Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Well, my problem is, if you multiply the $743 million by 3, that is going to be roughly $2.1 billion. And yet the figure that has been used on this floor for the third year is $3.1 billion. So right there we are $1 billion short. So my question is, How do we bridge these gaps? How do we assure the Senate today that we will be able to appropriate that kind of money? And if we do not appropriate that money, these deadlines are not going to be met, I don't believe.

Mr. BYRD. And it has also been said that the President asked for $743 million, is that it? Is that the figure?

Mr. BYRD. That is $3.2 billion for 3 years.

Mr. BYRD. Well, it has been said on the floor, more than once today, that the anticipated cost of the bill, as I understand it, would be about $1.1 billion the first year and $3----

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

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

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, at the request of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess awaiting the call of the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I take a few moments today to recall the days of yesteryear. I came to this body in January of 1959, after having served in the other body, the House of Representatives, for 6 years. When I came to the Senate, I came into the midst of a chamber that was made up of men and one woman, Margaret Chase Smith of Maine. These men were ``tall men, sun crowned, who live(d) above the fog in public duty and in private thinking,'' men like Richard B. Russell of Georgia. Senator Richard Russell had never married, but he had a bride. His bride was the Senate. There was none other like him. In my service in the Senate, this man from Georgia, Richard Brevard Russell, was the uncrowned leader, as far as I am concerned, of the Senate. There were men like Lyndon Johnson, Everett Dirksen, Lister Hill of Alabama, John McClellan, William Fulbright, Norris Cotton, and I could go on; John Pastore of Rhode Island, Senator O'Mahoney of Wyoming. They are all gone now. I look about me today and I see the desks and the chairs. They were here then. Then one after another, as I look about me, I can see those Senators, Wayne Morse, Wallace Bennett, Jacob Javits, and Herman Talmadge. I stand alone in this Chamber as in a great banquet hall where men have come and gone, fallen like winter's withered leaves. There is only one other Senator today who was here when I came here: Strom Thurmond. The Senate is a far different place, far different from what it was when the Senator who is presiding over this Senate today, Senator Christopher Dodd, was a page boy; a different Senate. Yes, it is a different time. But the memories of those men and that woman who gave her ``Declaration of Conscience,'' Margaret Chase Smith of Maine, are still in my heart. I begin now to make a few remarks about one of those Senators whose names I have mentioned, the late Senator Herman Talmadge. We heard the distinguished Senator from the State of Georgia yesterday, Mr. Zel Miller, speak of the passing of Herman Talmadge. As a colleague of the late Herman Talmadge, I say these few words in memory of him. Mr. President, there was once a saying in the state of Georgia that ``if you were not a Talmadge man, you were a communist.'' That saying spoke so well of the high regard, the esteem, and the respect that the people of that proud southern State, which was one of the original 13 States, possessed for the Talmadge family and why the Talmadges were such a politically prominent family for so many years. The Talmadge dynasty began in 1926--I was a little boy in a 2-room school house in southern West Virginia that year--when Eugene Talmadge was elected Commissioner of Agriculture. He was later elected Governor of Georgia to an unprecedented four terms. It continued with his son, Herman Eugene Talmadge whose death we mourn today. Herman Eugene Talmadge served the State of Georgia first as Governor, 1948-1955, and then as a United States Senator, 1957-1980. He had been in this body 2 years when I came and when the father of the Presiding Officer today, the late Thomas Dodd, came to the Senate with me. We came together from the House where we had previously served together. During the Talmadge tenure, other powerful political leaders emerged in that great state, and obtained state and national offices. These included Senator Richard Russell, who sleeps peacefully today under a southern sky in a lonely cemetery in Georgia. I stood in that cemetery, at the grave of the late Senator Richard Russell. Then there was President Jimmy Carter. I served as majority leader in this body during the years of his Presidency. Then there was Senator Sam Nunn, whom we all know, remember, and respect, and for whom we have an enormously high regard. But the Talmadges were always there! Some maintain that the Talmadge reign ended in 1980 when Senator Herman Talmadge lost his bid for reelection. But I can't help but believe that it did not end until this past Wednesday night when this sharp-witted man of simple values, who spent so much of his life in public service and who did so much to make his State and our Nation better, passed away. His passing should serve to remind all of us how much we need people who are dedicated to public service. Herman Eugene Talmadge's public service began during World War II. Now listen to this: he was serving in the Navy when Pearl Harbor was attacked. He immediately requested combat duty, and participated in a number of important naval engagements during the war, including the invasion of Guadalcanal and the Battle of Okinawa. He was present at the Japanese surrender in Tokyo Bay. Upon the death of his father, Herman Talmadge became Governor of Georgia, and his administration is regarded as one of the most progressive administrations in the history of that great state of Georgia. In 1957, he took a seat in the Senate. I can see him standing over there, a man of few words. He was like John Pastore. Those two men were among the sharpest witted Senators with whom I have ever served. In 1957, Herman Talmadge began an extraordinary career, which included serving as chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, where he became known as the ``champion of American agriculture'' because of the imprint he left on almost all farm legislation that was passed during his tenure as chairman. He authored legislation to expand and improve the School Lunch Program. He helped to develop the Food Stamp Program. As chairman of the Agriculture Committee and a crusader for rural development, Senator Talmadge established a rural development subcommittee and led the enactment of the Rural Development Act of 1972. He was a member of the Senate Finance Committee--there was a sharp brain on a great committee, the Senate Finance Committee. I have never seen men or women in this Senate whose brains were more sharp than that of Herman Talmadge. He was also very active on welfare legislation long before it became a popular issue to promote, and he authored a provision giving tax credits to private businesses to provide job training. There was a pioneer! Talmadge was always a powerful proponent of programs calculated to get people on their feet, and to give them the means with which to secure their future and the future of their children. He was just as adamantly opposed to programs he felt perpetuated cycles of dependency, ``You gotta have more people pulling the wagon than riding,'' he was fond of saying. He could say it crisply, succinctly, right to the point. Senator Talmadge came to national attention in 1973, when he was appointed to serve on the Watergate Committee. According to an article on him in the Georgia Historical Quarterly, Senator Talmadge: . . . thought the Watergate investigation was one of the most important events in the history of the United States [because] it demonstrated how a republican form of government [This is not a democracy, it is a republic; it is a republican form of Government] could correct the conduct of public officials and alert others not to make the same mistake. It was during the Watergate hearings that the American people were able to observe for themselves the penetrating, get-to-the-heart-of- the-matter style of Senator Talmadge, and I am sure they were impressed. Despite Senator Talmadge's productive and historic achievements in the Senate, his life was not without adversity. While serving in this Chamber, Senator Talmadge suffered the tragic death of one of his sons, and endured other personal and professional misfortunes. Nevertheless, in his memoirs (Talmadge, A Political Legacy, A Politician's Life: A Memoir), he wrote: In looking back over my life, I suppose I have the normal share of regrets. But if I had it all to do over again, I wouldn't hesitate to enter politics. The rewards far outweigh the price one has to pay. When I speak to a civic club or just walk down the street, I invariably run into someone who has benefited in some way from my three-and-a-half decades in public life. Yes, it was a good life. Mr. President, Herman Eugene Talmadge served his country and he served it well, in war and in peace. He served his State and the people of America very well with his extraordinary career in the Senate. His was indeed a ``good life'' and one for which all of us can be grateful. So: Let Fate do her worst, there are relics of joy, Bright dreams of the past, that she cannot destroy; Which come, in the night-time of sorrow and care, And bring back the features that joy used to wear. Long, long be my heart with such memories filled! Like the vase in which roses have once been distilled, You may break, you may shatter the vase, if you will, But the scent of the roses will hang round it still. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Florida for how much time?

Mr. BYRD. For not to exceed 2 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, does the Senator from Alaska wish to be yielded to?

Mr. BYRD. How much time?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Iowa in the Chamber. Does he wish to have the floor?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, my patience is becoming greatly strained, but I will yield to the Senator. I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the Senator from Iowa for not to exceed 10 minutes, without my losing my right to the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator for whatever time he may consume, up to 2 minutes, without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, after a mild and dry winter full of false starts, of periods of almost summery weather followed by cold and blustery winds, spring is truly here--here in all of its glory. In that subtle change, the gradual brightening of days and warming of the earth, most of us can sense our mood shifting. Our hearts are gladdened, our spirits are raised, our optimism is buoyed up by more than the improving economic forecasts. As we cast off the last days of winter and welcome in the spring, we shed our weary spirits along with our heavy coats. Spring is here. Here it is. How sweet it is--spring. Our hearts echo the deep joy of Samuel Pepys' song, the poet Robert Browning's ode to spring: The year's at the spring And the day's at the morn; Morning's at seven; The hillside's dew-pearled; The lark's on the wing; The snail's on the thorn; God's in his Heaven-- All's right with the world! The pansies that bloomed all winter on sheltered porches in bright defiance of the calendar are in their glory, joined by crocuses and nodding daffodils bursting through the cold earth. Lilac bushes are budding, promising sweet scents to come, and the gray and gnarled branches of old pear and apple trees are bursting forth in showy, snowy blossoms. Gregarious robins have returned, massed on warming lawns listening intently for industrious earthworms engaged in their subterranean tilling. Bluebirds flit and swoop among the still bare branches and the goldfinches, busy at the backyard feeders, are brightening their coloring in preparation for springtime courtship. Color is washing over the land. Redbud trees add rosy tints to gray woodlands while cheerful daffodils and forsythia bushes sparkle amid drab lawns and gardens. If winter brings to mind the talents of artists in charcoal sketches or the great etchers with their mastery of pattern and shading in the bold geometry of bare branches carved against a snowy ground, spring calls for watercolorists and sketchers in pastels with bright translucent colors that capture the fragile clearness of the springtime sunshine. Summer and fall may belong to the oil painters with their deep saturated colors and massing of light and shade, but it takes a swift hand and brush to pin down the quicksilver moods of springtime. Under foot, the cold ground yields to springtime loam begging for the gardener's spade. Dry stalks blush with the green glow of new growth that springtime's new calves tentatively nibble. The cattle are happy for the fresh grass after a long autumn and winter eating hay. I know that farmers in West Virginia are hoping for good spring rains to replenish the water supplies and encourage a good growth of hay after last year's dry spells. Pastures have been cropped close and hay supplies are dwindling since the autumn drought sent pasture grass into an early dormancy. We need rain--soft rain. Rain in the springtime is a lovely thing, gentle and welcome, unlike rain in other seasons. In summer, thunderstorms are violent, dramatic events, noisy and flooding, leaving streets steaming. In autumn, the rain can become monotonous, day after dreary day of steady sodden downpour filling the gutters with matted, decaying leaves. And in winter, cold, stinging sleet makes travel on dark roads and slick sidewalks treacherous. But in the spring, the rain is misty and companionable as my little dog Billy and I conduct our inspection tours of flower beds, the turf soft beneath our feet. Flower petals gain an added brightness from their raindrop ornaments. Spiderwebs become tiny crystal chandeliers draped with tiny drops in a soft and misty rain. And after the rain, there are rainbows shimmering like dreams overhead. I asked the robin, as he sprang, What made his breast so round and red; Twas looking at the sun, he said. I asked the violets, sweet and blue, Sparkling in the morning dew, Whence came their colors, then so shy; They answered, ``looking to the sky''; I saw the roses, one by one, Unfold their petals to the sun, I asked them what made their tints so bright, And they answered, ``looking to the sky''; I asked the thrush, whose silvery note Came like a song from angel's throat, Why he sang in the twilight dim; He answered, ``looking up at Him.'' In springtime, at Eastertide, as we celebrate the great awakening of life reborn, one only has to look outside to appreciate the Creator's handiwork. The earth is His page, the seasons His poetry writ fresh for us each morning. Welcome, yellow buttercups! Welcome, daisies white! Ye are in my spirit Visioned, a delight! Coming ere the spring-time, Of sunny hours to tell, Speaking to our hearts of Him Who doeth all things well. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. The distinguished Senator did speak with me at the close of the vote, and I told the Senator I would be very happy and willing for him to precede me. I thought while I went down on the next floor to my office to get my speech that the distinguished Senator would be proceeding and hopefully finished by the time I got back to the Chamber.

Mr. BYRD. I did tell the Senator he could speak, he could go ahead of me.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I begin my remarks today by quoting from George Bernard Shaw's ``Man and Superman,'' ``If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable Man must be of learning from experience!'' I have been concerned about the issue of energy security for many years now. It was in 1992 that the Congress last passed major energy legislation. Now, for the first time in a decade, events have converged to make possible substantive progress on a national energy policy. But the question remains as to whether or not real progress will be made. The energy crisis of the 1970s should have been a wake-up call. I argued then and throughout the 1980s and 1990s that it was time to get moving to address our long-term energy problems. Each episode of short supply and higher prices spurred renewed talk about our Nation's lack of an energy policy. But, each time, supplies stabilized, prices dropped, and nothing materialized from all that talk. Will we again let that opportunity slip away? We have heard much in the previous weeks about electricity, oil and gas supplies, energy efficiency, energy tax incentives, and fuel economy standards. This is typically how we talk about energy. Yet, energy is about much more than that. Energy is about how we live our lives--today and into the future. It is about how we travel to work, how we brew our morning coffee, how the lights come on in this Chamber and permit us to read. It is about the coal-fired electricity that lights this whole Capitol, but it is also about what we can accomplish on the Senate Floor because we have this gift of light. God, in creating the world, said: Let there be light. Too often, though, we take for granted the benefits these lights bring. Now when we consider energy security, we must think about fuel diversity. We need a diversity of energy resources to make our nation work. Actually, it is much like the Members of the Senate. It takes a variety of Senators, with all of their views and contributions coming from all the sections of the country, from the north, south, east, west, to make this body work. I, myself, am from coal country, C-O-A-L. One may laugh at that suggestion, but it is true. I am coal, C-O-A-L. I have been around the Congress for 50 years, which is a very long time when man's lifetime is considered. I was pulled from the hard scrabble mountains of West Virginia to serve this country. In the end, I hope that if I am pressed enough, testing my spirit and worth, the good Lord might realize that this ole piece of coal and carbon might actually be a diamond in the rough. Each Member of this body represents his or her own constituents' particular interests and energy needs. We come at this from different viewpoints, but, working together, we can mold a strong, comprehensive energy package that will provide long-term energy security. The events of the last year demonstrate that true national security, economic growth, job protection, and environmental improvements over the long term depend upon a balanced energy plan. The United States must have a comprehensive energy policy that promotes energy conservation and efficiency and the greater use of domestic energy resources, while it ensures the development and deployment of advanced energy technologies and also improves our energy infrastructure. That is a pretty tall order. But all of those components are necessary if we are to reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign energy resources. As energy debates have ebbed and flowed over the years, so have the public's and media's concerns. These cycles in energy markets--these momentary feasts and sporadic famines-- have occurred and will continue to occur in the future. Too often, though, these crises have provoked controversial, knee-jerk solutions that do little to solve what is fundamentally a long-term problem. For example, in response to the spike in gasoline prices not so many months ago, then-Energy Secretary Bill Richardson jetted off hat-in- hand to the Middle East pleading with Arab nations to increase crude oil production, which would supposedly lower gas prices at home. I also recall several ``snake-oil, miracle cures'' being debated on the Senate Floor, such as a federal gas tax ``holiday'' intended to temporarily reduce prices at the pump--a measure that a sensible majority in the Senate voted against. Such short-term energy crises are brought on by many different catalysts, but they are all based on the same fundamental problem. What we see in the fluctuation of energy prices is a textbook study of how supply and demand can affect the energy markets. Unfortunately, our typical response to an energy crisis is to find a quick-fix solution-- one that is designed to cut off the immediate spike, but does nothing to affect the underlying problems. A number of challenges lie ahead. Our dependence on foreign oil increases every day. Because our domestic production peaked in the early 1970s and our consumption has not diminished since the early 1980s, we grow ever more dependent. This gap is due, in large part, to our dependence on oil for our rapidly expanding transportation sector. On a positive note, the U.S. is less dependent on foreign oil than many other industrialized nations. However, it is also true that we are reliant on foreign producers for more than 50 percent of our oil supply today compared to less than 40 percent in the mid-1970s. Fortunately, we rely on a more diverse choice of foreign nations, and we are less dependent on Middle Eastern nations, for that growing share of our petroleum imports than twenty-five years ago. A central question that we have to ask is what primary goal we are striving to achieve through this legislation. How do we balance our growing demand for new energy resources while increasing our need to do so in cleaner, more efficient ways? Will increased domestic oil production reduce our dependence on foreign oil? And, if that is the case, when and how should that occur? Looking to the future, I hope that our mounting dependence on foreign oil would serve as a wake-up call for other energy resources. Unless we can find a way to increase our natural gas supplies over the long term, we will also be increasingly dependent on foreign producers for our growing natural gas demands. Further, we must understand that there are actually two major energy systems functioning in the U.S. with comparatively little influence on each other. Our transportation system is run almost entirely on oil- based resources. The second system provides power to warm our homes, light our businesses, light our Senate Chamber, run our computers, and cook our meals. It is supplied largely by domestic industries and resources that are in the midst of an historic and difficult transition. The limited overlap between these two energy systems can be simply illustrated. The electric power industry gets 2 percent of its energy from oil--the rest comes from coal, nuclear, natural gas, hydroelectric, as well as other renewable sources. Conversely, 97 percent of the energy use in our transportation sector comes from what? Oil. We must intelligently address the needs of these two energy systems simultaneously in order to provide a comprehensive solution to our energy needs. Furthermore, if we are to craft a workable energy policy, we must recognize the degree to which it will rely on state and local decisions. Many energy experts agree that the country will need more power plants, more refineries, new refineries, and additional pipelines, but local citizens' groups often do not want these potentially unsightly, but crucial, facilities in their communities. Therefore, a national energy policy must enable government at all levels to work with citizens' groups and private sector interests to better coordinate a cohesive roadmap for the production, transportation, and use of energy. By working to fill energy gaps and avoiding jurisdictional conflicts, while improving a diversity of energy resources, authorities at all levels can promote regulatory certainty, stabilize long-term investments, and promote environmental protection all at the same time. Over the years, our awareness has grown about the complexity of constructing a balanced energy policy that will not undermine other competing and equally legitimate policy goals. How do we reduce gasoline consumption, when raising its price to achieve a meaningful reduction in demand could be seen as economically disruptive and politically suicidal? How do we encourage the use of alternative fuels and technologies that heighten our energy efficiency, when OPEC nations can simply adjust oil prices to keep conventional sources cheaper than their alternative substitutes? How can we boost domestic energy supplies while protecting the environment? Furthermore, with the severe budget restrictions we now face, we must examine questions about how the government can afford to meet our nation's future energy commitments. The projected return to deficit budgeting, the recession, and the demands for increased homeland security and for supporting our military abroad, have placed enormous long-term pressures on the entire budget and appropriations process this year, and for as far as the eye can see. Will a long-term energy strategy also be a victim of budgetary constraints? That is a serious question. I hope not, because the Energy Information Administration estimates that, by 2020, the total U.S. energy consumption is forecast to increase by 32 percent--including petroleum by 33 percent, natural gas by 62 percent, electricity by 45 percent, renewable fuels by 26 percent, and coal by 22 percent. Because our energy needs are expected to grow so quickly, we need to develop and use a diverse mix of energy resources, especially coal, in more economically and environmentally sound ways. There are those who would like to push coal aside like stove wood and horse power as novelties from a bygone era. But we cannot ignore coal as part of the solution. Over the past several years, I have been diligently assembling a comprehensive legislative package that will promote the near- and long-term viability of coal both at home and abroad. The Senate energy bill provides the opportunity to achieve that goal. Provisions contained in the Senate energy bill extend the authorization for the research and development program for fossil fuels from $485 million in Fiscal Year 2003 to $558 million in FY 2006. Additionally, the bill contains a $2 billion, 10-year clean coal technology demonstration program. It is undeniable that our quality of life and economic well-being are tied to energy, and, in particular, electricity. Coal is inextricably tied to our nation's electricity supply. Today, coal-fired power plants represent more than 50 percent of electric generation in the United States, and 90 percent of coal produced is used in electricity generation. Coal has become even more important in recent years as a basic necessity for high-technology industries that need this domestic resource for computers and cutting-edge equipment that require a reliable, cost-effective supply of electricity. Coal is America's most abundant, most accessible natural energy resource, but, again, we must find ways to use it in a cleaner, more efficient manner. The importance of clean coal technologies and the development of future advanced coal combustion and emission control technologies can assure the attainment of these goals. The overall emissions from U.S. coal-fired facilities have been reduced significantly since 1970, even while the quantity of electricity produced from coal has almost tripled. At the same time, the cost of electricity from coal is less than one half the cost of electricity generated from other fossil fuels. To ensure that coal-fired power plants will help us to meet our energy and environmental goals, the Clean Coal Technology Program and other Department of Energy--DOE--fossil energy research and development programs must develop most efficient, cleaner coal-use technologies. This, in turn, will contribute greatly to the U.S. economy and to reduction in pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. The DOE fossil energy research and development programs have created a cleaner environment, promoted the creation of new jobs, and improved the competitive position of U.S. companies. The DOE coal-based research program is estimated to provide over $100 billion--$100 billion--in benefits to the U.S. economy through 2020. In addition, the Clean Coal Technology Program has been one of the most successful government/ industry research and development partnerships ever implemented. By law, the Federal share of this very successful program cannot exceed 50 percent. But, over the past 15 years, $1.9 billion in Federal spending has been matched by more than $3.7 billion from the private sector; a 2:1 ratio that far exceeds the 1:1 ratio set by law. The successes of a range of U.S. clean energy technologies are valuable within our own borders. But, by opening new markets and exporting these technologies, we can reap their benefits many times over. This is a tremendous opportunity that cannot be ignored because the clean energy policies and technologies adopted today will have a profound influence on the global economic and energy system for decades to come. The United States should market our clean energy technologies, especially clean coal technologies, to developing nations, like China, India, South Africa, and Mexico, to help them meet their economic and energy needs. Just over a year ago, I initiated the Clean Energy Technology Exports Program, an effort to open and expand international energy markets and increase U.S. clean energy technology exports to countries around the world. This commonsense approach can simultaneously improve economic security and provide job opportunities at home, while assisting other countries with much-needed energy technologies and infrastructure. Furthermore, such technologies can enable these countries to build their economies in more environmentally friendly ways, thus helping to advance the global effort to address climate change. Climate change and energy policy are two sides of the same coin. Because the vast majority of manmade greenhouse gas emissions are associated with energy use, it is here, in an energy bill, that we need to deal with the long-term challenges associated with global climate change. We need a climate change strategy and we need a climate change strategy badly. We need a climate change strategy that will not just pick at this complex problem by putting in place strategies that will apply in the next 5 or 10 years. We need a comprehensive climate change strategy also that looks 20, 50, and 100 years into the future. Look at the kind of winter we have had. Look at the kind of winter we have had here in Washington: One snow, 3 inches. Look at the drought that has come upon this area of the country during the winter season. What can we expect for the spring and summer season? What is going to happen to our crops, our livestock, our economy? This is serious. I have lived a long time--84 years. Something is going on out there. I don't need a scientist to tell me that. With the differences in the winters, the differences in the summers, in the temperatures, in the water level, there is something happening, and we had better be aware of it. We had better do something about it. I sincerely hope that we will be able to work together in a bipartisan way and not put off addressing these challenging questions on another generation, but we must begin that effort now. In June 2001, I introduced with Senator Stevens bipartisan climate change legislation. Our bill received unanimous support in the Government Affairs Committee last year. Our proposal is based on scientifically, technically, and economically sound principles and would put into place a comprehensive, national climate change strategy, including a renewed national commitment to develop the next generation of innovative energy technologies. Senator Stevens and I believe this is right policy framework, and I hope that my colleagues will not allow this commonsense approach to be undermined or stricken from this bill. Senator Stevens and I are aware that there may be an effort to strike this from the bill. But Senator Stevens and I will stand as one man, as one individual, against any such effort. I am glad to say that the Byrd/Stevens legislation is included in this energy package, as I have already indicated, for it will provide for the long-term viability of coal as an energy resource. We must seize this opportunity to learn from past experiences. President Carter spoke to the nation in 1977 about the energy crisis of that era. He said that: Our decisions about energy will test the character of the American people and the ability of the President and the Congress to govern this nation. This difficult effort will be the `moral equivalent of war,' except that we will be uniting our efforts to build and not to destroy. Those are the words of former President Carter. At that time, energy was a household concern. Lines, long lines at gas stations were a common scene. Everybody remembers that--anybody who was living at that time. We were building a national resolve to craft a comprehensive national energy policy. But the gas lines went away, and so did the sense of urgency about energy. During my tenure in the United States Senate, I have witnessed the ebb and flow in energy concerns as energy prices rise and fall. I fear that, as a nation, while our energy supplies are plentiful and prices are low, we may have sunk back into somnolence--somnolence--asleep at the wheel. If the United States is going to remain a global economic power, we have to tackle these energy issues. If there was ever a time to come together and craft an intelligent, responsible, bipartisan, long-term energy policy, it is now. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia for his courtesy and his kindness to me and for allowing me to precede him so I could make this speech and then go back to the Budget Committee where we are having votes and where I should be attending right away. I thank him, and I join with him. I know what he is going to say and what he is going to speak about. I shall have something to say about that matter later. I thank him. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, my problem is as follows: The chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Conrad, has told the members of the Budget Committee that we have a long way to go, with many amendments to vote on and to discuss. He intends to finish work on the budget today. That means I have a very limited opportunity to speak. I have two speeches, as a matter of fact, one very short, quite short, and the other one perhaps 25 minutes.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, last week, CNN broke the news that, six months after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Immigration and Naturalization Service finally provided a confirmation notice to a Florida flight school that two of the suicide hijackers who died on September 11 had been approved for student visas. The American people must have been be shaking their heads in dismay. Certainly many politicians viewed the incident with incredulity and anger. Our President said he was ``plenty hot.'' The Attorney General promised an investigation. Legislators and pundits have called for the restructuring--and even for the abolishment--of the INS. I find it hard to understand the apparent shock. That this incident occurred should come as no surprise to anyone who has read anything in recent months about the inept manner in which our immigration system is apparently operating. In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the American people heard repeatedly about the lapses in our immigration laws that allowed these terrorists to enter our country. Three of the terrorists were in the country on expired visas and should have been deported. Countless federal reports and investigations have concluded that INS is plagued by backlogs and delays. The agency has little sense of who is crossing our borders, and can't track individuals once they are inside the country. As if to try to provide some logic for its bumbling, the INS said in a statement last week that it had no information at the time that it approved these student visas that either man was tied to terrorist groups. I hardly find any comfort in that. It doesn't explain why Mohammed Atta's visa extension kept winding its way through the bureaucratic process for months after he became recognized internationally as a brutal terrorist. Since September 11th, the Administration has sought to reassure the American people that this government was taking steps to reinforce that invisible barrier that ostensibly protects our citizens from foreign threats. The American people were told that this government is doing all that it can to strengthen our borders and make Americans safe. But then this CNN report is unveiled, reinforcing the negative impression that most Americans have of our Nation's border security. If the American people went to bed last Tuesday night in dismay over this latest INS debacle, they must have been absolutely dumbfounded when they awoke Wednesday morning to learn that the House of Representatives had passed, at the request of the President, what amounts to an amnesty for hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens, many of whom have not undergone any--any--background or security check. Supporters of the House-passed extension of the so-called Section 245(i) provision were quick to claim that it is not an amnesty. The issue, they argue, is where you fill out your paper work--here or abroad. That is nonsense-- N-O-N-S-E-N-S-E, nonsense. Section 245(i)--amnesty is amnesty--pure and simple. The section 245(i) provision, which expired last April, allows undocumented immigrants to seek permanent residency without leaving the United States, if--if--they pay a $1,000 fee and have a close relative or employer sponsor them. Without the provision, these immigrants would be forced to leave the country, and under tougher illegal immigration reforms passed in 1996, be barred from reentering for up to 10 years. If waiving tougher penalties for illegal aliens is not a form of amnesty, then I don't know what is. Those who support reviving the 245(i) provision impress upon us that there are many, many individuals who came to this country legally, but became lost in the huge backlog of paperwork at the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Thus their visas expired while they were awaiting the processing of paperwork and they continued to live in the United States illegally and undetected. I don't doubt that many of these individuals are well-meaning and have attempted to follow the law. I recognize that many of these individuals, if not for some type of legal exemption, will have to leave the country and be separated from their families. But we must not forget that three of the September 11 terrorists were living in the United States on expired visas. An additional two terrorists--Mohammad Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi tried to change their visa status while they were in the United States, and, thus, were allowed to begin their flight training at a Florida school. And as we learned in these last few days, not only did the Immigration and Naturalization Service never catch them, but months after September 11, the Immigration and Naturalization Service was still issuing paperwork clearing the way for these two terrorists to enter the stream of American society. These terrorists weren't hiding from the system, they were exploiting the flaws in the system. Reviving the 245(i) provision reopens another crack in the system through which a potential terrorist can crawl. What the CNN story says to me is not that we should be more lenient with visa applicants, but that we should be much tougher, with visa applicants. The section 245(i) provision poses a dangerous risk to our border security by compromising the all-important State Department background checks being conducted on potential immigrants in their home countries. By allowing hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens to apply for permanent residency in our country, section 245(i) allows them to sidestep face-to-face interviews at U.S. consulates in their own countries. U.S. consular officers abroad offer unmatched expertise in their host country's social conditions. They are knowledgeable of police records. They are knowledgeable of fraudulent document operations. They are knowledgeable of political extremist groups. Under section 245(i), U.S. consulate officers would not fully exercise this expertise in screening immigrants for permanent residency. Supporters of the 245(i) provision will tell us that we can rely on a thorough INS background check. Ha-ha. Don't forget that if the visa applicants fail the INS security check, they are already inside the country. If they fail that check, they are already inside this country. And because of the ineptitude of the INS, they may have been living in this country for months and, who knows, perhaps years. We cannot afford to have a weaker visa screening standard for illegal aliens who are given the opportunity to permanently reside in our country. Moreover, an extension of the 245(i) provision would contribute significantly to the INS' dangerously overloaded processing backlog. The Immigration and Naturalization Service currently faces a backlog of roughly 4 million cases, and we can expect an additional half a million visa application filings if section 245(i) is revived. The fact that the INS is notifying a Florida flight school of Mohammed Atta's student visa approval 6 months after the September 11 attacks clearly suggests that the Immigration and Naturalization Service cannot handle further increases in its workload. What's more, it does not make a whit of sense to place these new obligations on an agency that both the administration and Members of Congress are suggesting will undergo dramatic reforms in the coming months. All of that is to say nothing about the message that we send abroad to potential immigrants who are waiting patiently to legally enter this country. Section 245(i) acts as an incentive, a lure, for illegal immigration by suggesting that it is quicker and more convenient to enter the country illegally than to wait outside the United States to complete the visa application process. These are serious concerns that the Senate will need to address before it acts on this issue. The American people and the Congress should know the answers to these questions. In fact, there are a number of questions that ought to be raised as we consider changes to our immigration system, but I am becoming increasingly doubtful that the administration really wants to provide the answers. The administration has been very quiet about its reasons for asking the Congress to renew the 245(i) provision. The White House issued only a three-paragraph statement last week in supporting the House-passed extension of 245(i), which states in the first paragraph: The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R. 1885 . . . This legislation reflects the Administration's philosophy that government policies should recognize the importance of families and help to strengthen them. Mr. President, I support recognizing the importance of families. I am sure that every Senator here is all for families. In fact, I have yet to meet an anti-family politician. But this Government's first obligation, especially in light of what happened on September 11, ought to be that of protection of American families, and the 245(i) provision does not meet that test in the wake of September 11. Last week, the Homeland Security Director unveiled a color-coded system to alert Americans of varying levels of terrorism threats. Governor Ridge warned that the United States remains on an elevated threat level and that the corresponding yellow light signifies that there is still a ``significant threat'' of a terrorist attack. Certainly, the administration would want to explain to the American people, as well as to the Congress, why an amnesty that streamlines and shortcuts background checks for illegal aliens is not a threat to our domestic security. The suggestion has been raised in the media that the House passed this amnesty, at the President's request, so that Mr. Bush would have a legislative achievement to tout at his meeting with Mexican President Vicente Fox this week. The broader amnesty for 3 million illegal Mexican immigrants that the President proposed prior to the September 11 attacks has been indefinitely shelved, and it has been suggested that an extension of the section 245(i) provision is a substitute for that proposal. Last week the Washington Times quoted the majority whip in the other body as saying, ``The president says he needs it, and we're going to do it.'' The paper also quoted a Republican aide saying, ``That's the only reason we're doing it. What the president wants, the president gets.'' I hope that is not the case. I hope that party politics is not the sole consideration in a matter as grave as this. The suggestion has also been raised that the House passed an extension of Section 245(i), and included it as part of a so-called border security bill, to pressure the Senate into quickly passing similar border security legislation that is pending before it. Well, this Senator from, West Virginia will not be pressured into passing legislation. The Senate is a deliberative body. Senators have a responsibility to consider and to throughly debate legislation that comes before this body, especially legislation that raises as many concerns as section 245(i). I raise these concerns and I shall continue to raise them. The administration chose not to address these concerns last week when the House acted on the 245(i) provision. Mr. President, the American people and the Congress cannot be expected to have confidence in our efforts to secure our borders, if they see the administration advocating legislation that seems to fly in the face of tighter border security. The administration must explain why, on the same day that the Homeland Security Director would issue an elevated state of alert, the White House would push through the House an amnesty for illegal aliens that would weaken our visa screening processes. Doesn't make much sense, does it? The right hand seems not to know what the left hand is doing. It is lunacy--sheer lunacy--that the President would request, and the House would pass, such an amnesty at this time. That point seems obvious to the American people, if not to the administration. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.