Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, with 3 days to go before the start of the new fiscal year, there is much inside-the-beltway chatter about continuing resolutions, omnibuses, minibuses, budget showdowns, and Government shutdowns. Nowhere is that chatter louder than that which is coming from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. The President has threatened almost daily that he will veto any appropriations bill that exceeds his budget request. These veto threats include all of the spending bills that provide funding for our domestic programs--programs that, in one way or another, benefit each American and every American. These bills help to educate our children, help to secure our homeland, help to support rural America, and help to promote a competitive economy. These domestic spending bills provide the essential building blocks for the foundation of our great country. On the one hand, the President is seeking over $190 billion in emergency appropriations to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is $190 billion for the cost of the wars for 1 year--1 year--1 year. At the same time, the President wants to veto critical domestic spending bills because they total $22 billion above his, the President's, budget request--less than 1 percent of our entire budget, and about what we spend in 2 months' time fighting an unpopular war in Iraq. All the chatter from the White House even asserts that the $22 billion for programs here in America means increasing taxes and putting America's economic growth at risk. This, of course, begs the question of the economic impact of the almost $450 billion we have spent on the war in Iraq, a war which I oppose. The President characterizes the $22 billion above his request as ``increased'' spending. In fact, $19 billion of the $22 billion ``increase'' simply represents restorations of the President's--the President's--the President's relentless attempts to savage important domestic initiatives. This week, the FBI announced that violent crime is on the rise for the second straight year. Yet the President proposes to cut State and local law enforcement funding by $1.5 billion. Hurricane Katrina proved that the Government is not prepared to handle major disasters, be they natural disasters or terrorist attacks. Yet the President--our President--has proposed to cut first responder grants by $1.2 billion. Those grants equip and train our police, our fire and emergency medical personnel to respond to a disaster. The President--our President--proposes over $3 billion in cuts for education programs, including special education, safe and drug-free schools, and improving teacher quality. Despite an aging population in this country, the President proposes a cut of $279 million for studying cancer, diabetes, and heart disease at the National Institutes of Health. Under the President's budget, the National Institutes of Health would have to eliminate 700 research grants that could lead to cures for treatments for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, and other diseases. The President also proposes to cut $2.7 billion for elderly and disabled housing and community development grants. When the Interstate 35 bridge collapsed into the Mississippi River, it focused the Nation on the need to invest in our crumbling infrastructure. Yet the President proposes to cut over $3 billion from infrastructure programs, such as highway and transit funding, bridge repairs, rural wastewater grants, levees and dams, clean water grants, and airport safety and improvements. The President--our President--even proposes to reduce funding for the highway and transit levels that are guaranteed in the highway law that he, the President--our President-- signed in 2005. The President proposed cuts of $1 billion from health programs such as rural health, preventive health, and mental health grants, as well as over $300 million from the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Between 1998 and 2004, disease outbreaks in food produce have almost doubled. In 2003, there were 870 food inspectors at the FDA. In 2006, there were 640. The FDA lost 230 inspectors in less than 4 years. So it is no surprise food inspection dropped by nearly half during that time. Yet the President--our President--does not propose to restore those reductions in the number of inspectors. All of these foolish cuts have been restored in the bipartisan bills that were approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee by nearly unanimous votes and, regrettably, that the President--our President-- has said he will veto. In the 12 bills that have been reported from the committee, we have significantly reduced funding used for congressionally directed spending, and we have added unprecedented transparency and accountability. As one can clearly see, this White House standoff is not over some irresponsible plan for an expansion of Government or pork-barrel projects. Rather, it is the President's--our President's--effort to prevent cancellation of his ill-conceived and poorly justified proposed budget cuts. Congress wants to support vital core missions of Government, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Customs and Border Protection Agency. Congress wants to make reasonable choices and set important priorities for our Nation. There are consequences--yes, consequences--for failing to invest in America's safety and in America's future. Hurricane Katrina proved that. The collapse of the I-35 bridge proved that. Increases in violent crime prove that. Increases in food-borne illnesses prove that. Every headline about unsafe products being imported into this country proves that. Americans rightly expect their Government to work. Regrettably, rather than recognizing the consequences of his budget, the President--our President--is spoiling for a political fight. He refuses to recognize the facts, even as those facts evolve in a changing world. According to the administration's latest National Intelligence Estimate: We judge the U.S. homeland will face a persistent and evolving terrorist threat over the next three years. The main threat comes from Islamic terrorist groups and cells, especially al-Qaida, driven by their undiminished intent to attack the United States. Yet the President threatens to veto the Homeland Security bill that passed the Senate 89 to 4 because it is $2.2 billion above his request, with increases for first responder grants, for border security, and for enforcing our immigration laws. The President--our President--is determined to veto 8 of our 12 appropriations bills over $22 billion. Some have argued that $22 billion is not a lot of money. I don't share that view; $22 billion is a lot of money. That is why we are fighting for the additional funding above the President's inadequate request. This fight is about priorities. This Congress passed a budget resolution that balances the budget by 2012 and provides for the increase above the President's request for domestic programs. Consistent with the budget resolution, the Appropriations Committee has reported all 12 bills. Four have passed the Senate, and with passage of the continuing resolution, we will continue to press for passage of the remaining bills. The President's veto threats inevitably--yes, the President's veto threats inevitably slow this process. In the 12 bills that have been reported by the Appropriations Committee, we invest the $22 billion in America's future. By comparison: In fiscal year 2008, the total cost of President Bush's tax cuts is $252 billion--11 times the amount of spending in question. In fiscal year 2008, the cost of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers is almost $70 billion--three times the amount of spending in question. In fiscal year 2008, special interest tax expenditures will cost $1 trillion--45 times the amount of spending in question. Corporate tax expenditures will cost $91 billion--over four times the amount of spending in question. So $22 billion is, in fact, a lot of money; money that, if well spent, can help to make America be a safer, healthier, more prosperous country. We are committed to making those careful choices. We will root out waste. We will cut or eliminate ineffective programs. We will make careful choices. When President Bush came to town almost 7 years ago, he vowed to reach across the aisle for the common good of our Nation. Now is his chance. This is the President's chance to make good on that pledge. He can continue his purely partisan fight over $22 billion in needed spending, or the President can work with the Congress to confront problems that face Americans here at home. It is my fervent hope the President will put away his veto pen so we can get on with the business of adequately funding programs that contribute to a safe and prosperous United States of America. God bless America always.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, a few days ago, Congress and the American public were treated to a sales job on Iraq that would have made any used car salesman proud. We heard the half-truths and rosy visions put forth by authoritative diplomats in dark suits and ribboned and starred generals in uniform, topped off by the pomp and circumstance of a well- rehearsed Oval Office speech. Visions were painted for us of a peaceful and prosperous oasis of democracy and stability in the turbulent geography of the Middle East, if only--and only if--our gallant soldiers stayed for just a little while longer to bring the dream to reality. Such a grand vision, of course, produced yet another new Bush administration slogan, ``return on success,'' which fits very nicely on a bumper sticker for the back of the lemon this team of salesmen is trying to peddle. Like any good used car salesman, the President insists that we take him up on his once-in-a-lifetime good deal, just as he has insisted, each and every time, that he needs a little more time for his war in Iraq. If we don't buy in once again, Iraq will descend into chaos, militias will commence with ethnic cleansing, terrorists will set up complexes from which to launch attacks on the United States, and Iran or Syria, or both, will develop nuclear weapons and invade Iraq on their way to Israel. Mr. President, I suggest that we stop and take a little time to consider this offer, consider what was said and what was not said. It is long past time to lift the hood and kick the tires. President Bush said in his speech that things were going so well in Iraq that the extra troops needed for the surge could begin returning home, as long as conditions continued to improve. In the only time line that he laid out, the President suggested that, subject to his fine print, the number of U.S. troops in Iraq might be reduced to 137,000 by July 2008. While that is certainly welcome news, it carefully neglects to mention that this reduction would still leave 7,000 more troops in Iraq than were present before the so-called ``temporary surge'' began in February 2007. Frankly, that is not much of a drawdown, given all the so-called ``progress'' in Iraq cited by the President. The President said in 2003, ``Mission accomplished.'' Now the President says that in December, it will be time to ``transition to the next phase of our strategy in Iraq.'' the President said, and I quote, ``As terrorists are defeated, civil society takes root, and the Iraqis assume more control over their own security, our mission in Iraq will evolve. Over time, our troops will shift from leading operations, to partnering with Iraqi forces, and eventually to overwatching those forces.'' In 2003, over 4 years ago, when U.S. forces overthrew the regime of Saddam Hussein, there was supposed to be a rapid transition to a new civil government in Iraq. In all the years since the invasion, civil society has not yet put down strong roots despite our efforts. By every assessment and every benchmark, it is not happening now, either. The Iraqi central government is nowhere near achievng reconciliation, and equitable arrangements for the sharing of oil revenue or holding elections are but dim and distant visions. Iraqis have not assumed control over their own security. Indeed, independent assessments of Iraq have suggested that Iraqi security forces are riddled with sectarian corruption and will not be capable of providing security for some time to come, if ever. U.S. troops have been ``partnering'' with Iraqi troops for years now, and U.S. troops have been training, equipping and supporting Iraqi forces to the tune of billions of dollars. U.S. troops have been conducting counterterrorism operations, as the President also noted in his speech. So what, pray tell, is new or different about this strategy? I can see nothing by which to judge success so that our troops may ``return on success.'' It is just a nice paint job slathered across the same old junk car. The warranties on this new speech and this new sales job expire as soon as the car is driven off the lot. The only timeline offered by President Bush or General Petraeus ran out of time after July 2008. The pretty six-colored chart that General Petraeus used to show the troop drawdown associated with the transition had no dates on it past July 2008, though it was pretty clear that U.S. troops would be in Iraq for a very long time to come. President Bush explicitly said that if he has his way, U.S. troops would be in Iraq long past his exit from the White House. He boldly asserts that he will leave his staggering foreign policy calamity for someone else to clean up. Talk about passing the buck. Mr. President, we simply cannot afford another slick White House sales job. Too many young men and women have died or have been maimed in this horrific war. We owe it to them to take a good hard look at the facts. General Petraeus, in his testimony, suggested that because of the ``surge,'' the number of Iraqi deaths have decreased, indicating ``progress.'' That may or may not be true--I do not know--but I do know that General Petraeus carefully did not note that the number of U.S. deaths in Iraq actually increased during the surge period, compared to the same periods in prior years. General Petraeus also did not note that the U.S. military death rate in Iraq, that is, the average number of deaths per month, also continues to climb from prior years. General Petraeus pointed to the decrease in the number of improvised explosive device, or lED, attacks during the surge period of June through August as another sign of progress. It is true that the number of attacks dropped--as it does every year during the very hottest months of June, July, and August. But what General Petraeus did not say is that the number of U.S. deaths from IEDs increased during the surge period, compared to the same period in prior years. That, as they say, is the rest of the story. That is the whole truth, not carefully cherry-picked statistics designed to bolster the President's pitch for progress. The President and his men also did not talk about the price tag of this shiny little war sedan. No need to discuss that before they have hooked us into writing the check. But the cost of this war should be uppermost in our minds, as the Senate addresses the Defense authorization bill, and certainly before the Senate considers yet another war funding supplemental appropriations bill--the largest one ever. Congress has already appropriated over $450 billion for the war in Iraq, and if Congress approves the President's latest request for supplemental funds, that figure will grow to over $600 billion during fiscal year 2008. That is a price tag with nine zeroes in it, folks. These direct costs do not cover the many hidden, indirect costs of this war, such as higher Veterans Administration costs, more veterans' disability payments, the considerable interest on the additional debt, higher oil and gasoline prices, increased security costs here at home, and the incalculable damage done to our image and reputation in the world because of this war. The combined direct and indirect costs and obligations of this war will exceed $1 trillion by the most conservative estimates. Many economists believe that the costs are much higher. That $600 billion or $1 trillion pricetag also does not begin to cover the lost opportunity costs--all the ways in which money now spent on Iraq could have been used to make our bridges safer, secure our border, improve education, or to prepare for and rebuild after natural disasters and weather-related farming failures. That money could have been used to develop safe, clean, alternative energy sources so that the United States would not have to rely so much on oil from the Middle East or other volatile regions of the world. Nor does that $600 billion or $1 trillion cover the costs of keeping upwards of 130,000 troops in Iraq for the many additional years the President and his men suggest will be necessary to achieve their vision of progress and success. It boggles the mind to consider the long-term costs of buying this war. We all say that we support the troops. These brave men and women have been given a near impossible task, which they have performed with dedication, professionalism, courage, and honor. The Congress has provided everything the generals have asked for, and more. The President has taken that support for our men and women in uniform to imply support and even validation of his policy. He wants to keep the U.S. military tied down in Iraq indefinitely, trying to bargain for a little more time, a little more time, time and time again, never grasping that his policy is fatally flawed. History shows the fallacy of thinking that democracy can be force-fed at the point of a gun. In the fifth year of this misguided, infernal war, I am convinced that the best way to support our troops is to bring them home--home, sweet home--and the only way to get them home may be to somehow restrict the funds for this disastrous, awful war. We have tried this before and the President, the President, vetoed the bill. I am here today to insist that we must try again. Strings must be attached to this money. This Senator will support no more blank checks for Iraq. On October 11, 2002, I was one of only 23 Senators who voted against the authorization that led to this awful, infernal war. I call on my colleagues, for the sake of our soldiers and for the sake of our Nation, to remember that half-truths and misleading claims are what led to this war. We can all recall that on February 5, 2003, the President sent Colin Powell, both a ribboned and starred general and a respected diplomat, to the United Nations to sell this war to the UN and to the Nation. Secretary Powell painted frightening visions of anthrax, truck and rail car-mounted mobile weapons laboratories, and nuclear weapons-- none of it was accurate. The Nation was led to believe that our troops would be greeted as liberators, and that oil money would pay for Iraq's reconstruction. Now while the half-truths have changed, the strategy of misleading the Nation remains the same. Iraq may descend further into chaos if U.S. troops leave now, or it may descend into chaos whenever they leave. As long as the United States keeps the peace in Iraq, there is no incentive for Iraqis to maintain the peace on their own. After nearly 5 years of this awful, terrible war, more than 3,800 deaths, over 27,000 wounded, and no end in sight, we must change course. This war, this draining, desultory, dreadful occupation of Iraq must end.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in 1978, as the majority leader of the United States Senate, I strongly supported and voted for H.J. Res. 554, a joint resolution that proposed amending the Constitution to provide for representation of the District of Columbia in Congress. Unfortunately, over the next 7 years, that resolution, which had passed the Senate by a vote of 67 to 32, failed to obtain the approval of the 38 States it needed for ratification under Article V of the Constitution. Today, the Senate seeks to obtain the same commendable goal of granting voting rights to representatives of the District of Columbia. The Senate seeks to do so by passing S. 1257. However, Art. 1, Sec. 2 of the Constitution states that the House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen by the people of the several States. The Constitution does not refer to the people of the District of Columbia in this context. While I recognize that others believe that Art.1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution authorizes the Congress to ``exercise exclusive legislation'' over the District, including legislation that would grant the District's representatives voting rights, the historical intent of the Founders on this point is unclear. I oppose S. 1257, because I doubt that our Nation's Founding Fathers ever intended that the Congress should be able to change the text of the Constitution by passing a simple bill. The ability to amend the Constitution in only two ways was provided with particularity in Article V of the Constitution for a reason. If we wish to grant representatives of the citizens of the District of Columbia full voting rights, let us do so, once again, the proper way: by passing a resolution to amend the Constitution consistent with its own terms. Now is certainly not the time for us to make it easier, rather than more difficult, to alter the text of the Constitution. We serve with a President who already believes that he can ignore the rule of law by issuing a simple directive, a signing statement, or an order that undermines the delicately balanced separation of powers, which the Framers so painstakingly included in the Constitution. A series of Federal judges is now confirming what many of us have known from the start: that this Administration believes it can write 200 years of civil liberties out of the Constitution with a simple stroke of a pen. We all seek the same laudable goal: to provide full Congressional representation and voting rights for the citizens of the District of Columbia. But let us accomplish that goal in the way the way the Founders intended--by amending the Constitution. Let us support a resolution to amend the Constitution that would enhance, rather than undermine, the rights of the 600,000 residents of the District of Columbia who seek a stronger voice in their government.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today, September 17, in this year of Our Lord, 2007, marks the 220th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution of the United States. Praise God. Across the Nation, many students, teachers, and historians are spending at least part of their time today reviewing, learning about, and, most of all, appreciating the U.S. Constitution. Although not as flashy looking as the American flag on Flag Day, or as bedecked in sparklers and fireworks as the celebration of the Declaration of Independence on the Fourth of July, the workhorse that is our Constitution truly merits a day of appreciation by all citizens. The Constitution is a living, breathing document, still as full of passion, patriotism, jealousy, and intrigue after 220 years as the star of any long-running soap opera. Perhaps it is because the Constitution, similar to soap operas, deals with the relations between human beings in society. The Constitution, in its articles and amendments, lays out the roles for its actors: the executive, the legislature, the judiciary, the States, and the rights of individuals. The script is pretty basic: Run a country and ensure the welfare of its citizens. But being human, people never seem content with playing out their own roles as written. James Madison aptly observed that: [T]he essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. History is replete with examples of governmental actors who have improvised, seeking to expand their own role and put their name in bigger lights at the expense of the other players. Fortunately, history is also full of examples in which the grasping star's excesses are checked by the concerted actions of the rest of the cast. It is a fascinating read, and well worth one's time. Federal versus States rights, the freedoms of individuals versus the need for order in society, protection from tyranny pitted against a strong executive, declarations of war and peaceful diplomacy--these are some of the great themes, the high dramas written into the Constitution and played out over the course of our Nation's history. Our Founding Fathers truly knew what they were doing when they crafted a document that hoped for the best, most noble instincts in men but guarded against the worst. As James Madison famously observed, ``If men were angels, no government would be necessary.'' At the same time, however, he also noted that ``All men having power ought to be mistrusted,'' so the foundation of all the checks and balances in the Constitution is the premise that ``ambition must be made to counteract ambition.'' As a result, the Constitution has found itself in a constantly shifting political landscape created by the ebb and flow of Executive power, legislative control, judicial counterbalancing, Federal expansion, and individualism. These great themes are all played out in many smaller scenes each year, from each nomination through each budget submission, authorization, and appropriations bill, and each Supreme Court case. I have always found this historical drama more stimulating and absorbing than any television reality show. Perhaps it is because the constitutional drama has played such a large role in my own long life. In the 220-year history of this Nation's Constitution, there have been only 1,896 individuals fortunate enough to serve as Senators. I am number 1,579 out of 1,896. I have served in the Senate for one-quarter of the Senate's history--not quite an original cast member but pretty close. Amen. You better believe it. But whether each citizen has an active role in our Constitution drama or is merely a spectator, the Constitution plays a large role in the life of every citizen. I encourage everyone, every citizen to read the Constitution--read the Constitution--read the Constitution and to read the Federalist Papers as well as other writings by our Founding Fathers. Read deeply in history; with all thy volumes vast hath but one page. Read deeply in history and biography, and read the newspapers and follow what is happening in Washington. Do not believe everything you see, do not believe everything you hear, but view it through the prism of the Constitution--the Constitution--the Constitution. Be your own Supreme Court and decide if the arguments put forth by the White House, the Congress, the press, and the pundits are in accordance with the Constitution and with the intent of the immortal Framers. Then and only then will you become the most valuable of all things: a true defender of liberty, an informed citizen. Mr. President, I close with a poem--a great poem--by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow entitled ``O Ship of State.'' Our Constitution is our ship, the heart and soul of our Nation, and the stalwart vessel that will carry our Nation's liberty into the future. Long, long, long may it live. O Ship of State, Thou, too, sail on, O Ship of State! Sail on, O Union, strong and great! Humanity with all its fears, With all the hopes of future years, Is hanging breathless on thy fate! We know what Master laid thy keel, What Workmen wrought thy ribs of steel, Who made each mast, and sail, and rope, What anvils rang, what hammers beat, In what a forge and what a heat Were shared the anchors of thy hope! Fear not each sudden sound and shock, 'Tis of the wave and not the rock, 'Tis but the flapping of the sail, And not a rent made by the gale! In spite of rock and tempest's roar, In spite of false lights on the shore, Sail on, nor fear to breast the sea! Our hearts, our hopes are all with thee. Our hearts, our hopes, our prayers, our tears, Our faith triumphant o'er our fears, Are all with thee--are all with thee! Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. And I thank you, Ted.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this is a great pleasure--a great pleasure-- that I congratulate my very highly esteemed colleague and dearest friend, Senator Edward Kennedy, upon the casting of his 15,000th vote. Senator Kennedy has now become a member, an illustrious member, of one of the most exclusive clubs in the whole wide world. Throughout the entire history of the Senate, only 2 other Senators have cast 15,000 votes--I and the late Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. As a charter member of this exclusive club, I welcome Senator Kennedy aboard. This latest achievement is only one of many for this fine son of Massachusetts. He has spent more than half his life in the Senate, and he is the third longest serving Senator in U.S. history. As I have said before on this floor, history will be kind to Senator Kennedy. I have no doubt that history will not only regard Senator Ted Kennedy as one of the most effective national legislators of the 20th and now the 21st century but also as one of the great Senators ever to have graced this illustrious Chamber. Although born to a life of privilege, Senator Kennedy has dedicated his life to serving others. Senator Kennedy represents the heart and the conscience of American liberalism. Senator Kennedy is responsible for much, indeed much of the progressive legislation of the last four decades. He is always a powerful and eloquent voice for the poor and the oppressed, expressing his views in soaring speeches and passionate struggles for the rights of labor, for health care reform, and for strengthening the social safety net for America's less fortunate. In the Senate, he has demonstrated that it is through public service--to paraphrase his late brother, President John F. Kennedy-- that Americans can stop asking what their country can do for them and actually do something for their country. Senator Ted Kennedy gave me unstinting support during the years when it was my privilege to serve as the Senate Democratic majority leader and minority leader at different times. When times got tough, I knew that I could always count on Ted Kennedy's advice and his support. It may have been a needed vote; it may not have been. It may have been assistance in building approval for legislative proposals. But whatever was needed, Ted Kennedy was always there, and I was always grateful. Thank you, Ted. I shall always value Ted Kennedy's friendship not only to me but to the great people of the great State--E Pluribus Unum--of West Virginia. And I am quite pleased and I am proud--proud, Ted--to have had the pleasure and the honor and the great privilege of serving with this extraordinarily great Senator in the Senate. Congratulations, congratulations, congratulations, Senator Ted Kennedy, on casting your 15,000th vote. But even more importantly, congratulations on being such a needed advocate for the powerless in our great and powerful country. Americans are a compassionate people, and the senior Senator from Massachusetts has no intention of ever, ever, letting the Senate forget that. Amen. Thank you, sir.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, at the beginning of this Congress, I committed to adding transparency and accountability to the process of earmarking funds for specific projects. I see my friend from Mississippi here, the ranking member, on the Senate floor. I will say that again. Hear me. At the beginning of this Congress, I committed to adding transparency and accountability to the process of earmarking funds for specific projects. While awaiting action by the Congress on ethics reform legislation, Senator Cochran, the able and very highly respected Senator from Mississippi who is on the Appropriations Committee, Senator Cochran and I--Senator Cochran is on the Senate floor at this point, I say for the record--Senator Cochran and I established rigorous standards for increasing such transparency. Based on those standards, the Appropriations Committee has reported, on a bipartisan basis, 11 appropriations bills that have identified the earmarks, and who--in other words, what Senator--requested them, meaning the earmarks. We have required and we have received certification letters from every Senator who has an earmark that he or she and/or their spouses-- meaning he or she and/or his or her spouse--that they have no financial interest in their earmarks. We are talking about Senators, 100 of them, who sit in this Chamber. I want to say that once again. We, meaning the Senate Appropriations Committee, have required and received certification letters from every Senator who has any earmark--that Senator and his or her spouse--that they have no financial interest in their earmarks. Is that clear? I have always maintained the highest standards. I will say that again. I have always maintained the highest standards for myself, Robert C. Byrd, myself, and for my staff, on ensuring that there are no conflicts of interest for earmarks that I include in any legislation. Consistent with the standards that we established for the appropriations process, S. 1 now establishes a new Senate rule that will impose requirements for transparency and accountability for all bills. In establishing these rules, the public should not conclude that the rules are somehow a sanction on the Congress for wasteful spending. In recent months there has been considerable attention to the issue of the earmarking of funds by Congress for specific projects. Some Members have asserted that all earmarked funding is wasteful spending or an abuse of power. All Senators endeavor--they had better. All Senators endeavor to weed out wasteful spending. But this notion that earmarked spending is inherently wasteful spending is flat-out wrong. I am going to say that again. Hear me. Some Members have asserted that all earmarked funding is wasteful spending or an abuse of power. Hogwash. All Senators endeavor to weed out wasteful spending. But this notion that earmarked spending is inherently wasteful spending is flat-out wrong. This notion that earmarked spending is inherently wasteful spending is flatout wrong. Congress has the power of the purse and has had the power of the purse. That is the only real power that we Senators and Members of the other body and the President have. Congress has the power of the purse. Since the beginning of the Republic, Congress has allocated money to specific projects and purposes. Did you get that? Listen. Since the beginning of the Republic, Congress has allocated money to specific projects and purposes. For example, in 1798, $3,500 was appropriated for firewood and candles for the Treasury Department, and $454.41 was appropriated for rent of a house near Grays Ferry on the Schuylkill River. Earmarks are arguably the most criticized and the least understood of congressional practices. There is nothing inherently wrong with an earmark. There is nothing inherently wrong with an earmark. An earmark is an explicit direction from the Congress about how the Federal Government should spend the people's money. It is absolutely consistent with the intentions of the Framers, codified in article I of the Constitution of the United States, giving the power of the purse, the power of the purse to the elected representatives of the people. I shall quote: All legislative powers herein granted-- That is the Constitution, the Framers speaking, the words of the Constitution-- legislative powers herein granted shall-- not may but shall-- be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Those are the words, the immortal words of the Constitution written by the Framers, the Framers of the Constitution. I quote it again: All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. In using this power, Congress has an obligation to be good stewards of the Public Treasury and to prevent imprudent expenditures. Congress has an obligation to guard against the corruption of any--I say any-- public officials who would sell their soul and the trust of their constituency in order to profit from an official act. But Congress does not err in using an earmark to designate how the people's money should be spent. This is a power. This is a power that does not belong to the President of the United States or to any of the unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch. It belongs where and to whom? It belongs to the people, the people out there on the hills and in the valleys, across this great land. It belongs to the people through their elected representatives in Congress. That is here. Their elected representatives. I am one of them, the elected representatives. Earmarks are not specific to appropriations bills. Earmarks can be found in revenue bills. Hear me now. Earmarks can be found in revenue bills. You get that? Hear me now. Earmarks can be found in revenue bills as tax benefits for narrowly defined constituencies. Earmarks can be found in authorization bills. Did you get that? On authorization bills. Those are not bills that come out of the Appropriations Committees in the House and Senate; they are authorization bills. They may come out of the Committee on Ways and Means in the other body or out of the Senate Finance Committee. They can be found in authorization bills. Earmarks can be found in the President's budget request. Hear that now. Listen. Are you listening? Earmarks can be found in the President's budget request. I want to say that again. I want to hear that again. Earmarks can be found in the President's budget request. Well-intentioned though they may be, the civil servants making budget decisions in the executive, in agencies and offices of the Federal Government, do not understand the communities Senators represent. They do not meet with the constituencies of Senators. They do not know Members' States and their people. They can be a poor judge of what is necessary and what is frivolous from the perspective of the States and the people. These bureaucrats are not elected; therefore, they are not accountable to the people. I will say that once more. These bureaucrats are not elected; therefore, they are not accountable to the people. If the Congress does not specify how funds are to be spent, then the decision falls to the executive branch--the executive branch--and the so-called experts at agencies to determine the priorities of this Nation. In such cases, the American people may never know who is responsible for a spending decision. The American people may never know how a spending decision is made. The American people may never hear anything about it. And with the executive bureaucrats, there is far less accountability to the people. Critics of congressional earmarks--hear me--critics of congressional earmarks often overlook the success stories from earmark spending directed by Congress. Now, listen. Listen, all you skeptics, all you cynics, wherever you are. Do you hear me, the skeptics and the cynics? Congressional earmarks often overlook the success stories from earmark spending directed by Congress. Let me give an example of earmark spending. Hear me. In the 1969 Agriculture appropriations bill, Congress earmarked funds for a new program to provide critical nutrition to low-income women, infants, and children. This program--are you listening? This program, which is now known as the WIC Program, has since provided nutritional assistance to over 150 million women, infants, and children, a critical contribution to the health of the Nation. That, I say, that is not--n-o-t--wasteful spending. In 1969 and 1970, Congress earmarked $25 million for a children's hospital in Washington, DC--that is here in Washington, DC, a children's hospital--even overcoming a Presidential veto. In 1969 and 1970, Congress earmarked $25 million for a children's hospital in Washington, DC, even overcoming a Presidential veto. That funding resulted in the construction of what is now known as the Children's National Medical Center. That started out with an earmark, the Children's National Medical Center. The hospital has become a national and international leader in neonatal and pediatric care. Since the hospital opened, over 5 million children have received health care. Last year, Children's Hospital treated over 340,000 young patients and performed over 10,000 surgeries, saving and improving the lives of young children. That is not wasteful spending. Let me go on. In 1983, Congress earmarked funds for a new emergency food and shelter program. In 2005 alone, the program served 35 million meals and provided 1.3 million nights of lodging to the homeless. The homeless. Have you ever been homeless? That is not wasteful spending. I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for an additional 20 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair, and I thank all Senators. In 1987, Congress earmarked--hear me--funds for the mapping of the human gene. This project became known as the human genome project. This research has led to completely new strategies for disease prevention and treatment. The human genome project has led to discoveries of dramatic new methods of identifying and treating breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and colon cancer. I will say that once more: The human genome project has led to discoveries of dramatic new methods of identifying and treating breast, ovarian, and colon cancer, saving many, many lives. Senators, hear me: This is not wasteful spending. In 1988 and 1995, Congress earmarked funds for the development of unmanned aerial vehicles. I have to say that once more. In 1988 and 1995, Congress--that is us, your representatives, out there in the land, in the hills and valleys of this country--earmarked funds for the development of unmanned aerial vehicles. These efforts produced the Predator and the Global Hawk, two of the most effective assets that have been used in the global war on terror. This is not wasteful spending. I am talking about earmarks, the word ``earmarks.'' A lot of things have been said about the word ``earmarks.'' Each of these earmarks was initiated by Congress and produced lasting gains for the American people--not for me, not for you, but for all of us, the American people. In the rush to label earmarks as the source of our budgetary woes and amid calls to expand the budgetary authorities of the President, Members should remember why deficits have soared to unprecedented levels. Senators will recall that the President has not exercised his current constitutional authority. The President has not submitted a single rescission proposal under the Budget Act. The President has signed every regular appropriations bill that has produced the unprecedented growth in earmarks. What has wrought these ominous budget deficits is the administration's grossly flawed and impossible budget assumptions. The war in Iraq has required the Congress--that is us--to appropriate $450 billion--billion, I say, billion dollars; there have been approximately 1 billion minutes since Jesus Christ was born; so the war in Iraq has required the Congress to appropriate $450 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. I am talking about the war in Iraq. I didn't get us into that war. I was against going into Iraq. The war in Iraq has required the Congress to appropriate $450 billion of the people's money. Only 2 to 3 percent of discretionary funds is earmarked. Earmarking is hardly the fiscal wedge driving the deficit. Rather than dealing with these fiscal failures, too many would rather propagate specious argument that enlarging the President's role in the budget process and doing away with congressional earmarks will somehow magically reduce these foreboding and menacing deficits. It will not. There is no question that the earmarking process has grown to excessive levels in recent years. From 1994 to 2006, the number of earmarks nearly tripled. Between 1956 and 2002--I was here during all of those years--Congress passed 20 highway bills that contained a total of 739 earmarks. In 2005, the Republican Congress passed and the President signed a single highway bill that contained 5,000 earmarks. Talk about earmarks. There is no question that the earmarking process has run amok. There was a single highway bill that contained 5,000 earmarks. This kind of excess in earmarking must end. It must go. That is why the Appropriations Committee took the lead to add transparency and accountability to the process. In the joint funding resolution for fiscal year 2007, enacted in February, we implemented a 1-year moratorium on earmarks for fiscal year 2007. In that joint resolution, we eliminated over 9,300 earmarks from the fiscal year 2006 bills and reports. No new earmarks were contained in the bill for fiscal year 2007. While awaiting final action on S. 1, the Appropriations Committee took the lead by establishing guidelines for approving earmarks in the fiscal year 2008 bill. The Appropriations Committee has reported 11 of the 12 appropriations bills. For earmarks contained in the fiscal year 2008 bills and reports, the committee reports identify the names of any Member making a request or, where appropriate, the President, and the name and location of the intended recipient of such earmark. Let me say that once again. The Appropriations Committee has reported 11 of the 12 appropriations bills. For earmarks contained in the fiscal year 2008 bills and reports, the committee reports identify the name of the Member--maybe it is Robert C. Byrd; perhaps it could be the distinguished Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania, a great Senator--making the request or, where appropriate, the President, Mr. Bush, and the name and location of the intended recipient of such earmark. For each earmark contained in the fiscal year 2008 bills and reports, a Member is required to certify in writing that he or she has no pecuniary interest in such earmark, consistent with Senate rule XXXVII, paragraph 4. Such certifications are available to the people, the public. All committee bills and reports, including all of the above information, are available to the people, available to the public, on the Internet and in printed form prior to floor action, meaning action here on this Senate floor. Through the 11 committee reports, we have identified over 5,700 earmarks, totaling about $28 billion. Of the $28 billion in earmarks, over $23 billion, or over 80 percent of the earmarks, was requested by the President. Now, let me say that once again, please. Through the 11 committee reports, we have identified over 5,700 earmarks, totaling about $28 billion. Of the $28 billion in earmarks, over $23 billion, or over 80 percent of the earmarks, was requested by the President--the President of the United States, President Bush. The level of nonproject-based earmarks is a substantial reduction below the level approved for 2006. We are not hiding these earmarks. We are highlighting them for the scrutiny of the American people. We are accountable for the decisions in these bills and reports. The status quo is not satisfactory, and the Appropriations Committee has taken the lead in adding transparency and accountability to the process. Eliminating waste and abuse in the Federal budget process is important. Protecting the character and design of the Constitution is essential. Get it, get it, now. Let us not lose our heads--but keep our heads on our shoulders--let us not lose our heads, and subsequently the safeguards of our rights and liberties as American citizens. S. 1 strikes the right balance. I urge its adoption. Madam President, I have a parliamentary inquiry: Section 511 of S. 1 amends rule XXVIII concerning out-of-scope matter in conference reports, and section 521 establishes a new rule XLIV concerning congressionally directed spending in all legislation pending before the Senate. Specifically, section 521 contains rules concerning new congressionally directed spending that might be included in a conference report. Madam President, am I correct that points of order concerning new directed spending will be considered pursuant to the new rule XLIV, rather than the amended rule XXVIII?

Mr. BYRD. Excuse me, Madam President. I will repeat that. Am I correct that points of order concerning new directed spending will be considered pursuant to the new rule XLIV, rather than the amended rule XXVIII?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Inquiring further, Madam President, am I correct that in paragraph 8(e) of the new rule XLIV--the new rule XLIV--the term ``measure'' refers to the bill or amendment committed to the conferees by either House, and not to the statement of managers?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Inquiring further, Madam President, the new rule XLIV requires the chairman--this is the new rule XLIV--requires the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction to certify that mandated information on congressionally directed spending, limited tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits is available on a publicly accessible congressional Web site at least 48 hours before a vote?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Am I correct, Madam President, that the Parliamentarian will rely on that certification for determining compliance with paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of rule XLIV?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, while I opposed the Specter amendment, I do believe that the alternative minimum tax needs to be reformed. In the coming months, I hope to support efforts to do away with the inequities of the alternative minimum tax that unfairly burden West Virginians. Amendment No. 2621

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Yes. Yes, I will do that.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, let us have order in the Senate. May we have order in the Senate, Mr. President. Why all this consternation about this vote? Were Senators promised they would have a chance to vote? They were. And we did not hold the vote for them. Now, we ought to do what we promised Senators we will do. Shame.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield for a question.

Mr. BYRD. May I ask the Senator, what did he say?

Mr. BYRD. What was the Senator's request?

Mr. BYRD. No, Mr. President, we cannot do that.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. We cannot do that. I hope Senators will pay a little more attention. Mr. President, who has the floor? Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator for yielding. I was caught in this situation a while back, and I have cast more votes than any Senator in the history of this Republic, and it was called on me. I regretted that. Sometimes I think we get a little bit too hung up. The Senate is a body in which we talk to one another, we talk with one another, we think about one another, and we think of one another's problems. We can get a little bit too hung up on the time on a vote. A vote is important. The people send me here, the people of West Virginia--who has the floor, Mr. President?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator from Montana. Now, the people send me here to vote. That is my right. Of course, I ought to get here, be here on time. But the people expect Robert Byrd-- the people of West Virginia expect Robert Byrd--to vote. So let's do not get hung up on 60 seconds or 30 seconds or whatever it is. Let's have a little bit of accommodations to one another. I hope I am not speaking out of turn. I hope I am not saying too much or making too much of nothing. But I am sent here to vote, and I hope we will accommodate one another. We Democrats ought to accommodate one another, and we ought to accommodate the Republicans, too. I thank the Senator.