted to reporters that there could be difficulty securing a Senate confirmation.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1977/01/16/archives/sorensen-approval-by-senate-as-head-of-cia-is-in-doubt-withdrawal.html|title=SORENSEN APPROVAL BY SENATE AS HEAD OF C.I.A. IS IN DOUBT|date=January 16, 1977|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=August 16, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180817023132/https://www.nytimes.com/1977/01/16/archives/sorensen-approval-by-senate-as-head-of-cia-is-in-doubt-withdrawal.html|archive-date=August 17, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> Conservative opposition to Sorenson's nomination led Carter to conclude that he could not be confirmed, and Carter withdrawing it without the Senate taking action.<ref>{{cite news |agency=Associated Press |date=November 1, 2010 |title=Ted Sorensen, JFK's speechwriter and confidant, dies at 82 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/01/ted-sorensen-jfk-speechwriter-dies |work=The Guardian |location=London, UK |access-date=August 16, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180927113731/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/01/ted-sorensen-jfk-speechwriter-dies |archive-date=September 27, 2018 |url-status=live }}</ref>

==== Role in changes in Senate rules ====
On January 18, 1977, after the Senate established a special 15‐member committee to draw up a code of ethics for senators, Byrd and Senate Minority Leader [[Howard Baker]] announced their support for the resolution, Byrd adding that knowledge of the code of ethics being enacted in the Senate would be privy to the public, press, and members of the Senate.<ref name="nytimes1977"/> While eight of Carter's secretaries were confirmed within the first hours of his presidency, Byrd made an unsuccessful effort to secure a date and time limit for debate on the confirmation of [[F. Ray Marshall]], Carter's nominee for [[United States Secretary of Labor]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1977/01/21/archives/10-carter-nominees-are-approved-but-action-is-delayed-on-others.html|title=10 Carter Nominees Are Approved, But Action Is Delayed on Others|date=January 21, 1977|first=Warren Jr.|last=Weaver|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=August 16, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180817023159/https://www.nytimes.com/1977/01/21/archives/10-carter-nominees-are-approved-but-action-is-delayed-on-others.html|archive-date=August 17, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

Between January and February 1979, Byrd proposed outlawing tactics frequently used to prevent him from bringing a bill to the floor for consideration. He stated the filibuster tactics gave the Senate a bad reputation and rendered it ineffective. His proposals initially earned the opposition of Republicans and conservative Democrats until there was a compromise for the reform package to be split and have the less objectionable part come up first for consideration. The Senate passed legislation curtailing tactics that had been used in the past to continue filibusters after cloture had been invoked on February 22.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1979/02/23/archives/senate-votes-to-cut-postcloture-debate-to-100-hours-proposal-still.html|title=Senate Votes to Cut Post-Cloture Debate to 100 Hours|date=February 23, 1979|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 19, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180919094539/https://www.nytimes.com/1979/02/23/archives/senate-votes-to-cut-postcloture-debate-to-100-hours-proposal-still.html|archive-date=September 19, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> In March, Byrd negotiated an agreement that a proposed amendment was referred to the Judiciary Committee and would be reported by April 10. The arrangement stated that Byrd could call up the proposed amendment any time following June 1 and his action would not be subject to a filibuster while the resolution embodying the amendment will.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1979/03/16/archives/carter-legislation-on-elections-gets-off-to-a-shaky-start-in.html|title=Carter Legislation on Elections Gets Off to a Shaky Start in Congress|date=March 16, 1979|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 19, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180919094409/https://www.nytimes.com/1979/03/16/archives/carter-legislation-on-elections-gets-off-to-a-shaky-start-in.html|archive-date=September 19, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

==== Domestic issues ====
In October 1977, Byrd stated his refusal to authorize the Senate dropping consideration of the natural gas legislation under any circumstances, predicting the matter would be settled in the coming days as a result of conversations with colleagues he had the night before and a growing disillusion with filibusters in place of action on legislation. Byrd added that the deregulation bill would not become law due to it being identical to the Carter administration's proposal and President Carter's prior statement that he would veto deregulation bills.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1977/10/02/archives/byrd-vows-senate-will-vote-on-energy-despite-filibuster.html|title=Byrd Vows Senate Will Vote on Energy Despite Filibuster|date=October 2, 1977|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=August 17, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180817124913/https://www.nytimes.com/1977/10/02/archives/byrd-vows-senate-will-vote-on-energy-despite-filibuster.html|archive-date=August 17, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In May 1978, Byrd announced that he would not move to end a filibuster against the Carter administration's labor law revision bill until after the Memorial Day recess. The decision was seen as allowing wavering senators to not be cornered on their votes as lobbying efforts for both business and labor commenced and various opponents of the bill viewed Byrd's call as a sign of weakness toward the Carter administration. Byrd stated that his decision to wait was "to give ample time for debate on the measure" and that he was expecting the first petition to end the filibuster to come sometime following the Senate returning in June.<ref>{{cite news|title=Byrd Says He'll Postpone Action on Labor Filibuster|date=May 19, 1978|newspaper=The Washington Post}}</ref>

In March 1979, after Attorney General [[Griffin Bell]] named a special counsel in the Carter warehouse investigation, Byrd stated his dissatisfaction with the move in a Senate floor speech, citing the existence of legislation approved by Congress the previous year that would allow the appointment of a special prosecutor.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1979/03/23/archives/8-senate-republicans-attack-bell-for-not-appointing-a-prosecutor.html|title=8 Senate Republicans Attack Bell For Not Appointing a Prosecutor|date=March 23, 1979|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 19, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180919211734/https://www.nytimes.com/1979/03/23/archives/8-senate-republicans-attack-bell-for-not-appointing-a-prosecutor.html|archive-date=September 19, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> In June, director of [[Public Citizen|Public Citizen's]] Congress Watch [[Mark Green (New York politician)|Mark Green]] stated that President Carter had told him that Majority Leader Byrd had threatened that he would personally lead a filibuster against any attempt to extend controls on domestic oil prices. In response, Byrd's press secretary Mike Willard confirmed that Byrd told President Carter he would not vote for cloture in the event of a filibuster.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1979/06/02/archives/carter-castigates-mobil-on-decontrol-calls-company-irresponsible.html|title=CARTER CASTIGATES MOBIL ON DECONTROL|date=June 2, 1979|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 19, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180919094546/https://www.nytimes.com/1979/06/02/archives/carter-castigates-mobil-on-decontrol-calls-company-irresponsible.html|archive-date=September 19, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> Days later, after the Senate voted to grant President Carter authority to set energy conservation targets for each of the 50 states and allow Carter to impose mandatory measures on any statfailed to implement a plan to meet the targets he set, Byrd reaffirmed his opposition to attempts aimed at President Carter's decision to remove [[price controls]] from [[Petroleum in the United States|crude oil produced within the United States]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1979/06/06/archives/senate-votes-to-let-carter-set-state-energy-targets-domenici.html|title=Senate Votes to Let Carter Set State Energy Targets|date=June 6, 1979|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 19, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180919094407/https://www.nytimes.com/1979/06/06/archives/senate-votes-to-let-carter-set-state-energy-targets-domenici.html|archive-date=September 19, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> In November, Byrd stated that the United States did not have an alternative to coal when attempting to meet its energy needs and that the [[Synthetic fuel|technology needed to turn coal into liquid fuel]] at a lower cost than that of producing gasoline had already been made available, opining that doing this would solve most [[Environmental issues in the United States|environmental problems]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1979/11/19/archives/byrd-says-nation-has-no-choice-but-to-switch-to-coal-for-energy.html|title=Byrd Says Nation Has No Choice But to Switch to Coal for Energy|date=November 18, 1979|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 19, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180919220156/https://www.nytimes.com/1979/11/19/archives/byrd-says-nation-has-no-choice-but-to-switch-to-coal-for-energy.html|archive-date=September 19, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> Weeks later, [[Sergeant at Arms of the United States Senate]] [[F. Nordy Hoffman]] sent a letter to Byrd warning him to take precautions against possible attacks by religious fanatics and nationalist terrorists and advocating for senators to "vary their daily routines, take different routes to and from the Senate, exchange their personalized license plates for those that provide anonymity and be generally alert to the possibility of attack". Byrd distributed the letter to the other members of the chamber of Congress.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1979/11/30/archives/senators-warned-of-terrorist-acts.html|title=Senators Warned of Terrorist Acts|date=November 30, 1979|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 19, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180919220200/https://www.nytimes.com/1979/11/30/archives/senators-warned-of-terrorist-acts.html|archive-date=September 19, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> In December, the Senate voted on a Republican proposal to limit overall Government tax revenue that would also yield an annual tax cut of $39 to $55 billion over the course of the following four years. Republican [[William Roth]] sponsored an amendment that Byrd moved to table Senator Roth's request for a budget waiver and won by five votes. The Senate narrowly blocked the proposal.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1979/12/06/archives/senate-bars-consideration-of-tax-cut-senate-bars-consideration-of.html|title=Senate Bars Consideration of Tax Cut|date=December 6, 1979|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 19, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180920010905/https://www.nytimes.com/1979/12/06/archives/senate-bars-consideration-of-tax-cut-senate-bars-consideration-of.html|archive-date=September 20, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> By December, congressional leadership was aiming for President Carter to sign a new synthetic fuels bill before Christmas, with Byrd wanting the bill to contain a $185 billion revenue that was achieved in a minimum tax provision.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1979/12/12/archives/delays-loom-for-fuel-bill-conferees-labor-to-meld-2-plans.html|title=Delays Loom for Fuel Bill|date=December 12, 1979|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 19, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180919211602/https://www.nytimes.com/1979/12/12/archives/delays-loom-for-fuel-bill-conferees-labor-to-meld-2-plans.html|archive-date=September 19, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> Later that month, after the Senate approved $1.5 billion in Federal loan guarantees for the Chrysler Corporation tonight after defeating a proposal to provide emergency, Byrd confirmed that he had spoken with [[United States Secretary of the Treasury]] [[G. William Miller]] about what Byrd called "excellent" chances that the Senate would complete work on a federal loans guarantees bill for Chrysler.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1979/12/20/archives/senate-by-53-to-44-backs-chrysler-aid-interim-help-loses-conference.html|title=SENATE, BY 53 TO 44, BACKS CHRYSLER AID; INTERIM HELP LOSES|date=December 20, 1979|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 19, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180919214608/https://www.nytimes.com/1979/12/20/archives/senate-by-53-to-44-backs-chrysler-aid-interim-help-loses-conference.html|archive-date=September 19, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In August 1980, Byrd stated that Congress was unlikely to pass a tax cut before the November elections despite the Senate being in the mood for passing one.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1980/08/24/archives/byrd-doubts-approval-of-tax-cut-by-november.html|title=Byrd Doubts Approval Of Tax Cut by November|date=August 24, 1980|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=August 16, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180817023221/https://www.nytimes.com/1980/08/24/archives/byrd-doubts-approval-of-tax-cut-by-november.html|archive-date=August 17, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

==== Turkey ====
In July 1978, Byrd introduced and endorsed a proposal by [[George McGovern]] for an amendment to repeal the 42‐month‐old embargo on [[United States military aid|American military assistance]] for [[Turkey]] that also linked any future aid for that country to progress on a [[Cyprus peace process|negotiated settlement]] of the [[Cyprus problem]]. The Senate approved the amendment in a vote of 57 to 42 as part of a $2.9 billion international security assistance bill. Byrd stated that every government in the [[NATO|NATO alliance]] except [[Greece]] favored repeal of the embargo.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1978/07/26/archives/senate-acts-to-lift-arms-ban-on-turks-but-adds-warning-help-tied-to.html|title=SENATE ACTS TO LIFT ARMS BAN ON TURKS, BUT ADDS WARNING|first=Graham|last=Hovey|newspaper=The New York Times|date=July 26, 1978 |access-date=August 17, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180817124932/https://www.nytimes.com/1978/07/26/archives/senate-acts-to-lift-arms-ban-on-turks-but-adds-warning-help-tied-to.html|archive-date=August 17, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In May 1979, Byrd stated that giving Turkey a grant should not be construed as retaliation against [[Greece]] and that aid for Turkey would improve Turkey's security in addition to that of Greece, NATO, and of American allies in the Middle East. Byrd mentioned his encouragement from the report on the [[Greek Cypriots|Greek]] and [[Turkish Cypriot]] communities agreeing to resume negotiations on the island's future as well as reports that progress was also being made on the reintegration of Greece into NATO. Byrd furthered that American military installations in Turkey were "of major importance in the monitoring of Soviet strategic activities" and would have "obvious significance" in the goal of verifying compliance by the Soviet Union with the strategic arms treaty. The Senate approved the Turkey grant, to Byrd's wishes, but against that of both President Carter and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1979/05/23/archives/senate-votes-to-make-50-million-for-turkey-a-grant-sarbanes-leads.html|title=Senate Votes to Make $50 Million for Turkey a Grant|first=Graham|last=Hovey|date=May 23, 1979|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 19, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180919211709/https://www.nytimes.com/1979/05/23/archives/senate-votes-to-make-50-million-for-turkey-a-grant-sarbanes-leads.html|archive-date=September 19, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

==== Foreign policy ====
On February 2, 1978, Byrd and Minority Leader Baker invited all other senators to join them in sponsoring two amendments to the [[Torrijos–Carter Treaties]], the two party leaders sending copies of amendments recommended by the Foreign Relations Committee the previous week.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1978/02/03/archives/byrd-and-baker-bid-colleagues-cosponsor-2-canal-amendments.html|title=Byrd and Baker Bid Colleagues Co-Sponsor 2 Canal Amendments|date=February 3, 1978|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=August 17, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180817124946/https://www.nytimes.com/1978/02/03/archives/byrd-and-baker-bid-colleagues-cosponsor-2-canal-amendments.html|archive-date=August 17, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In January 1979, Byrd met with [[Deputy Prime Minister of China]] [[Deng Xiaoping]] for assurances by Deng that China hoped to [[Chinese unification|unite Taiwan to the mainland]] by peaceful means and would fully respect "the present realities" on the island. Byrd afterward stated that his concern on the [[Political status of Taiwan|Taiwan question]] had been allayed.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1979/01/31/archives/teng-on-capitol-hill-says-peking-must-keep-taiwan-options-open-teng.html|title=Teng, on Capitol Hill, Says Peking Must Keep Taiwan Options Open|date=January 31, 1979|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 19, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180919133800/https://www.nytimes.com/1979/01/31/archives/teng-on-capitol-hill-says-peking-must-keep-taiwan-options-open-teng.html|archive-date=September 19, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> In June, Byrd opined that a decision by President Carter to not proceed with the new missile system would kill the [[SALT II|strategic arms limitation treaty]] in the Senate.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1979/06/11/archives/soviet-cautions-us-on-mx-deployment-but-commentary-in-pravda-gives.html|title=Soviet Cautions U.S. on MX Deployment|date=June 11, 1979|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 19, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180919094534/https://www.nytimes.com/1979/06/11/archives/soviet-cautions-us-on-mx-deployment-but-commentary-in-pravda-gives.html|archive-date=September 19, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> Byrd held meetings with Soviet leaders between July 3 to July 4. Following their conclusion, Byrd said he was still undecided on supporting the arms pact and that there had been talks on "the need on both sides for avoidance of inflammatory rhetoric which can only be counterproductive".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1979/07/06/archives/senator-byrd-leaving-soviet-says-he-is-still-undecided-on-arms-pact.html|title=Senator Byrd, Leaving Soviet, Says He Is Still Undecided on Arms Pact|first=Craig R.|last=Whitney|newspaper=The New York Times|date=July 6, 1979 |access-date=September 19, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180919094544/https://www.nytimes.com/1979/07/06/archives/senator-byrd-leaving-soviet-says-he-is-still-undecided-on-arms-pact.html|archive-date=September 19, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> On September 23, Byrd stated that it was possible the Senate could complete the strategic arms limitation treaty that year but a delay until the following year could result in its defeat, adding that senators might have to remain in session during Christmas to ensure the treaty was voted on before 1979's end. Byrd noted that he was opposed to the treaty being "held hostage to the Cuban situation" as American interests could be harmed in the event the treaty was defeated solely due to [[Soviet Armed Forces]] troops being in Cuba.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1979/09/23/archives/byrd-says-arms-pact-could-still-be-acted-on-in-79.html|title=Byrd Says Arms Pact Could Still Be Acted on in '79|date=September 23, 1979|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 19, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180919211702/https://www.nytimes.com/1979/09/23/archives/byrd-says-arms-pact-could-still-be-acted-on-in-79.html|archive-date=September 19, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> In November, Byrd admitted to complaining to President Carter about Senate leadership receiving only occasional briefings about the [[Iranian hostage crisis]] and that Carter had agreed to daily consultations for Minority Leader [[Howard Baker]], chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee [[Frank Church]], and ranking Republican member of the Foreign Relations Committee [[Jacob Javits]]. Byrd added that he did not disagree with the move by the Carter administration to admit [[Mohammad Reza Pahlavi]] for hospitalization and that the same action would extend to "[[Ayatollah Khomeini]] himself if he were needing medical treatment and had a terminal illness".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1979/11/18/archives/byrd-says-carter-agrees-to-consult-him-on-iran.html|title=Byrd Says Carter Agrees To Consult Him on Iran|date=November 18, 1979|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 19, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180919211705/https://www.nytimes.com/1979/11/18/archives/byrd-says-carter-agrees-to-consult-him-on-iran.html|archive-date=September 19, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> On December 3, Byrd told reporters that the [[Iran hostage crisis|Iranian hostage crisis]] was making the Senate uninhabitable for a debate on the strategic arms treaty, noting that a discussion could still occur before the Senate adjourned on December 21 but that he did not believe he would call up the opportunity even if granted the chance.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1979/12/04/archives/iran-issue-detracts-from-arms-treaty-byrd-says-environment-in.html|title=IRAN ISSUE DETRACTS FROM ARMS TREATY|date=December 4, 1979|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 19, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180920011000/https://www.nytimes.com/1979/12/04/archives/iran-issue-detracts-from-arms-treaty-byrd-says-environment-in.html|archive-date=September 20, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> Days later, Byrd announced there was no chance that the Senate would take up debate on the strategic arms treaty that year while speaking to reporters, adding that he would see no harm in having the discussion on the treaty begin in January of the following year.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1979/12/07/archives/byrd-sees-no-arms-debate-in-79.html|title=Byrd Sees No Arms Debate in '79|date=December 7, 1979|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 19, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180919211429/https://www.nytimes.com/1979/12/07/archives/byrd-sees-no-arms-debate-in-79.html|archive-date=September 19, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

==== 1980 presidential election ====
In July 1979, Senators [[Henry M. Jackson]] and George McGovern made comments expressing doubt on President Carter being assured as the Democratic nominee in the [[1980 United States presidential election|1980 presidential election]]. When asked about their comments by a reporter, Byrd referred to Jackson and McGovern as "two very strong voices and not at all to be considered men who have little background in politics" but stated it was too early to participate in "writing the political obituary of the President at this point". Byrd added that the powers of the presidency made it possible that Carter could have a comeback and cited the events in November and December as being telling of his prospects of achieving higher popularity.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1979/07/29/archives/byrd-says-its-too-soon-to-count-out-president.html|title=Byrd Says It's Too Soon To Count Out President|date=July 29, 1979|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 19, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180919095928/https://www.nytimes.com/1979/07/29/archives/byrd-says-its-too-soon-to-count-out-president.html|archive-date=September 19, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

On May 10, 1980, Byrd called for President Carter to debate Senator [[Ted Kennedy]], who he complimented as having done a service for the US by raising key issues in his [[Ted Kennedy 1980 presidential campaign|presidential campaign]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1980/05/11/archives/byrd-urges-president-to-face-kennedy-in-a-debate.html|title=Byrd Urges President to Face Kennedy in a Debate|date=May 10, 1980|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=August 16, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180817023039/https://www.nytimes.com/1980/05/11/archives/byrd-urges-president-to-face-kennedy-in-a-debate.html|archive-date=August 17, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> On August 2, Byrd advocated for an open [[1980 Democratic National Convention|Democratic National Convention]] where the delegates were not bound to a single candidate. The endorsement was seen as a break from President Carter.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1980/08/03/archives/byrd-says-he-backs-open-convention-assails-libyan-case-judgment-of.html|title=BYRD SAYS HE BACKS 'OPEN' CONVENTION; ASSAILS LIBYAN CASE; JUDGMENT OF CARTER FAULTED Senator Calls Moves 'Amateurish' but Expects President to Win Democratic Nomination Response From the White House Criticism of Libya Matter More Messages Released BYRD SAYS HE BACKS 'OPEN' CONVENTION|date=August 3, 1980|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=August 16, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180816230633/https://www.nytimes.com/1980/08/03/archives/byrd-says-he-backs-open-convention-assails-libyan-case-judgment-of.html|archive-date=August 16, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>
In September, Byrd said that Republican presidential nominee [[Ronald Reagan]] had made comments on the [[Iran–Iraq War]] that were a disservice to the United States and that he was exercising "reckless political posturing" in foreign policy.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1980/09/28/archives/byrd-accuses-reagan-of-reckless-posturing-on-war-the-wrong-signal.html|title=Byrd Accuses Reagan of 'Reckless Posturing' on War; 'The Wrong Signal'|date=September 28, 1980|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=August 16, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180817023138/https://www.nytimes.com/1980/09/28/archives/byrd-accuses-reagan-of-reckless-posturing-on-war-the-wrong-signal.html|archive-date=August 17, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== George H. W. Bush era ===
In early 1990, Byrd proposed an amendment granting special aid to coal miners who would lose their jobs in the event that Congress passed clean air legislation. Byrd was initially confident in the number of votes he needed to secure its passage being made available but this was prevented by a vote from Democrat [[Joe Biden]] who said the measure's passage would mean an assured veto by President Bush. Speaking to reporters after its defeat, Byrd stated his content with the results: "I made the supreme effort. I did everything I could and, therefore, I don't feel badly about it".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/30/us/senate-rejects-plan-on-aid-to-miners.html|title=Senate Rejects Plan on Aid to Miners|date=March 30, 1990|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 14, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150525204355/http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/30/us/senate-rejects-plan-on-aid-to-miners.html|archive-date=May 25, 2015|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-03-30-mn-193-story.html|title=Senate Kills Obstacle to Clean Air Bill Passage : Congress: Byrd's costly plan to aid coal miners is defeated on 50–49 vote after fierce White House lobbying. It would have brought a Bush veto|first=Michael|last=Ross|newspaper=Los Angeles Times|date=March 30, 1990}}</ref> The Senate passed clean air legislation within weeks of the vote on Byrd's amendment with the intent of reduction in [[acid rain]], [[Smog|urban smog]] and [[Air pollution in the United States|toxic chemicals in the air]] and meeting the request by President Bush for a measure that was less costly than the initial plan while still performing the same tasks of combating clean air issues. Byrd was one of eleven senators to vote against the bill and said he "cannot vote for legislation that can bring economic ruin to communities throughout the [[Appalachian Mountains|Appalachian region]] and the [[Midwestern United States|Midwest]]".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/04/us/senators-approve-clean-air-measure-by-a-vote-of-89-11.html|title=Senators Approve Clean Air Measure by a Vote of 89–11|newspaper=The New York Times |date=April 4, 1990|access-date=September 14, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180826110448/https://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/04/us/senators-approve-clean-air-measure-by-a-vote-of-89-11.html|archive-date=August 26, 2018|url-status=live|last1=Shabecoff |first1=Philip }}</ref>

In August 1990, after the Senate passed its first major [[Campaign finance reform in the United States|campaign finance reform bill]] since the Watergate era that would prevent [[political action committee]]s from federal campaigns, lend public money into congressional campaigns and bestow candidates vouchers for [[Campaign advertising|television advertising]], Byrd stated that he believed the bill would "end the money chase".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/02/us/senate-votes-to-curb-donations-from-outside-campaign-groups.html|title=Senate Votes to Curb Donations From Outside Campaign Groups|date=August 2, 1990|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=January 4, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190105043610/https://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/02/us/senate-votes-to-curb-donations-from-outside-campaign-groups.html|archive-date=January 5, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref>

Byrd authored an amendment to the [[National Endowment for the Arts]] that would bar the endowment from funding projects considered obscene such as depictions of [[sadomasochism]], [[Homoeroticism|homo-eroticism]], the [[sexual exploitation of children]], or individuals engaged in sex acts while also requiring grant recipients to sign a pledge swearing their compliance with the restrictions. The October 1990 measure approved in the Senate was a bipartisan measure loosening government restrictions on art project funding and leaving courts to judge what art could be considered obscene.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.upi.com/Archives/1990/10/24/Senate-votes-to-loosen-NEA-restrictions/2112656740800/|title=Senate votes to loosen NEA restrictions|date=October 24, 1990|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 14, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180914132056/https://www.upi.com/Archives/1990/10/24/Senate-votes-to-loosen-NEA-restrictions/2112656740800/|archive-date=September 14, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

President Bush nominated [[Clarence Thomas]] for the Supreme Court. In October 1991, Byrd stated his support in the credibility of [[Anita Hill]]: "I believe what she said. I did not see on that face the knotted brow of satanic revenge. I did not see a face that was contorted with hate. I did not hear a voice that was tremulous with passion. I saw the face of a woman, one of 13 in a family of [[Black Southerners|Southern blacks]] who grew up on the farm and who belonged to the church". Byrd questioned how members of the Senate could be convinced that Thomas would serve as an objective judge when he could refuse to watch Hill's testimony against him.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/16/us/the-thomas-nomination-senators-who-switched-tell-of-political-torment.html|title=THE THOMAS NOMINATION; Senators Who Switched Tell of Political Torment|date=October 16, 1991|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 14, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180207025038/http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/16/us/the-thomas-nomination-senators-who-switched-tell-of-political-torment.html|archive-date=February 7, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In February 1992, the Senate turned down a Republican attempt sponsored by [[John McCain]] and [[Dan Coats]] to grant President Bush [[Line-item veto in the United States|line-item veto]] authority and thereby be authorized to kill projects that he was opposed to, Byrd delivering an address defending congressional power over spending for eight hours afterward. The speech had been written by Byrd two years prior and he had at this point steered $1.5 billion to his state.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/28/us/senate-rejects-a-line-item-veto.html|title=Senate Rejects a Line-Item Veto|date=February 28, 1992|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 14, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180914203345/https://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/28/us/senate-rejects-a-line-item-veto.html|archive-date=September 14, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In 1992, there was an effort made to pass a [[Balanced budget amendment|constitutional amendment to ensure a balanced federal budget]]. Byrd called the amendment "a smokescreen that will allow lawmakers to claim action against the deficit while still postponing hard budgetary decision" and spoke to reporters on his feelings against the amendment being passed: "Once members are really informed as to the mischief this amendment could do, and the damage it could do to the country and to the Constitution. I just have faith that enough members will take a courageous stand against the amendment". The sponsor of the amendment, [[Paul Simon (politician)|Paul Simon]], admitted that Byrd's prediction was not off and that other senators speak "when the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee talks".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/03/us/byrd-predicts-senate-will-defeat-amendment-for-balanced-budget.html|title=Byrd Predicts Senate Will Defeat Amendment for Balanced Budget|date=June 3, 1992|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 14, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180914203852/https://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/03/us/byrd-predicts-senate-will-defeat-amendment-for-balanced-budget.html|archive-date=September 14, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In a June 1992 debate, Byrd argued in favor of the United States withdrawing accepting [[Immigration to the United States|immigrants]] that did not speak English, the comment being a response to a plan from the Bush administration that would enable [[Post-Soviet states|former Soviet states]] to receive American assistance and allow immigrants from a variety of countries to receive [[Social programs in the United States|welfare benefits]]. Byrd soon afterward apologized for the comment and said they were due to his frustration over the federal government's inability to afford several essential services.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/27/us/remark-on-immigrants-brings-byrd-s-apology.html|title=Remark on Immigrants Brings Byrd's Apology|date=June 27, 1992|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 14, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180914205330/https://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/27/us/remark-on-immigrants-brings-byrd-s-apology.html|archive-date=September 14, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Bill Clinton era ===
In February 1994, the Senate passed a $10 billion spending bill that would mostly be allocated to [[1994 Northridge earthquake|Los Angeles, California earthquake]] victims and military operations abroad. [[Bob Dole]], [[John Kerry]], [[John McCain]], and [[Russ Feingold]] partnered together to persuade the Senate in favor of cutting back the deficit expense. Byrd raised a procedural point to derail an attempt by Dole that would approve $50 billion in spending cuts over the following five years. McCain proposed killing highway demonstration projects with a $203 million price tag, leading Byrd to produce letters written by McCain that the latter had sent to the Appropriations Committee in 1991 in an attempt to gather highway grants for his home state of [[Arizona]]. Byrd said that McCain "is very considerate of the taxpayers when it comes to financing projects in other states, but he supports such projects in his own state".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/11/us/senate-votes-a-quake-relief-measure.html|title=Senate Votes a Quake Relief Measure|date=February 11, 1994|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=October 4, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181004111120/https://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/11/us/senate-votes-a-quake-relief-measure.html|archive-date=October 4, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

Along with [[Chuck Hagel]], in July 1997 Byrd sponsored the [[Byrd–Hagel Resolution]], which effectively prohibited the US from ratifying the [[Kyoto Protocol]] on limiting and reducing [[greenhouse gas emissions]].

In May 2000, Byrd and [[John Warner]] sponsored a provision threatening to withdraw American troops from Kosovo, the legislation if enacted cutting off funds for troops in Kosovo after July 1, 2001, without congressional consent. The language would have also withheld 25 percent of the money for Kosovo in the bill unless the assertion that European countries were living up to their promises to provide reconstruction money for the province was certified by President Clinton by July 15. Byrd argued that lawmakers had never approved nor debate whether American troops should be stationed in Kosovo. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved the legislation in a vote of 23-to-3 that was said to reflect "widespread concern among lawmakers about an open-ended deployment of American soldiers".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/10/world/senators-seek-vote-in-congress-on-extending-kosovo-mission.html|title=Senators Seek Vote in Congress On Extending Kosovo Mission|date=May 10, 2000|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 24, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180924145303/https://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/10/world/senators-seek-vote-in-congress-on-extending-kosovo-mission.html|archive-date=September 24, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In November 2000, Congress passed an amendment sponsored by Byrd diverting tariff revenues from the [[United States Department of the Treasury|Treasury Department]] and instead allocating them to the industry complaining, the amount involved ranging from between $40 million and $200 million a year. The following month, [[Japan]] and the [[European Union]] led a group of countries in filing a joint complaint with the [[World Trade Organization]] to the law.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/22/business/group-of-countries-protests-us-change-in-dumping-law.html?mtrref=www.nytimes.com&gwh=063675A65E2BB0248AADC957B886B076&gwt=pay|title=Group of Countries Protest U.S. Change in Dumping|date=December 22, 2000|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 20, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180920085543/https://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/22/business/group-of-countries-protests-us-change-in-dumping-law.html?mtrref=www.nytimes.com&gwh=063675A65E2BB0248AADC957B886B076&gwt=pay|archive-date=September 20, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

===George W. Bush era===
Byrd praised the [[John Roberts Supreme Court nomination|nomination of John G. Roberts]] to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court created by the death of Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]]. Likewise, Byrd was one of four Democrats who supported the [[Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination|confirmation of Samuel Alito]] to replace retiring Associate Justice [[Sandra Day O'Connor]].<ref>[https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm Roll Call Vote 109th Congress – 2nd Session (on the confirmation of Samuel Alito of New Jersey)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170321194124/https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm |date=March 21, 2017 }}, ''[[United States Senate]]'', January 31, 2006. Retrieved November 26, 2018.</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Kirkpatrick|first1=David D.|title=Alito Sworn In as Justice After Senate Gives Approval|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/01/politics/politicsspecial1/alito-sworn-in-as-justice-after-senate-gives.html|access-date=26 November 2018|work=The New York Times|date=1 February 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181108232102/https://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/01/politics/politicsspecial1/alito-sworn-in-as-justice-after-senate-gives.html|archive-date=November 8, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

Like most Democrats, Byrd opposed [[Bush tax cuts|Bush's tax cuts]] and his [[Social Security debate in the United States|proposals to change the Social Security program]].

Byrd opposed the 2002 [[Homeland Security Act]], which created the [[Department of Homeland Security]], stating that the bill ceded too much authority to the [[executive branch]].

On May 2, 2002, Byrd charged the White House with engaging in "sophomoric political antics", citing [[Homeland Security Advisor]] [[Tom Ridge]]'s briefing of senators in another location instead of the Senate on how safe he felt the U.S. was.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.upi.com/Top_News/2002/05/02/Byrd-White-House-pulling-stunts/89501020350467/|title=Byrd: White House pulling stunts|date=May 2, 2002|publisher=UPI|access-date=November 20, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171201042849/https://www.upi.com/Top_News/2002/05/02/Byrd-White-House-pulling-stunts/89501020350467/|archive-date=December 1, 2017|url-status=live}}</ref>

He also led the opposition to Bush's bid to win back the power to negotiate trade deals that Congress cannot amend, but lost overwhelmingly. In the 108th Congress, however, Byrd won his party's top seat on the new Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee.

In July 2004, Byrd released the [[The New York Times Best Seller list|''New York Times'' best-selling book]] ''Losing America: Confronting a Reckless and Arrogant Presidency'', which criticized the Bush presidency and the [[war in Iraq]].

====Iraq War====
[[File:Byrd-Gates.jpg|thumb|Byrd with Secretary of Defense-designate [[Robert Gates]], November 30, 2006]]
[[File:Byrd with petraeus.jpg|thumb|Byrd with Lieutenant General [[David Petraeus]], January 23, 2007]]

Byrd led a filibuster against the [[Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002]] granting [[President of the United States|President]] [[George W. Bush]] broad power to wage a [[preemptive war|"preemptive" war]] against [[Ba'athist Iraq]], but he could not get even a majority of his own party to vote against [[cloture]].<ref>"[http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/index.html Senate approves Iraq war resolution] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151016030131/http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/index.html |date=October 16, 2015 }}" (October 11, 2002). CNN.</ref>

Byrd was one of the Senate's most outspoken critics of the [[2003 invasion of Iraq]].

Byrd anticipated the difficulty of fighting an [[Iraqi insurgency (2003–2011)|insurgency in Iraq]], stating on March 13, 2003,

{{blockquote|If the United States leads the charge to war in the [[Persian Gulf]], we may get lucky and achieve a rapid victory. But then we will face a second war: a war to win the peace in Iraq. This war will last many years and will surely cost hundreds of billions of dollars. In light of this enormous task, it would be a great mistake to expect that this will be a replay of the 1991 war. The stakes are much higher in this conflict.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://byrd.senate.gov/speeches/byrd_speeches_2003march/byrd_speeches_2003march_list/byrd_speeches_2003march_list_2.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050825063856/http://byrd.senate.gov/speeches/byrd_speeches_2003march/byrd_speeches_2003march_list/byrd_speeches_2003march_list_2.html|archive-date=August 25, 2005 |title=Senator Byrd – Senate Speeches |publisher=Byrd.senate.gov |date=March 13, 2003 |access-date=June 28, 2010}}</ref>}}

On March 19, 2003, when Bush ordered the invasion after receiving [[Iraq Resolution|congressional approval]], Byrd said,

{{blockquote|Today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned. Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination. Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have succeeded in isolating ourselves.<ref>Byrd, Robert (March 23, 2003), [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/23/usa.iraq2 Why I weep for my country] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161201213158/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/23/usa.iraq2 |date=December 1, 2016 }}. ''The Observer''.</ref>}}

Byrd also criticized Bush for his speech declaring the "end of major combat operations" in Iraq, which Bush made on the [[USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72)|USS ''Abraham Lincoln'']]. Byrd stated on the Senate floor,

{{blockquote|I do not begrudge his salute to America's warriors aboard the carrier Lincoln, for they have performed bravely and skillfully, as have their countrymen still in Iraq. But I do question the motives of a deskbound president who assumes the garb of a warrior for the purposes of a speech.<ref>Richard W. Stevenson, [https://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/07/us/aftereffects-the-president-white-house-clarifies-bush-s-carrier-landing.html AFTEREFFECTS: THE PRESIDENT; White House Clarifies Bush's Carrier Landing] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161128200512/http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/07/us/aftereffects-the-president-white-house-clarifies-bush-s-carrier-landing.html |date=November 28, 2016 }}, ''The New York Times'' (May 7, 2003).</ref>}}

On October 17, 2003, Byrd delivered a speech expressing his concerns about the future of the nation and his unequivocal antipathy to Bush's policies. Referencing the [[Hans Christian Andersen]] children's tale ''[[The Emperor's New Clothes]]'', Byrd said of the president: "the emperor has no clothes". Byrd further lamented the "sheep-like" behavior of the "cowed Members of this Senate" and called on them to oppose the continuation of a "war based on falsehoods".

[[File:GATES APPRO.jpg|thumb|right|350px|Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-[[West Virginia]], far right) shakes hands with Secretary of Defense [[Robert Gates]], while Sens. [[Patrick Leahy]] (D-[[Vermont]], center right) and [[Tom Harkin]] (D-[[Iowa]]) look on. The hearing was held to discuss further funding for the [[War in Iraq]].]]

In April 2004, Byrd mentioned the possibility of the Bush administration violating law by its failure to inform leadership in Congress midway through 2002 about its use of emergency anti-terror dollars to begin preparations for an invasion of Iraq. Byrd stated that he had never been told of a shift in money, a charge reported in the [[Bob Woodward]] book ''[[Plan of Attack]]'', and its validation would mean "the administration failed to abide by the law to consult with and fully inform Congress".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/21/world/the-struggle-for-iraq-byrd-questions-use-of-money-for-iraq.html|title=THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ; Byrd Questions Use Of Money for Iraq|date=April 21, 2004|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=August 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180810144320/https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/21/world/the-struggle-for-iraq-byrd-questions-use-of-money-for-iraq.html|archive-date=August 10, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

Byrd accused the [[Presidency of George W. Bush|Bush administration]] of stifling dissent:

{{blockquote|The right to ask questions, debate, and dissent is under attack. The drums of war are beaten ever louder in an attempt to drown out those who speak of our predicament in stark terms. Even in the Senate, our history and tradition of being the world's greatest deliberative body is being snubbed. This huge spending bill—{{Nowrap|$87 billion}}—has been rushed through this chamber in just one month. There were just three open hearings by the Senate Appropriations Committee on {{Nowrap|$87 billion}}—$87 for every minute since [[Jesus|Jesus Christ]] was born—{{Nowrap|$87 billion}} without a single outside witness called to challenge the administration's line.}}

Of the more than 18,000 votes he cast as a senator, Byrd said he was proudest of his vote against the Iraq war resolution.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/12/byrd.access/index.html |title=CNN |date=June 12, 2006 |access-date=June 28, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100706084002/http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/12/byrd.access/index.html |archive-date=July 6, 2010 |url-status=live }}</ref> Byrd also voted to tie a timetable for troop withdrawal to war funding.

====Gang of 14====
On May 23, 2005, Byrd was one of 14 senators<ref>{{cite news|last1=Rudin|first1=Ken|title=Judging Alito: The Gang of 14 Factor|url=https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5080836|access-date=June 29, 2016|publisher=NPR|date=January 4, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160816174105/http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5080836|archive-date=August 16, 2016|url-status=live}}</ref> (who became known as the "[[Gang of 14]]") to forge a compromise on the judicial [[filibuster]], thus securing up and down votes for many judicial nominees and ending the threat of the so-called [[Nuclear option (filibuster)|nuclear option]] that would have eliminated the filibuster entirely. Under the agreement, the senators retained the power to filibuster a judicial nominee in only an "extraordinary circumstance". It ensured that the [[appellate court]] nominees ([[Janice Rogers Brown]], [[Priscilla Owen]] and [[William H. Pryor Jr.|William Pryor]]) would receive votes by the full Senate.

===Other votes===
In 1977, Byrd was one of five Democrats to vote against the nomination of [[F. Ray Marshall]] as [[United States Secretary of Labor]]. Marshall was opposed by conservatives in both parties because of his pro-labor positions, including support for repealing [[Right-to-work law|right to work laws]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1977/01/27/archives/senate-rollcall-vote-approving-marshall.html|title=Senate Roll-Call Vote Approving Marshall|newspaper=The New York Times |date=January 27, 1977|access-date=March 19, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180319152949/https://www.nytimes.com/1977/01/27/archives/senate-rollcall-vote-approving-marshall.html|archive-date=March 19, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> Marshall was confirmed and served until the end of Carter's term in 1981.

In February 1981, as the Senate voted on giving final approval to the $50 billion increase in the [[debt limit]], Democrats initially opposed the measure as part of an effort to elicit the highest number of Republicans in support of the measure. Byrd proceeded to give a signal for Democrats that saw caucus members switch their votes in support of the increase.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1981/02/07/us/senate-votes-raise-in-us-debt-ceiling.html|title=SENATE VOTES RAISE IN U.S. DEBT CEILING|first=Martin|last=Tolchin|newspaper=The New York Times|date=February 7, 1981|access-date=September 22, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180923052509/https://www.nytimes.com/1981/02/07/us/senate-votes-raise-in-us-debt-ceiling.html|archive-date=September 23, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

President Reagan was injured during an [[Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan|assassination attempt]] in March 1981. Following the shooting, Byrd opined that the aftermath of the attempt had proven there were "holes that need to be plugged" in the constitution's handling of the [[United States presidential line of succession|presidential line of succession]] after a president's disability and stated his intent to introduce legislation calling for a [[Mandatory sentencing|mandatory life sentence]] for anyone attempting to assassinate a president, vice president, or member of Congress.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1981/04/06/us/byrd-sees-a-need-to-alter-rules-on-succession-to-the-presidency.html|title=Byrd Sees a Need to Alter Rules On Succession to the Presidency|date=April 6, 1981|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 22, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180923052822/https://www.nytimes.com/1981/04/06/us/byrd-sees-a-need-to-alter-rules-on-succession-to-the-presidency.html|archive-date=September 23, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In March 1981, during a Capitol Hill interview, Byrd stated that the Reagan administration was promoting an economic package with assumptions for the [[Economy of the United States|national economy]] that might take a year for the public to see its difficulties and thereby lead to a political backlash. Byrd contented that President Reagan would win approval by Congress of $35 to $40 billion of the $48 billion in proposed budget cuts while having more difficulty in passing his tax-cut package, asserting Democratic opposition and some Republicans having misgivings about the approach as the reason Congress would block the plan and furthering that he would be surprised if a one-year cut in rates lasted more than year. Byrd opined that it was time for "some tax reform" that would see loopholes closed for the rich dropped to bring in revenues and expressed belief in the likelihood of the administration dismantling existing energy programs: "Energy programs are not as catchy now as budget cuts. But if the gas lines begin to form again, or the overseas oil gets cut off, we will have lost the time, the momentum, the money. Basically, they have a wholesale dismantlement of the energy programs we spent several years creating around here".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1981/03/14/us/byrd-calls-reagan-fiscal-plan-rosy-and-sees-tax-cut-held-to-one-year.html|title=BYRD CALLS REAGAN FISCAL PLAN 'ROSY' AND SEES TAX CUT HELD TO ONE YEAR|date=March 14, 1981|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 22, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180923052820/https://www.nytimes.com/1981/03/14/us/byrd-calls-reagan-fiscal-plan-rosy-and-sees-tax-cut-held-to-one-year.html|archive-date=September 23, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In March 1981, during a news conference, Byrd stated that the Reagan administration had not established a coherent [[Foreign policy of the Ronald Reagan administration|foreign policy]]. He credited conflicting statements from administration officials with having contributed to confusion in Western European capitals. Byrd also said, "We've seen these statements, and backing and filling, and the secretary of state has been kept pretty busy explaining and denying assertions and pronouncements by others, which indeed indicate that the administration has not yet got its foreign policy act together".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/03/23/Senate-Democratic-leader-Robert-Byrd-says-no-one-is/5454354171600/|title=Senate Democratic leader Robert Byrd says no one is...|date=March 23, 1981|publisher=UPI|access-date=September 26, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180926130731/https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/03/23/Senate-Democratic-leader-Robert-Byrd-says-no-one-is/5454354171600/|archive-date=September 26, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In May 1981, Byrd announced his support for the Reagan administration's proposed budget for the fiscal year 1982 during a weekly news conference, citing that the "people want the President to be given a chance with his budget". Byrd added that he did not believe a [[balanced budget]] would be achieved by 1984, calling the budget "a balanced budget on paper only, made up of juggled figures produced out of thin air", and charged the administration with making assumptions, his comments being seen as an indication that little opposition would amount from the Democrats to the Reagan budget.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1981/05/03/us/despite-doubts-byrd-will-back-reagan-s-budget.html|title=DESPITE DOUBTS, BYRD WILL BACK REAGAN'S BUDGET|date=May 3, 1981|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=August 13, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180813190348/https://www.nytimes.com/1981/05/03/us/despite-doubts-byrd-will-back-reagan-s-budget.html|archive-date=August 13, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In November 1981, as Senate leaders rejected the request of Senator [[Harrison A. Williams Jr.]] to introduce new evidence during the Senate's consideration of whether to expel him for his involvement in the [[Abscam]] case, Byrd and Majority Leader Baker informed Williams that he could have a lawyer that would have to remain wordless.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1981/11/19/nyregion/the-region-williams-spurned-on-new-evidence.html|title=THE REGION; Williams Spurned On New Evidence|date=November 19, 1981|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 26, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180926090039/https://www.nytimes.com/1981/11/19/nyregion/the-region-williams-spurned-on-new-evidence.html|archive-date=September 26, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

On December 2, 1981, Byrd voted in favor<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/12/03/The-90-4-vote-by-which-the-Senate-approved-the/2840376203600/|title=The 90–4 vote by which the Senate approved the...|date=December 3, 1981|publisher=UPI|access-date=March 6, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180307082314/https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/12/03/The-90-4-vote-by-which-the-Senate-approved-the/2840376203600/|archive-date=March 7, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> of an amendment to President Reagan's [[MX missile]]s proposal that would divert the silo system by $334 million as well as earmark further research for other methods that would allow giant missiles to be based. The vote was seen as a rebuff of the Reagan administration.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1981/12/03/us/senators-reject-plan-for-placing-mx-missile-in-silos.html|title=Senators Reject Plan for Replacing MX Missile in Silos|first=Steven V.|last=Roberts|date=December 3, 1981|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=March 22, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180307082246/http://www.nytimes.com/1981/12/03/us/senators-reject-plan-for-placing-mx-missile-in-silos.html|archive-date=March 7, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.csmonitor.com/1981/1204/120455.html|title=Reagan scorns Senate rejection of silo-based MX missile plan|first=Stephen|last=Webbe|newspaper=The Christian Science Monitor|date=December 4, 1981|access-date=March 6, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180307150853/https://www.csmonitor.com/1981/1204/120455.html|archive-date=March 7, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In February 1982, Byrd wrote a letter to President Reagan urging him to "withdraw the Administration's proposed fiscal 1983 budget, and resubmit a budget that provides for much lower deficits and makes use of more realistic assumptions", recalling his previous appeal to President Carter in 1980 amid the rise of soaring inflation rates and Carter afterward consulting with Democrats in Congress. Byrd stated that he was in favor of "a document we in Congress can work with, one based on realistic assumptions, one which shows a much clearer trend toward a balanced budget". Byrd had cautious praise for a proposal by Democrat [[Fritz Hollings]] called for a freeze on all benefit programs with the exception of [[Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program|food stamps]], [[Medicare (United States)|Medicare]] and [[Medicaid]] in addition to a freeze on military spending while eliminating a pay increase for federal employees.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1982/02/11/us/byrd-asks-president-to-resubmit-his-1983-budget.html|title=BYRD ASKS PRESIDENT TO RESUBMIT HIS 1983 BUDGET|date=February 11, 1982|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 22, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180923052640/https://www.nytimes.com/1982/02/11/us/byrd-asks-president-to-resubmit-his-1983-budget.html|archive-date=September 23, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In March 1982, Byrd announced he would introduce an amendment to the [[War Powers Resolution|War Powers Act]] that would bar the president from being able to send combat troops to the [[Salvadoran Civil War]] without the approval of Congress. Byrd described the proposal as only allowing the president to act with independence in the event that Americans needed to evacuate El Salvador or if the United States was attacked. "It is my view that if Americans are to be asked to shed their blood in the jungles of El Salvador, all Americans should first have an opportunity to debate and carefully evaluate that action".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1982/03/07/world/byrd-seeking-to-bar-us-combat-troops-from-salvador-war.html|title=Byrd Seeking to Bar U.S. Combat Troops from Salvador War|date=March 7, 1982|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=August 13, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180813111854/https://www.nytimes.com/1982/03/07/world/byrd-seeking-to-bar-us-combat-troops-from-salvador-war.html|archive-date=August 13, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

By March 1982, along with [[Alan Cranston]], Byrd was one of two senators supporting both the measure sponsored by Henry M. Jackson and [[John W. Warner]] calling upon the United States and the Soviet Union to freeze their nuclear arsenals at "equal and sharply reduced levels" and the bill sponsored by Ted Kennedy and [[Mark Hatfield]] calling upon the two countries first to negotiate a freeze on nuclear forces at existing levels before following atomic arms reduction.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1982/03/31/world/58-senators-back-alternative-plan-on-nuclear-arms.html|title=58 SENATORS BACK ALTERNATIVE PLAN ON NUCLEAR ARMS|first=Judith|last=Miller|newspaper=The New York Times|date=March 31, 1982|access-date=September 22, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180923052817/https://www.nytimes.com/1982/03/31/world/58-senators-back-alternative-plan-on-nuclear-arms.html|archive-date=September 23, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In January 1983, after President Reagan said during his [[1983 State of the Union Address]] that he hoped for the same bipartisan support that had produced the Social Security recommendations would lead Congress during the year on other issues, Byrd and House Majority Leader [[Jim Wright]] assailed the unfairness of a six-month delay in the cost-of-living increases for Social Security recipients during a period of letting the wealthy reap the benefits of the general income tax cut for a third year. Byrd stated that he did not "want a six-month delay in Social Security while leaving in place the third year of the tax cut for upper-income people" and stated that Reagan's speech had been "'rhetorically good, but substantively lacking in measures that would deal now with the crises that millions of people are experiencing".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1983/01/26/us/democrats-say-any-pension-shift-should-mean-a-change-in-tax-cut.html|title=DEMOCRATS SAY ANY PENSION SHIFT SHOULD MEAN A CHANGE IN TAX CUT|first=Martin|last=Tolchin|newspaper=The New York Times|date=January 26, 1983 |access-date=September 23, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180923235552/https://www.nytimes.com/1983/01/26/us/democrats-say-any-pension-shift-should-mean-a-change-in-tax-cut.html|archive-date=September 23, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

At the beginning of February 1983, House Democrats committed themselves "to an emergency economic assistance program that would create public service jobs, provide shelter and soup kitchens for the destitute and avert foreclosures of homes and farms". Concurrently, Byrd pledged to work with the House Democrats in developing legislation concerning jobs, proposing $5 to $10 billion be spent and introducing legislation intended to form a national investment corporation that would assist with underwriting faltering basic industries and starting new ones in areas of high unemployment.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1983/02/02/us/all-house-democratic-chiefs-ask-emergency-jobs-and-aid-program.html|title=ALL HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CHIEFS ASK EMERGENCY JOBS AND AID PROGRAM|date=February 2, 1983|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=September 23, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180924000838/https://www.nytimes.com/1983/02/02/us/all-house-democratic-chiefs-ask-emergency-jobs-and-aid-program.html|archive-date=September 24, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In March 1984, Byrd voted against a proposed constitutional amendment authorizing periods in public school for silent prayer,<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/16/us/senate-vote-on-school-prayer.html|title=SENATE VOTE ON SCHOOL PRAYER|date=March 16, 1984|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=March 14, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180315003710/https://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/16/us/senate-vote-on-school-prayer.html|archive-date=March 15, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> and in favor of President Reagan's unsuccessful proposal for a constitutional amendment permitting organized school prayer in public schools.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/21/us/amendment-drive-on-school-prayer-loses-senate-vote.html|title=AMENDMENT DRIVE ON SCHOOL PRAYER LOSES SENATE VOTE|date=March 21, 1984|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=March 14, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180315070445/https://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/21/us/amendment-drive-on-school-prayer-loses-senate-vote.html|archive-date=March 15, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/21/us/senate-s-roll-call-on-school-prayer.html|title=SENATE'S ROLL-CALL ON SCHOOL PRAYER|newspaper=The New York Times |date=March 21, 1984|access-date=March 14, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180315005350/https://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/21/us/senate-s-roll-call-on-school-prayer.html|archive-date=March 15, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In June 1984, Byrd was one of five Democrats to vote against the [[Lawton Chiles]] proposal to cease MX production for a year during study in search of a smaller and single-warhead missile. The 48 to 48 tie was broken by then-Vice President [[George H. W. Bush]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.upi.com/Archives/1984/06/14/The-49-48-vote-by-which-the-Senate-tabled-a/8470456033600/|title=The 49–48 vote by which the Senate tabled a...|date=June 14, 1984|publisher=UPI|access-date=March 19, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180320105610/https://www.upi.com/Archives/1984/06/14/The-49-48-vote-by-which-the-Senate-tabled-a/8470456033600/|archive-date=March 20, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In September 1986, Byrd endorsed the [[Capital punishment in the United States|death penalty]] for some drug pushers in [[Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986|anti-drug legislation]] that would order President Reagan to end [[Illegal drug trade|drug trafficking]] within 45 days through using the military as a means of intercepting smugglers, and imposing the death penalty on those pushers who intentionally cause a death as part of their operations while providing funding for prevention, drug abuse treatment, and anti-drug laws enforcement that was estimated to cost $3 to $4 billion over three years. Byrd admitted that calling for the death penalty seemed harsh, but cautioned that children in some cases had their entire lives destroyed through using drugs and that Congress had been soft for too long without seeing a change in results.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.upi.com/Archives/1986/09/12/Reagan-Byrd-endorse-death-penalty-in-anti-drug-law/7457526881600/|title=Reagan, Byrd endorse death penalty in anti-drug law|date=September 12, 1986|publisher=UPI|access-date=September 26, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180926205852/https://www.upi.com/Archives/1986/09/12/Reagan-Byrd-endorse-death-penalty-in-anti-drug-law/7457526881600/|archive-date=September 26, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In December 1986, Byrd announced that the Senate would convene a Watergate-type select committee to investigate the [[Iran-Contra affair]] the following year and that he had reached an agreement with Bob Dole for the committee to have six Democrats and five Republicans. Byrd and Dole disagreed on whether it was a necessity for Congress to be launched into a special session that month for the purpose of getting the investigative process moving. Naming members during December enabled participants to informally move ahead by selecting the staff and be prepared before the [[100th United States Congress]] began.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-12-04-mn-1429-story.html|title=Senate Will Convene Watergate-Style Panel|date=December 4, 1986|newspaper=Los Angeles Times}}</ref>

In September 1988, in response to charges by [[George H. W. Bush 1988 presidential campaign|Vice President Bush's presidential campaign]] that Democratic nominee [[Michael Dukakis]] was weak on defense, Byrd delivered a Senate speech in which he said that the Reagan administration "is living in a glass house when it throws a stone at the Democratic Party for its so-called Disneyland defense policies" and that the U.S. land-based missiles had grown in vulnerability due to the administration being "unable to produce an acceptable solution to make our missiles survivable". Byrd furthered, "Indeed, the [[Fantasyland]] exhibits of this White House's Defense [[Disneyland]] are loaded with the rejected systems that have been developed and discarded. If anything deserves the names '[[Goofy]]' and '[[Daffy Duck|Daffy]]' and '[[Mickey Mouse]],' it is those' basing proposals".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.upi.com/Archives/1988/09/14/Byrd-Reagan-missile-plans-goofy/4310590212800/|title=Byrd: Reagan missile plans 'goofy'|date=September 14, 1988|publisher=UPI|access-date=September 26, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180926205753/https://www.upi.com/Archives/1988/09/14/Byrd-Reagan-missile-plans-goofy/4310590212800/|archive-date=September 26, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In October 1990, Byrd and [[James A. McClure]] served as floor managers for the appropriation bill for the [[National Endowment of the Arts]], accepting an amendment by [[Jesse Helms]] prohibiting NEA support of work denigrating objects or beliefs of religions.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-10-25-mn-4234-story.html|title=Senate Defeats Attempts by Helms to Cut Art Funding : Congress: A proposal to relax current restrictions on the National Endowment for the Arts passes easily|date=October 25, 1990|newspaper=Los Angeles Times|access-date=August 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160603181717/http://articles.latimes.com/1990-10-25/news/mn-4234_1_national-endowment|archive-date=June 3, 2016|url-status=live}}</ref>

In November 1993, when the Senate voted to seek federal court enforcement of a subpoena for the diaries of [[Bob Packwood]], Byrd stated the possibility of Americans becoming convinced that the Senate was delaying taking action to protect one of its own members. Byrd also called for Packwood to resign. "None of us is without flaws. But when those flaws damage the institution of the Senate, it is time to have the grace to go!"<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-11-03-mn-52654-story.html|title=Senate Votes for Subpoena of Full Packwood Diaries : Politics: Lopsided ballot lets ethics panel seek access to memoirs. Papers sought for sex harassment inquiry|date=November 3, 1993|first=William J.|last=Eaton|newspaper=Los Angeles Times|access-date=August 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181020171623/http://articles.latimes.com/1993-11-03/news/mn-52654_1_ethics-panel|archive-date=October 20, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> Packwood resigned in 1995.<ref name="Seelye">{{cite news|last=Seelye|first=Katharine Q.|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/08/us/packwood-case-overview-packwood-says-he-quitting-ethics-panel-gives-evidence.html?pagewanted=all|title=The Packwood Case: The Overview; Packwood Says he is Quitting as Ethics Panel Gives Evidence|work=The New York Times|date=September 8, 1995|access-date=August 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180810144937/https://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/08/us/packwood-case-overview-packwood-says-he-quitting-ethics-panel-gives-evidence.html?pagewanted=all|archive-date=August 10, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In October 1999, Byrd was the only senator to vote present on the [[Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty]]. The treaty was designed to ban underground nuclear testing and was the first major international security pact to be defeated in the Senate since the [[Treaty of Versailles]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/14/world/defeat-treaty-overview-senate-kills-test-ban-treaty-crushing-loss-for-clinton.html|title=DEFEAT OF A TREATY: THE OVERVIEW; SENATE KILLS TEST BAN TREATY IN CRUSHING LOSS FOR CLINTON; EVOKES VERSAILLES PACT DEFEAT|first=Eric|last=Schmitt|date=October 14, 1999|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=March 22, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180414172505/https://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/14/world/defeat-treaty-overview-senate-kills-test-ban-treaty-crushing-loss-for-clinton.html|archive-date=April 14, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/oct99/senate14.htm|title=Senate Rejects Test Ban Treaty|date=October 14, 1999|first=Helen|last=Dewar|newspaper=The Washington Post|access-date=March 22, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180227153749/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/oct99/senate14.htm|archive-date=February 27, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

Byrd opposed the [[Flag Desecration Amendment]], saying that, while he wanted to protect the [[American flag]], he believed that amending the Constitution "is not the most expeditious way to protect this revered symbol of our Republic". As an alternative, Byrd cosponsored the [[Flag Protection Act of 2005]] (S. 1370), a bill to prohibit destruction or desecration of the flag by anyone trying to incite violence or causing a breach of the peace, or who steals, damages, or destroys a flag on federal property, whether owned by the federal government or a private group or individual—can be imprisoned, fined or both. The bill did not pass.

In 2009, Byrd was one of three Democrats to oppose the confirmation of [[United States Secretary of the Treasury|Secretary of the Treasury]] [[Timothy Geithner]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100531082810/https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00015 |archive-date=May 31, 2010 |title=U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote|publisher=Senate.gov |access-date=June 28, 2010}}</ref> After missing nearly two months while in hospital, Byrd returned to the Senate floor on July 21 to vote against the elimination of funding for the [[Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor|F-22]] fighter plane.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/07/sen_byrd_back_on_the_senate_fl.html?hpid=topnews | newspaper=The Washington Post | title=Sen. Byrd Back on the Senate Floor | access-date=May 22, 2010 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120112041938/http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/07/sen_byrd_back_on_the_senate_fl.html?hpid=topnews | archive-date=January 12, 2012 | url-status=dead }}</ref>

===Ratings groups===
Byrd received a 65% vote rating from the [[League of Conservation Voters]] for his support of [[United States environmental law|environmentally friendly legislation]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.capwiz.com/lcv/bio/keyvotes/?id=622&congress=1092&lvl=C |title=2009 National Environmental Scorecard |publisher=Capwiz.com |access-date=June 28, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090106145937/http://www.capwiz.com/lcv/bio/keyvotes/?id=622&congress=1092&lvl=C |archive-date=January 6, 2009 |url-status=live }}</ref> Additionally, he received a "liberal" rating of 65.5% by the ''[[National Journal]]''—higher than six other Democratic senators.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/pdf/Centrists.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090327092616/http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/pdf/Centrists.pdf|archive-date=March 27, 2009 |title=The Centrists |work=National Journal |date=February 25, 2006 |access-date=June 28, 2010}}</ref>

In 2010, Byrd received a 70 percent lifetime rating from the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] for supporting rights-related legislation.<ref>{{cite web |title=ACLU Congressional Scorecard: Senator Robert 'Bob' C. Byrd |url=https://action.aclu.org/site/VoteCenter?congress=109&repId=633&session_num=0&page=legScore |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101124234129/https://action.aclu.org/site/VoteCenter?congress=109&repId=633&session_num=0&page=legScore |archive-date=24 November 2010 |publisher=[[American Civil Liberties Union]] |access-date=August 8, 2018}}</ref>