Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will try to help if the Senator will let me get started.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator.

Mr. BYRD. You bet. Mr. LOTT [continuing]. Into the situation in Iraq. That is as it should be. I want to make it clear, this is not an effort to block debate. We could get an agreement, vitiate this vote this afternoon, and go right now into the debate. I think we ought to do that. What are the numbers and what resolutions will actually be offered, our leaders are going to work out. But I do want to say this, too: If we really want to get to the debate about what is going to be the future there, we ought to be doing it in some way other than these nonbinding resolutions. This is a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing, so I question the whole process that we are under. I don't mind going forward. In fact, I want to go forward and have a full debate about what is going on here. I recently had occasion to be at a meeting with a number of world leaders, and the discussion went back and forth. Finally, it came down to this: What do we do in Iraq? Stay, leave, or what? Well, they said: No, no, no, you can't leave. You have to stay. Then the question was, or then what? Well, they had no answer. The President has been criticized for not coming forth with some changes to change the status quo. He did. Now he is being criticized with what he came up with in this plan that we are going to be voting on later. I don't know if it is perfect. I don't know if it will work. But I do know this: he is the Commander in Chief. We do need to change the dynamics there. We do need to go forward in a way that will produce a positive result or decide what else we are going to do. That is what the Senate, in the minds of our forefathers, was intended to do. Let's stop questioning each other's motives or threatening to block this, block that. Let's work this out. Let's have a full debate on this issue, beginning tonight, going forward tomorrow. I think everybody will be satisfied with the results, once we actually get to some votes. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. How much time do I now have?

Mr BYRD

Mr BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, the great labor leader--and I mean great labor leader--and legendary president of the United Mine Workers of America, John L. Lewis, pleaded the cause of America's working men and women, as he said, ``not in the quavering tones of a feeble mendicant asking alms, but in the thundering voice of the captain of a mighty host, demanding the rights to which free people, free men are entitled.'' This was the voice of a true coal miner. I know that voice. I grew up in the coalfields of southern West Virginia. My dad--not my father, my dad--Titus Dalton Byrd, was a coal miner. He belonged to the United Mine Workers, then district 29, now district 17, local union 5771. My coal miner dad worked in the coal mines with my father-in-law, my wife's father, Fred James. My wife's brother-in-law was killed by a slate fall in a coal mine. My wife's brother-in-law died of pneumoconiosis, black lung. I--yes, I--married a coal miner's daughter. You have heard the song ``I'm a Coal Miner's Daughter.'' By whom? By Loretta Lynn. I married a coal miner's daughter a long time ago. We were married when we were 19. She was 19; I was 19. That marriage lasted almost 69 years, until her death. And today she is in heaven. She is in heaven. Yes, she is in heaven today. I believe that. Together, my wife Erma and I--mostly Erma--ran a grocery store, yes, in Sophia, WV. Our customers were coal miners for the most part. Our neighbors were coal miners. Our friends were coal miners and others, but coal miners, surely. Today my constituents in West Virginia, the core--certainly, the core in my viewpoint, but my constituents--includes coal miners. When I speak about coal miners and their safety underground, I am speaking about coal miners, my people, my family. I am speaking from the bottom of my soul when I speak about coal miners. It is a different breed of people, coal miners. Yes, they would leave the open air and sunshine and go back into the bowels of the Earth to search for their brothers, their brother coal miners--Black or White, it doesn't make any difference. They are all black when they come out of that mine. But they are all coal miners. They are West Virginians. I am talking about my constituents. I am speaking from the heart because that is the heart of my background, the coal miners. I know what it is to stand at the mouth of a mine after an explosion. I know what it is to see the widows and the children who are left to shed their tears and to bury their loved ones. I know. I have helped to carry coal miners who had died around the mountainside. Their coffins are very heavy. I am no big man, never was, but I have helped to carry those coffins. And they are heavy, especially when we are walking on hillsides, yes. So I know what I am speaking about, and I am speaking from my heart. That is where I grew up. I expect to be buried there, yes, in the mountain soil of West Virginia. The coal miner is proud--yes, you better believe it--of his profession. He is patriotic in that he mines the coal that fuels the American economy. You see those lights up there that are lighting this wonderful, beautiful Chamber of the Senate, the only Chamber of its kind in the world, the Senate, yes. The miner fuels those electric lights that surround this Chamber. He, the coal miner, is religious in that he trusts in almighty God to keep him safe in his dirty, dangerous job; and he trusts in that God to keep and protect his family, while he, the coal miner, is away. He is courageous--you better believe it--in that he goes underground every day, even though he is surrounded by life-threatening hazards; they are overhead. I have been in the mines. I was not a coal miner, but I was in there with my dad--not my father but my dad. I have been in those mines. I heard the timbers, the tree trunks holding up the tons and tons and tons of earth and rock overhead to keep those rocks from crashing to the Earth and killing the miners. I could hear those timbers cracking. When I was in there, I heard the timbers--these trees, as they were. They are cut off, and they are 8, 10, 12, 15 feet, whatever the height of the covering earth is from the floor there; they were coming down. I heard them timbers cracking under that weight. Coal miners provide so much for my country, for your country, for their country. And we--Robert Byrd, Senator Rockefeller, and other Senators and Members in the House--owe them, the coal miners, our best efforts in securing safer working conditions. Not as their alms but their right. In 1977, the Congress passed--I was in this Senate in 1977--what is arguably the toughest worker safety law in the history of the world, the Federal Mine and Safety Health Act. I helped to write that law. I helped to champion its enactment in the Congress of the United States. It created the Mine Safety and Health Administration, MSHA, within the U.S. Department of Labor--MSHA, the Mine Safety and Health Administration, was in the Department of Labor--and the position of Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine, Safety, and Health. I helped. I was here. The opening passages of the MINE Act tell us all we need to know about what MSHA's priorities ought to be: The first priority and concern of all in the coal or other mining industry must be the health and safety of its most precious resource: the miner, the coal miner. In recent years, that obligation has been neglected. It has been eroded by a Department of Labor that emphasizes so-called ``compliance assistance'' programs and has tried to recast its role as a technical consultant to business rather than a protector of working men and women. Let me read that again. In recent years, that obligation has been neglected. It has been eroded by a Department of Labor that emphasizes so-called ``compliance assistance'' programs and has tried to recast its role as a technical consultant to business rather than a protector of working men and women; namely, coal miners. The Department's obligation to protect the safety of the coal miners has been eroded by arbitrary spending targets that are designed to appease the White House Budget Office rather than ensure the safety of the coal miners in the coal fields. These policies have fostered the highest casualty rates in the coalfields in more than a decade. Forty- seven coal miners perished--died, dead--last year, half of them in West Virginia. In the opening days of 2006, our Nation mourned as 12 coal miners--yes, my darling wife was on her deathbed at that time in the opening days of 2006; that was last year. Our Nation mourned after a 40-hour rescue effort was unable to save 12 miners at the Sago mine in Upshur County, WV. Our Nation watched with disbelief as an underground mine fire, days later, at the Aracoma Alma mine in Logan County, WV, killed 2 more miners after another exhausting 40-hour rescue effort. The disbelief--yes, the disbelief--soon turned to outrage as congressional hearings and investigative news reports revealed an atrocious safety record at the Sago and Alma mines. The Department of Labor had been lax in assessing penalties for repeat violations. When penalties were assessed, habitual violators were too often given minor slaps on the wrist or had their fines reduced or negated within the appeals process. Congressional hearings revealed the Department of Labor had abandoned or had withdrawn countless safety standards prior to the Sago and Alma tragedies, leaving coal miners underground with outdated emergency breathing and communications equipment. How would you like to be a coal miner in those conditions? Emergency preparedness and rescue training had been allowed to fall by the wayside, as the safety of coal miners became a secondary concern to what? To rising corporate profits. Shame, shame. This is the lives of men and women underground, in the bowels of the Earth. The Department of Labor had allowed the Federal budget for mine safety to be squeezed by lesser priorities, reducing the number of coal mine safety inspectors by 217 since January 2001. The Government Accountability Office--the General Accounting Office--had warned as early as 2003 about the timeliness of inspections, and the Mine Safety and Health Administration, which was created to be an ever-vigilant advocate for the safety of coal miners, had been failing in its duty. Mine safety budgets and regulations had been allowed to erode at the Sago mine. MSHA could have required better communications. That alone might have saved those miners. It could have mandated better emergency preparedness. It could have been more vigorous in its inspections and assessments of penalties. If MSHA, the Mine Safety and Health Administration, had used its authorities under the Mine Act to the fullest extent possible, those miners who perished at Sago and Alma might have survived. They might have been alive today. Who knows. Coal mining communities across Appalachia were outraged by these findings, and they demanded action. They marched through the Halls of the Congress carrying pictures of their husbands, their brothers, their sons who had perished in the coalfield. In response, my illustrious colleague, Senator Jay Rockefeller, and I, along with the entire West Virginia delegation in the House of Representatives--two Democrats and one Republican--introduced mine safety legislation to force the Department of Labor to act. The chairman and ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Senators Mike Enzi and Ted Kennedy, rallied to our cause. Our offices began to craft, to shape, to write important and much needed mine safety legislation. By the end of May--May, O May, when the flowers bloom--the Senate had passed legislation to add the first new safety requirements to the Mine Act since 1977. The MINER Act required additional oxygen. Oh, I can only live with oxygen. You can only live with oxygen. You, Mr. President, can only live with oxygen. You can't live without it. No, I mean by that, without it, a few minutes. Oxygen. It has been around since Adam and Eve inhabited the Garden of Eden. The MINER Act required additional oxygen supplies underground. It required emergency wireless communications within 3 years. It required improvements in emergency preparedness, rescue teams, and accident notification. Separately, I worked to secure $36 million in the fiscal year 2006 Iraq supplemental for the Mine Safety and Health Administration, MSHA, to hire additional mine safety inspectors and for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, to expedite the introduction of emergency breathing and communications equipment into the coal mines. Who am I? I am a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Yes, I am the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. So I worked to do that. By June--the merry month of June--the Congress had passed the MINER Act and added $36 million to the Federal budget for mine safety. By the end of the summer, the Department of Labor had pledged, with the funds that I, a coal miner's boy, had secured, to hire 170 new coal inspectors by the end of the fiscal year 2007. By the end of calendar year 2006, the coal mining industry had at last focused on getting emergency communications and breathing equipment into the coal mines. That's late, isn't it? By the end of the calendar year 2006, while coal mining has been going on for decades--yes, yes, back beyond the beginning of the 20th century until now--by the end of the calendar year 2006, the coal mining industry had at last focused on getting emergency communications equipment and breathing equipment into the coal mines of America. The question before the Congress now--do it here, do it now; do it here, do it now. Have you heard that on the radio or TV? Do it here; do it now. The question before the Congress now is, what happens next? We know that extensive oversight will be required by the Congress not only to ensure that MSHA fulfills its duties under the MINER Act but also to ensure that the coal operators meet their duties. So we know that extensive oversight will be required by the Congress not only to ensure that MSHA fulfills its duties under the MINER Act but also to ensure that the coal operators meet their duties. The House and Senate appropriations and authorizing committees have a significant role to play in this regard. We must do all--we must do all--that we can to ensure that the deadlines set by the MINER Act are met. We must do all that we can to ensure that wireless communications are available to coal miners within the next 2\1/2\ years, after all the many years that have gone before. If that means providing more funds to NIOSH to expedite the development of wireless communications and tracking and prodding the industry along to purchase and install that equipment, count on me. As the old Bible says: Here am I, send me. Here am I, send me. We know also that several issues have not yet been addressed by the Congress from last year. The Congress has not yet addressed the issue of refuge chambers. The MINER Act required NIOSH to study the issue and report back by the end of this year. About what? Refuge chambers. The Congress must require MSHA and NIOSH to find a way to make refuge chambers. What does ``refuge'' mean? A place to go. Refuge chambers, a place to go for refuge, for safety after an explosion. During the explosion, that's a big wind, a big explosion. The Congress has not yet addressed the issue of whether belt air should be used to ventilate the working areas of underground mines-- belt air, a conveyor belt that comes along, a belt, a wide belt that comes on rollers and comes into the mine. Given how the use of belt air and inadequate safety precautions at Alma Mine resulted in the death of two coal miners last year, this is an issue that will not go away with yet another study and yet another report to the Congress. The Department of Labor must reconsider the belt air rule issued in 2004. We know that the low level of penalties remains an ineffective deterrent for too many coal operators. I am not against coal operators. We have to have them. They invest money, their money. They invest money. We know the low level of penalties remains an ineffective deterrent for too many coal operators. I know many of them personally. I like them. They like me, I think. Penalties are not commensurate with the seriousness of violations. The Department of Labor recently informed my office that the accident at the Jim Walters Resources Mine in Alabama that killed 13 miners in 2001 will be punished with a fine as little as $5,000--$5,000. That is disgusting. That is disgusting. It is clearly a signal to the Congress that the penalty system demands further improvement. Last October, MSHA issued its procedural instruction letter to revise the structure for how penalties are assessed by its inspectors. That procedural letter implemented the minimum penalty provision of the MINER Act. However, if higher fines are being assessed by inspectors but continue to be reduced or negated within the appeals process, then MSHA's procedural letter is almost irrelevant. How much time do I have remaining, may I ask the Chair?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, we need to find a way to ensure that fair penalties are assessed by administrative law judges and the Mine Safety and Health Review Commission within the appeals process. We must continue to review and ask questions about the structure of mine rescue teams and the changes codified by the MINER Act last year. Here is another area where the rules issued by MSHA in recent years have contradicted the intent and spirit of the 1977 Mine Act. We must continue to probe whether enough has been done. Two deaths last month in southern West Virginia serve as a macabre reminder that the crisis in the coal fields is not yet over--will probably never be over--but we have got to work at it. It is not yet over. We must be innovative. It is time for us to stop simply addressing mine disasters as they happen. We must seek opportunities to get ahead of the dangers. We must use foresight as well as hindsight. Last month, I met with the Assistant Secretary of Labor, Mine Safety and Health, Richard Stickler. Mr. Stickler is in his current position because of a recess appointment in October 2006. He has not been confirmed by the Senate, and so his appointment will expire at the end of this year. I am hopeful that he will prove himself a friend of the coal miner. He has a dedicated team at MSHA, which includes many former coal miners who would like to see MSHA do better. I am convinced that more can be done. The question is whether the Department of Labor and the White House will let MSHA do what needs to be done. The Congress will get some insight into that question as it reviews the President's budget request for mine safety, which was delivered today. As chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and as a Senator who will have some say about the Federal budget for mine safety, hear me when I say that the days of cheating the safety and well-being of our Nation's coal miners are over. The Senate Appropriations Committee will examine the various mine safety accounts, and the Senate Appropriations Committee will make its recommendations to the Senate about where improvements can be made. That process has already begun with the inclusion of $13 million above--above, on top of, over--the President's request in the continuing resolution for the fiscal year 2007 for MSHA to hire and train additional coal safety inspectors. I and other Senators have encouraged the President of the United States-- hear me--to include additional funds to retain those inspectors in his mine safety budget request for the fiscal year 2008, and I am glad that the President appears to have done so. This is an issue that is close to my heart, and I pledge to do all that I can to increase congressional oversight in the coal field. As a son of the coal fields, the Appalachian coal fields, as the son of a coal miner, I am determined, yes, determined to be the ``captain of a mighty host demanding the rights to which free men''--free men--coal miners--``free men are entitled.'' And women. Free men and women are entitled. Mr. President, that concludes my prepared speech. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Joined at the hip.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished, the very distinguished senior senator from the great State of Virginia. I thank him.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish to speak on another matter.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the verdict is in on the President's plan to send more American troops into Iraq: 68 percent of the American people are opposed to it; 62 percent of Active-Duty military officers are opposed to it. Top military leaders have voiced skepticism about whether an increase in troops will succeed in suppressing the sectarian violence that has consumed Iraq. The evidence is in. The voice of the people, the American people--voix populaire--is clear. It is time to turn around. Unfortunately, this administration seems to have no intention of heeding that call from the people. Last week, the Vice President talked about the ``enormous successes'' that have been accomplished in Iraq. Enormous successes? I ask, enormous successes? The Vice President's definition of ``enormous success'' is, apparently, different from mine. The Vice President said that talk of failures and blunders in Iraq was just hogwash--his word, ``hogwash''--and the Vice President asserted that whatever Congress votes on in relation to Iraq, ``it won't stop us.'' Hear me now. Hear me. This is the Vice President talking. He asserted that whatever Congress votes on in relation to Iraq, ``it won't stop us.'' Now, listen to me, you people out there in the hills, in the valleys, across the mountain ranges, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, that is a slap in the face to you. Our constituents voted for change in the last election. They asked their elected representatives--us--to chart a new course in Iraq. This administration continues to disregard the will of the American people, it continues to disregard the people of the Nation, the authority of the Constitution. The administration believes it can continue to ignore the message that is coming--yes--from the American people, loudly and clearly: Bring our sons and daughters home. That is why the bipartisan resolutions we will be debating are so important. That is why they are so important. We have a duty as the elected representatives of the people of the United States to be their voices and to speak the truth. And the truth is that sending more American troops into Iraq would be a continuation of the mistakes that brought us there in the first place. The truth is that many of us in both parties deeply, deeply disagree with the President's decision to increase our commitment in Iraq rather than to decrease it. The truth is that the American people are fed up with having our--our--soldiers caught in the crossfire of a civil war. It is important to send that message from the people to the President of the United States. But it is not enough. The American people are asking us to send a message, but they are also asking us for answers. What is our strategy? What is our strategy in Iraq? I am not a Johnny- come-lately on this question. I was against sending American troops into Iraq in the first place. I said so, and I voted so. So what is our strategy in Iraq? Why are we there? When can our sons and daughters and grandchildren come home? When can our sons and daughters come home? This President has had almost 4 years to articulate answers to those questions. Unfortunately, he has failed at every opportunity. And so it falls to us--us, you Senators and me, and Members of the other body--to find a way forward out of the mess he has created. That is why I will be introducing, within the coming days, a resolution that is a new approach to the war, a resolution that is fully supportive of our troops, while laying out clear--clear; as clear as the noonday Sun in a cloudless sky--benchmarks for concluding U.S. military engagement in Iraq. This administration has claimed that debating the President's plan will undermine the troops. Can you believe that? Debating--debating-- debating the President's plan will undermine the troops? Hogwash--h-o- g-w-a-s-h--hogwash. Only 38 percent of the Active-Duty U.S. military forces support sending more troops into Iraq. To imply that the American people and the American troops are somehow incapable of hearing and participating in debate about this war is utterly ridiculous--ridiculous--hogwash. War--hear me now--war and the escalation of war is not something to be decided in some backroom corridor far from the madding crowd, far from the light of day. We have a duty--yes, a duty--and a responsibility to deliberate, to discuss, and to offer advice. That is the way democracy works, and that is the system established by our Founding Fathers. You better believe it. Some have claimed that by putting forward these resolutions, we are only offering criticism--well, what is wrong with that in the beginning--and, they say, not alternatives. But criticism is only the first step. That is all right. Criticism is only the first step. It is critical to send a consensus message to this President that he is moving us in the wrong direction. The next step is to show the President the right direction. That is why my resolution is so important and why we should be allowed to debate it and to vote on it quickly. We must show the President the way forward. We must send a light in a binding resolution that cannot be ignored. The American people want a fundamental change in the administration's policies toward Iraq. The American people elected Congress--you, you, you, and me--to make those changes. We must demonstrate that the Congress can take and is prepared to take action to compel the President to create a strategy that is not simply more of the same. The resolution I will be introducing will do exactly that. You may not agree with it. The resolution will do exactly that. This resolution reflects the will of the American people that the war in Iraq must be brought to a close in a responsible way. It will establish provisions to bring to a close the U.S. military engagement in Iraq based not upon dates but based upon conditions. It will restore to Congress--Congress; that is us, the people's elected representatives in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate--it will restore to Congress its constitutional war-making power by adding conditions that would terminate the original 2002 use of force resolution. I was against that resolution. I spoke against it. I voted against it. I was against it. I am against it. I was right. I am right. And there are others who voted with me--yes, the people's voice. Let me say that again. It will restore to Congress--the House and Senate of the United States--it will restore to Congress its constitutional war-making power. Do you believe me? I have it right here. I hold in my hand a copy of the U.S. Constitution. It will restore to Congress its constitutional war-making power by adding conditions that would terminate the original 2002 use of force resolution. Hallelujah. Amen. I was against that to start with. Not everybody agreed with me, which was their right. But this would restore--where it was and ought to have been in the first place--to Congress its constitutional war-making power by adding conditions that would terminate the original 2002 use of force resolution. I was against it. But that resolution was enacted, and it is still the law of the land. It is still the law of the land and will be the law of the land unless and until the Congress acts to terminate it. The conditions can be summarized as follows: We have achieved our objective. We are no longer needed--or we are no longer wanted in Iraq. These are not irresponsible conditions that would prolong our involvement in Iraq, nor do they require a chaotic or dangerous withdrawal of our troops. These are reasonable conditions that, through the exercise of the article I, section 8 powers granted to the Congress, set limits on the Iraq war resolution, which currently has no sunset provision. Hear me. It has no sunset provision. It goes on and on and on--like Tennyson's brook--forever, on and on and on. Do we want that? That war resolution will continue to be in effect in perpetuity. Do you know what that means? Till Kingdom comes; in perpetuity, from now on, as far as the human eye can see and beyond that. That war resolution will continue to be in effect in perpetuity if the Congress does not act. And if Congress does not act, that is an abdication of the responsibility of the Congress--that is an abdication of the responsibility of the Congress--to be a steward, a good steward, of its constitutional power to declare war. Additionally, as the bipartisan Iraq Study Group concluded, a clear message must be sent to the Iraqi Government that the U.S. commitment to the war in Iraq is not open-ended. The Byrd resolution will point the way toward concluding that commitment. No Senator must set aside his or her views of the war in order to support the Byrd resolution. Those who support a rapid redeployment of our troops must realize that the Congress must first reassert the powers vested in this body by article I of the Constitution. Those who have supported the war but are now calling for benchmarks for progress by the Iraqi Government should understand that there can be no clearer call for benchmarks for progress than by writing into the law of the land the conditions under which our presence in Iraq will end. My approach is one that I believe should have wide bipartisan support. At the appropriate time, I will make the necessary motions to place my resolution, the Byrd resolution, directly onto the calendar, and I urge that the Senate schedule a debate on this proposal soon after this body completes action on the nonbinding resolutions. Although the President believes he can act without the support of the people, the Congress must not submit to such hubris. The work of the Congress must be the work of the people, and there is no more important issue--hear me, there is no more important issue--before our country today than finding a way out of the quagmire in Iraq. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish to speak on another matter.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the verdict is in on the President's plan to send more American troops into Iraq: 68 percent of the American people are opposed to it; 62 percent of Active-Duty military officers are opposed to it. Top military leaders have voiced skepticism about whether an increase in troops will succeed in suppressing the sectarian violence that has consumed Iraq. The evidence is in. The voice of the people, the American people--voix populaire--is clear. It is time to turn around. Unfortunately, this administration seems to have no intention of heeding that call from the people. Last week, the Vice President talked about the ``enormous successes'' that have been accomplished in Iraq. Enormous successes? I ask, enormous successes? The Vice President's definition of ``enormous success'' is, apparently, different from mine. The Vice President said that talk of failures and blunders in Iraq was just hogwash--his word, ``hogwash''--and the Vice President asserted that whatever Congress votes on in relation to Iraq, ``it won't stop us.'' Hear me now. Hear me. This is the Vice President talking. He asserted that whatever Congress votes on in relation to Iraq, ``it won't stop us.'' Now, listen to me, you people out there in the hills, in the valleys, across the mountain ranges, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, that is a slap in the face to you. Our constituents voted for change in the last election. They asked their elected representatives--us--to chart a new course in Iraq. This administration continues to disregard the will of the American people, it continues to disregard the people of the Nation, the authority of the Constitution. The administration believes it can continue to ignore the message that is coming--yes--from the American people, loudly and clearly: Bring our sons and daughters home. That is why the bipartisan resolutions we will be debating are so important. That is why they are so important. We have a duty as the elected representatives of the people of the United States to be their voices and to speak the truth. And the truth is that sending more American troops into Iraq would be a continuation of the mistakes that brought us there in the first place. The truth is that many of us in both parties deeply, deeply disagree with the President's decision to increase our commitment in Iraq rather than to decrease it. The truth is that the American people are fed up with having our--our--soldiers caught in the crossfire of a civil war. It is important to send that message from the people to the President of the United States. But it is not enough. The American people are asking us to send a message, but they are also asking us for answers. What is our strategy? What is our strategy in Iraq? I am not a Johnny- come-lately on this question. I was against sending American troops into Iraq in the first place. I said so, and I voted so. So what is our strategy in Iraq? Why are we there? When can our sons and daughters and grandchildren come home? When can our sons and daughters come home? This President has had almost 4 years to articulate answers to those questions. Unfortunately, he has failed at every opportunity. And so it falls to us--us, you Senators and me, and Members of the other body--to find a way forward out of the mess he has created. That is why I will be introducing, within the coming days, a resolution that is a new approach to the war, a resolution that is fully supportive of our troops, while laying out clear--clear; as clear as the noonday Sun in a cloudless sky--benchmarks for concluding U.S. military engagement in Iraq. This administration has claimed that debating the President's plan will undermine the troops. Can you believe that? Debating--debating-- debating the President's plan will undermine the troops? Hogwash--h-o- g-w-a-s-h--hogwash. Only 38 percent of the Active-Duty U.S. military forces support sending more troops into Iraq. To imply that the American people and the American troops are somehow incapable of hearing and participating in debate about this war is utterly ridiculous--ridiculous--hogwash. War--hear me now--war and the escalation of war is not something to be decided in some backroom corridor far from the madding crowd, far from the light of day. We have a duty--yes, a duty--and a responsibility to deliberate, to discuss, and to offer advice. That is the way democracy works, and that is the system established by our Founding Fathers. You better believe it. Some have claimed that by putting forward these resolutions, we are only offering criticism--well, what is wrong with that in the beginning--and, they say, not alternatives. But criticism is only the first step. That is all right. Criticism is only the first step. It is critical to send a consensus message to this President that he is moving us in the wrong direction. The next step is to show the President the right direction. That is why my resolution is so important and why we should be allowed to debate it and to vote on it quickly. We must show the President the way forward. We must send a light in a binding resolution that cannot be ignored. The American people want a fundamental change in the administration's policies toward Iraq. The American people elected Congress--you, you, you, and me--to make those changes. We must demonstrate that the Congress can take and is prepared to take action to compel the President to create a strategy that is not simply more of the same. The resolution I will be introducing will do exactly that. You may not agree with it. The resolution will do exactly that. This resolution reflects the will of the American people that the war in Iraq must be brought to a close in a responsible way. It will establish provisions to bring to a close the U.S. military engagement in Iraq based not upon dates but based upon conditions. It will restore to Congress--Congress; that is us, the people's elected representatives in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate--it will restore to Congress its constitutional war-making power by adding conditions that would terminate the original 2002 use of force resolution. I was against that resolution. I spoke against it. I voted against it. I was against it. I am against it. I was right. I am right. And there are others who voted with me--yes, the people's voice. Let me say that again. It will restore to Congress--the House and Senate of the United States--it will restore to Congress its constitutional war-making power. Do you believe me? I have it right here. I hold in my hand a copy of the U.S. Constitution. It will restore to Congress its constitutional war-making power by adding conditions that would terminate the original 2002 use of force resolution. Hallelujah. Amen. I was against that to start with. Not everybody agreed with me, which was their right. But this would restore--where it was and ought to have been in the first place--to Congress its constitutional war-making power by adding conditions that would terminate the original 2002 use of force resolution. I was against it. But that resolution was enacted, and it is still the law of the land. It is still the law of the land and will be the law of the land unless and until the Congress acts to terminate it. The conditions can be summarized as follows: We have achieved our objective. We are no longer needed--or we are no longer wanted in Iraq. These are not irresponsible conditions that would prolong our involvement in Iraq, nor do they require a chaotic or dangerous withdrawal of our troops. These are reasonable conditions that, through the exercise of the article I, section 8 powers granted to the Congress, set limits on the Iraq war resolution, which currently has no sunset provision. Hear me. It has no sunset provision. It goes on and on and on--like Tennyson's brook--forever, on and on and on. Do we want that? That war resolution will continue to be in effect in perpetuity. Do you know what that means? Till Kingdom comes; in perpetuity, from now on, as far as the human eye can see and beyond that. That war resolution will continue to be in effect in perpetuity if the Congress does not act. And if Congress does not act, that is an abdication of the responsibility of the Congress--that is an abdication of the responsibility of the Congress--to be a steward, a good steward, of its constitutional power to declare war. Additionally, as the bipartisan Iraq Study Group concluded, a clear message must be sent to the Iraqi Government that the U.S. commitment to the war in Iraq is not open-ended. The Byrd resolution will point the way toward concluding that commitment. No Senator must set aside his or her views of the war in order to support the Byrd resolution. Those who support a rapid redeployment of our troops must realize that the Congress must first reassert the powers vested in this body by article I of the Constitution. Those who have supported the war but are now calling for benchmarks for progress by the Iraqi Government should understand that there can be no clearer call for benchmarks for progress than by writing into the law of the land the conditions under which our presence in Iraq will end. My approach is one that I believe should have wide bipartisan support. At the appropriate time, I will make the necessary motions to place my resolution, the Byrd resolution, directly onto the calendar, and I urge that the Senate schedule a debate on this proposal soon after this body completes action on the nonbinding resolutions. Although the President believes he can act without the support of the people, the Congress must not submit to such hubris. The work of the Congress must be the work of the people, and there is no more important issue--hear me, there is no more important issue--before our country today than finding a way out of the quagmire in Iraq. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, we cannot, we must not violate that trust. This is my 49th year in the U.S. Senate. When I came here 49 years ago, there was no sound system in the Senate--none. And so when a Senator spoke, especially if he was giving his maiden speech, the word got around that a Senator was going to make his maiden speech. Senators came to the floor. The speeches, as I say, were not televised. There was no audio. A Senator spoke from his desk, and he spoke out. He spoke out. He spoke without an audio system. But other Senators would come up. They would come closer to the Senator who was speaking. They would gather around. I can remember when I made my maiden speech in the Senate. It was a long time ago. It has been my privilege today to sit at my desk here and listen to the distinguished Senator who comes from my neighboring State just across the great Ohio River. It has been my privilege to listen to him. He spoke well. Senators are at their offices, most of them. A lot of them heard this speech. They were not here to hear it, but I was here. I wish to commend the Senator on his maiden speech. It was a good speech. I like the way he spoke. I like the way he spoke from his heart. That speech will be in the Record for 1,000 years. I compliment the Senator. I am proud to be here in his audience today. I want him to continue to take the floor and speak his mind, speak for his people and to the people all across this country. I thank him for his speech. It was well done. The content was splendid. It meant much to him, and it meant much to me as I sat here. I thank him. May God continue to bless him in his work here. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Yes. And the quicker we begin that debate and the quicker we begin to bring the change and alteration in policy, as he has spoken to on other occasions, the better it is going to be not only for those extraordinary, brave service men and women who have been fighting bravely and gallantly for over 4 years in Iraq, but we will begin to restore the prestige and influence of this country and the State he represents and loves. I thank the Senator for an excellent statement.

Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, we have a rule which provides that a Senator who wishes to speak should address the Presiding Officer and that the Senator first seeking to speak shall be recognized. We have rules around here. I don't much like this idea of having people stand in line to speak, and when some Senator comes to the floor and seeks recognition, he or she finds that somebody else already has consent to speak, and then someone else, and then someone else. I will not object at this moment to this batting order, this lineup of speakers. I think the rules provide that if a Senator wants to speak, he or she shall stand and ask for recognition. That is the way to do it. So I will not object to this lineup of speakers which puts at a disadvantage a Senator who has not been here to listen to this lineup and who wants to come to the floor and speak--comes to the floor and seeks recognition and finds that somebody else has already gotten unanimous consent to speak. Let's do it right. I will not object today, but let's not have this lining up of speakers. Let Senators come to the floor and seek recognition and get recognition. That is what the rules say. I will not object.

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. Senator Baucus, who is the chairman and who is managing this bill--am I correct?

Mr. BYRD. He is a fine Senator. I take off my hat to him and thank him for what he has said.

Mr. BYRD. Here here.

Mr. BYRD. Yes, Mr. President.

Mr. BYRD. Amen. Yes.

Mr. BYRD

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