Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I knew Tom Dodd. I served with Tom Dodd. He reminded me of a Roman Senator. God bless him. It has been quite some time since Senators talked about the case for censure against Senator Tom Dodd. These remarks on the floor today bring back to mind those difficult days. I have grown quite close to Tom Dodd's son, Senator Chris Dodd. We have sat next to each other in the Senate for ten years. He is a fine Senator and a fine man.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Sunday, May 13, is Mother's Day. Motherhood and May are a perfect pairing of all that is warm and nurturing. The earth is soft and green, with the buds of new leaves and new life appearing everywhere. Birds fill the air with their love songs and flowers scent the breezes with their soft perfumes. All around us, if we but look, we see the signs of happy motherhood, from the ducklings in a neat line behind their mother on a pond to calves curled up asleep by their mother's feet in deep green pastures. In neighborhood parks, mothers bring their toddlers out to play in the sunshine before their afternoon naps or push sleeping newborns in strollers along shade- dappled paths. In the springtime, the great cycle of life is at its fullest flow. On this one lovely spring Sunday, the Nation heeds the Biblical admonition to ``honor thy mother.'' It is an opportunity to make up for those times all year that we may have overlooked our own mother's contributions to our well-being, or snapped at her well-meaning advice and loving attempts to straighten our collars and smooth our hair. Such is the lot of mothers--to be essential but so often unappreciated. Mothers are like water--without a mother, life could not exist, while not enough mothering can stunt growth like a plant in a desert, but too much mothering can be as smothering as floodwaters on a field of corn. Motherhood is a delicate high-wire act, balancing love and discipline, care and independence, attention and self-reliance. It is time consuming, often stressful, unpaid, and with no promotion and little recognition. It is a Sisyphean task. Yet mothers persevere, rising each day to begin anew, building families with every meal they prepare, every schedule they coordinate, every book they read with their children, every dirty sock they collect and transform into clean and folded laundry. It takes strong women to do it well and to keep up the effort over the many years of childrearing, for this is not a job that one can hand in a resignation letter or shop around a resume to find a better position. It is a job that is truly what a mother makes of it, for good or for ill. ``The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world,'' observed W.R. Wallace. Many great men have noted the influence of their mothers. George Washington wrote that ``All I am I owe to my mother.'' Abraham Lincoln said that ``I remember my mother's prayers and they have always followed me. They have clung to me all my life.'' Booker T. Washington said that ``. . . If I have done anything in my life worth attention, I feel sure that I inherited the disposition from my mother.'' Andrew Jackson observed that ``The memory of my mother and her teachings were, after all, the only capital I had to start life with, and on that capital I have made my way.'' Their mothers' hands surely influenced the world through their mothering. Most mothers will tell you that childrearing does not end after their children are officially grown up, either. Mothers remain a constant in the lives of their offspring for years afterward, sometimes actively involved and sometimes waiting in the background in case they are needed. The strains of sustaining the military deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan have resulted in many more military families calling upon grandmothers and grandfathers to raise their grandchildren while their military parents are deployed overseas for long periods. Strong families and loving mothers make this possible, if not desirable. Often mothers with children also find themselves taking up a new and unnamed role as mother to their own mother as she ages. Single women, too, can become mothers in this way, picking up more and more of the care of their aging parents. The willingness and love with which children care for their parents is a direct reflection of how good a job their parents did raising them. The writer Charlotte Gray observed that ``Children and mothers never truly part--bound in the beating of each other's heart.'' It is just that sometimes, the roles of mother and child, caretaker and care-receiver, reverse. And while it can be sad to see one's mother failing, the burden of her care is lightened by the warm memories of all the nights her hands tucked in the bedcovers or checked a forehead for fever, and by all the prayers her lips have uttered on her child's behalf. Mr. President, I close with a poem by an unknown author, entitled ``Mother's Love'': Mother's Love Her love is like an island In life's ocean, vast and wide A peaceful, quiet shelter From the wind, the rain, the tide. 'Tis bound on the north by Hope, By Patience on the West, By tender Counsel on the South, And on the East by Rest. Above it like a beacon light Shine Faith, and Truth, and Prayer; And thro' the changing scenes of life I find a haven there.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, last month, this Chamber celebrated a milestone day in the life of our dear colleague, Senator Ted Stevens. On April 13, the senior Senator from Alaska became the longest serving Republican Senator in history. This was an important day for him. It was an historic day for us. But having served in this Chamber with Senator Stevens for more than four decades, and knowing him as I do, I feel confident that, in a few days, he will be celebrating what to him will be an even more important day. This Saturday, May 12, his lovely, talented, and beloved daughter Lily will graduate from law school. She will receive her Juris Doctor degree from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. I extend my heartiest congratulations to Lily, whom I know quite well. I remember her as an infant when her father carried her around the Capitol in a basket. I remember attending the birthday parties that her father gave her. I enjoyed watching her grow up. Now she is the graduate of one of our Nation's most prestigious law schools. And she is ready to embark upon what I am confident will be a rewarding, productive, and most successful career. Knowing Lily as I do, I am sure that she will see her graduation, not as the end, but as just another step in her educational endeavors. As Solon, one of the seven wise men of Greece, observed, ``I grow old in the pursuit of learning.'' Although Lily is a young woman, I am confident that she will grow old ``in pursuit of learning.'' Today, I congratulate her and wish her the best as she completes an important milestone in her education and her life, and embarks upon the next endeavor. And I also congratulate her father, Senator Ted Stevens.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I voted against Senator Durbin's amendment because it would have forced the removal of the best scientific minds from the oversight of the safety of our Nation's food and prescription drug approval process. Though well intentioned, the Durbin amendment would have limited the advice available to the Food and Drug Administration for critical decisions pertaining to consumer safety. I will support the efforts to ensure that conflicts of interest do not interfere with the safety of the American people, and I will work to ensure that the country's best experts continue to secure our medications and food supply. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. May we have order. May we have order.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, may we have order.

Mr. BYRD. Would the Senator mind saying that again, please.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, President Bush marked the fourth anniversary of his announcement that major combat operations in Iraq have ended by vetoing war funding legislation because he claimed it limited his ability to prosecute a war unconditionally and indefinitely. Our Armed Forces are now well into their fifth year of combat operations--longer than the U.S. was involved in World War II-- and the time is overdue to examine and update U.S. policy in Iraq. The legislation, which President Bush vetoed, would have set a responsible, new course for the war that was a balanced and fair proposal that I was pleased to support. Sadly, the President continues to believe peace and stability can be forced on the Iraqi people at the point of a gun. He was wrong in 2002 when he sought authorization to go to war, and he is wrong today. However, now that the President has insisted on continuing down this failed path, it is our responsibility to discuss alternatives that can become law. The Congress is not an ATM, spitting out billions whenever the President requests it. It is a policy arm of the Government, as well as its banker. The Constitution says the Congress shall have power to provide for the common defense. It is the Congress--yes, it is the Congress--that is given the sole power to declare war. The Congress is sworn to raise and support armies. The Congress and the people of the United States have a right to expect clarity in our mission and a foreseeable end to this conflict. The situation in Iraq, in 2007, is very different from what it was in 2002, when the Congress authorized the use of military force in Iraq. The President himself said this: This is not the war we entered in Iraq, but it is the war we are in. It is time to rethink, reset our goals, and consider a new authorization which outlines the mission as the President now sees it. The October 11, 2002, authorization for the President to use force in Iraq was very specific. After expressing support for diplomatic efforts to resolve the causes of conflict with Iraq, the authorization allowed the use of force for two purposes. The first was to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq. The second reason was to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions against Iraq. In 2002, and early 2003, President Bush made his case to Congress and to the American people for the invasion of Iraq. His stated goals included the elimination of the weapons of mass destruction programs that Iraq was thought to possess, and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime. By that yardstick, the U.S. military has achieved brilliant success. No weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq--not just weapons that could threaten the national security of the United States but also no weapons of mass destruction of any description. Saddam Hussein and his Government are gone. The Iraqi people have elected a new government. The U.S. military has achieved success in Iraq, and that success has come at a high price, both in dollars and in lives. Thus far, over 3,350 American men and women have been killed, and many more have been wounded. Including the funding in the emergency supplemental vetoed by the President, over $450 billion has been provided by Congress to execute this war. The October 11, 2002, authorization to use force has run its course. It is time--past time--to decommission this authorization and retire it to the archives. If the President has more that he wants to do in Iraq, then he needs to make that case to Congress and to the American public. Our continuing presence in Iraq is not supported by the people or the Congress. The President must redefine the goals and submit his plan to achieve them to a thorough and open debate in the Congress and throughout the country. That is the American way. Success will elude us without the support of the people whose sons and daughters are being asked to die daily in the sands--yes, the sands--of Iraq. I propose October 11, 2007, as the expiration date for the 2002 authorization and that the President seek a new authorization from the elected representatives of the people in Congress. The President must be clear about what he now hopes to accomplish in Iraq and how he intends to achieve it. President Bush must build support for his plan. Without the support of the public and the Congress, we should no longer be in this fight. It is now an Iraqi fight for national reconciliation, not a war to ensure U.S. national security. If the President sees a further role for U.S. troops, he should articulate it and seek consensus for a changed mission. I hope my colleagues on both sides of this important debate and on both sides of the aisle can agree that the 2002 authorization has run its course. It is no longer viable, and it should be set aside. What I propose does not mandate redeployment on any date certain. It simply calls on the President to make the case for the new situation in which we find ourselves. My proposal does not set limits on troop levels, nor prevent them from doing what is necessary to protect themselves and U.S. personnel. It also does not prevent us from pursuing terrorists who may have set their sights on the United States. What it does is stop our troops from fighting endlessly in an Iraqi civil war after October 11, 2007, unless the President--our President-- receives a mandate from the American public and the U.S. Congress. Let us try to give the President a chance to refocus his vision on the changed circumstances in Iraq, free from the shackles of a shamelessly outdated grant of authority. I deplore the political gamesmanship which has polarized our Nation. I regret the harsh partisanship which rages while our brave troops fight and die. A fresh start could help to change the dynamic in this country. A concerted effort by the White House to reassess its goals and opportunities in Iraq could point a path to progress. A new debate in Congress could resolve confusion and contention about continuing a strategy for Iraq that no longer addresses the exigencies of today. We need a new mission which makes clear the changed role of our troops. We need a diplomatic component to the plan which might encourage the national reconciliation so badly needed to quell the violence in Iraq. We need a plan to reach out to other countries in the area which share our interest in seeking stability in Iraq. But first we need to clear the cobwebs and the confusion caused by a grant of authority that no longer has any relevance to the present conditions of Iraq. I ask other Senators to consider my proposal, whether this proposal is considered on the supplemental, on the Defense authorization bill, or on the Defense appropriations bill. I ask cooler heads to see the possibilities of beginning a new assessment of where we are and where we are going. I ask for a cease-fire in the political war in Washington for the sake of our troops and for the sake of our country. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. With a ``b''?

Mr. BYRD. No. No.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, thank God for Bernie Sanders, the Senator from Vermont. Thank God. Sail on, brother. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, 4 years ago, I stood in this very spot and warned against an ill-advised invasion of Iraq. Today, the situation in Iraq has spiraled out of control, into a bloody, deadly, sectarian civil war. Yet the President and his team continue to hold fast to their ``stay the course'' nonsense. While they do, thousands of brave young Americans place their lives in jeopardy every day. That reality is one this Nation and the world did not have to experience. It is a tragic reality, brought on by a war of choice and an occupation that has yielded neither stability nor reconciliation. Four years ago today, the President landed on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln to declare, ``Mission accomplished.'' Four years ago-- it feels like an age. For thousands of our soldiers and their families, and likely for the Iraqi people, it feels like a lifetime. How wrong our President was then, and how wrong our President continues to be today. Ralph Waldo Emerson said: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. No matter how many times the President wishes it were so, peace in Iraq will not be found at the barrel of an American gun. No matter how hard the President hopes that it will happen, sectarian violence will not be quelled with U.S. forces occupying the Iraqi nation. Cross your fingers, pull out your lucky rabbit's foot, even nail a horseshoe over the Oval Office door, but hoping for luck will never change the deadly dynamic in Iraq. Peace demands an Iraqi-led political solution to transcend the ethnic and sectarian divisions that are splitting the country apart--a political effort which, to date, the Iraqi Government has been unable or unwilling to take on. Our legislation could have spurred that progress, but President Bush has defiantly said no. This White House clings to its ``foolish consistency.'' When he took office as President more than 6 years ago, George W. Bush issued a call for renewed responsibility in government. Where are the echoes of that call today? What is responsible about clinging to this failed course in Iraq and refusing to consider a new path? What is responsible about the President continuing to foster and manipulate the fears of the American people? Faced with the tragic consequences of its misjudgments in Iraq, the Bush administration is paralyzed, unwilling to acknowledge, much less remedy, its catastrophic blunders. President Bush has gone so far as to say that the way out of Iraq will be decided by future Presidents. What an outrageous abdication of responsibility. It is unacceptable to pass this buck to future leaders while our brave troops fight and die today in the crosshairs of this Iraqi civil war. The time to begin rectifying this dreadful blunder is now, not in 2 years, not with the next President but now. With the supplemental bill, Congress responded to the call of the American people. We offered a new beginning in reconstruction and stability for Iraq. Our proposal could have generated political reconciliation and economic security in Iraq. Our bipartisan plan shifted the responsibility for the Iraqi nation's long-term success to the Iraqi people themselves. But plainly Congress offered a plan that could have meant a brighter future for Iraq, a future controlled by the Iraqi people themselves with continued support from the United States. But the President has flatly rejected that plan. It is a sad day for our Nation and for the world. Before the war began, I urged the President to think through the consequences. There was no doubt as to the military outcome of the war between the United States and Iraq. Our military might was certainly unquestioned. I was very concerned about the repercussions that would follow this certain military victory. Tragically, the repercussions I feared all have come to pass. Oh, how I wish, yes, how I wish that I had been wrong. Once again, I urge the President to think through the consequences of his choices, the consequences of his rejection of this new plan for Iraq, the consequences of clinging to false hopes, for that is what this veto does. This veto endorses the falsehoods that took us to war. It cements failed policy in place. This veto ensures that hundreds, maybe thousands, more will die in Iraq without any true plan for peace. It forces our military to continue to pursue a mission impossible, creating democracy at the point of a gun. I am sorry this day has come to pass. I am so sorry the horrors of this deadly and mishandled occupation have become the stuff of political gamesmanship. There is ample blame to go around for that fact. I have seen clashes between the legislative and executive branches. I have seen Presidents make mistakes in the past. Everyone, yes everyone, makes mistakes. I certainly have made mistakes, but I have never seen such arrogance in a White House that seals its eyes and ears and blindly sends so many people to their doom. I pray for our troops, for our President--yes, I do--and I pray for our country, yes, for our country, and for the people of Iraq. President Bush has chosen to hold hostage $100 billion for our troops to his, President Bush's, policies, his failed policies. But his choice, his choice, is not the last word. Congress will get to work on a new version of the supplemental appropriations conference report. We, with the Lord's will, will not delay, but we also will not stop our efforts to stand for what is right and to craft policies that reflect the true strength of America: humility, modesty, honesty. We will continue to press for a strong, intelligent foreign policy that does not rely on military might alone. And we will not stop in our efforts to bring peace to Iraq and our troops home from war, so help me God. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas. It has been 4 years since the President sent our troops into Iraq, 4 long years. That is longer than it took to win World War II. More than 3,300 troops have sacrificed their lives in Iraq, and nearly 25,000 have been wounded--many severely. With passage of this conference agreement, Congress will have appropriated more than $450 billion for the war in Iraq. Did my colleagues hear that? Four hundred and fifty billion dollars. That compares with the $296 billion which the United States spent on World War II. Yet in the 4 years since our troops succeeded in removing Saddam Hussein from power, the President has failed--and I say this with all due respect when I speak about the President--the President has failed in his mission to bring peace and stability to the people of Iraq. The troops had the courage and the strength to win the war, but the President has not had the wisdom to win the peace. It is time--past time--for a new direction in Iraq. The agreement before us today provides that new direction. But rather than admit the need to change course, the President--and I say this with all due respect--continues to try to mislead the American public about the war in Iraq. He recently asked Congress to ``put partisanship on hold.'' But then he, the President, voiced the incredible assertion that the attacks on 9/11 are linked to the war in Iraq. That is not true, and the American people know it. The President complained that Congress is holding funding for the troops hostage to funding for domestic needs. President Bush claims that Democrats are adding porkbarrel spending to a bill intended for the troops. The President has charged that Democrats are ``legislating defeat'' in Iraq. President Bush has tried to scare the pants off the public by suggesting that our bill could result in death and destruction in America. What utter nonsense. What hogwash. This Senate must not be a rubberstamp for this or any President. Under the Constitution, Congress has a duty to question the war policies of this or any President. We must listen to the voices of the people, and the American people have sent a very clear message to Washington: It is time to start to bring our troops home from Iraq. The Congress has responded, crafting a new direction that will spur the Iraqi Government to pursue real political reconciliation in that country. The American people do not support an open-ended U.S. military occupation in Iraq. It is time for the truth; it is time for the White House to stop the fear mongering and face the truth. In the book of John, chapter 8, verse 32 of the King James version of the Holy Bible are these words: And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. The Congress is not holding funding for the troops hostage to domestic porkbarrel spending. The $6.9 billion for rebuilding the gulf coast after Hurricane Katrina is not pork barrel spending. Ask the citizens of New Orleans. The $1.8 billion for the VA to provide first- class health care to our wounded veterans is not porkbarrel spending. Ask the troops who are waiting for care, and ask their families. I know $20 million to repair Walter Reed Hospital is not pork barrel spending. The $650 million for the SCHIP child health program to deal with the shortfall in 14 States is not porkbarrel spending. Ask the parents with sick children. The $2.25 billion for securing the country from terrorist attack, including port and border security, transit security, funds to improve screening for explosives at airports, and/or screening cargo on passenger aircraft is not porkbarrel spending. It is homeland security to prevent the death and destruction which President Bush warns about. This country must not forsake critical domestic needs because of this President's single-minded obsession with his failed mission. Congress has appropriated more than $38 billion for rebuilding Iraq, and this agreement adds another $3 billion. I simply do not understand why this President--our President--is eager to commit billions of dollars to rebuild Baghdad but absolutely opposes additional money to rebuild the gulf coast here in America. Why does President Bush decry needed funds for the Veterans' Administration to build a first-class health care system for our brave troops? Porkbarrel spending? I think not. The conference agreement that is before the Senate today totals $124 billion. It is lower than the House bill. Yet essential funding for gulf coast recovery, veterans medical care, homeland security, and agricultural disaster relief remains. The conference report also includes an increase in the minimum wage-- the first increase since 1997. It is needed, it is fair, and it is long overdue. There is also $4.9 billion in tax incentives for small businesses that are fully paid for in the bill. Small business is the backbone of our economy and these incentives will help economic growth. This bill includes more than $100 billion for the Department of Defense--nearly $4 billion above the President's inadequate request. It protects the troops by including $1.2 billion above the President's low number for mine-resistant vehicles. This bill cares for the troops by providing $2.1 billion more than the President for health care, including more resources for troops with traumatic brain injury. Porkbarrel? I think not. The President--our President--claims this is a partisan bill. The President claims Congress is trying to micromanage the war, substituting our judgment for the judgment of our generals. The President knows better. The Constitution says that ``the Congress shall have power''--do you know what that means? The Congress, that is us--``the Congress shall have power to . . . provide for the common Defence.'' It is the Congress--yes, it is the Congress--that is given the sole power to declare war. The Congress is sworn to ``raise and support Armies.'' The Congress has heard the voices of the people, and we have responded as we are elected to do. This conference agreement provides a new directive for the war in Iraq. It is patriotic, not partisan, to help the President to see the truth--the truth. It is our duty. It is a duty born of love for this great country, the Constitution, and the American people. If the President decides to veto the bill, he will be holding funding for the troops hostage to his stubborn insistence on going into Iraq and the resulting disaster caused by his, the President's, war policies. I encourage all Members to vote for this conference report. We can send a strong message to the White House. We can help this President face the truth. Four years after our troops removed Saddam Hussein from power, the President's policies simply are not working. They must change. We must come together as a country to repair the damage caused by this horrendous war--this horrendous war--and chart a new direction in Iraq. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. The Senator said it well. The Senator could not have said it better. Senator Murray is right. I thank Senator Murray, and I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am strongly opposed to the amendment offered by the junior Senator from South Carolina, which would prohibit congressional earmarks of funds appropriated, pursuant to authorizations in this bill, for the America Competes Act. The effect of the amendment proposed by the Senator from South Carolina could be waived or suspended in the Senate only by a 60-vote supermajority. If this amendment were agreed to, it would set up two criteria for all appropriations legislation, pursuant to authorizations in the America Competes Act--one criterion requiring a simple majority vote for Presidential budget recommendations and another criterion requiring a supermajority of 60 votes for congressional earmarks, which, according to this legislative provision, is virtually anything that Congress changes from the President's budget request. Under the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has the power of the purse. The Senate should jealously guard that prerogative. Our system of government includes checks and balances that have served us well through over 200 years as a Republic. And the power of the purse is a check on the ambitions of the executive branch. Earlier this year, the Senate considered comprehensive ethics reform. It passed with an overwhelming majority of 96-2. In addition, the Senate Appropriations Committee has announced a new policy of increased transparency and accountability in regard to earmarks, which uses the same definition of earmarks contained in the ethics bill that was adopted overwhelmingly on the floor of the U.S. Senate. These changes in the appropriations process are intended to help restore confidence in the Congress. It ends ``business as usual'' in Washington. It restores integrity to the appropriations process. It will increase accountability and openness. Moreover, Senators will be required to certify that neither they nor their spouses have a financial interest in any earmark. I have asked Senators to submit a letter to Senator Cochran and me certifying they have no financial interest in a project being proposed for an earmark. Those letters will be available for public inspection. Earmark disclosure, as important as it is, is only one part of a much broader package of ethics reforms that has already passed the Senate. This includes strengthened gift and travel rules for Members of the Senate, strengthened lobbying disclosure, and outlawing some of the notorious lobbying abuses in which Mr. Abramoff and others were involved. We should not cherry pick this legislation. It needs to be enacted as a whole. In the meantime, I would like to remind my colleagues that when we considered the joint funding resolution earlier this year, which included all of the pending appropriations bills from the previous Republican-controlled Congress that had yet to be enacted, the House Appropriations Chairman, Mr. Obey, and I made a bold move and eliminated 9,300 earmarks that were in bills authored when the Senator from South Carolina was in the majority. We eliminated every single one of them--all 9,300 earmarks. The joint funding resolution, which was signed into law on February 15, 2007, contained no new earmarks. In summary, the process of earmarking funds has gotten out of control. The status quo is not satisfactory. That is why I have taken the initiative to establish new standards for transparency and accountability. That is why I joined with House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey to eliminate earmarks from the fiscal 2007 funding resolution. I strongly oppose the amendment from the Senator from South Carolina. The Senate has already voted on an ethics reform package that revises the method by which earmarks will be considered. The Senate Appropriations Committee has already put in place rules that will increase the transparency and accountability for earmarks in the fiscal 2008 process. But most of all, I oppose the amendment by the Senator from South Carolina because it would establish two criteria for earmarks--those proposed by the President would require only a simple majority, while those proposed by the Congress, in which the power of the purse resides, would require a 60-vote supermajority. The Framers of our Constitution chose to give the power of the purse to the Congress for a reason. They did not want an overbearing, unaccountable executive branch. I hope my colleagues will reject the proposal by the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish to propound a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry further.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation--I may not have the floor. May I ask the Chair, please tell me what the parliamentary situation is.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if that were not the case, what would be the case?

Mr. BYRD. Very well. Mr. President, I am not going to speak just now. I want to respect the wishes of another Senator who is on the floor at the moment. In a few minutes, I will want to speak a bit. As of now, I am going to take my seat. I will ask the Senator, does he wish to speak at this time?