Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Alaska. He is precisely on point. If I have presumed to err in my judgment as to what was going on exactly in the process and have cast any reflection on the Speaker of the other body, I apologize for doing that. My colleague is correct: This Office of Management and Budget, as far as I am concerned, is just above my ears. Upon what meat doth this our little Caesar feed? I am talking about Mitch Daniels, the Director of OMB. He is always meddling, always meddling in the Congress, in its work and in appropriations. Not only that; he is always lecturing the Congress. I have never mentioned his name publicly until now. But I am fed up to my ears also. The appropriations process is being mangled. It is being maimed. It is being murdered at the hands of someone who is not elected by the people of this country. What bar of judgment does he stand before? I repeat, ``Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed that he is become so great?'' I want to voice my disappointment in the circumstances that have brought about a cancellation of this appropriations conference today. If I have said something amiss here, which Mr. Stevens felt I might have, I certainly apologize for that. But I am just fed up. I am tired. I am tired of this mangling of the appropriations process. Here is this outfit, blows into town like a tornado and they are going to change the tone in Washington. And the tone has been changed. It is to the nth degree worse than what it has ever been before. I wish the President would step in and stop this interruption, this mangling of the appropriations process, this meddling by his Office of Management and Budget director, and stop that bigmouth down there from constantly meddling in appropriations bills and criticizing the Congress. That man, Mitch Daniels, is not elected by anybody. I hate to say this about a man. I like him personally, but he just goes too far. I am tired of it. We have Members who had planned to leave town, who canceled their trips, believing they were going to have this meeting this morning and that we would wrap up this appropriations bill and send it down to the President. I don't want to hear anybody in the administration accusing the Congress of delay in passing this bill. It is on their table. Let them come into court with clean hands before they attack the Congress. I am sorry to my colleagues for taking so much of their time. I am sorry profusely, I say, to the members of the Appropriations Committee who were here and who made changes in their day's schedule on the presumption that we were going to have a conference. I don't know when we will have a meeting. I suppose it will be soon. I hope those Senators who are attempting to hold up the military construction bill, because of the need for moneys to help their States and districts in the case of floods and fires and drought, will desist. That is what a supplemental is for. We have a supplemental now. Let's do something about the drought, the fires, and the floods in this supplemental. It is my desire, as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, to get all of these appropriations bills passed by the beginning of the new fiscal year. We are going to do that. Mr. Stevens and I worked hard on this. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. I will yield right in the middle of my sentence.

Mr. BYRD. I don't mean any disrespect to the Speaker. I am just saying how this is being put off. Yes, I will, just in a moment, if I may. I am upset about it. I am the chairman of this Appropriations Committee. I have never seen the appropriations process so meddled in and delayed by the White House. I know that Mr. Young is doing this at the request of the White House. They want to send up a new budget right at the last minute, 7 o'clock last night. Mitch Daniels, I understand-- --

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, no committee in this Senate works harder than the Appropriations Committee. We have been working for months on the supplemental appropriations bill. We held hearings, months ago now, on the supplemental appropriations bill, hearings specifically concerning budget requests for homeland security. The administration put its feet in cement and its head in the sand and adamantly opposed the committee's request, which was in writing, and signed by Mr. Stevens and myself, to have Mr. Ridge come up and testify so that the Appropriations Committee in the Senate, following a practice of 135 years of having witnesses appear in open sessions so that the people can hear what they said--the administration did not want that, and the President put a muzzle on his Homeland Security Director and said, no, he will not come. Mr. Stevens and I wrote a joint letter asking for an appointment with the President. We wanted to state our case. The President did not answer that letter. No. Some underling answered the letter. So we had to proceed. We did. We proceeded as best we could. The full committee had excellent hearings over a period of 5 days, with testimony from firemen, policemen, local health officials, also testimony from seven Cabinet Members and the Director of FEMA. So we proceeded as best we could. We put together a bill we thought was a good bill. Then, however, the President threatened to veto it because it had too much money, in his way of looking at it, too much money for homeland security. So there was the threat to veto the bill. Only this week--perhaps it was Monday--the President, in a speech, assailed Congress for ``delay'' in getting this appropriations bill downtown, saying the Defense Department is hard up for moneys. So Mr. Young, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey, Mr. Stevens, and I have been meeting. We met yesterday and we thought we had the whole thing pretty much wrapped up and that we could meet this morning in full committee and vote the conference report out, and send it back to both Houses for their judgments. Lo and behold! At 7 o'clock last night, here comes a request from the White House to hold up further action. They want to send up a different budget. So, who is holding up defense? The President, in a public speech, lambasts the Congress for not getting this appropriations bill to him sooner. We have been wanting to go with the President and get this bill on his desk, but he just has not supported the efforts of the appropriations members on both sides of the Capitol to move this bill, first withholding Mr. Ridge, who is the point man for the administration on homeland security, adamantly refusing to let him testify; then threatening to veto the bill. This is a difficult bill. The staffs work into the night around here on this bill; we try to work hard to get the bill down to the President. He assails the Congress for not sending the bill to him, saying that if he doesn't have it by a certain hour or day, it is going to affect the national defense, going to affect the military with personnel reductions and so on. So we were prepared today to have a conference. I want all appropriations members within the sound of my voice to know that the meeting is canceled. Canceled, why? I understand that Mr. Young is going to call me to tell me that it is canceled at the request of the Speaker of the House, who often acts at the request of the White House, I assume.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, let me express my gratitude to the distinguished Senator for his comments. And with respect to the manager of this legislation, let me state without any equivocation that this is one of the finest minds I have seen in the Senate. I have been here 44 years. I have seen the equivalent of the entire Senate come and go, and I have never seen a sharper intellect. I have seen some sharp ones--John Pastore, Herman Talmadge, and there are others. I have never seen any sharper than that of Paul Sarbanes, in my judgment. I don't know a great deal about the intelligence quotients. I don't know what the high range is. I assume it could be 150, or 155, or 160-- whatever it is. Paul Sarbanes is the brightest. Also, he has a way about him of not flaunting his intellect in front of others. Most of us--not because of that kind of intellect--have been inclined to speak more often--maybe too much, and perhaps I do already, but not because of that kind of intellect. But I salute the manager and commend that kind of intellect. He applies it. I watch him in the committees, and I watch him on the floor as he manages a bill. He is never a man to act in haste, or to be too rhetoric in haste. I admire his patience. He is plotting; he is studying; he is working; and he is extremely effective. When I was majority leader, there were certain Senators I would call into my office from time to time. I would try to pick their brains as to what we should do on this or that. Scoop Jackson was one. Paul Sarbanes is always there.

Mr. BYRD. I am saying exactly that. I am happy the distinguished Senator put it that way. This bill before the Senate is the product of that kind of mind, that kind of attention, and that kind of dedication. I hope we can pass this bill with an overwhelming vote, and, also in conference so that when put on the President's desk he can sign it. I am eager to support it in any way I can. Before I yield the floor, let me say that when we talk about intellect and sharp intellects, this man from Texas, Phil Gramm, is another. He is sharp. I have talked to my staff many times about that kind of intellect. He can talk about anything. He doesn't need a script. I have prided myself on working with him on several challenges, and I have found him to be fair and straightforward. I admire people--like these two--having that kind of sharp intellect. I was told by an old Baptist pastor, former chief chaplain in the Army during the war--I don't remember which war it was. But he always said: The mark of brilliance is to surround yourself with brilliant people. I am really proud to look around this Chamber and see people such as Paul Sarbanes and Phil Gramm. Sometimes I say that North Dakota has the highest overall quotient, perhaps of all, with its two Senators-- Senators Conrad and Dorgan. I don't know whether they are Rhodes scholars or not. I am not a Rhodes scholar. I was not fortunate enough. I just barely made it by working at night for 10 years just to get a law degree. But these people make me proud to serve in this body. Let me yield to the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. Amendment No. 4200

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I am going to yield the floor. Before I yield it, I apologize to the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell. He is a Republican and I am a Democrat. I have been known to go down into Kentucky at his invitation and speak, and I value his friendship. I apologize to him for imposing on his time.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, who controls time?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President----

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. BYRD. Gladly.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, since the revelation last month of yet another corporate accounting scandal--this time involving the second largest telecommunications provider, WorldCom--the Bush administration seems to have lost its patience with corporate America. In fact, from the rhetoric we have heard from the administration in recent weeks, I expected to hear the President tell corporate America this week that his top advisors had been in the White House basement planning, not just a corporate fraud task force, but a new Department of Corporate Security. The President said last month at the G8 summit in Canada, ``The revelations that WorldCom has misaccounted [$3.8] billion is outrageous.'' In his June 29 weekly radio address, the President warned corporate America that ``no violation of the public's trust will be tolerated. The Federal Government will be vigilant in prosecuting wrongdoers to ensure that investors and workers maintain the highest confidence in American business.'' The President apparently is so miffed with these corporate ``wrongdoers'' that he has elevated them in his rhetoric to a bad-guy level that is almost, but not quite as bad, as al-Qaeda's ``evildoers.'' Almost the same level; perhaps not quite. WorldCom president and CEO John Sidgmore, in a June 28 letter to President Bush, joined the President in expressing his outrage. ``I want you to know that we, the current management team, are equally surprised and outraged . . . about past accounting irregularities at WorldCom,'' he said. So the Bush administration and the CEO of WorldCom now both agree that American corporations teaming up with unscrupulous (or incompetent) accountants to mislead shareholders about how much money the company is making is an ``outrageous'' practice. Madam President, how comforting it is. As Jackie Gleason used to say: ``How sweet it is.'' How sweet it is. How comforting it is to know that we have finally reached a consensus on that issue. Despite the excuses and the explanations, I find little credibility in the argument that certain corporate executives lacked sufficient knowledge to ask the right questions about their companies' accounting practices. If CEOs are worth their generous pay, one would think they could take the time to make sure that the company's chief financial officer is not padding earnings by omitting costs from the balance sheet. In fact, one finds disconcerting the acute lack of shame--the acute lack of shame--S-H-A-M-E--on the part of some of these corporate executives. Former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling told the House Energy and Commerce Oversight Subcommittee that Enron had tight control on financial risk, but that he could not be expected to oversee everything and ``close out the cash drawers . . . every night.'' Can you imagine that kind of statement? I think it was Wordsworth who said: No matter how high you are in your department, you are responsible for what the lowliest clerk is doing. Let me repeat that. Wordsworth said: No matter how high you may be in your department, you are responsible for what the lowliest clerk is doing. That was William Wordsworth. Let's take that statement and put it beside the statement of former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling when he told the House Energy and Commerce Oversight Subcommittee that Enron had tight controls on financial risk but that he could not be expected to oversee everything and ``close out the cash drawers . . . every night.'' Oh, that poor man. What a heavy burden he carried. That poor man. We can all shed crocodile tears for someone who is put into that very difficult position and then consider the kinds of salaries these people draw down. Shakespeare said: ``The quality of mercy is not strain'd, it droppeth as the gentle rain . . . upon the place beneath.'' I will tell you, it does strain gentle mercy when we read about these scandals that have swept over this country and how these people plead the fifth amendment when they are called up before Senate committees and House committees-- plead the fifth amendment. That is a stunningly irresponsible attitude for a chief executive. It is something that you might hear from the teenage manager of a fast food restaurant who cannot account for a handful of change missing from the cash drawer at the end of the night. You might hear that from the teenage manager of a fast food restaurant who cannot account for a handful of change missing from the cash drawer at the end of the night. But we are not talking about a handful of change. We are talking about the American public. Those eyes that are peering--they are peering at this Senate floor at this very minute through the lenses of those cameras. They are the taxpayers out there. I see them looking through those cameras. I see them in West Virginia. I see them in Texas. I see them in Wyoming. I see them in New York looking through those cameras. We are talking about them, the American public having lost by some estimates tens of billions--not millions--tens of billions of dollars of invested savings in companies that issued false--the Ten Commandments, I keep them on my walls; some of these CEOs should keep them on their walls--financial reports and tens of thousands of workers who have lost their jobs, and many have lost their meager earnings that they, too, invested, that is what we are talking about. So here is an individual who tells a House committee he cannot be expected to oversee everything and close out the cash drawers every night--such a stunning, irresponsible, arrogant attitude on the part of a chief executive. I say again it is something that you might expect to hear--you might--from the teenage manager of a fast food restaurant who could not account for a handful of change missing from the cash drawer at the end of the night. We are not talking, let me say again, about a handful of change. We are talking about the American public, those people out there, Republicans and Democrats and Independents, in the Alleghenies, along the eastern coast, on the storm-beaten coast of Maine, the fishermen on the mighty deep, the people in the Plains and the Rockies and beyond. These are the people, north and south, the public. We are talking about the American public having lost, by some estimates, tens of billions of dollars of invested savings in companies that issued false--and they knew they were issuing false--financial reports. Tens of thousands of workers who have to wash the grime from their hands and their faces, workers in the fields, in the mines, in the shipyards, those are the people we are talking about, the public, tens of thousands of workers who have lost their jobs. Even after these corporations' fraudulent accounting, somebody ought to go to jail, and the doors should be locked and the keys thrown away. Throw away the keys. It really would not be too severe a punishment for some of these four-flushers. Even after these corporations' fraudulent accounting methods are exposed, the accounting games seem to continue. After telling the Securities and Exchange Commission that it hid nearly $4 billion in expenses last year, WorldCom submitted revised financial reports to the SEC which the SEC Chairman, Harvey Pitt, immediately called wholly inadequate and incomplete. Apparently, WorldCom's revised financial statements included additional accounting errors dating back to 1999 and 2000. That, Chairman Pitt said, could add at least $1 billion to the company's financial revision. No wonder the trust of those people is broken. No wonder the public's trust in corporate America has eroded. What kind of trust can the public have in companies that hide information in an effort to pull the wool over the eyes of American investors? After WorldCom's announcement, the Bush administration sharpened its rhetoric and is now working to assure the American public that it recognizes the importance of transparency and disclosure. The Chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, Glenn Hubbard, said in an interview last month that the President wants to reassure investors about the economy while also delivering a shot across the bow to leaders of corporations that abuses of the public trust will not be tolerated. In the midst of congressional hearings last March, after the collapse of Enron, the President lectured corporate America about how to regain the public's trust. He said corporations must disclose relevant facts to the investing public and they must focus on the interests of shareholders, who are the real owners of any publicly held enterprise, to properly inform shareholders and the investing public that we must adopt better standards of disclosure. That is nice rhetoric, but this administration hardly sets the model for openness and transparency. In fact, this is an administration that prides itself on operating in secrecy and governing by surprise. Remember the secret government that was being set up? In fact, this is an administration, let me say again, that prides itself in operating in secrecy and governing by surprise. I find it difficult to watch this administration lecture corporate America about virtues of disclosing information to the public while at the same time it is restricting the public's access to information about its own executive actions. Last October, Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a memo encouraging Federal agencies to withhold unclassified records under the Freedom of Information Act, the law that gives the American public the legal right to certain Government information. The Attorney General even told the Federal agencies that the Justice Department would defend agency decisions to deny FOIA, Freedom of Information Act, requests. Last November, the President issued an Executive order to limit access to Presidential papers that, under the Presidential Records Act of 1978, would normally be made available to the American public. The Executive order allows a former or a sitting President to block the release of records requested under the law by invoking ``constitutionally based privileges.'' The words ``constitutionally based privileges'' are in quotation marks. The American people would have to go to court to challenge the privilege claim. The order could even permit a former or incumbent President to impede requests for old records simply by withholding approval for their release, effectively negating the need for the Chief Executive to even make the claim of executive privilege. We have had our own little taste of this side of the coin from the executive branch as we on the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens and I, tried to have the administration let Tom Ridge come up before the committee and testify. Then we see this creation of this mammoth reorganization of Government that sprang like Minerva, fully clothed and armed, from the forehead of Jupiter. When this administration's chief executive talks about adopting better standards of disclosure, I hope that these executive actions are not what he has in mind. These are just examples of the administration directly restricting the public's access to government information. The administration has also moved to limit access by Members of Congress, who are elected by the people and responsible for the oversight of executive actions in the public's behalf. Last December, the President gave notice that he was unilaterally withdrawing the United States from the Antibalistic Missile Treaty, allowing the administration to begin development of a new antibalistic missile defense system. Soon after, the Pentagon began to exempt missile defense projects from traditional reporting requirements and Congressional oversight, an overt attempt to keep the Congress and the American people in the dark about the progress of that system. As the administration requests additional defense funds, the Pentagon is taking further steps to shield cost estimates and time tables from the Congress, making it harder to keep the administration accountable for technical and budgetary assessments. The Dark Ages were supposed to have ended in about 1000 A.D. They lasted 1,000 years, the Dark Ages. Reminiscent of the Dark Ages, an administration that believes in keeping a Congress in the dark, the American people in the dark, and we are hearing a lot of sword rattling about it. An attack on Iraq--the administration should level with the Congress. It is an equal branch. It is not a subordinate branch to the Government. It never has been, and I hope never will be. Let's hear more about this plan to invade Iraq. Watch out for August when Congress is out of town, or before the election. Who knows? This reorganization of Government sprang like Aphrodite from the ocean foam, and she was carried on a leaf to the island of Crete. She later appeared in full dress before the gods on Mount Olympus. They were stunned with her beauty. This is what we see. These ideas sprang from where? This idea to reorganize the Government--and I am concerned it will also reorganize the checks and balances of the Constitution unless we are watchful-- sprang from the bowels of the White House, the creation of four individuals who are named in the public press. Not exactly the equal, perhaps, of that committee that wrote the Declaration of Independence-- Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, John Adams, and Livingston, those five. Not exactly. But look at all the commotion that ideas has created. Look out, the Congress is being stampeded into putting its imprimatur on that idea. Well, some parts of the idea may be OK, but we should not be in too big a hurry. And that is to say nothing of the fact that these executive actions toward secrecy have occurred during a period in which the President has refused to allow Tom Ridge, in his capacity as the Director of Homeland Security, to testify before the Congress, and in which the Comptroller of the General Accounting Office was forced to sue the Vice President of the United States to obtain information about the White House energy task force and its connections to Enron. These are not the actions of an administration that believes in the virtues of disclosing information to the public. This is an administration that not only embraces the idea of operating in secrecy, but flaunts its abilities to hide information from the Congress and the American public. Upon announcing its proposal for a new Department of Homeland Security, the administration bragged to the media about how the plan had been pieced together by just four men and a few trusted aides in the basement of the White House. As the work became more detailed and the working groups expanded, the code of silence was gravely explained to each new arrival. At the end of each meeting, all papers were collected: nothing left that room, we've been told. The work was completed before any member of the Congress was briefed on the plan. White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card even arrogantly proclaimed, ``We consulted with agencies and with Congress, but they might not have known we were consulting.'' Now, get that. I can hardly believe my eyes, except my eyes have seen this prior to my having stated it on the floor. White House chief of staff Andrew Card even proclaimed--I used the adverb ``arrogantly,'' I will put it back in--White House chief of staff Andrew Card arrogantly proclaimed, ``We consulted with agencies and with Congress but they might not have known we were consulting.'' What a reflection on Congress. What is he saying about Congress? That is hardly a model of transparency that I want corporate America to follow. We don't want to hear corporate CEOs saying we shared information with the American public, but they might not have known we were sharing it with them. The administration's euphoria for secrecy seems motivated in large part by its desire to implement a political agenda. That is what it is. A political agenda, regardless of whether it has the support of the American people.

Mr. BYRD. I would be glad to yield.

Mr. BYRD. The distinguished Senator from Nevada introduces an interesting idea. Maybe they do. Maybe anything goes. All is fair in love and in war they say. Now we can add, big business. Big business. That is not a fair thing to say about many big businesses really because many of the people in big business are honest and try to do the right thing. They are open, they are transparent. It is too bad a few bad apples reflect on the whole barrel. I used to sell produce. I was a produce boy, married, with children coming on, and I found that a few bad peaches would quickly ruin the whole bushel. The same thing with apples and other fruits and so on. When the administration's polls suggest opposition to certain policies from the American public, it limits access to information about that policy. I fear that the American public, and their elected representatives in Congress, at times are viewed by this administration as some sort of obstacle or hurdle that is to be avoided. There is a contempt, there is an arrogancy in this administration, there is a contempt for Congress. They hold Congress in contempt. This kind of executive mentality can only emanate from the arrogance of an administration that believes the White House is the fountain of wisdom in Washington. Wisdom is the principal thing. Such a mentality is dangerous, it is absolutely dangerous. I was here in the Nixon administration. I remember what happened to that administration. Such a mentality is dangerous. We need only look to the corporate accounting scandals which this administration has so harshly criticized in recent weeks to see why. Most economic pundits seem convinced that the hyperactive stock market of the late 1990s was the catalyst for a slow, steady deterioration in professional and ethical standards in corporate America. The pressure on CEOs and companies to produce earnings, quarter after quarter, resulted in a kind of competitive behavior that encouraged companies to push the accounting envelope. Rising profits and stock prices provided cover for underlying ethical lapses. The longer the boom lasted, the more brazen these corporations became in cutting corners and taking a little more off the top. By the end of the boom, many companies appear to have been engaged in the kind of fudging, gamesmanship and ethical corner-cutting that, while legal in some cases, was certainly less than ethical. Unfortunately, it was only after the stock market began its inevitable decline and great piles of money were lost that people began to ask the critical, penetrating questions that should have been asked earlier to prevent this kind of behavior in the first place. Those harder questions are now leading to accounting revisions, executive resignations, lawsuits, and criminal investigations. So far, the reflexive instinct of the business community and the Bush administration largely has been to blame a ``few bad apples,'' but that assertion is hardly consistent with the fact that the SEC opened 64 financial-reporting cases between January and March of this year, and that almost a thousand companies, not just a handful, have been asked to recertify to the SEC their financial statements through the last fiscal year. It is somewhat ironic that the actions of chief executives were protected by soaring stock prices, since the administration finds itself in a similar position. Just like soaring stock, as long as the President's approval ratings remain high, presumably propped up by the American public's understandable desire to support the war on terrorism, the more latitude the administration will be granted in restricting information about its executive actions under the guise of national security. This kind of culture can be extremely dangerous. It was allowed to flourish in corporate America during the late 1990s, and now threatens the public trust. The administration would do well to take some of its own medicine and make itself more transparent to the American public. For all of its expressed concerns about the public's loss of confidence in corporate America, this administration seems to have given little, if any, consideration to the loss of the public's trust in government. That is the most basic of commodities in republican government. I do not refer to it, as many politicians who ought to know better glibly refer to this, our system, as a democracy. They ought to go back and read Madison's 10th and 14th essays in the Federalist Papers. They will finally learn the difference--or be reminded of the difference. They probably have forgotten the difference between a democracy and a republic. The public's trust in government--when the public loses its trust, when the public's trust is eroded, all is lost: The public trust. And sooner or later, high poll numbers will tumble, as they always do. We have seen them do it before. Don't read the polls, I say to my colleagues, so assiduously, read the Constitution--which I hold in my hand. Read the Constitution. I say to the administration, I say to the executive branch, read the Constitution. Don't be so enamored with the polls. They are fleeting. Read the Constitution. This administration's Chief Executive came into office touting himself as the first President to earn a master's degree in business administration. That is certainly more than I have. He announced that he would run the White House like a modern-day corporation. Ha-ha-ha; watch out. To be fair, the President probably didn't realize at the time that he would be faced with the exposure of a corporate culture--not all his. The President probably didn't realize at the time that he would be faced with the exposure of a corporate culture which encouraged shoddy auditing, negligent or criminal management, and impudent and secretive corporate CEOs. In hiding its own actions from the public view, this administration is fostering the same kind of arrogant, arrogant culture in which these corporate accounting scandals were allowed to flourish. This administration would do well to take preventive measures to keep the nasty, nasty little seeds of arrogance and secrecy that have affected corporate America from taking root in the executive branch and threatening the public's trust. I close with a Biblical parable: Pride goeth before destruction, and the haughty spirit before a fall. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from today's Washington Post titled ``Bush Took Oil Firm's Loans as Director''; and an article from today's Washington Times titled ``Cheney named in fraud suit.''

Mr. BYRD. Yes. I yield.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. How much time does the Senator wish?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will be happy to yield to the Senator when I get the floor. We cannot make long speeches on reservations to object. We either object or we don't. I object and then I will be happy to yield to the Senator. I want to be fair. Am I recognized?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Florida for 1 minute, reserving my right to the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the distinguished majority whip for his courtesies and generosity, and for his characteristic ways of helping his colleagues. I think I will let my remarks remain today as they are. I thank him. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. We all slip.

Mr. BYRD. Inasmuch as he addressed some of his remarks to me, I share the Senator's concern that there is no budget. I was also concerned the previous year when there was no markup in the Budget Committee of the budget bill. I was a member of that committee.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I, too, am proud of Ted Williams. I hope the two Senators will allow me to cosponsor the resolution. As one who grew up in the Great Depression, I liked baseball. It was 1927. May I say to my two Senators from Massachusetts, it was 1927 when Babe Ruth, the Sultan of Swat, beat his own home run record when he swatted 60 home runs. I can remember those days when I watched for the baseball scores. I watched for Babe Ruth. I watched for Lou Gehrig. I watched for the Murderous Four on the New York Yankees team. That was the year in which Jack Dempsey fought Gene Tunney to regain the title. May I say to my dear friend, Ted Kennedy, Jack Dempsey was a hero of the coal miners. He mined coal in Logan County, WV. So my foster father told me we would go down to the community grill, which was a place where one could buy Coca-Colas or a soda. I mean they were good Coca- Colas in those days, and you got them for 5 cents, a bottle of Coke for 5 cents. So he said we would go down to the community grill and listen to that fight. Well, we went on that night. And there were fully 30 or 40 coal miners around that radio. I went home a disappointed lad because Jack Dempsey was my hero at that point as far as sports figures were concerned, as well as Babe Ruth. And I went home a disappointed lad because Jack Dempsey did not win the fight. I did not hear the fight. There was only one set of earphones, and Julius Sleboda, who was the manager of the grill--that was 75 years ago, he was the manager of the grill--he listened to the fight, but he didn't tell the rest of us anything about what was going on. So, lo and behold, Mr. C.R. Stahl, a Scotsman who was the general manager of the coal mining operation, came into that room and took the earphones from Julius, put them on, and gave to those of us who were standing around with open eyes, open ears, and open mouths, a blow-by- blow account of the greatest prize fight, as far as I am concerned, that ever occurred in the United States--Jack Dempsey. And he lost the fight. That was 1927. May I say to the distinguished Senator from Illinois, something happened in 1927. I can see the bulletins that were tacked up on the wall of the company store, the coal company store: ``Lindbergh Crosses the Atlantic.'' He flew across the Atlantic in the Spirit of St. Louis. He started out, I believe it was May 9, 1927. The New York Times had a headline which said that he flew over Nova Scotia at the tremendous speed of 100 miles per hour in the Spirit of St. Louis. That was Lindbergh. He had a plane that had a load of 5,500 pounds. He had five sandwiches. He ate one-half of a sandwich on the way. Part of the time, he flew 10 feet above the water; part of the time, 10,000 feet above the water. He flew across the Atlantic in a single-engine plane, the Spirit of St. Louis. That was 1927. That was the year Ford brought out the Model A Ford. It was also the year in which Sacco and Vanzetti were executed--1927, a great year. Let me switch now to 2002. Congress had been requested to appropriate more than $10 billion in fiscal year 2003 funds for a reserve fund from which the Department of Defense will draw to pay for its operations in the war against terrorism. Now, watch out. This war against terrorism is a terrible war, but watch out. Many things are being done under the rubric of the war on terrorism. We had better watch out. Let me tell you about this one. The President requested this huge amount of money, free of any restrictions. Now, Senators, we have to watch this stampede to legislate a new Department--and I am for a new Department--but in this so-called reorganization plan that the President sent up to the Senate and the House, watch out, this is a reorganization plan. Let's be careful we don't reorganize the checks and balances in our constitutional system. I have seen a fair number of requests for blank checks in my time, but this one takes the cake. The President's request for a large reserve fund for the military is not unprecedented. Just within the last decade, Congress established reserve funds for military operations in Kosovo, Bosnia, and the Persian Gulf region. From 1996 to 2001, Congress appropriated funds to the overseas contingency operations transfer fund to pay for our peacekeeping missions in the Balkans and the enforcement of no-fly zones over Iraq. The result was an accounting nightmare. As the General Accounting Office reported on May 22, 2002, the reserve fund for operations in the Balkans and the Persian Gulf was used for ``questionable expenditures.'' That is an understatement. The GAO report details how this reserve fund was used in 2000 and 2001 to buy cappuccino machines--there are three Appropriations Committee members on the floor right now on this side of the aisle, and another one is coming in on the other side of the aisle. The GAO report details how this reserve fund was used in 2000 and 2001 to buy cappuccino machines, golf club memberships, decorator furniture, and even a bingo console. President Bush says he needs the reserve fund to move money around quickly with a minimum of congressional intrusion. But would some congressional oversight have stopped the purchase of a bingo console with defense funds? How about that? That is your money, I say to the taxpayers who are watching this Senate floor right through those cameras there. That is your money. How did these funds, intended for important military missions, become diverted to Government waste? As the GAO report says: There is limited oversight-- We don't give enough time to oversight, and we have an administration that doesn't want us to give much time to oversight. That is my view of it. There is limited oversight and a corresponding lack of visibility over how contingency operations funds are used that has also contributed to questionable uses of contingency funds. That is not Robert Byrd talking, that is the GAO report, the General Accounting Office, an arm of the Congress. It is no wonder Congress refused to put any more money into this reserve fund in the Fiscal Year 2002 Appropriations Act. We should also put this in the proper context of how the Department of Defense manages and accounts for the money that is appropriated to it. It is a miserable record. Twelve years after the enactment of the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, the Pentagon is unable to produce annual audited financial statements. It is a financial scandal that goes beyond the accounting chicanery perpetrated by the fallen giants of corporate America. In January 2001, the General Accounting Office reported that the Pentagon was unable to reconcile a $7 billion difference--not $7 million, but $7 billion--the Pentagon was unable to reconcile a $7 billion difference between its available fund balances and the balances kept by the Department of the Treasury; that the Department made $2.3 trillion--this is still the General Accounting Office report talking--that the Department made $2.3 trillion in unsupported accounting entries in fiscal year 1999, and that the Pentagon was not able to keep track of all of their weapons systems and support equipment. Now, get that. Simply put, if the Pentagon were a corporation, its stock would be crashing and the Dow Jones would be in really serious trouble. We should all know by now that the Pentagon's accounting mess requires closer oversight. It is a massive operation, and the Secretary of Defense has indicated it is a massive operation. Not all of this happened on his watch. He wants to try to get control over it, but how can he? It is so massive: Establishing a $10 billion reserve fund for the war on terrorism, with no restrictions, no limitations, no controls on how the money can be spent. We are talking about $10 billion; that is $10 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. It would be throwing gasoline on a fire that is already raging out of control. With the Government ledgers filling up with red ink, we need not only fiscal responsibility, but also accounting responsibility. My concern with the reserve fund proposed by the President is not limited to its gross invitation for waste, fraud, and abuse, to use a hackneyed term. As a Member of the Senate and chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I want to know how this money will be used because $10 billion is a lot of money, looking at it from the standpoint of my background and my State. It is a lot of money. Will it be used for rooting out the terrorists who remain in Afghanistan? Will it be used for the creation of an Afghan national army? Will it be used to increase our military presence in the Philippines, Georgia, or Yemen? What about an invasion of Iraq? Is that what it is going to be used for? We don't know. On July 3, 2002, President Bush sent a letter to congressional leaders to provide further details on how the $10 billion fund might be used. This supposed explanation left me scratching my head. I bet it left the Senator from New Mexico scratching his head. Nobody in this Senate understands this budget and the appropriations process any better than he does, if as well as he does. But it left me scratching my head--even more than I had scratched it before. The letter from the President talks about $10 billion being requested for a reserve fund with no controls and no oversight. But get this: This request will improve collection, analysis, coordination, and execution of intelligence priorities and plans, as we expand into new theaters-- Oh, oh-- of operation and build new relationships. That is not my quote. That is the quote in the message from the President. Let me say that again. Hear me, Senators. The letter from the President states: This request-- For $10 billion of your money; your money; your money-- This request will improve collection analysis, coordination, and execution of intelligence priorities and plans as we expand into new theaters of operation and build new relationships. Mr. President, there is no clarification on what is meant by ``expanding into new theaters of operation.'' Our imaginations are left to run wild. Are we talking about Iraq? If so, Mr. President, let's hear it. Tell us. The American people are entitled to know where their money is going to be spent, where their boys and girls, the young men and women of this country, are going to be sent. Tell us. Our imaginations are left to run wild. An accompanying letter from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Mitch Daniels, proposes to elaborate, he is going to explain, explain a bit more, on how the $10 billion is going to be used. He is a favorite of us Members on the Appropriations Committee in both Houses. Mitch Daniels, the OMB Director, is a great favorite of ours. According to Mr. Daniels' letter, the reserve fund would contain-- listen to this--the reserve fund would contain ``up to $2.550 billion for military personnel accounts; up to $5.570 billion for operation and maintenance accounts, as well as military construction on working capital funds; and up to $1.880 billion for procurement or research, development, test, and evaluation account.'' While this may be seen by some as making some progress in specifying how the requested funds might be used, the devil is still in the details, and we do not have them. Under the President's proposal, the allocations could be changed by the Secretary of Defense, after consultation with the Director of the OMB. Now get that, get that, pay close attention: Under the President's proposal, the allocations could be changed by the Secretary of Defense, after consultation--get that--after consultation with the Director of OMB and 15 days after providing notification--not a request--but notification to the congressional defense committees. Ha, ha, ha. What are we going to do next? It is not hard to see how that $10 billion reserve fund could start out for a legitimate purpose, such as paying the Guardsmen who have been mobilized for homeland security missions, but then be reallocated to fund any program that could be twisted around and redefined to encompass a defense against terrorism. I suppose that additional missile defense spending could fall within that rubric, as would military action against Iraq. Watch out; be careful while you are back home in August. Be careful. I could not imagine that a $10 billion reserve fund would be considered for any other agency in our Government but the Department of Defense. I doubt that any of us would seriously consider a $10 billion reserve fund that could be spent on health care, prescription drugs, or highway construction. The fiscal conservatives in Congress would hit the roof. ``Where is the accountability?'' they would say. If any Member of this body proposed on an appropriations bill a $10 billion reserve funds for education, with no limits on how those funds would be used, I have no doubt that the President would assail that Member for fiscal irresponsibility and ready his veto pen. It is true that we are engaged in a war on terrorism, and that war is expensive. At the height of our military operations in Afghanistan, we were spending more than $1 billion a month. But there is already a well-established means of providing that money without resorting to blank checks and reserve funds. Congress passes supplemental appropriations bills to provide additional funds to address contingencies that were not anticipated in the regular appropriations process. The Senate passed a supplemental appropriations bill on June 7 of this year that fully funds the President's request for additional funds for the military to pay for the war on terrorism. At his news conference earlier this week, President Bush criticized the Congress for delays in final action on the supplemental bill, but he failed to mention that his administration is greatly responsible for at least partially delaying the legislation. The administration slowed the supplemental bill down months ago by repeatedly refusing to allow Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge to testify about the funding request. Most recently, the administration, claiming that the supplemental bill invests too much in homeland security, has threatened to veto the legislation, despite its overwhelming 71 to 22 vote in the Senate. What our country needs is responsible leadership, and Presidential threats about a veto of homeland security funding is nothing short of irresponsible. This supplemental appropriations bill does not include a reserve fund that will subvert government accountability for how taxpayer money is spent. But the administration continues to seek such a fund for the fiscal year 2003 Defense appropriations bill. I deeply regret this indication that the administration continues to view Congress as an impediment to the national interest, rather than a coequal branch of our Government with its own, non-delegable authorities and responsibilities under the Constitution. The Founding Fathers granted Congress the power of the purse and the responsibility to provide for our national defense. Accountability for how the funds are spent must be demanded by Congress as the directly elected representatives of the people. We were not sent here by an electoral college. We are directly accountable to our constituents. If this $10 billion defense reserve fund is misused, who will have to answer to the letters and the phone calls from John Q. Public? It will not be the Secretary of Defense. It will not be the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. It will be us, the Members of Congress. We have a responsibility to see that funds we appropriate are well spent. We cannot allow ourselves to shirk that responsibility. It is the people's tax dollars. If the people are being told these dollars are to go to fight global terrorism, this Congress must never allow these funds to buy cappuccino machines instead. I again thank all the Senators, and I yield the floor.