Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today the Senate at long last passed a thirteen-week extension of unemployment benefits. This is a relief to over 3,000 workers in my State of West Virginia who have exhausted their regular unemployment benefits since September 11, 2001, and, it is help that could have--and should have--been provided sooner, if it had not been delayed unnecessarily by those who have sought to provide tens of billions of dollars in tax cuts for a so-called ``economic stimulus.'' Much has changed since an economic stimulus was first proposed in response to the September 11 attacks. The economy is growing again, business investment is on the rise, and workers are returning to their jobs. Both the stock markets and the economy have proved to be more resilient than economists had expected. And so I find it difficult to accept the argument that $43 billion in tax cuts is necessary to ignite an economic expansion that appears to be already underway. What is more, I find it difficult to support legislation that would result in a further erosion in the budgets of state governments. I served in the West Virginia Legislature, and I understand and sympathize with their budgetary constraints. The depreciation provision that was included in the bill that was passed today is projected to cost my state $86 million in revenue. My State cannot afford to lose that revenue. The Federal budget position is not much better, Mr. President. This year's budget and appropriations process promises to be very difficult, and tough choices will have to be made. With projected deficits for the current and upcoming fiscal years, the mounting costs of our military efforts abroad, the need to improve our homeland defenses, and the long-term financing problems facing Social Security and Medicare, I could not in good conscience vote to spend $51 billion to spur an economic expansion that, as Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told the Senate Banking Committee yesterday, is already well underway. What is unfortunate, is that in opposing this package of tax cuts, I was forced to oppose a number of tax provisions that would aid the City of New York. I have tried to be helpful to the people of New York State in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. Last year, I helped to secure $11 billion through the Appropriations Committee--almost $2 billion more than was proposed by the president--to help New Yorkers rebuild their city. Nevertheless, I am glad a thirteen-week extension of unemployment benefits has at last been approved, and am only sorry that it could not have been provided sooner and without tens of billions of dollars in what is likely to be unnecessary stimulus.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on February 22, 1962, the youngest of Joseph and Rose Kennedy's nine children, Edward, was standing in front of the Berlin Wall listening to a speech by his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy. It was Edward Kennedy's birthday. He was turning 30 years of age. Later that year, he ran for the Senate. On November 6, 1962, he was elected to that very historic Senate seat--a seat that had been held not only by his brother, but also by John Quincy Adams, by Charles Sumner, by Henry Cabot Lodge, and by the great Daniel Webster. Now, I relate that story not only to bring notice to this milestone year in the career of Senator Ted Kennedy, but also to bring notice that February 22, 2002, was a very special day in the life of the senior--perhaps I should now say the ``very'' senior--Senator from Massachusetts. This year marks 40 years since Edward Kennedy won the election to begin his distinguished career as a United States Senator, while last Friday marked the 70th anniversary of his birth. Oh, to be 70 again. It makes me pause, to be 70 again. I still cannot believe this young, 28-year-old fellow who was running around West Virginia campaigning for his brother during the crucial 1960 West Virginia primary is now 70 years old. The Psalmist says: The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away. Seventy years. Yes, there he was, 28 years old, chubby cheeks, black hair, running around West Virginia campaigning for his brother. But he is 70 years old, and I want to wish him the happiest of birthdays. I also wish to congratulate him for his very remarkable service in the Senate. Forty years in the Senate means that Senator Kennedy is third in seniority in the Senate. It means he has spent more than half of his life in the Senate. He is the fifth longest serving Senator in U.S. history. He has seen a Senate career marked by quality as well as length of service. Millions of Americans are healthier today because of his efforts for health reform. Many more Americans are better off because of his efforts to increase the minimum wage. Ted Kennedy has dedicated his life to public service. He is a man of remarkable compassion and tenacity. He loves his country, and he has labored mightily on behalf of his fellow citizens. For four decades now he has served in this Senate and provided a powerful voice for the protection and the promotion of workers' rights, for the protection of our environment, and for his stronger social safety net for America's disadvantaged people. For four decades he has provided a strong, eloquent voice for the poor, the oppressed, the downtrodden, the dispossessed. For these and a host of other reasons, history will be good to Senator Kennedy. He has endured great tragedy in his own life; yet he has dedicated himself toward improving the lives of others. I consider myself to be privileged to serve with Senator Kennedy and to have him as my friend. I wish for him many more years of service. ``How far away is the temple of fame?'' Said a youth at the dawn of the day. He toiled and strove for a deathless name; The hours went by and the evening came, Leaving him old and feeble and lame, To plod on his cheerless way. ``How far away is the temple of good?'' Said another youth at the dawn of the day. He toiled in the spirit of brotherhood, To help and succor as best he could The poor and unfortunate multitude, In its hard and cheerless way. He was careless alike of praise or blame, But after his work was done, An angel of glory from heaven came To write on high his immortal name, And to proclaim the truth that the temple of fame And the temple of good are one. For this is the lesson that history Has taught since the world began; That those whose memories never die, But shine like stars in the human sky, And brighter glow as the years go by, Are the men who live for man. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if I may regain the floor.

Mr. BYRD. I thank both of my colleagues for their thoughtful remarks. May I say to my friend from Connecticut, the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, and I had our differences in the early days of our careers. I came to find in Ted Kennedy one of the strongest supporters when I became the Democratic leader of the Senate in 1977. He was always one who stood alongside me and my work as the leader. I could count on his support. We did not always vote alike, but he was very supportive, and I treasured that support. As time went on, Ted Kennedy, with whom I did not see eye to eye in the early days, became one of my most loyal and dedicated friends in the Senate. I am not saying we socialized together. I do not socialize with very many people, if any, outside my own family, but as a friend he proved himself to me one of the staunchest. I remember that on my 80th birthday--Senator Kennedy just celebrated his 70th--I was in West Virginia. I was dining on that birthday at the Governor's mansion with a Republican Governor whom I had served in the State legislature in 1947. This was his second time to be Governor. He was the youngest Governor of the State in the early 1950s, and then he was the oldest Governor of the State up until a little under 2 years ago. He was having me over at the mansion for lunch on that day with him. I received a call from my chief of staff, Barbara Videnieks, saying: Senator, guess who is here. Senator Kennedy is in your office. I was in West Virginia, and he was in my office. She said: You know what. He has 80 red roses. He brought 80 red roses to my office on that day. I thought that was a unique moment in my life, unique perhaps in most lives, to have a friend come by and bring 80 roses. It is unique to become 80 years old, for one thing, but he was in my office with 80 roses. Not only that but a couple of years ago, on my 63rd wedding anniversary, I was at the Greenbrier in West Virginia with my wife Erma, and 63 red roses arrived to my room at the Greenbrier. Ted Kennedy sent the roses. That is a very remarkable display of friendship in anybody's life. Not many people live to be married 63 years, but to live to be married 63 years and then have a friend send 63 red roses is worthy of comment. So that is the way it was--as Walter Cronkite used to say--on my birthday, and then again on my wife's and my wedding anniversary. So I am grateful for the friendship of Ted Kennedy. This earthly span of ours, even though the psalmist promised us 70 years, is quite short after all. The gay will laugh when thou art gone, the solemn brood of care plod on, and each one as before will chase his favorite phantom. I believe those words are in William Cullen Bryant's ``Thanatopsis.'' That is about the way it is. So I take immense pleasure today in coming to this Chamber and congratulating Ted Kennedy on his birthday and expressing my very best wishes to him and his lovely wife and to her father who contacts me almost every time I make a speech. Judge Reggie calls my office and says he has been listening to my speeches. I believe he must have heard these remarks today. Let me thank again my friend Chris Dodd and my friend Mitch McConnell--one Democrat and one Republican--for their friendship as well. I shall always treasure it. Senator Dodd is my seatmate, and very often he stops by my door and bids me good afternoon and offers some well chosen words and comfort and cheer. I prize him as a treasured friend. He is the chairman of the Rules Committee on which I serve with Mitch McConnell, and I am all the richer for it. I also thank Senator McConnell. He had me down in Kentucky. I say down because it is south of West Virginia on the map. He had me visit Kentucky a couple of years ago, a major university there, and had me speak to a fine group of young people. He treated me royally while I was there. I thank both Senator McConnell and Senator Dodd for their service to the Senate and to their country, and I thank them for their friendship. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, with reference to the word ``Lilliputians'', that seems to be the prevailing way that officials in the Bush Administration view members of Congress. Several members of the Bush Cabinet have publicly used that term when speaking about the inconvenience of having to work with the people's representatives and the laws and rules that Congress writes. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld spoke to the National Defense University on January 31, 2002. Referring to Congressional earmarks in the defense appropriation bills, he said: ``The Congress has, for whatever reason, decided that they want to put literally thousands of earmarks on the legislation--that you can't do this, you can't do that, you can't do this, you can't do that. Well, your flexibility is just-- it's like Gulliver with a whole bunch of Lilliputian threads over them: no one thread keeps Gulliver down, but in the aggregate he can't get up.'' OMB Director Mitchell E. Daniels testified before the Senate Budget Committee in July 2001 on the economic and budget outlook. Referring to Congressional earmarks, the OMB Director said: ``I would point out that Congress has got to help here. We struggle with earmarks in the federal budget, and . . . its very hard . . . when you are hogtied by a million lilliputian orders to do this, that, or the other, which maybe does not fit the strategy.'' Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill spoke to the National Association for Business Economics in March 2001 regarding the Administration's desire to see a permanent tax cut enacted. A question was raised regarding the Byrd rule. Under current law, if the Senate passes a ten-year budget resolution, a tax cut reconciliation bill would have to sunset after ten years in order to be in compliance with the Byrd rule. In response, the Treasury Secretary said: ``There is a very interesting thing that the rules that have been created by just ordinary people--are in some ways more and more like the Lilliputians tying us to the ground. . . . I don't know why we have to live by these rules, after all, they were only made by other people, and so far as I can tell, God didn't send them. . . . And, so, it's OK for us to entertain a different kind of an idea, and that . . . we don't have to live by rules that were made in a different time for a different purpose and a different set of circumstances.'' The last quote in particular addressed an arcane and little understood rule whose author put it into place in 1985. Its purpose was to stop rampant abuses of Reconciliation Bills, which were originally intended to lock in deficit reduction measures. Because of tight time limitations--20 hours--a nondebateable motion to reduce the time and only a majority vote needed to reduce it, and no opportunity to debate a motion to proceed, reconciliation is a supergag rule, one that makes cloture look like a mere speck by comparison. Reconciliation bills have frequently been grossly misused to ram costly spending measures through the Senate and to prevent thorough debate of controversial measures. The Administration chose a reconciliation bill for its controversial tax cuts last year, in order to take advantage of the ``fast track'' nature of reconciliation bills. However, in 1985, the Senate unanimously adopted the Byrd Rule. One part of the Byrd Rule is a budgetary restriction which prohibits reconciliation bills from either reducing revenues or increasing spending in a year beyond the last year covered by the budget resolution. Last year's budget resolution covered 10 years. Therefore all revenue losses in that reconciliation bill had to sunset in 10 years. The administration wanted the benefits of reconciliation, but now they complain about the restrictions of that same process. The Byrd Rule has been quite effective when it has been enforced. I daresay that the Byrd rule has prevented billions of dollars' worth of questionable spending. I know that the Byrd Rule has brought controversial measures out into the sunlight of public debate by preventing such measures from being wrapped in a reconciliation bill and hustled in protective armor through the Senate. For instance, on October 13, 1989, I commended Senators Mitchell, the then Majority Leader, and Senator Sasser, the then Chairman of the Budget Committee, on their tough enforcement of the Byrd Rule in the Reconciliation process of that year, whereby some 300 provisions which violated the Byrd Rule were stricken from the bill. May I add that reconciliation abuses are not only abuses promulgated by members of Congress. The administration's fingerprints are often on Byrd Rule violations as well. I vividly recall when President Clinton wanted to insert his entire healthcare reform package into a reconciliation bill, costing billions, changing hundreds of laws, and shielding a very controversial proposal from the sunlight of debate. When I said that I would raise a Byrd Rule point of order, the idea was dropped. The Byrd Rule is totally nonpartisan. It has saved billions of tax dollars and prevented much legislative mischief by both parties. Although its author's name is Robert C. Byrd, the Byrd Rule has helped curtail federal spending enormously. It is well to remember that it is rules and laws that keep the powerful in check and the people in control. Yet, this year's budget document, ordinarily a relatively straightforward presentation of an Administration's views on the budget, is rife with political commentary about congressional earmarks, and even a cartoon--as I have already pointed out--depicting Gulliver tied down by the Lilliputians along with accompanying text that reflects an attitude of arrogance and disdain for the role of the Congress. It is a far cry from President George W. Bush's stated intention to change the tone in Washington. Partisanship and distrust are all that is accomplished by such an approach, and there is certainly enough of both to go around already. Members of Congress are often convenient targets for disdain by Administration officials who do not have to stand for election and who often have independent wealth or lucrative careers to return to after their stint in public service is over. Congressional earmarks are easy to malign, but earmarks, such as the one which first funded the human genome project, are rarely discussed. Congressional earmarks have done much good. Of course some have turned out to be poor investments, but they are not the horrific evil that many suggest, and in reality their impact on the budget is usually quite small. What those who serve in Presidential Cabinets tend to forget is that the people did not elect them to anything. They are appointed, and they serve at the President's pleasure. And it is worthwhile here to note that even the President that these officials serve is not directly elected. Only members of Congress are directly elected by the people in federal elections, and it is to members of Congress that the people come for assistance or to express their heartfelt views. Not many ordinary citizens have the wealth or influence to call up a Cabinet secretary or get an appointment with the President. Members of Congress are the people's elected spokesmen and women, and when we are viewed as ``Lilliputians'' by members of a President's cabinet, I suspect that the good people who elected us to serve are viewed in much the same manner. Tolerance of the arrogance of people in high places has worn very thin in this country. The people have had enough of Enron egos, and all-knowing, all-powerful bureaucrats, and the people well understand the need for serious curbs on power. Some sage once observed that the difference between a lynching and a fair trial is procedure. How true that is. Mr. President, those who dislike the rules and laws that reign them in make the best argument I can think of for the wisdom of the Framers in separating the powers of government. And while Swift's Gulliver's Travels, and his tale of Lilliput may be required reading for the Bush Cabinet, I think that they may have actually missed the point of that famous satire. The point is this. No matter how big you think you are, the little people in this country can call you to heel. Because of the unique system of government we are blessed with, the people, in the final analysis, wield the power. And it is up to the Congress--the people's branch--to continue to write the rules that help to keep Presidents, bureaucrats, and wayward corporate executives in check. So, for my part I say, long live the Lilliputians! May they ever reign.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Thursday a week ago yesterday, the Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neill, appeared before the Senate Budget Committee, at which time he and I had a discussion of the Senate rules, and particularly the ``Byrd Rule.'' I ask unanimous consent that the discussion to which I refer be printed in the Record. It speaks for itself.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in his State of the Union address on January 29, President Bush reminded the nation, at great length and in great detail, that we are a nation at war, and that we will stop at nothing to rid the world of terrorism. His words were stirring, his message sweeping. The war on terror, he said, has only begun: Tens of thousands of trained terrorists are still at large. These enemies view the entire world as a battlefield, and we must pursue them wherever they are. Strong words--strong words indeed. The President outlined an ambitious agenda for the war against terrorism: first, to shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans, and bring terrorists to justice. Second, to prevent terrorists and regimes that seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States or the world. The President singled out three such regimes--Iran, Iraq, and North Korea--describing them as an ``axis of evil'' that is posing a grave and growing danger to the world. The President's speech laid out a sweeping plan for the U.S. response to global terrorism. It is a manifesto that he has stated many times to many different audiences in the days following that address. At Eglin Air Force Base in Florida last week--Feb. 4--the President told cheering troops that ``We're absolutely resolved to find terrorists where they hide and to root them out one by one. . . . History has called us into action, and we will not stop until the threat of global terrorism has been destroyed.'' Strong words--strong words, indeed. Less there be any doubt as to where I stand, I have been a hawk on defense issues for all of my 50 years in Congress. When I came to Congress 50 years ago this year, I was strongly opposed to the entry of Red China into the United Nations. I supported the war in Vietnam and the budgetary requests that President Johnson made. I supported down to the last penny his budgetary requests for defense. When I came to this body 44 years ago, I went on the Appropriations Committee at the beginning of my service in this body, and I have been on the Appropriations Committee 44 years this year. I spoke highly of President Bush last Friday in my reference to his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast. His expressions concerning faith I complimented on the floor. But when it comes to national defense, let nobody have any doubts as to where I stand. I was supporting national defense and appropriations for national defense in Congress when our President, Mr. Bush, was in knee pants. On two committees, I served with the late Senator Richard Russell of Georgia. He was chairman of the Armed Services Committee. He was chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He held both positions-- not at the same time but at different times when I was on his committees. I was on the Appropriations Committee and I was on the Armed Services Committee. I supported Senator Stennis of Mississippi, who was one of the giants of the Senate. So I need no one to stand beside me and bear witness to my support for national defense. During the war in Vietnam, I was majority whip in the Senate during part of the war. I was also secretary of the Democratic Conference during part of that war. There was pretty much solid, undivided support almost at first. Then there developed a divisiveness among Senators on the war in Vietnam. The late Senator Mike Mansfield was majority leader of the Senate. I became his assistant in 1967 as secretary of the Democratic Conference. I sat on this floor practically every hour of every day and was always at Mike Mansfield's elbow. Then I became the whip. I carried out his wishes on this floor and watched the floor, worked the floor, learned the rules, and Mr. Mansfield pretty much left the floor work to me as his whip. There came a time in that war when the Vietcong were striking at American soldiers from across the Cambodian and South Vietnamese border. I offered an amendment during a debate in which the late Senator Church, the late Senator Cooper on the other side of the aisle, and others were joined on the matter. I offered an amendment expressing support for the President, who at that time was Richard Nixon, in his efforts to bomb the Vietcong who were, as I say, working from enclaves in Cambodia across the border from South Vietnam. The Vietcong would go across the border and kill American soldiers. I offered an amendment during that debate, in essence, saying that the President of the United States has a duty to do whatever it takes to protect American boys, who perhaps didn't ask to go to a foreign battlefield. But they were sent into battle and a President has a responsibility to do whatever it takes to protect those men from attack. So I offered that amendment and it was defeated. I lost on the amendment. I need no one to attest to my credentials when it comes to supporting defense, particularly from an appropriations standpoint--my having been on that committee now for 44 years, as I say, this year. I have been a hawk on defense issues for all of my 50 years in Congress. I fully support the President's resolve to strike back at the terrorists who caused such devastation, destruction, and carnage here in our country on September 11, 5 months and 2 days ago today. But I also understand, having lived through several wars and studied the history of many more, that war cannot be fought or won by rhetoric, that true victory is tangible victory, that words do have meaning, that words do have consequences, and that a rhetorical declaration of global war may well precipitate real global conflict, involving horrific loss of life. It is crucial that we all realize that the war on terrorism is not just a war of hot words. This war, like any war, must have tangible and achievable goals and objectives. There must be benchmarks by which to measure progress in attaining those objectives. And the American people must clearly understand what sacrifices must be made and what constitutes victory. These essential elements must be more clearly defined than they have been thus far. We cannot be left to guess as to what is meant. I had the opportunity to discuss the war on terror with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld a few days ago when he appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee. I think it was on February 5. The Secretary appeared before the Committee to explain and defend the President's $379 billion defense budget request for Fiscal Year 2003. Socrates would say, ``Define your Terms.'' I asked Secretary Rumsfeld to define the parameters of our war on terrorism. What are our goals? What are our objectives? What are the standards by which we should measure success in this war? How will we know when we do achieve victory? Much has been said about bringing terrorists to justice. We have bombed the Afghanistan mountains into rubble. We have struck deeply at the caves. We have already spent $7 billion in Afghanistan. Where is Osama bin Laden? How will we know when we do achieve victory? Secretary Rumsfeld is an outstanding Secretary of Defense. I have seen a good many Secretaries of Defense in my time here, and I have a great respect for Secretary Rumsfeld. He has been around a long time, too. I have watched and listened to many of Secretary Rumsfeld's briefings on the war in Afghanistan, and he has impressed me. He is candid, straightforward, and to the point. If he cannot answer a question, generally he says he cannot answer the question. Unfortunately, Secretary Rumsfeld could not answer my questions, although he certainly was candid. I think he basically told the committee that it is difficult to say how we will know when we have won the war on terrorism. Although he has said the war on terror has just begun, President Bush has also said on numerous occasions that we are winning the war in Afghanistan. Perhaps it was to our good fortune that there was, one might say, a ready-made military force on the ground there opposing the Taliban. The President is correct, if winning means routing the Taliban from the Government of Afghanistan. But if winning this war means destroying the al-Qaida terrorist network, or if winning means bringing to justice Osama bin Laden, and Mullah Omar, and the rest of the al-Qaida leadership, then we may have jumped the gun in such expressions. By those standards--standards the President himself has set--we still have a way to go in Afghanistan. In fact, many of the former Taliban forces are still in that country. They have simply switched sides for now. Should circumstances change, they may very well switch back again. Those are the realities of Afghanistan. The President said in his State of the Union Address: ``I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.'' Mr. President, facts matter. Standards matter. Words matter. Words have consequences. When the President described Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as an ``axis of evil,'' and pledged that the United States will not permit those nations to threaten the world with weapons of mass destruction his florid words were cause for alarm to many of our allies. What did the President mean? Was he signaling a plan to attack one or more of these three nations? I asked Secretary Powell that question during his appearance yesterday before the committee. Secretary Powell answered: There is no plan. He was very careful in the way he responded to my questions. He said: There is no plan. There is no such recommendation on the President's desk today. I will put the entire transcript of Secretary Powell's responses, and my questions, in the Record at the close of my remarks. But what did the President mean? Was he signaling a plan to attack one or more of these three nations? Secretary Powell, as I said, was very careful in his responses. Secretary Powell has been around a long time. I remember working with then-National Security Adviser Colin Powell when I was majority leader of the Senate in 1987, 1988. I remember the INF Treaty, I withstood great pressure from the then- Reagan administration, to bring up that INF Treaty. I withstood that pressure and said: I will not be stampeded into calling up the INF Treaty until we have answers to our questions, until Sam Nunn, who is chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has answers to his questions about futuristic weapons and other very key and important questions. I just will not bring up this treaty. Say what you will, I will not bring it up. I remember quoting the words from, I believe it was Scott's ``The Lady of the Lake'': Come one, come all! this rock shall fly From its firm base as soon as I. I said: I will not call up this treaty until we have the answers to Sam Nunn's questions, not until we have the answers to David Boren's questions--David Boren was chairman of the Intelligence Committee--not until we have the answers to the questions of Senator Pell. He was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I said: We have to have these answers before I will call this treaty up. And I did not call it up until we had the answers. At that time, Colin Powell was National Security Adviser. He scampered across the ocean to Europe to help get those answers. Colin Powell, as I say, at that time, who was the National Security Adviser, complimented the Senate, and complimented me as leader at that time of the Senate, the majority leader, on staying the course, on standing our ground against being pushed into a premature consideration of that INF Treaty. Mr. Powell, himself, said, the Senate rendered a service. And he complimented me personally. I have had a long experience here with Mr. Colin Powell. He is now Secretary of State, and I have a great deal of confidence in him. He has had the experience. He was a soldier for 35 years, National Security Adviser, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He has led men into battle. He has made command decisions. Here is not a man who blew in by the winds from a cyclone that came from far away. He has been around here a long time. He has the experience that gives him the independence of thought. Secretary Powell was very careful as to how he answered my questions, leaving me to believe that, indeed, the administration is certainly considering, as an option--this is a conclusion I have drawn from what he said and from what newspaper stories have reported--the administration, indeed, has under consideration, as an option--this is my reading, but it would be pretty hard, I think, for others not to reach the same conclusion--that the administration is, indeed, considering, as one of its options in dealing with Iraq and Iran, maybe North Korea--certainly as an option--an attack upon one or more of these states. That is a conclusion I have drawn. As I said to Secretary of State Powell, does the President have some new evidence of complicity in the September 11 attacks by these three nations? Those are very strong words. The President seems to be saying that we will attack any nation we consider to be a threat. Perhaps I am reading something into the matter that is not there. The question is, How do we back up that message if Iran, Iraq, and North Korea do not change their behavior? Does the President intend to invade or strike one or more of these nations? Why has he included North Korea in that list? It is certainly not clear to me that North Korea was in any way involved in the September 11 attacks on our Nation. Perhaps I am overlooking something. A Nation's leaders have a responsibility to think beyond the stirring rhetoric of war, particularly in the case of what could be a long, costly, global conflict which could very well unleash forces most of us only dimly understand and which could cause great loss of life. This Nation's leaders also have a responsibility to obtain the support of the people's elected representatives in Congress before undertaking endeavors which may claim the lives of the Nation's sons and daughters. The U.S. Constitution. I have a copy of it in my pocket--a copy of the U.S. Constitution. May I say to the distinguished Senator who today sits in the chair and presides over this deliberative body with dignity and skill, may I say that his two representatives from the State of Georgia who signed this Constitution were William Few and Abraham Baldwin. This Constitution still lives. That is the mast which will hold us always to the ship of state--the Constitution. I hope this administration remembers that there is still a Constitution. I hope that we in this body still remember there is a Constitution to guide us. This Constitution does not mention ``consultations'' with Congress. This Constitution does not reference the United Nations and what the United Nations may want or not want. But this Constitution, in section 8 of article I, says that Congress shall have the power to declare war, to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain a navy, and so on. So let us in this body remember that there is still a Constitution. It has served us well, and it will always serve us well. I am going to follow that Constitution as closely and as nearly as I can follow it in the days to come; in perilous times, if they come. I will support a Commander in Chief when I think he is right. I will not support any Commander in Chief, be he Democrat or Republican, if I think he is making a mistake in such a very serious matter. The U.S. Constitution declares the President to be the Commander in Chief. But see what the Constitution says about the Commander in Chief. One can almost count the sentences that are enumerated in this Constitution with reference to the Commander in Chief's powers as the number of fingers on one's hand. But there are many sentences, one will find enumerated in this Constitution, with respect to the Congress-- many sentences. Let us keep an eye on this Constitution. The President would do well to obtain the support of the people's elected representatives in Congress before undertaking endeavors which may claim the lives of our Nation's sons and daughters. The Constitution declares the President to be the Commander in Chief, but it is Congress that has the constitutional authority to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain a navy, and to declare war. It is no accident that the Constitution, in assigning these powers to Congress, includes both the common defense and the general welfare of the Nation on this list. The structure, the scope, and the cost of the Nation's defense have an enormous impact on the general welfare of the people. It is Congress, and specifically the Appropriations Committees of the Congress, that has the responsibility for appropriating the money to fight the war on terrorism. The President has said that this war is costing American taxpayers over $1 billion a month. We have already spent over $7 billion waging war in Afghanistan. The President's 2003 defense budget amounts to an expenditure of $379 billion, over $1 billion a day. The President is forecasting continued increases in the defense budget. I will insert into the Record the amounts that are being considered and questioned by the administration over the next 10 years for national defense, and the total over that period, I think we will find, will be nearly $5 trillion. That is serious money. It is made more serious by the fact that we are returning to budget deficits. We are borrowing to support this huge defense budget, and that means we are paying interest on that money that is borrowed, interest on that debt. How long--we have heard that phrase before--how long, how long can this Nation afford to spend $1 billion a day? We will find that that $1 billion a day will increase substantially over the next 10 years--more than $1 billion a day on defense. Exactly what level of national security are we buying with that investment of money? What nondefense needs are we forfeiting? As President Bush said in a 1999 speech at the Citadel: We must be selective in the use of our military, precisely because America has other great responsibilities that cannot be slighted or compromised. I agree with every word of that statement by now-President Bush. We must not allow a bloated defense budget to eat away at our ability to fund other important priorities such as Social Security, Medicare, health care, and education, to name just a few priorities. Clearly, the budget that was presented to Congress on February 4 sacrifices a great deal for defense. While domestic discretionary spending increases by only 2 percent, and is essentially flat in some areas, the President has asked for an additional $48 billion in military spending, 15 percent above last year's defense budget, which was itself 10 percent above the previous funding level for 2001. The size of the requested increase alone is greater than the military spending of many, if not all, of our NATO allies. Moreover, such a colossal defense budget increase must be justified. It must be approved by Congress. Both Congress and the American people must understand how this money is to be spent and whether it will really enhance our national security. Let me repeat: Look, again, at my record of support for appropriations for national defense over a period of 50 years. There is no equivocation in that record. Congress must also understand much, much more about the proposed $10 billion defense reserve fund that is in this budget, including the plans for its use. The President's huge defense budget does make minimal cuts in a few outdated weapons systems, but it also increases spending on the big- ticket ships and airplanes that account for a good portion of the U.S. defense procurement funds. Do these types of weapons fit into a national security strategy in today's world, where asymmetrical warfare and the existence of terrorist cells in more than 60 countries, including the United States, seem to constitute the most serious threat to our national security? Are these big-ticket items that we are purchasing moving us toward a 21st century military, or are they squandering tax dollars by continuing a cold war military structure? May I remind ourselves that there has been on the books a law which requires appointments and agencies to audit and to be able to come up with clear audits of their expenses. The Constitution itself requires a clear accounting of the moneys that are appropriated by Congress. I believe it was last year that I raised this question with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. The Defense Department could not identify $3.5 trillion in its more than $7.6 trillion in defense accounts--in accounting entries. Now, if the Defense Department cannot, after a law's having been passed and put on the books requiring Departments to be able to come up with audits, if the Defense Department cannot account for $3.5 trillion in its accounts--it doesn't know what the weapons are, what is on hand, what spare parts are on hand, what spare parts it really needs, what moneys have and have not been spent--how can the American people have confidence enough to support an additional $48 billion for defense this year? Who can account for this money? How are we going to account for it? Where are we going? And we are denying other needs. The President said in his speech to the Citadel some time ago that we must not overlook other very important priorities. How can we do it? Where are we going with all of these expenses? Are these big-ticket weapons we are purchasing moving us toward a 21st century military, or are we squandering taxpayers' dollars by continuing a cold war military structure? Are these weapons the best ones with which to wage a global war on terrorism, or are they intended to attack the ``axis of evil,'' as the President called Iran, Iraq, and North Korea? Could they be meant to counter the threat of a rising world power such as China? How about China? No one has explained. These are critical questions for which we have yet to hear clear, concise answers. Congress needs to be given those answers. The American defense budget should not be a cookie jar with goodies for every defense contractor lucky enough to afford a hefty lobbying budget. This Nation is again in deficit status, and we have to guard against committing huge sums for weapons that are not needed, which will only drive us deeper into debt and sap our overall economic strength. The patriotism that runs deep in the veins of Americans, and the horrors of September 11, have aroused our emotions and galvanized our support for the fight against terror. But that support could wane, both at home and abroad, if the administration does not carefully weigh its use of broad threats, undefined objectives, and the murky consequences of shackling both our domestic and foreign policies to a militaristic fervor which may or may not reflect realistic possibilities or sound choices. We would do far better to hear clear explanations of our goals in the war on terrorism, and detailed justifications of our defense budget that use cold logic, rather than a hot head. We are a powerful country. There has never been one so powerful. We cannot hope to eliminate terrorism from the world without other nations on our side. A recognition of our limitations in that regard is critical. We are a rich country--so rich that if the Queen of Sheba were today alive, she would come to this country and forget about Solomon in all of his glory. We are a rich country, but we can never, never spend our way into perfect national security--I say perfect national security. Our resources are finite and choices have to be made, and there will always be forces and circumstances in the world that are unpredictable and beyond our control. There always have been and always will be. But we can strive to be a wise nation--one that avoids bombast in favor of methodical analysis, one that understands its extraordinary possibilities as well as its very real limitations on the global stage. I do not know what these words by President Bush may portend for our future. Are they meant to convey the chilling possibility that Mr. Bush may be contemplating an invasion of Iraq, or Iran, or North Korea? I don't know. Just looking at the words themselves, I cannot understand. Are they meant to be the harbinger of an attack on one or more of these nations? When Secretary Powell testified before the Budget Committee yesterday, he could only give weak assurances that the President ``has no plan on his desk'' to start a war with one of these countries. It has yet to be seen whether the President's strong words will mean some future action against Iran, Iraq, or North Korea, or whether they are just considered as a rhetorical flourish to a wartime speech. What is for certain is that other countries have reacted to the use of bellicose terms. Our European allies are now wondering if the United States will soon call upon them to support military action against one of those three countries. Hasn't Russian leader Putin raised a question, has he not expressed concern about our intentions toward Iraq? Only yesterday I believe, or the day before, I read in the newspaper about his cautionary words. Russia has issued a strong warning against a possible U.S. attack on Iraq. Alliances between nations can be fractured and broken because of rash or insulting statements. Iranians who voted for moderate candidates in last year's elections joined with hardliners in taking to the streets of Tehran on Monday, February 11, to protest the categorization of their country as ``evil.'' I read from the New York Times of the day before yesterday: Millions of Iranians galvanized by President Bush's branding of their nation as part of an ``axis of evil'' marched in a nationwide pep rally today that harkened back to the early days of the Islamic revolution, with the American flag burned for the first time in recent memory. The story goes on to say: Ever since Mr. Bush designated Iran part of an international terrorist network open to American attack, conservatives in Iran have been greatly buoyed, trying to use a resurgence of disgust with America to quash reform at home, daily denouncing Washington and exhorting Iranians to follow suit. This has made it difficult for President Khatami to preserve his reformist agenda of promoting democracy and rooting out corruption an agenda he emphasized today before he, too, criticized American foreign policy. I ask unanimous consent that this article in its entirety be printed in the Congressional Record at the close of my remarks.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I also ask unanimous consent that at the close of my remarks there be printed a transcript of the questions that I asked of Secretary Colin Powell and his answers when he appeared before the Senate Budget Committee.

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield to the distinguished senior Senator from New York.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, for his words and his confidence. I thank him also for his reference to the Constitution. We need to retire into the inner sanctums of our minds and ponder the Constitution every once in awhile. I also ask unanimous consent that a chart regarding defense budget expenditures be printed in the Record at the close of my remarks.

Mr. BYRD. How lately have we read the Constitution? When we send a signal to the rest of the world, we should pay more attention to the content of our message than to creating a sound bite. It seems that a new front has opened in our public relations war against terrorism, and the world wants to know what kind of action we may be contemplating to back up those words. I am reminded of the words of Gaius Sallustius Crispus. Gaius Sallustius Crispus was a Roman historian. He lived between the years 86 and 34 B.C. If one wants to read a good account of the Catilinian conspiracy, one ought to read Sallustius' account of the conspiracy of Catiline. One ought to read Sallustius' account of the Jugurthine War which occurred perhaps between the years 112 and 106 B.C. It was Sallustius Crispus who said, ``It is always easy to begin a war but very difficult to stop one, since its beginning and end are not under the control of the same man.'' The country is behind the President's efforts thus far to trace the whereabouts and to bring to justice--to use Mr. Bush's words--Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders. But if, indeed, the President is contemplating an attack on a sovereign nation, the President should contemplate seeking a declaration of war by Congress in advance. I may very well vote for such a declaration, depending upon the circumstances at the time. I would not rule that out. As Edmund Burke so well stated, ``War never leaves where it found a nation.'' The President would be well advised to have the people of the Nation, acting through their elected representatives in Congress, behind him in the event that he seriously contemplates an attack on any one or more of the nations which he included in his ``axis of evil'' about which he spoke during his State of the Union Address. Going to war with Iraq or North Korea would be a very--and the same can be said with reference to Iran--serious undertaking. Given the right cause, I would say let's go. Given the right cause and the right circumstances, yes, but let us be cautious and prudent. North Korea is estimated to have the fourth largest military in the world. Iraq has had 11 years since the Gulf War to rebuild what was once touted as the world's third largest military. Going to war against well-armed foes such as these will require the serious and sustained support of the American people. The President should not misinterpret the support which he enjoys in poll after poll throughout the Nation to mean that he can throw the weight of the Nation's full military power at any one of these three nations and expect this Nation and its elected representatives to follow down that road without their elected representatives also having had an opportunity to pass some judgments in committing the Nation's blood and the Nation's treasure to the task. In the words of Aeschylus, ``the people's voice is a mighty power.'' All of us have supported the President in his actions thus far, but there are some things that are worthy of pause. I do not offer my words today in criticism. I merely offer my words as cautionary. I have heard much saber rattling, much jingoism. It is one thing to track down terrorists, to chase them into the holes and caves, and to vow they shall not hide and we will ``get 'em.'' It is quite another to consider going to war--if that indeed is being weighed as an option in high places--without a declaration of war by Congress, as set forth in the Constitution. Let me say again, I will leave no doubt about it, I am not saying that a declaration of war on a certain nation at a given time cannot be justified. As to Iraq, for example, there may arguably be a sufficient justification to make a solid case, given our past experiences with that country and the leader of that country. I might very well be one Senator who would support such a declaration at a given time, based upon compelling facts. But as someone once said, ``A wise man should try everything before resorting to arms.'' There is an old English proverb that says, ``He that preaches war is the devil's chaplain.'' I do not believe that there is any such thing as an inevitable war. Given the history of our relations with Saddam Hussein, it may be that such a conflict one day must take place or shall take place. Our military might is overwhelming, but as Cicero is reported to have said, ``An Army is of little value in the field unless there are wise counsels at home.'' Then, let us have wise counsels, not just consultations. Cato the Elder used to close every speech, every letter, with the words, ``Carthage must be destroyed!'' Eventually, in the year 146 B.C., Carthage was destroyed. There must be careful counsels, and let us vote when the time comes. I hope and pray that the President will think and pray carefully as all options are being considered. He will do well to heed, and to read again and again, the records of history. In particular, he must not forget the lessons we learned in the war with Vietnam. We did not lack a mighty military in the field in that war. However, the unstinting, unflagging dedication to the prolonged waging of that contest was lacking among the people back home. It is a lesson worth remembering. Scriptures say that a strong man armed keepeth his palace. I have supported defense budgets now for 50 years, to keep our ``palace,'' our Ship of State, our country strong. I expect to continue to do so. But there need to be questions asked. It will require a lot of questions and a lot of answers. And they should be asked. Let us remember the Constitution. It will keep us bound to the mast of our Ship of State. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the New York Times, Feb. 12, 2002] Millions in Iran Rally Against U.S. (By Neil MacFarquhar) Tehran, Feb. 11.--Millions of Iranians galvanized by President Bush's branding of their nation as part of an ``axis of evil'' marched in a nationwide pep rally today that harkened back to the early days of the Islamic revolution, with the American flag burned for the first time in recent memory. Amid the dirgelike chants of ``Death to America!'' marking the revolution's 23rd anniversary, President Mohammad Khatami tried to display Iran's milder face, stressing his government's interest in detente. Ever since Mr. Bush designated Iran part of an international terrorist network open to American attack, conservatives in Iran have been greatly buoyed, trying to use a resurgence of disgust with America to quash reform at home, daily denouncing Washington and exhorting Iranians to follow suit. This has made it difficult for President Khatami to preserve his reformist agenda of promoting democracy and rooting out corruption an agenda he emphasized today before he, too, criticized American foreign policy. ``Our policy is a policy of detente, Mr. Khatami told the throng clogging all avenues to Freedom Square in Tehran. ``We intend to have ties and peaceful relations with all nations in the world,'' except Israel. Although less strident than his old guard foes, Mr. Khatami suggested that the United states was partly to blame for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. ``The American people,'' he said, ``should ask today how much of the awful and terrifying incidents of Sept. 11 were due to terrorist acts, and how much of it was due to the foreign policy adopted by American officials.'' The threat to Iran ``originates from the fact that America, or at least some of its officials, see themselves as masters of the world,'' Mr. Khatami said. ``Since they have power, they want to force the world to obey them and exert pressure on countries that disobey. Your revolution threatened America's illegitimate interests in the region, so it is obvious that your are the target of its animosity.'' After each important line, the orderly crowd burst into another round of ``Death to America!'' and waved a variety of signs, including one in English quoting the late revolutionary patriarch, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, saying, ``The U.S. cannot do a damn thing.'' The chanting switched occasionally to ``Death to Bush!'' One man wrapped his white donkey in a hand-painted American flag with ``Bush'' written on the side, while a truck carried a hug poster mounted with five large close-up photographs of the American president next to five similarly sized pictures of an ape. In his State of the Union address on Jan. 29, Mr. Bush singled out Iran for trying to develop weapons of mass destruction and for its support for groups like Hezbollah that the United States labels terrorist. In addition, Washington has recently accused Iran of sending weapons to the Palestinians, of trying to undermine the effort to build a stable central government in Afghanistan and of helping Al Qaeda members to escape. In suggesting that the United States review its own foreign policy rather than cast aspersions. Mr. Khatami specifically cited what he depicted as the plight of Palestinians denied human rights because of American support for Israel. The threats expressed by Mr. Bush and other administration officials over the last two weeks surprised many in Iran. In some ways, they have united the reformists and the old guard here in criticism of the United States; in other ways, they have strengthened the hand of the conservatives. Any time we face international problems, democracy stops,'' said Ali Reza Haghighi, a political science professor. ``Now all the discourse must be against the Americans.'' Mr. Khatami worked to keep his reformist agenda alive. Some people must not object that we are talking so much about democracy, religious democracy,'' he said. ``The stress on democracy is the soul of the Islamic revolution.'' Mr. Khatami's supporters had envisioned the efforts to rebuild Afghanistan as a kind of side door to re-establishing ties with Washington, a prospect that alarmed the hard-liners who still control many of the levers of power here. Mr. Bush's remarks thus delighted the old guard, which gleefully presented them as evidence that the American attitude toward Tehran remained unchanged, no matter that Iran helped in toppling the Taliban. The reformists, while critical of America, have tried to suggest that the actions Mr. Bush criticized were the work of shadowy groups within the Iranian elite who want to keep the country isolated and autocratic. Possibly reflecting uncertainty over how to deal with an American-backed government in Kabul, Afghanistan was barely mentioned at the rally. ``The Taliban were a major bete noire,'' said one western diplomat. ``But now they see a U.S. colony with bases developing in their backyard and they don't know how to handle it.'' At the rally, Iranians were generally polite to the few Western reporters in their midst, saying things like ``Welcome to Iran.'' But there were occasional outbursts of animosity. ``Garbage!'' ``Pigs!'' ``Get out of here!'' shouted one woman, while a man veered close to say, ``I would like to punch America right in the mouth!'' at which point the crowd edged in, bellowing ``Death to America!'' While the size of the Tehran crowd was impossible to estimate authoritatively, the wide avenues and highways leading to Freedom Square in Tehran were jammed with hundreds of thousands of people. Iranian television suggested that millions turned out across the country, showing pictures of jammed streets in every city. Marchers said they were more galvanized than in years past because they felt maligned by President Bush. The turnout also reflected the daily exhortations to attend that accompanied every news bulletin since Mr. Bush's speech. Employees at various government ministries said they had been told to go. The calls to attend did not move everyone. In affluent north Tehran, where one occasionally hears support for the idea that Mr. Bush should carry through with his threat to bomb, cars laden with skis headed out of town toward the slopes. As marchers headed toward the rally, periodically one would step out of the crowd to offer spontaneous thoughts about the day. ``As long as our revolution is against America, we support it,'' said one man, wagging his finger. ``The day there is peace between this country and America, the revolution is over.'' After 23 years, though, the sense of brooding menace that pervaded marches of the past had mellowed. This one felt more like a carnival, complete with a gold coin on offer for the best Uncle Sam effigy. A yellow banner painted with giant letters in Persian was stretched across one over pass. In the early days of the Islamic Republic it would have been read as ``America Is the Greatest Satan.'' But today the lettering helpfully included its own English translation, reading, ``America Is Extremely Naughty.''

Mr. BYRD. I thank my friend, the senior Senator from New York, whose State experienced the greatest sacrifice in blood and human lives that has ever been brought to this country by terrorists in its entire history, brought in 1 day in the course of a few hours, and is still suffering from the losses that were visited upon New York City by these men who, indeed, were evil men. The Founding Fathers were very suspicious of a strong Executive. The Framers of our Constitution were not strong devotees of ``democracy.'' They believed in a strong legislative branch. They believed in checks upon an Executive. And so they were rather sparse in the language that they used when it came to enumerating the powers of the Chief Executive, the Chief Magistrate of the country. Some of the Framers had a concern that a legislature might impinge upon the powers of a Chief Executive; that the vortex of the legislative branch was ever seeking more power. I think in these regards, the Founding Fathers would find that their concerns about a Chief Executive were perhaps well-founded, especially in time of war. In a time of war, powers and authorities seem to gravitate toward the Chief Magistrate as Commander in Chief. They felt that they had adequately protected against that by virtue of the many powers that are enumerated in the Constitution and vested in the Congress, the most powerful of which, the most important of which is the power of the purse which we find vested in the Congress. We find it in section 9 of the first article of the Constitution. Yes, they were concerned about an overweening Executive, so they included adequate safeguards. They vested this power to send the Nation's sons and daughters into war in the hands of Congress when they said, in section 8, the Congress shall have the power ``To declare war.'' This was a safeguard that the Framers wisely put into the hands of the elected representatives in the people's branch--that first branch, mentioned in the very first sentence of the Constitution. There is where the power to make law resides. These are people who are directly elected by the people. The Framers were not at all enamored with the idea of having an all- powerful Chief Executive.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I hope this is not being charged against the 2 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I urge the Chair to insist on order in the Senate.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will differ with President Bush in many things, and in many ways; and I suppose practically every Senator here will at some point differ with the President in regard to something. On his faith-based initiative, I may differ with him. But I am glad that the President took time in his busy day to make these remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast. I am glad to hear him utter the name of God--the person in our country who is at the apex of the executive branch of Government, pausing in his day to recognize a higher power than that of the Chief Executive of this country. The Chief Magistrate of our Nation spoke of God and spoke of having been on bended knee. Mr. President, remarks such as these have become all too rare, even in this country, when uttered by a high Government official who is elected--not directly, but indirectly, at least --by the people of the United States. So I respect President Bush for his humility, for his willingness to call upon God, to express a faith, to express a strength that can only come from calling upon the Creator of us all. It is unfortunate, but these are times when few men and women, relatively speaking, it seems to me, recognize God in their lives and in the life of the Nation. ``Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.'' I am almost an antique around these precincts in our Capitol. I suppose one might say I am almost a neanderthal, having lived 84 years. I come from a background in which God was a major factor in my life. When I was a little boy living in the ``sticks'' in southern West Virginia, in Mercer County, impressed upon my young mind was a belief in a Higher Power. The Bible was the one book in my humble household-- the Bible--the King James version of the Bible. The woman who raised me was my aunt. Her husband was my uncle by virtue of their marriage. Many times, when I was a child living in Mercer County, I would hear her pray after we had turned out the kerosene lamps. I would hear her praying in the other room. Even after I had grown to manhood and was a Member of Congress and would go back to West Virginia on the weekends, or during a recess, always when I started back to Washington, she would say, ``Robert, you be a good boy. I always pray for you.'' Many times, I have gone back to those coal fields and knocked on her door at night, at 2 o'clock in the morning, 3 o'clock in the morning, after having driven across mountain roads from Washington. She would always get up and unlock the door. Sometimes I would go up on the porch and see her on her knees praying. Many times, she would get out of bed and unlock the door and let me in the house and offer to fix a meal for me at 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning. And then, when I would go to bed, and the lights were all out, I would hear her prayers coming from another room. I knew she was on her knees. So, the President spoke of having been on his knees at times, and that our Nation during these trying days has found comfort in its suffering by being on its knees. People are turning back to the church. I remember that woman as she prayed on her knees. And I remember him, her husband. I knew no other father than he. He was the only man I ever knew as my father--except for one occasion when I was in high school, my senior year, when he and I caught a Greyhound bus and traveled back to North Carolina where I did meet my biological father and spent about a week in his home. But that coal miner who raised me, and whom I called my dad, was likewise a religious man. These two wonderful old people, this couple who raised me, didn't go around wearing their religion on their sleeve and making a big whoop- de-do about it; they didn't claim to be good, as the Bible says that no man is good. They didn't belong to the Christian right or the Christian left, or Christian middle, or whatever it was. They had that King James Bible in their home. They lived their religion. They didn't look down upon any man and they didn't look up to any man--except they looked up to God. So they brought me up like that and taught me like that. Now, I will say this: Regardless of how far one may stray from the right path, if he has had this basic faith drilled into him from the beginning by parents who reared him and taught him how to live, he may stray away from those lessons, but he will come back. We all err and fall short of the glory of God. It just touches my heart and makes me feel good that the Chief Magistrate of our country talks about getting on his knees. So I say while I may differ, and will differ from President Bush, I will also respect him and respect his humility, his basic faith exemplified by what he is saying in this instance, exemplified by his indicating that a nation advances when it advances on its knees. Once when my wife and I dined at the White House with Mr. Bush as President--that is and may be the only time we will ever have the privilege of dining there--but upon that occasion President Bush said grace at the table before we ate. He did not call on me to say grace. He said it himself. He was, I am sure, not attempting to impress us with his faith but he was practicing it. Nobody was there other than Ted Stevens, his wife, my wife, me and the President. So, yes, we will differ on President Bush's budget--we will disagree mightily on that--but when it is all said and done I have to remember that here is a man who preaches and practices, as far as I have seen, his faith. ``Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.'' I hope we will never become so mighty, so wrapped up in ourselves individually, so subordinated to the tenets of partisan political parties, that we fail to acknowledge God. After all, when it comes down to the last mile of the way, the last hour of my days, if I have a clear mind at that point I will not be thinking about the Democratic Party. I will not be reciting the tenets, the principles, of the Democratic Party. Politcal party in that moment will mean nothing to me. Instead, I will be wondering, how will it be with my soul when I have to meet God face-to-face. Now perhaps I did not think so much about these things when I was 24 or when I was 34, but 50 years later at the age of 84, I am drawn to think about these things. No, the party platform will not be worth much to me in that hour. Nor will it be to you or to you, but that moment is coming. For some of us, it will be all too soon. We know not when. It comes to us all. It comes to Presidents. It comes to Kings. It comes to Governors. It comes to Senators. It comes to coal miners, to farmers, to schoolteachers, to lawyers, but it comes. I salute President Bush for his remarks. I hope he will continue to call upon his Maker in his search for strength and comfort. I lost a grandson 20 years ago this year. For a long time thereafter, I walked in a deep valley. I sought everywhere for strength. I went to see the coroner. I went to see the State policeman who was there and saw my grandson's body removed from the truck that had crashed and then caught fire. I went to see the volunteer fire department that was nearby. Again and again I went to these same people. I was searching, trying to persuade myself that my grandson had not suffered. I found the greatest of comfort when I felt that my grandson was aware of my grief--that he knew about my grief, and that I have the promise in God's Word that I can see Michael again. There may come a time in the young lives of these high school juniors who are here as pages, when they, too, will find succor and comfort only in God's Word, feeling that, yes, He is here, He knows about their grief. I will refer to one other time in my life. I was much younger than 84, much younger than I was in 1982 when I lost my grandson. This was back in 1945, during the Second World War. I had been a welder in Baltimore for a year and a half working on ``Victory'' ships and ``Liberty'' ships. I decided to take my wife and two daughters and go south to Florida the next winter rather than remain in Baltimore shipyards where the cold winds came across the bay, as we were on the decks of the ships welding that cold steel. I was in Crab Orchard, WV, in southern West Virginia, visiting with my uncle and aunt who had raised me and I dreamed that Mr. Byrd, the man whom I had always recognized as my dad, had died. The very next day I received a telegram from my brother--who is still living; he is 88, a little older than I, still living in North Wilkesboro, NC--saying to me that my biological father, Mr. Cornelius Calvin Sale, had died. After having dreamed that my adopted father had died, the very next day I received a telegram saying that my natural father had died. Mr. Byrd and I caught a Greyhound bus and we traveled to North Carolina. I attended the funeral of my father, Mr. Sale. From there, I left alone to go to Florida to get a job there, if I could, as a welder, building ships. I traveled all night on a bus. I took a welding test the next morning in Jacksonville in a shipyard. I failed the test. Having been up all night, I didn't have a steady hand, perhaps. I failed that test. I asked: Where else are they testing and hiring welders here in Florida? I was told to go over on the west side of Florida on the side of the gulf. I was told that they were hiring welders in Tampa. So across Florida I started again on a bus. When I reached Lakeland, late in the day, I got off the bus and I went into a little grocery store and bought a stick of pepperoni, some crackers, a piece of Longhorn cheese, and a can of sardines. I sat down on a railroad rail outside the grocery store and I ate. What was left, I put back in the paper bag and found myself a hotel. It didn't cost much in those days to stay in a hotel, so I spent the night in a hotel. While in that hotel I, of course, felt lonely. My wife and two daughters were back in West Virginia, miles away. I was homesick. I opened the drawer of a table in the room, and there was a Gideon Bible. That was the first Gideon Bible I had ever seen. It was the King James version. Senators often hear me refer to the King James version. That is the only Bible I will read, the King James version. I like its immaculate English, its beautiful prose. I read two or three chapters of that Bible and went to bed. I said a little prayer and asked God to protect me and protect my wife and children back in West Virginia, to forgive us, and to help me the next day when I took the welding test in Tampa. The next day, I rose early. I ate what I had left over from the previous day: some pepperoni, some cheese, some of the bread. I went on to Tampa, took the welding test, passed it with flying colors, and was hired to work in McCloskey Shipyard. I found in that Bible the words of comfort and succor that helped me on that night in Tampa, FL. That was 57 years ago. I say to the young people here and to those young people who are watching the Senate via television, I want us to appreciate the words of the President when he talks about God, about prayer. I want you to realize that even though you are just juniors in high school, you too are going to grow old some day. We all grow old if God lets us live long enough. And there will come a time in life when you will need the strength that comes from a faith in a Creator, faith in a higher power. That is the kind of faith that our fathers had, the men and women who built this country, who built this Republic. It is a representative democracy. But it is not a democracy, a pure democracy. Theirs was a pure democracy in Athens, in Greece. But that was a small town compared with Washington, DC, or New York City. I say to the young people of this country--as well as to Senators--it doesn't make any difference how many degrees you may have, how many degrees you may attain, what you may achieve, the heights of whatever career you may choose in this life. Remember, when it all comes down to the end, six feet of Earth makes us all of one size. What will count then most of all is how well will I be prepared when I stand before the eternal judge? I attended an execution once of a young man who had killed a cab driver. He had hired a cab driver in Huntington, WV, to take him to Logan. On the way to Logan he shot the cab driver in the back, tossed him out beside the road, took his money, and went on. A few days later the young man was apprehended in a theater in Montgomery, WV. He was brought to trial, convicted, and sentenced to die in the electric chair. West Virginia law at that time required a certain number of witnesses to an execution. I thought that, inasmuch as I had occasion often to speak to young people in Sunday school classes, churches, Boy Scouts, Girl Scout troops, 4H Clubs, if I could talk with this young man who was about to go to the electric chair, he might be able to tell me something that would help these young people with whom I would meet and speak. On this occasion I went to the State penitentiary at Moundsville. I asked the warden to let me be one of the witnesses. He gave his approval. Before the execution, which was scheduled to be at 9 p.m., I asked the warden to let me talk with this young man whose name was Jim Hewlett. This was in 1951 when I was a member of the West Virginia Senate. I went to the death house, entered the death house, and there was Jim Hewlett. I shook his hand. It was clammy, with perspiration. Behind him was a chaplain. I said to Jim Hewlett, I have come tonight to ask you if you might have something that I could say to young people. I often have the occasion to speak with young people. I think you just might have something I could tell them, that would help them. He said: Well, tell them to go to Sunday school and church. He said: If I had gone, I wouldn't be here tonight. And then, as I started to go--I knew the time was fleeting and his remaining minutes were precious to him. As I turned to go, he said: Wait a minute. Tell them one other thing. He said: Tell them not to drink the stuff that I drank. Those were his exact words: Tell them not to drink the stuff that I drank. I said: Well, now, what do you mean by that? The Chaplain broke in. He said: I know what he means. He was drinking when he killed the cab driver. You see that little crack on the wall up there? If he were to have two or three drinks right now, he would try to get through that crack in the wall. That's what it does to him. I left the death house and went back to the warden's office, and when the hour came, I returned to the death house, and entered the death chamber. As one of the witnesses, I watched Jim Hewlett die. Some years later, probably 30 years later, I was in the northern panhandle of West Virginia, and while I was there, someone said: Why don't you go down and see Father--I don't remember the Father's name-- go down and see Father So-and-So. He's very ill, and I am sure it would help him if you just stopped by and said hello. I said: OK, where does he live? I had my driver take me to the man's house. He was sitting out on the back porch in the sunshine. I introduced myself and sat down with him. For some reason, I cannot account why, my conversation went back to a time when I visited Moundsville and witnessed the execution of a young man named Jim Hewlett. I don't recall how our conversation took this turn. But this priest, who, indeed, was in very failing health, listened raptly as I told about this execution, about what I had said, about what Jim Hewlett had said. When I finished, the priest said: Yes, that's the way it was. You see, I was the Chaplain that night when you visited Jim Hewlett in his cell. I didn't know the priest. I didn't know his name. But there he was, 30 years later, and he had been in that cell. The point I want to make is this. The young man scoffed at religion, and after he was convicted of this crime and scheduled to die, he didn't want a chaplain in his cell. He scoffed at religion. But when the last days came and Governor Patteson of West Virginia declined to change his sentence, declined to commute his sentence from death to life in prison or whatever, Jim Hewlett knew then that he was, indeed, going to die, and he wanted a chaplain in his cell. He had scoffed at religion. Now, when he knew that he indeed was going to meet God shortly, he wanted a chaplain in his cell. That is why I say to you young people all over this country, there will come a time when you, too, will want--will want God. Last night, I passed beside the blacksmith's door, And heard the anvil ring the vesper chime, And looking in, I saw upon the floor, Old hammers worn with beating years of time. ``How many anvils have you had,'' said I, ``To wear and batter all these hammers so?'' ``Only one,'' the blacksmith said, then with twinkling eye, ``The anvil wears the hammers out, you know.'' And so the Bible, the anvil of God's word, For centuries, skeptic blows have beaten upon, But, though the noise of falling blows was heard, The anvil is unharmed, the hammers gone. Exhibit 1 Remarks by the President at National Prayer Breakfast, Washington Hilton Hotel, Washington, DC The President: Thank you very much, John. Laura and I are really honored to join you this morning to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the National Prayer Breakfast. And Admiral Clark, whatever prayer you used for eloquence, worked. (Laughter and applause.) I appreciate your message and I appreciate your service to our great country. (Applause.) I want to thank Jon Kyl and Judge Sentelle for their words, and CeCe for your music. I appreciate getting the chance to meet Joe Finley, the New York City firefighter. He's a living example of what sacrifice and courage means. Thank you for coming, Joe. (Applause.) I want to thank Congressman Bart Stupak. I really appreciate the fact that my National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, is here to offer prayer. (Applause.) I appreciate the members of my Cabinet who are here. I want to say hello to the members of Congress. I'm particularly grateful to Lisa Beamer for her reading and for her example. (Applause.) I appreciate here example of faith made stronger in trial. In the worst moments of her life, Lisa has been a model of grace--her own, and. (Applause.) And all America welcomes into the world Todd and Lisa's new daughter, Morgan Kay Beamer. (Applause.) Since we met last year, millions of Americans have been led to prayer. They have prayed for comfort in time of grief; for understanding in a time of anger; for protection in a time of uncertainty. Many, including me, have been on bended knee. The prayers of this nation are a part of the good that has come from the evil of September the 11th, more good than we could ever have predicted. Tragedy has brought forth the courage and the generosity of our people. None of us would ever wish on any one what happened on that day. Yet, as with each life, sorrows we would not choose can bring wisdom and strength gained in no other way. This insight is central to many faiths, and certainly to faith that finds hope and comfort in a cross. Every religion is welcomed in our country; all are practiced here. Many of our good citizens profess no religion at all. Our country has never had an official faith. Yet we have all been witnesses these past 21 weeks to the power of faith to see us through the hurt and loss that has come to our country. Faith gives the assurance that our lives and our history have a moral design. As individuals, we know that suffering is temporary, and hope is eternal. As a nation, we know that the ruthless will not inherit the Earth. Faith teaches humility, and with it, tolerance. Once we have recognized God's image in ourselves, we must recognize it in every human being. Respect for the dignity of others can be found outside of religion, just as intolerance is sometimes found within it. Yet for millions of Americans, the practice of tolerance is a command of faith. When our country was attacked, Americans did not respond with bigotry. People from other countries and cultures have been treated with respect. And this is one victory in the war against terror. (Applause). At the same time, faith shows us the reality of good, and the reality of evil. Some acts and choices in this world have eternal consequences. It is always, and everywhere, wrong to target and kill the innocent. It is always, and everywhere, wrong to be cruel and hateful, to enslave and oppress. It is always, and everywhere, right to be kind and just, to protect the lives of others, and to lay down your life for a friend. The men and women who charged into burning buildings to save others, those who fought the hijackers, were not confused about the difference between right and wrong. They knew the difference. They knew their duty. And we know their sacrifice was not in vain. (Applause.) Faith shows us the way to self-giving, to love our neighbor as we would want to be loved ourselves. In service to others, we find deep human fulfillment. And as acts of service are multiplied, our nation becomes a more welcoming place for the weak, and a better place for those who suffer and grieve. For half a century now, the National Prayer Breakfast has been a symbol of the vital place of faith in the life of our nation. You've reminded generations of leaders of a purpose and a power greater than their own. In times of calm, and in times of crisis, you've called us to prayer. In this time of testing for our nation, my family and I have been blessed by the prayers of countless of Americans. We have felt their sustaining power and we're incredibly grateful. Tremendous challenges await this nation, and there will be hardships ahead. Faith will not make our path easy, but it will give us strength for the journey. The promise of faith is not the absence of suffering, it is the presence of grace. And at every step we are secure in knowing that suffering produces perseverance, and perseverance produces character, and character produces hope--and hope does not disappoint. May God bless you, and may God continue to bless America. (Applause.)

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, yesterday the President spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast. Let me just quote a few excerpts from the President's remarks. This is what he said. He said more, of course, but these are four paragraphs that I will excerpt from the totality of the remarks. The President said: Since we met last year, millions of Americans have been led to prayer. They have prayed for comfort in time of grief; for understanding in a time of anger; for protection in a time of uncertainty. Many, including me, have been on bended knee. The prayers of this nation are a part of the good that has come from the evil of September the 11th, more good than we could ever have predicted. Tragedy has brought forth the courage and the generosity of our people. None of us would ever wish on anyone what happened on that day. Yet, as with each life, sorrows we would not choose can bring wisdom and strength gained in no other way. This insight is central to many faiths, and certainly to faith that finds hope and comfort in a cross. Every religion is welcomed in our country; all are practiced here. Many of our good citizens profess no religion at all. Our country has never had an official faith. Yet we have all been witnesses these past 21 weeks to the power of faith to see us through the hurt and loss that has come to our country. Faith gives the assurance that our lives and our history have a moral design. As individuals, we know that suffering is temporary, and hope is eternal. As a nation, we know that the ruthless will not inherit the Earth. Faith teaches humility, and with it, tolerance. Once we have recognized God's image in ourselves, we must recognize it in every human being. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire speech by President Bush be printed in the Record at the close of my remarks.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am delighted to extend, even though belatedly, happy birthday greetings to the senior Senator from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes. His birthday was on February 3, so he has now reached the grand age of 69. Oh, to be 69 again! Let me say that Senator Sarbanes and I have more differences than just our ages. He is of Greek ancestry, and proud of it. I am of southern and Appalachian ancestry, and beyond that, going back through the years of time and change, of Anglo-Saxon ancestry, and I am proud of that. He is a member of the Greek Orthodox Church. I am a member of the Southern Missionary Baptist Church. He is from the Chesapeake region of the Eastern Shore of Maryland. I am from the coalfields of southern West Virginia. His career began by waiting on tables, washing dishes, and mopping floors in the Mayflower Grill in downtown Salisbury, MD. Mine began by working in a gas station in the cold winter of January and February 1935, having to walk 4 miles to work and 4 miles back, and earning $50 a month, $600 a year. But, Mr. President, Senator Sarbanes and I share many common interests. One of these common interests that Senator Sarbanes and I share is our love for the Senate. And I have always appreciated that in Senator Sarbanes' career. I have observed Senator Sarbanes since he was first elected to the Senate in 1976--200 years after that historic year of 1776. I have admired the rational way that this perfectly reasonable man has always gone about his business. I watch him when he is listening to witnesses in committees. I serve on the Budget Committee of the Senate with Senator Sarbanes. He has a rare, subtle way of listening carefully and then going right to the crux of a matter. He is very effective in his questions and the manner in which he performs his work on committees. He is a thinker. I spoke of his Greek ancestry. Paul Sarbanes is the epitome of the Greek thinker, of which we have read so much in history. I have watched him as he has served as chairman of the Congressional Joint Economic Committee, as chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. He is also the chairman of the impressive and influential Maryland congressional delegation, which includes Senator Barbara Mikulski in the Senate as well as Representative Steny Hoyer in the House. He has been a very effective member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and, as I earlier indicated, as a member of the Senate Budget Committee. There is a long list of reasons I admire Paul Sarbanes. One of the reasons I came to admire Paul Sarbanes was the support he gave to me when I was the majority leader and when I was minority leader in the Senate. During troubling times, during the most difficult votes, in the midst of the most controversial issues, I nearly always called upon Paul Sarbanes for his counsel, for his advice. Every leader would be fortunate to have a Paul Sarbanes as a colleague to whom he could go and seek advice and counsel. So there he was, with his advice and his friendship. I can't begin to say how much I appreciated that in Paul Sarbanes, as one of the most probing, acute intellects that I have seen in my 56 years of serving in legislative bodies. His word is his bond. His loyalty is unchallenged. His integrity is beyond reproach. So allow me to use these belated birthday greetings to say: Thank you; thank you, Senator Paul Sarbanes, for being a friend as well as a colleague; thank you for your tremendous work for your State and our country. I should also thank the people of the State of Maryland for having the wisdom and the common sense to send Paul Sarbanes here to be with us in 1982, in 1988, in 1994, and in 2000. He is now the longest serving U.S. Senator in the history of the State of Maryland. The Senate and our country are the better for it. Count your garden by the flowers, Never by the leaves that fall; Count your days by the sunny hours, Not remembering clouds at all. Count your nights by stars, not shadows; Count your days by smiles, not tears. And on this beautiful February afternoon, Paul Sarbanes, count your life by smiles, not tears.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a tribute on the occasion of the birthday of one of our colleagues in the Senate, that of Senator Herb Kohl, Senior Senator from the State of Wisconsin. I have known Senator Kohl for many years, since he first came to the Senate in 1989, and over that period of time, my respect and admiration for Senator Kohl has grown as I have watched him learn the role of a legislator and master the methods and the means of becoming a fine United States Senator. Senator Kohl is hard-working, tenacious, and will fight to the end for the interests of this institution and those of his state. A few years ago when the Senate was debating legislation regarding the dairy industry, I remarked that Senator Kohl was the Stonewall Jackson of Wisconsin, standing firm for the interests of the dairy farmers in his state. When it comes to fighting for his state, or other issues of importance to him, such as measures to help and protect our nation's children, there is no one to outshine Senator Kohl in his dedication for the values he holds dear. That is one of the distinguishing characteristics of a good Senator. But Herb Kohl is more than just a fine United States Senator, he is a good and decent man. His hallmark is honest modesty, a man of few words, but words of great meaning and words that deserve being heard. He is consistently kind to the people who work around him, especially his staff, who will follow him faithfully through thick and thin. His word is his bond, and to this Senator, there is no greater tribute than recognition of that fact. Senator Kohl represents what is best about Senators and about Americans generally. He is a self-made man whose parents came to this country during the last century without an ability to speak the English language. From those humble beginnings, they and their son and other family members worked to develop a family grocery business in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, that became successful and grew to have national recognition. If you drive around the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, you will notice Kohl stores, and they are evidence of the contribution Senator Kohl and his family have made to the commercial strength of this country. The types of success that Senator Kohl has known have been the result of constant effort, a solid education in the Wisconsin public schools, and an understanding that hard work, honesty, intellectual clarity, and dedication to strong values are the key components to a successful career in either the business world or public service. So, I want to honor Senator Kohl on this special day and pay him the recognition that he is due for all his work on behalf of the people of Wisconsin and all who serve here in the United States Senate.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, over four months after the idea was originally proposed, the Senate remains divided on an economic stimulus package. Much has changed since an economic stimulus was first proposed in response to the September 11 attacks. Both the stock markets and the economy have proved to be more resilient than economists had expected. Moreover, there are signs, as Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told the Budget Committee last month, that some of the forces that have been restraining the economy over the past year are starting to loosen their strangle hold. The Fed Chairman told the Committee that ``while 3 months ago, [a stimulus package] was clearly a desirable action . . . I do not think it is a critically important issue to do. I think the economy will recover in any event.'' Aside from the positive economic data that have been released by government agencies in recent weeks, there is already a significant amount of stimulus in the pipelines. That's not to say that we are home free. As Chairman Greenspan pointed out last month, the economy could go either way at this point. Most troubling is the higher unemployment rate since last year. However, we must not delude ourselves into thinking that an economic stimulus package--whether crafted by Democrats or Republicans--is some sort of panacea. Stimulus packages can't work miracles. We have a $10 trillion economy. That's gross domestic product--the total of all spending. We cannot flip the economy over like a pancake. A boost of $70 billion to $100 billion would amount to less than 1 percent of GDP. Nobody can say at this point with certainty in which direction the economy is headed. What we know is that, since the recession began last March, the Labor Department reports that 1.8 million workers have lost their jobs. We could address this problem by temporarily extending unemployment insurance. What we do not know, is whether a more comprehensive stimulus package at this point is really necessary. I submit that the danger we face is not that the economy won't turn around--inevitably it will--but that we may unnecessarily worsen our budgetary position by taking unnecessary, but politically popular, action on a so-called ``stimulus package.'' Any stimulus package, at least in the short-term, will increase the projected budget deficits for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. We may well need to devote more resources to our military overseas and to homeland defense, and we will have to bear the costs of doing so. The erosion in the budget picture over the past year, along with the defense and homeland security demands placed on our budget and the inevitable long-term Social Security and Medicare deficits overshadowing the retirement of the baby-boomers, suggests that tough choices must be made as to whether the limited dollars we spend will provide a worthwhile return on our investment. From what we have seen from experts ranging from the Federal Reserve Chairman, to Congressional Budget Office officials, to private-sector economists, a stimulus package does not meet that test.