Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I am going to sit down and listen. May I ask the Senator this question: How long will he likely speak?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. After he yields the floor, I will seek recognition. I understand the rules of the Senate. I am just stating at this point what I intend to do.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish to thank the distinguished Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, for his courtesy, and I also want to say that he is one of the immortal 23 Senators who said, in kind words and respectful words and in senatorial terms, we won't go--meaning, we were going to be Senators. We know what the Constitution says about Members of the Senate and the House, we were going to be Senators, we were going to be respectful, but we were going to vote our way. We were respectful of the President, but we knew we were Senators and that there were three branches of Government, and we know and knew then that this is the legislative branch--the first branch of Government that is mentioned under the Constitution, and it is sometimes called ``the people's branch.'' That is for good reason. Now, what is the floor situation?

Mr. BYRD. Further parliamentary question: Is time controlled at this moment?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak as in morning business--in other words, out of order-- for not to exceed 20 minutes. I don't expect to take that much time.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Veto Threats Mr. President, the 110th Congress will consider legislation this session that raises passions and excites partisan fervor. It is likely that much of what the Congress considers this year and next will be subject to Presidential veto threats because the President's political party no longer controls the Congress. I was quite surprised recently to hear some Senators take the position that this body is wasting its time in drafting and passing legislation which the President threatens to veto. Let me respectfully remind all who listen that the Congress legislates for the people and has a constitutional obligation--in other words, duty--to act independently from--I say this again, I say it respectfully--from the White House. There are three branches, as everybody knows, of Government. This is a separate but equal branch. I want Senators to listen. This is a separate branch, but it is equal. I will repeat myself. As Senators already know, there are three separate but equal branches of Government. The Constitution's Framers never considered a President to be the final arbiter of the public good. Whether the question relates to military, foreign, or domestic affairs, a Presidential veto threat is not the last word in what should become the law of our land. Those decisions are left to the representatives of the people, along with the power over the purse-- along with the power over the purse--and other constitutionally enumerated congressional powers. We hear almost daily a Presidential scolding of the Congress concerning the supplemental appropriations bill, which is shortly headed for a House-Senate conference. Continued Presidential veto threats on the funding for the Iraq war represent a stubborn unwillingness to concede that the American people have over time and with considerable debate come to see that the Iraq war was a mistake. In the case of Iraq, it is likely that the people of the United States would have come to these opinions much earlier had they not had information withheld from them or, in some instances, presented to them falsely. Of course, I knew this. Of course, also, it remains the constitutional prerogative of the President to exercise the veto. I respect that. But it also remains the prerogative of the Congress--the other body across the way and this body--it also remains the prerogative of the Congress to challenge that veto and to assert and defend the will of the people. A President's power to veto is not and should not be absolute. Let me repeat that. A President's power to veto is not and should not be absolute. If the President vetoes a measure under our Constitution, the Congress can override that veto with a two-thirds vote of both Houses. All Senators know that. I am not telling Senators anything they don't know. A Presidential veto does not necessarily end the legislative process. When the President vetoes legislation under article I, section 7 of the Constitution, the President's objections are submitted to the House of Congress--Congress being of two bodies--submitted to the House of Congress in which the measure originated so that the measure and the President's objections can be reconsidered. All Senators know that. Any schoolboy who has studied the Constitution knows that. But I am stating for the record, again, for all who run to read. A new vote can be scheduled on the same piece of legislation and a veto can be overturned if the people's representatives--if the people's elected representatives--in Congress demand it. There is nothing earthshaking about overturning a Presidential veto. Since 1969, the Congress has overridden almost 20 percent of the Presidential vetoes. President Franklin Roosevelt had nine vetoes overridden by Democratic Congresses. I repeat: President Franklin Roosevelt had nine vetoes overridden by Democratic Congresses. President Ronald Reagan had six vetoes overridden by a Democratic House and a Republican Senate. The veto override provision in the Constitution is a protection for the people whom the Congress represents. Members of Congress are elected by the people to make laws based on sound public policy, not to capitulate or surrender to any--Republican or Democrat--to any Presidential threats. The Senate must never--hear me now, the Senate must never--become a rubberstamp for any President, Republican or Democrat or Independent or otherwise. Certainly, the Congress should carefully consider the announced reasons for a Presidential veto, but the Congress has a duty, if the President's reasons are not credible or do not reflect the will of the people, to overturn Presidential vetoes, if the Congress wishes to do so. The veto on the override is a healthy public opportunity for Members of Congress--both Houses--to consider the reasons offered by the President for his veto. Just as the President is held accountable for his veto, we Senators are held accountable for our votes on bills that are sent to the President and, if applicable, a subsequent veto override vote. Members of the Senate and the people understand that when the President submits a bill to Congress and then asks that it be passed without any amendments or conditions--the President has a right to do that, but we all know that the President is treating the Congress like a subordinate branch capable of only saying yes or no and never expected to alter a Presidential proposal in any way. The President knows what the Constitution says, and he knows that the Congress has a right to listen, to study, and then to act as it seeks to act. So this is an argument that contradicts the most basic constitutional principles on which our Republic is founded. The Congress was envisioned as a check on an overzealous or unwise President, and that is no reflection on either party--that the President can be a Democrat, a Republican, or otherwise--and we do our duty to the Constitution when we vigorously utilize our enumerated powers. So let us hear no more about measures that the President has threatened to veto being not worthy of the Senate's consideration. Let the President issue his veto threats as he wishes, but also let the Congress dutifully represent the will of the people. On the matter of Iraq--and I say this most respectfully--I have been chagrined of late to hear the falsehoods and scare tactics emanating from the Oval Office. President Bush has repeatedly intimated that there is a connection between the attacks of 9/11 and the Iraq war when no such link exists. President Bush has suggested--he is my President and yours, Senators--that the supplemental appropriations bill as now written would cause death and destruction in America, which is patently false. I speak now as the chairman--of course, everybody knows it--I speak as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Mr. President, I make a parliamentary inquiry: Are we under limited time, I ask the Chair?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am not going to belabor Senators. I have seven more pages to read. I know what is in here, and so I ask unanimous consent that I may use whatever time I consume, and I assure Senators I will not consume more than 10 minutes, if that much.

Mr. BYRD. President Bush has said the bill does not fund the troops, which is false. The Senate bill provides $2 billion more than the President requested for the troops and provides $1.8 billion more for veterans health care. I regret this continual barrage of misinformation coming from the White House just as I regret the intransigence--the intransigence--of a President who will not cool off--and I say this respectfully--of a President who will not cool off and stop fearmongering long enough to negotiate a resolution to the differences in the bill's language. He--the President--has been invited to do so in good faith and yet still the almost daily castigation from the White House continues. I wonder about the effect on the morale of our brave fighting men and women when the President--any President--repeats inaccuracies like the Congress has failed to fully fund the troops. It seems to me that it is not a prudent thing to say. Congress and the American people support our troops, and the supplemental bill that we shall shortly take to conference robustly funds their needs in the field and cares for their needs after they return home. For the President to assert otherwise is a disservice--and I say this with the utmost respect. I will say it again. For the President to assert otherwise is a disservice. Honorable men and women may disagree, but Members of Congress and officials of the executive branch have a duty to try to find common ground, especially when the issue is a violent and controversial war, with our troops in harm's way every day. I shall hope for a more reasonable and more realistic tone from our President--and I say it with the utmost respect, but this is an equal branch with the executive branch and the judicial branch--in the coming days. May I say further that more light and less heat on this matter would truly be in the best interests of our troops and of our sorely divided country. Now, Mr. President, I have been here a long time. I know how to speak, when to speak, and when not to speak, but I am a U.S. Senator, and I am asserting this Senate's constitutional duty. My Republican friends and my Democratic friends know this, and I know they have a right to do the same, but that is my speech for today, God willing. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, I thank all Senators, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, Senator Ted Stevens is not on the floor at the moment. I am going to wait, if I may. I have the floor, do I not, Madam President?

Mr. BYRD. I am going to wait. I understand that Senator Stevens is on his way. He will be here in a couple of minutes. I will await the arrival, if the Chair will allow me, of Senator Ted Stevens. I understand he is on his way, and I want him to be present to hear what I am going to say. Madam President, tomorrow, April 13, the very distinguished senior Senator from Alaska, my dear friend, Senator Ted Stevens, will become, if it is the good Lord's will, the longest serving Republican Senator in the history of these United States. It will mark his, Senator Ted Stevens's, 13,990th day as a Senator. Senator Stevens, on tomorrow, if the Lord let's him live, will surpass the late Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, who served 13,989 days as a Republican Senator. Tomorrow, Senator Stevens will serve, the good Lord willing, 13,990 days. This is a great honor and an important milestone in the Senate career of our esteemed colleague, my friend, Ted Stevens. I congratulate Senator Ted Stevens for this monumental, historic achievement. As the longest serving Democratic Senator in the history of the Senate, I, Robert C. Byrd, welcome my friend, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, into this most exclusive club. In fact, it is probably the most exclusive club I know. There are only two of us, one Democrat and one Republican, in it. I have served in this Chamber with Senator Ted Stevens for nearly four decades. He came here in 1968. Senator Stevens and I have served together on the Senate Appropriations Committee since 1972. I was on the committee a long time before that, but we, Senator Stevens and I, have served together on the Senate Appropriations Committee since 1972. During these years of service together, we have developed a profound respect and admiration for each other. We now share many memories, both on and off the Senate floor. One of my favorite memories is a very special personal one. I recall how Senator Stevens would bring his baby daughter Lily with him to the Senate and carry her around the Capitol in a basket. Over the years, I have become very close to Lily as well as her father. Lily is all grown up now. As a matter of fact, she will finish law school this year. But Senator Stevens remains the proud, loving father he always has been. A couple of years ago, when the Senate was working into the late hours of the night and tensions were running high, as they occasionally do around here, Senator Ted Stevens took me by the arm and pulled me aside because he had something he wanted to show me. It was an article that Lily had written about the U.S. Capitol that had just been published by the U.S. Historical Society, and he, Senator Stevens, wanted to share it with me. I remarked at the time how touched I was by this. It was a father's pride in his child's accomplishment. I recall it now as a loving reminder that the Senate is a family--the Senate is a family. Senator Ted Stevens is a Republican. I am a Democrat. Of course, we have had a few differences in our lives. We have been here for a long time on this floor--right here on this floor. But, actually, some of them became quite heated. Senator Stevens, as you know, says what he thinks. He is a man. He is a gentleman. He is a Senator. He says what he thinks. Oh, here he is, right here on the floor. I had to look around now to remind me he was there. Now, some of these things have become quite heated. We both tend-- Senator Stevens and I--to be strong-willed persons, U.S. Senators, with different political philosophies. And each of us is determined to represent the best interests of his and my home State and the people-- the people--who send us here. So, naturally, at times, we are going to disagree. But I feel I can say before God and man and Senators--I feel I can say without fear of contradiction--that not once--not once--have we allowed our political differences to become personal ones. I have come to admire Senator Ted Stevens as a man of immense integrity, high personal principles, and unqualified honesty. I admire Senator Ted Stevens as a great American. He is a patriot. He is a patriot whose devotion for our country--this country, yours and mine--led him to join the Army Air Corps during World War II, where he, Senator Stevens, flew support missions for the Flying Tigers of the 14th Air Force. For his service, Senator Stevens--he was not a Senator then--but Senator Stevens, for his service at that time, was awarded numerous medals, including the Distinguished Flying Cross. Let me say that again. For his service, he was awarded numerous medals, including--including--the Distinguished Flying Cross. In the 1950s, after graduating from Harvard Law School, Senator Stevens began his long and remarkable career in public service by serving in various positions in the Eisenhower administration. Senator Stevens is also a great legislator. In our nearly four decades in the Senate, Senator Stevens and I have also worked together on numerous bills. We have even cosponsored some together. This includes S. 880, the Senate Family Leave Act, which is currently under consideration in the Senate. I especially admire Senator Stevens for his work on the Senate Appropriations Committee. During his years as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, he was bipartisan, cooperative, and respectful of everyone, just the way the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, or any Senate committee, ought to be. While noting that Senator Stevens has served as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, allow me to point out that I have always been impressed by the similarity of our careers. As I have already mentioned, I am the longest serving Democratic Senator ever. Tomorrow, Senator Ted Stevens will become the longest serving Republican Senator. Both of us have served as President pro tempore of the Senate and President pro tempore emeritus. Both of us--Senator Stevens and I--have served as our party's whip in the Senate. The ``whip'' is an old term. When the fox hunters went out, and they brought the hounds in, they used whips, and they knew how to use them. So both of us--Senator Stevens and I--have served as our individual party's--his is the Republican Party; mine is the Democratic Party--each of us has served as his party's whip in the Senate. The term ``whip'' goes back a long way. It goes back to England and the House of Commons. Both of us--Senator Stevens and I--have chaired the Senate Appropriations Committee, and each has served as ranking member on the committee. Both of us have been honored with recognition as the ``King of Pork''--the ``King of Pork''--while I am sure the organization that gave us that title intended it to be something less than a compliment. Madam President, I again congratulate this great Senator, this fine legislator, this outstanding American for his historic achievement. Senator Stevens is truly the kind of man whom our country and this Chamber need. I close with a poem. I know it by memory. I am going to read it into the Record: Not gold, but only men can make a Nation great and strong; men who for truth and honor's sake, stand fast and labor long. Real men who work while others sleep, who dare while others fly. They build a Nation's pillars deep and lift them to the sky. Madam President, for the record, I will yield the floor soon, but for right now, I see on the other side of the aisle three very distinguished Senators. I see Senator Ted Stevens, I see Senator Cochran, Thad Cochran of Mississippi. Now, we are not supposed to say these things such as this--and I see the great Senator from Georgia, Senator Isakson. By the way, let me tell my colleagues, Senator Isakson comes over to my desk here every day I am here and he takes the time to shake my hand. He does. He takes the time to speak with me and to talk with me. One day I may make a little speech on the Senate floor, God willing, and I am going to talk about Senator Isakson. But today, I salute my friend Senator Ted Stevens.

Mr. BYRD. I do.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, will the very able and distinguished Senator from Alaska yield so I might say a few words?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator, my friend, for what he has said. I salute him, my friend. I wish Erma, my darling wife, were here, sitting up in the gallery. We have rules that we don't speak to the gallery, but I wish she were here. She knew Senator Stevens. She knew Mrs. Stevens. She knew us, my wife, and Mrs. Stevens, who is not here today, but my wife knew us, Senator Stevens and me, her childhood sweetheart, Robert C. Byrd, she knew we were friends, Senator Stevens and I, the closest of friends. Now, when I say the closest of friends, Senators know what that means. That doesn't mean Senator Stevens and I go out together at night and drink booze together or anything such as that. We are the closest of friends. I don't have anything against Senators or anybody else who wants to go out and drink booze. I don't. I won't say what I have done in my lifetime, but I know a little bit about what booze is. I know what we are talking about. Senators Stevens and I are the dearest of friends. I happen to be, through the good Lord's will, in my ninetieth year. I will be 90 in November, if it is the good Lord's will and I live to see the 20th day of November. I don't mind talking out loud, because as Popeye the Sailor Man used to say: I yam what I yam, and that is all I yam. Now, Senator Stevens--I am not supposed to address him, a colleague, like this, but I am going to do that with the Senate's permission. This is not in accordance with the rules. Senator Stevens, I want to say to you--I want to say to you in the presence of Senator Cochran, who is a Senator on the Appropriations Committee, along with Senator Stevens and me--I know the right grammar, you see--along with the Senator from Mississippi, and me. Some might think I should say the Senator from Mississippi and I. I am supposed to say it, because I am talking in a different vein, but Senator Cochran serves on the Senate Appropriations Committee with me. And he and I--in other words, he, Senator Thad Cochran and I--serve on the Senate Appropriations Committee together, and Senator Stevens has at times been the chairman of that Appropriations Committee. I was the ranking member. What I am going to say, Senator Stevens and I--I am not supposed to talk in the first person. We usually in the Senate talk to the distinguished Senator from Alaska. I want to say to Senator Stevens, though, in the Senate, he is my friend. He knows that. Senator Stevens, I admire you. I respect you. You are a great Senator from a great State. Under the Constitution, he and I, as Senators, belong to the greatest deliberative body in the world. I respect the history of England and the House of Commons. That is a great body. The House of Lords, that is a great body. But the U.S. Senate is the upper House, the so-called upper House, and it is the upper House. There are two Houses, and the Senate is the upper House, because it used to be up there in the old days, and so the Members referred to the Senate as the upper House. Senator Stevens--I am going to speak to him as I shouldn't--I know what the rules are, but I am going to say to Senator Stevens directly this may be the last time--who knows; it may not be--that I will ever speak to him on the floor like this. Senator Stevens, I love you, I respect you, and I admire you. I hope God will always bless you and hold you in the hollow of his hand. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, I pray and ask for the forgiveness of my own shortcomings. Senator Stevens, you are my friend, and we will let it go at that. Madam President, I am going to yield the floor.

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Cochran, I thank Senator Stevens, and I thank the great Senator from Georgia, Senator Isakson, for their kind words. I thank the Chair and I thank God we were here today. I thank our Heavenly Father, especially, for this man, this Senator, Ted Stevens, and for his service to our country and to the Senate. I salute him as one of the great Senators of my time--and I have been here a long time. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, early next week, Members of the House and Senate will meet to work on the final version of the emergency supplemental appropriations bill. The Senate's version of this legislation provides $123 billion primarily for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for improving the health care for returning soldiers and veterans, for continued Hurricane Katrina recovery for the gulf coast, to fill major gaps in homeland security, and to provide emergency drought relief for farmers. The President has asserted that Congress is holding funding for the troops hostage for what he calls ``porkbarrel'' spending. What nonsense. Facts matter. Once again, the President does not seem to know the facts. This is legislation that meets some of the most critical needs of our troops and our Nation. In the days since the Senate approved this legislation, the White House has taken on the regular practice of demonizing the Congress and attacking the bipartisan bill. On Tuesday, for instance, President Bush repeated his hollow claims that the Army will run out of money if Congress doesn't finish this legislation by the weekend. What nonsense. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has reported that the Army can use the dollars that Congress has already appropriated--some $52 billion--to help the Pentagon reach the end of May. Fifty-two billion dollars. Unless the administration has a new military adventure up its sleeve that the country doesn't know about, that $52 billion will easily pay for continued operations in Iraq. The White House is spinning an imaginary tale of doom and gloom to try to scare the Congress and the country. But the facts just don't support the administration claims. To underscore this factfinding effort, the Army provided financial updates to the House of Representatives this week and told House officials that its current Army funding could last until the summer. Yet, to listen to the White House, one would think that our soldiers will be out of bullets by Sunday. Another example of facts mattering. In remarks this week, before announcing that the troops would see their tours of duty extended for at least 3 months and that his escalation would take many months longer than he first planned, President Bush spoke of a reprogramming request for $1.6 billion from personnel accounts. That is Washington-speak for shifting funds around to pay the bills. Basically, the Pentagon is considering a shift of dollars from September's payroll budget to fund the President's surge plan. Yet, to hear the dire claims coming from the White House, this shift would wreak havoc on the Pentagon. The truth is that no havoc will ensue. This shift is one that the Pentagon has adopted on many occasions in years past, during times of war and peace. This is a simply accounting move, not a major blow to the Pentagon's war machine. It is time for the White House to drop this trumped-up crisis talk and get down to the truth. Let's take a look at what the House and Senate have actually approved. The House and the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, have each approved nearly $100 billion for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. The House and the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, approved funding to improve the health care of our troops and our veterans. The House and Senate, on a bipartisan basis, approved funding to speed long-delayed Hurricane Katrina reconstruction. The House and Senate, on a bipartisan basis, approved funding to close the major gaps in our homeland security that could be exploited at any moment. These priorities, the White House claims, are extraneous and wasteful. On top of the $38 billion already approved by Congress for the reconstruction of Iraq, now the White House has requested $3.7 billion more to rebuild Iraq. I cannot understand how the White House can champion another $3.7 billion to rebuild Baghdad but object to $3.3 billion to rebuild the hurricane-ravaged gulf coast of America. I cannot understand how the White House can press Congress to build new hospitals in Iraq but object to $1.7 billion to provide first-class health care for our veterans and another $1.3 billion for our troops returning home from war. When this legislation is finished, we will have a responsible plan that provides key resources for our troops, takes care of our veterans returning home from war, and rebuilds the communities laid to waste by Hurricane Katrina. And Congress will listen to the American people and craft a responsible framework for the Iraqis to take control of their own nation. This is not legislation that should be vetoed by this President; this is legislation that he should sign into law. We will announce a conference schedule soon and move forward quickly. Our goal is to have the final legislation to President Bush by the end of the month.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the fiscal year 2007 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill, just approved by the Senate, includes over $96 billion for the troops. It includes increases above the President's request for the Department of Defense, including increases of $1.3 billion for defense health, $1 billion for equipping the National Guard and Reserve, and $1.1 billion for military housing. The bill includes $6.7 billion for rebuilding the gulf coast region following Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. It includes $4.2 billion for agricultural disaster relief. It includes nearly $1.8 billion for the VA to make sure that we meet our moral obligation to provide first- class health care to our wounded veterans. Most importantly, with passage of this bill, the Senate sends a clear message to the President that we must take the war in Iraq in a new direction. Setting a goal for getting most of our troops out of Iraq is not cutting and running. The new direction provides incentives to the Iraqi people to settle their differences, to end their civil war, and to pursue reconciliation. One fact is plainly clear: The President wants to run his war his way, without anyone asking any questions or requiring any standards of progress. That is the kind of attitude that has resulted in the chaos we see in Iraq each day. President Bush does not want anyone to hold him accountable for the failures in Iraq. He does not want anyone to hold him responsible for our troops remaining caught in the escalating Iraqi civil war. The President has his eyes closed to the truth in Iraq. Let me read excerpts from a letter I recently received from soldiers serving in and around Baghdad: We write you this letter. . . , Senator Byrd, because of your prominent role as Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and because of your documented observation of the alarming lack of debate within the Senate over the Iraq War. So much of the controversy surrounding the proposed surge strategy has hinged on ``support for our troops.'' Yet, the voice of the individual trooper is not heard. As volunteer members of the military, we waive certain civil rights. We cannot quit. We have a legal and moral responsibility to carry out the orders given. We offer our bodies and minds, but sacrifice our voices. Our voice is in our vote. Last November, we voted for a Congress that would halt the disastrous Iraq War. . . . Some of us are on our first tour, some our second or third, and for one of us, fifth. We have done our duty, and will continue to do so until our obligation is complete. Upon completion of our obligation, we hope to close this unhappy chapter in our lives and move forward. . . . Listening to the ongoing debate in the news, and the conflicting views of our lawmakers, we hear again and again accusations by one side of the other side's desire to undercut the troops. We see these accusations as moral blackmail. For it is overwhelmingly clear from all of our experiences that despite the unpopularity of this war, the American people have provided unfaltering moral support to the men and women of the military. We implore lawmakers to abandon these hollow accusations, and to focus on the national interest as a whole. We earnestly hope for the enactment of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, particularly those concerning the de-escalation of the war and direct diplomatic engagement of Syria and Iran. We encourage Congress to obstruct the escalation of this war by any means possible. Continuing to read from the letter, these solders said: Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, we have become painfully aware of our own vulnerability. We have spent vast resources preparing for unknown disaster, fighting an enemy that is ubiquitous, but not clearly defined. We are fighting the specter of fear. This is an internal struggle that we must reconcile. Our vision of the future has grown clouded and ominous. We face a situation in Iraq that leaves us with little hope for a satisfying outcome. As a nation, we must recover from the trauma of 9/11 and abandon the misguided policies we have pursued in its wake. Using the military as our primary foreign policy tool has isolated us and fueled worldwide resentment of us, and has not increased our sense of security. Halting the Iraq war is America's opportunity to change direction, to reengage the world, and discourage terrorism and extremism by showing the world the ingenuity of our people and our commitment to freedom and democracy. These are the written words of soldiers now serving in Iraq. The American people want our troops out of Iraq. The Congress has said very clearly that we want our military to refocus on Osama bin Laden and his terrorist bases in Afghanistan. The President has said he will veto this bill. His administration has asserted that adding funds for caring for our wounded veterans, for rebuilding the gulf coast, for securing the homeland, and for agricultural disaster assistance is playing politics. What nonsense. With approval of this bill, Congress will have appropriated $448 billion for the war in Iraq, including $38 billion for rebuilding Iraq. Certainly if we can spend $38 billion on rebuilding Baghdad, we can spend money on rebuilding the gulf coast, taking care of our veterans and protecting our agricultural economy. I hope that the President will drop his rhetoric and instead work with Congress to craft a responsible plan to transition our forces from Iraq and refocus on bin Laden and his base of operations. Instead of demonizing the Congress and engaging in rhetorical finger- pointing, the President ought to work with Congress on legislation that is in the best interests of the country. I want to thank Senator Cochran, Senator Murray, Senator Reid, and Senator McConnell for their efforts this week in moving this bill through the Senate. I also want to thank the Appropriations Committee staff, including Terry Sauvain, Charles Kieffer, Peter Rogoff, B.G. Wright, Kate Fitzpatrick, Bruce Evans, Blake Thompson, and all of the Subcommittee staffs for their hard work on this bill. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the poet Alfred Edward Housman, 1859-1936, wrote in his poem, ``A Shropshire Lad,'' the following verse: Loveliest of trees, the cherry now Is hung with bloom along the bough, And stands about the woodland ride Wearing white for Eastertide. The trees are in bloom. In Washington, the annual cherry blossom festival begins this Saturday, March 31, and runs through April 15. It is always a beautiful sight, whether viewed under warm and sunny skies or as the blossoms fall like rain on a misty morning. It is a lovely celebration of Spring and a welcome complement to Easter. This year Easter falls on April 8, when the Senate will not be in session. Each year, of course, Easter falls on a different day, sometimes with many weeks' difference from year to year. Easter is a very moveable feast and has been throughout its long history. The calculation of when to celebrate Easter has varied through the centuries, being settled for just over 1,427 years by the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. But even today, Easter remains a moveable feast. The Roman Emperor Constantine convoked the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. to resolve a number of important differences between the religious practices across his empire. The council decided that the Easter festival should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the full moon following the vernal equinox, thus eternally linking the return of spring with the resurrection of Christ. If the full moon occurred on a Sunday and thereby coincided with the Passover festival, council further decided that Easter would be commemorated on the following Sunday. The council also declared that the calendar date of Easter would be calculated at Alexandria, in Egypt, which was the leading astronomical center of the fourth century world. This attempt to reconcile Easter celebrations proved difficult, however, as fourth century astronomy lacked the knowledge to resolve a discrepancy between the solar and lunar years. As a result, the differences between the true astronomical year and the Julian calendar then in use continued to grow. By 387 A.D., churches in France and Egypt were celebrating Easter on dates 35 days apart. In 465 A.D., the church adopted a reformed calendar that fixed the date of Easter, but churches in what is now the United Kingdom refused to adopt the changes. In 1582, Pope Gregory XIII reformed the Julian calendar yet again, resulting in the calendar in use in much of the West today--the Gregorian calendar. This new calendar corrected many of the difficulties in fixing the date of Easter and other important ecclesiastical dates. When Great Britain and Ireland adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752, Easter was celebrated on the same day in the Western part of the Christian world. However, the Eastern churches did not adopt the Gregorian calendar, and celebrate Easter on different dates. Occasionally, the two churches' calculations coincide, and Easter is celebrated on the same date throughout the world. The last time that happened was in 1963. All of these details are fascinating, at least to a longtime fan of the study of history. I find it thought-provoking to consider how the study of astronomy and the development of calendars has affected our daily lives today, as they have the daily life of so many who have come before us. But does it matter, Mr. President, when we celebrate Easter? In the long run, I think, the celebration of that momentous moment in history is far more important than precision on the day of the week. Few events in history have had a more profound impact on our lives. You do not have to be a Christian or an adherent of any particular church or faith, to recognize the impact of Christ's life upon world history, regardless of which day of the week or week of the year it took place. Christ's message, brought home by His sacrifice at Easter time and His subsequent resurrection, changed the lives of billions of people over the years. In Matthew 28:5-6, we are told, ``The angel said to the women, `Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; He has risen, just as He said.' '' That much change is bound to have an effect on everyone else. The rise of a new religion and the power and passion of its churches has changed empires, international boundaries, customs, and lifestyles. The Christian religion has grown and spread across the globe, sweeping old religions away. On this Sunday, Christians observe Palm Sunday, recalling Christ's triumphant entry into Jerusalem with crosses made of palm leaves like those that were laid across Christ's path to welcome Him. Next Friday, Christians will commemorate Christ's sacrifice on Good Friday, when He took up His crown of thorns and carried His own cross on that long, sad, walk to be crucified. Then on April 8, church bells will ring, and sunrise services will celebrate His resurrection from the dead and His ascension into heaven with the rising sun. It is a deeply moving and uplifting period, Mr. President, and it does not matter when it happens--only that it did happen. Beautiful, blessed Easter, giving hope to us all. Mr. President, I wish you and yours all the blessings of Easter, with all of its promise of everlasting life spent in the love of the Lord. I close with a poem by Louise Lewin Matthews, called ``Easter Morn.'' Easter Morn (By Louise Lewin Matthews) Easter morn with lilies fair Fills the church with perfumes rare, As their clouds of incense rise, Sweetest offerings to the skies. Stately lilies pure and white Flooding darkness with their light, Bloom and sorrow drifts away, On this holy hallow'd day. Easter lilies bending low In the golden afterglow, Bear a message from the sod To the heavenly towers of God.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, West Virginians have always been a deeply spiritual people. Historically, we have stood fast in our devotion to the Creator, even when--or especially when--faced with adversity, deprivation, or misfortune. Just as we recognize that joyful events are best celebrated with prayers of gratitude, we also believe that hardship can be endured and, in fact, diminished through the infinite power of the healing word. As we leave for Easter recess to celebrate the resurrection, we lift our heads from the darkness to the light. We ask for God's blessings. The Gospel at John 14:13 tells us that God answers prayer, meaning that he hears us whenever we ask for anything according to his will. The importance of prayer is recognized by people of faith in nearly every denomination. Yet, in America, too many of our citizens belittle, ignore, or denigrate the power of prayer. They believe that the doctrine of separation of powers means that we can pray only within the four walls of a house of worship, and nowhere else. But that viewpoint does not reflect the intent of the Creator. Prayer, no matter where undertaken, by design, provides both inspiration and solace. It is comforting, particularly during a time of war. No wonder, then, that prayer has always had a place in the lives of our military. In December 1944, General George S. Patton, Jr., ordered Colonel James H. O'Neill, the chaplain of the Third Army, to produce a prayer to the heavens, which requested clear weather. The prayer, written by Chaplain O'Neill, reads as follows: Almighty and most merciful Father, we humbly beseech Thee, of Thy great goodness . . . Grant us fair weather for Battle. Graciously hearken to us as soldiers who call upon Thee, that, armed with Thy power, we may advance from victory to victory . . . and establish Thy justice among men and nations. Amen. Chaplain O'Neill's prayer was provided on behalf of all soldiers, regardless of denomination, when or where they prayed, and with whom. It was a prayer in addition to the silent or outspoken, individual and voluntary prayers of each of the enlisted men and women of the Army. Although I cannot be sure of it, I would imagine that soldiers in the field responded favorably to the prayer of Chaplain O'Neill. They assuredly did not object to his expression of faith--one in which they were free to participate or not. Undoubtedly, the soldiers drew inspiration from the Chaplain's words. Now, while our children do not normally face the mortal peril that U.S. troops inevitably face in a time of war, all Americans--whether young or old--in school or in battle, surely from time to time need to draw upon the blessings of a higher power to face whatever tests fate may throw their way on any given day. Yet, one wonders what would happen if a student in an American classroom today decided, of his or her own volition, to recite a prayer like the one by Chaplain O'Neill. In some jurisdictions, it is probable that the student would be disciplined and his/her teachers punished for potentially violating the First Amendment. Is today's state of affairs consistent with the intent of the Framers? No. The Founding Fathers believed in a Supreme Being, and they were proud of their faith. On February 22, 1756, John Adams wrote: Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God . . . what a Utopia, what a paradise would this region be. As his words reflect, John Adams knew and recognized that we were and are a religious people. The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution state: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . .'' In my opinion, too many have not given equal weight to both of these clauses. Instead, they have focused only on the first clause, which prohibits the establishment of religion, at the expense of the second clause, which protects the right of Americans to worship as they please. This country was founded by men and women of strong faith, whose intent was not to suppress religion, but to ensure that the government favored no single religion over another. In particular, the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment states that Congress cannot make laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. Consequently, I believe that any prohibition of voluntary prayer in school, either spoken aloud or recounted in silence, violates the right of our schoolchildren to practice freely their religion. And that's not right. Any child should be free to pray to God, of his or her own volition, whether at home, in church, or at school. Period. I am not a proponent of repeatedly amending the U.S. Constitution. I believe that such amendments should be done only rarely and with great care. However, because I feel as strongly about this today as I have for over four decades, I am going to take this opportunity, once again, as I have at least eight times over the past 45 years, to introduce today a joint resolution to amend the Constitution to clarify the intent of the Framers with respect to voluntary prayer in school. The language of the resolution that I am introducing today to amend the Constitution simply states: ``Nothing in this Constitution, including any amendment to this Constitution, shall be construed to prohibit voluntary prayer or require prayer in a public school, or to prohibit voluntary prayer or require prayer at a public school extracurricular activity.'' This resolution is similar to legislation that I introduced or cosponsored starting in 1962, but more recently in 1973, 1979, 1982, 1993, 1995, 1997, and 2006. This resolution is not a radical departure. It simply reiterates what should already be permissible under a correct interpretation of the First Amendment. It does not change the language of the First Amendment, and it would not permit any school to advocate a particular religious message endorsed by the government. The resolution seeks neither to advance nor to inhibit religion. It does not signify government approval of any particular religious sect or creed. It does not compel a ``non-believer'' to pray. In fact, it does not require an atheist to embrace or adopt any religious action, belief, or expression. It does not coerce or compel anyone to do anything, and it does not foster excessive government entanglement with religion. This Constitutional Amendment simply allows children to pray, voluntarily, if they wish to do so. The Supreme Court has held that the Establishment Clause is not violated so long as the government treats religious speech and other speech equally. The resolution has a preeminently secular purpose, which is to ensure that religious and non-religious speech are treated equally. The First Amendment is to secure religious liberty. Justice Stevens has written that, ``nothing in the Constitution as interpreted by this Court prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during or after the school day.'' Similarly, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has written that the Religion Clauses of our Constitution have ``kept religion a matter for the individual conscience, not for the prosecutor or bureaucrat.'' And we should make certain that religion is a matter for the individual conscience. But keeping religion a matter for the individual conscience should not mean that a schoolchild must stand silent, unable to turn to God for comfort or guidance in times of need. Not every reference to God represents the impermissible establishment of religion. Instead, let us make certain that every individual, including every schoolchild, can be assured of his/her right to pray voluntarily to God, as he/she pleases, consistent with the intent of the Framers, who wrote the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 29, 2007, AT 9:30 a.m., to receive testimony on the posture of the Department of the Navy in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2008 and the future years defense program.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 29, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The hearing is on the nomination of David James Gribbin IV to be the General Counsel for the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet for a business meeting on Thursday, March 29, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in S-211. The Business Meeting will consider the following agenda: Nominations Nomination of Bradley Udall to be a member of the Board of Trustees of the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy Foundation, reappointment. Nomination of Roger Romulus Martella, Jr. to be an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, General Counsel. Legislation S. 801, a bill to designate a United States courthouse in Fresno, CA, as the Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse. S. 521, a bill to designate the Federal building and courthouse in Duluth, MN, as the Gerald W. Heaney Federal Building and United States Courthouse and Customhouse. S. 992, The Public Buildings Cost Reduction Act of 2007. S. ___, The Water Resources Development Act of 2007. S. 496, The Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2007 as revised.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the Session of the Senate on Thursday, March 29, 2007, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``Clean Energy: From the Margins to the Mainstream.''