Editing Robert Byrd (section)

===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>