Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may I ask the distinguished Senator from Illinois if there is any additional time I might utilize?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished Senator for his characteristic courtesy. James Madison reminds us, in Federalist No. 37, that: The genius of republican liberty seems to demand . . . not only that all power should be derived from the people, but that those intrusted with it should be kept in dependence on the people. . . . Let me say that again. James Madison says, in Federalist No. 37, that ``The genius of republican liberty seems to demand . . . not only that all power should be derived from the people, but that those intrusted with it''--meaning that power--``should be kept in dependence on the people. . . .'' To ensure that this quotation I have just stated by James Madison is so, it is the representatives of the people in Congress--including Robert C. Byrd and all other Senators here--who are entrusted with the power of the purse. Now, listen to that. To ensure that this is so, it is the representatives of the people in Congress who are entrusted with the power of the purse. ``This power,'' Madison writes, in Federalist No. 58, ``may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.'' We are Senators, the people's representatives. We are here to look after the interests of the people of our States. In many cases, they are not well-to-do people. They cannot just pick up a phone and call the White House. And, too often, the Federal bureaucracy is an inaccessible morass. In time of need--in drought or flood, when a bridge is near collapse, when safe drinking water is not available, when health care services are endangered, when a community is struggling, when worker safety is threatened--the people call on their representatives in Congress. Many times, we are the only ones who are willing to listen. Get that. Many times, we are the only ones who are willing to listen, and the only ones--hear me, again--who are willing to help. We, the people's representatives, are armed by the Constitution with the power of the purse to ensure that the Federal Government is responsive to their--the people's--needs. And so when I speak about congressional earmarks, I speak about a subject that broaches the most serious of constitutional questions: Who--hear me--who shall control expenditures from the public treasuries, the unaccountable bureaucrats in the executive branch downtown--I do not speak ill of them; they are responsible people--but I say, the unaccountable bureaucrats in the executive branch or the representatives of the people? Let me say that again. We, here in the Senate, are armed by the Constitution with the power of the purse--in this body and the other body--to ensure that the Federal Government is responsive to their--the people's--needs. And so when I speak about congressional earmarks, I speak about a subject that broaches the most serious of constitutional questions: Who shall control expenditures from the public treasuries, the unaccountable bureaucrats in the executive branch or the elected representatives of the people in the legislative branch? Earmarks are arguably the most criticized and the least understood of congressional practices. I know it is easy to attack these congressional practices. Many of the most vocal critics do not understand the purpose of the earmarks they criticize, nor do they have any appreciation of their uses or benefits in the communities that receive them. Let me say that again. Earmarks--hear me, everybody; those from the States, I know they are always listening--earmarks are arguably the most criticized and the least understood of congressional practices. Many of the most vocal critics do not understand the purpose of the earmarks they criticize, nor do they have any appreciation of their uses, meaning the uses of earmarks, or benefits in the communities that receive these earmarks. Many people do not know that earmarks are not specific to appropriations bills. For instance, earmarks can be found in revenue bills as tax benefits for narrowly defined constituencies. Earmarks can be found in authorization bills that are wholly separate from the appropriations process. Hear me now. Earmarks can be found--yes; where?--in the President's budget requests. How about that? Earmarks can be found in the President's budget requests, and sometimes as part of the budget reconciliation process. There is no law, no rule, no universal standard that even defines what an earmark is. And so I leave the determination about the propriety and need for an earmark, not with the political pundits or the so-called watchdog groups or the news media or the unelected bureaucrats downtown, but where that determination rightfully belongs, where it rightfully belongs under the Constitution, with the people, with the people of the United States. So hear me--hear me, everyone East, West, South, and North--when I say there is nothing inherently wrong with an earmark. It is an explicit direction from the Congress--the people's elected representatives; the Congress--about how the Federal Government should spend the people's money--your money out there in the hills and mountains and prairies and the plains and valleys of this country. I say again, it is an explicit direction--talking about earmarks--from the Congress about how the Federal Government should spend your money, the people's money. It is absolutely consistent with the Framers' intentions. Dispute me, if you like. Challenge me, if you like, and challenge the Constitution of the United States. It is codified in Article I of the Constitution, giving the power of the purse to the representatives of the people. We, the representatives of the people, have an obligation to be good stewards of the public treasury and to prevent imprudent expenditures. That is our duty. We have an obligation to guard against the corruption of any public officials who would sell their soul and the trust of their constituency in order to profit from an official act. That also is our duty, and one not to be taken lightly. But let no person suggest that the Congress errs in using an earmark to designate how the people's money should be spent. Let me say that again. Let no person suggest that the Congress errs in using an earmark to designate how the people's money--your money out there, your money; hear me, the people's money--should be spent. That is equally our constitutional duty. It does not belong to the President. It does not belong to the unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch. It belongs to the people through their elected representatives here in Congress. Well intentioned though they may be, the civil servants making budget decisions in the executive agencies and offices of the Federal Government do not understand the communities that we--you and I, Mr. President, all of us here--represent. They do not meet with the constituencies. They do not know our States. They do not know our people. They do not see what we see. How much time do I have, Mr. President?

Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent to proceed as long as I require, and it won't be too long.

Mr. BYRD. I will try to finish in 10 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my generous and considerate friend. The process may not be flawless, but if public monies are spent unwisely or wastefully, at least the people have the means to know about it. Both the House and Senate in open session must agree on an earmark, and the president has an opportunity to veto the measure that carries it. There is a record of debate, and a record of how each Member of Congress votes. A controversial item is available for all to see and judge if not before, then certainly after it is enacted. Ultimately, Senators will have to defend their votes on the floor of the Senate, or respond to the inquiries of the media, or stand before the electorate and their constituency. The representatives of the people in Congress are held accountable. If the Congress does not specify how funds are to be spent, then the decision falls to the executive branch--the so-called ``experts'' at bureaucratic agencies to determine the priorities of this Nation. In such cases, the American people may never know who is responsible for a spending decision. The American people never know how a spending decision is made. They may never hear anything about it. In the executive bureaucracy, there is far less accountability to the people. We ought to prefer that spending decisions be made in an open and public forum of debate, rather than ensconced within the hidden and unaccountable agencies of the executive branch. The fact that controversial earmarks are being openly debated, and that several controversial earmarks were put before the voters last November, suggests that the system works. Those entrusted with power are being held accountable to the people. So I say to Senators that we are treading some dangerous constitutional grounds with this bombast against earmarks. I support, as I always have, making the budget and appropriations process more transparent, but let their be no mistake that the misguided cries to do away with earmarks has constitutional ramifications about who controls the power of the purse. The White House recognizes this. The President is asking the Congress to reduce congressional earmarks, leaving more spending decisions to the White House and executive branch. The President is asking for fewer limitations and more flexibility in how the executive branch spends the people's money. The President is even taking advantage of the current political environment to ask for a line-item veto--God help us--a wholly unconstitutional grant of power invalidated once before by the Supreme Court. If so-called earmark reforms happen too quickly and with too little thought to the constitutional ramifications, it could mark the beginnings of a dangerous aggrandizement of the executive in the legislative process, and I am not for that. I am not willing to go along with it. In this rush to label earmarks as the source of our budgetary woes, and calls to expand the budgetary authorities of the President, we-- Members of the Senate--should remember why deficits have soared to unprecedented levels. Senators will recall that the president has not exercised his current constitutional authorities. He has not vetoed a single spending or revenue bill. He has not submitted a single rescission proposal under the Budget Act. What has wrought these ominous budget deficits are the administration's grossly flawed and impossible budget assumptions. In 2001, the President inherited a $5.6 trillion, 10-year surplus. After 1 year operating under his fiscal policies, that surplus disappeared. We went from a surplus in the fiscal year 2001 of $128 billion to a deficit in the fiscal year 2002 of $158 billion, followed by the three largest deficits in our Nation's history in the fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005. The administration's excessive tax cuts added $3 trillion in budget deficits. The war in Iraq, which I voted against, has required the Congress to appropriate $379 billion, and another $100 billion request will arrive from the President next month. Rather than dealing with these fiscal failures, too many would rather propagate the specious argument that enlarging the president's role in the budget process and doing away with congressional earmarks will magically reduce these foreboding and menacing deficits. It absolutely will not. Often, critics of congressional earmarks assert that earmarks, by definition, are wasteful spending. In the 1969 Agriculture Appropriations bill, Congress earmarked funds for a new program to provide critical nutrition to low-income women, infants and children. This program, which is now known as the WIC program, has since provided nutritional assistance to over 150 million women, infants and children, a critical contribution to the health of the nation. Is that wasteful spending? Is that wasteful spending? In the 1969 and 1970, Congress earmarked $25 million for a children's hospital in Washington, DC, even overcoming a Presidential veto. That funding resulted in the construction of what is known as the Children's National Medical Center. The hospital has become a national and international leader in neonatal and pediatric care. Since the hospital opened, over 5 million children have received health care. Last year, Children's Hospital treated over 340,000 young patients, and performed over 10,000 surgeries, saving and improving the lives of thousands of young children. Is that wasteful spending? In 1983, Congress earmarked funds for a new emergency food and shelter program. In 2005 alone, the program served 35 million meals and provided 1.3 million nights of lodging to the homeless. Is that wasteful spending? In 1987, Congress earmarked funds for the mapping of the human gene. This project became known as the Human Genome Project. This research has lead to completely new strategies for disease prevention and treatment. The Human Genome Project has led to discoveries of dramatic new methods of identifying and treating breast, ovarian, and colon cancers, saving many, many lives. Is this wasteful spending? In 1988 and 1995, Congress earmarked funds for the development of unmanned aerial vehicles. These efforts produced the Predator and the Global Hawk, two of the most effective assets that have been used in the global war on terror. Is this wasteful spending? No. Each of these earmarks was initiated by Congress and produced lasting gains for the American people. There is no question that the earmarking process has grown to excessive levels in recent years. From 1994 to 2006, the funding that has been earmarked has nearly tripled. That is why I have joined with House Appropriations Committee Chairman Obey in calling for a 1-year moratorium on earmarks in the fiscal year 2007 joint funding resolution that will be before the Senate next month. That moratorium will give the Congress the time it needs to approve legislation that adds transparency to the process of earmarking funds. I support transparency and debate in the congressional budget and appropriations process. I support the provisions included in the ethics bill now pending before the Senate that would provide a more accountable, above-board, and transparent process by requiring earmarks for non-Federal entities in all of their legislative forms--as authorizing measures, as appropriations measures, as revenue measures-- to be disclosed--yes, let's have it out in the open--along with their sponsors and essential government purpose, prior to their consideration by the Senate. If the sponsor is Robert C. Byrd, let him show himself. Taxpayers, of West Virginia and the Nation ought to know how and why spending decisions are made. That is why it is essential to ensure that these spending decisions remain in the Congress. In past years, the Congress routinely failed to consider the annual appropriations bills in a timely manner. When they were considered, they too often took the form of massive omnibus bills that were forced upon the Senate without the opportunity to amend--take it or leave it. Such practices encouraged the kinds of earmarking practices that have been criticized in recent months. As chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I, Robert C. Byrd, will endeavor to do all that I can to have the annual appropriations bills considered in a timely manner. When the fiscal year 2008 spending bills are brought to the floor, I will do all that I can to allow the Senate to work its will, and to open the spending decisions of the Congress to the American people. Senators take an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution. Eliminating waste and abuse in the Federal budget process is important, but protecting the character and design of the Constitution is absolutely essential. Let's not lose our heads and subsequently the safeguards of our rights and liberties as American citizens. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, last night in his address to the Nation, the President called for a ``surge'' of 20,000 additional U.S. troops to help secure Baghdad against the violence that has consumed it. Unfortunately, such a plan is not the outline of a brave new course, as we were told, but a tragic commitment to an already failed policy; not a bold new strategy but a rededication to a course that has proven to be a colossal blunder on every count. The President never spoke words more true than when he said, ``The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people.'' But the President, once again, failed to offer a realistic way forward. Instead, he gave us more of his stale and tired ``stay the course'' prescriptions. The President espoused a strategy of ``clear, hold, and build''--a doctrine of counterinsurgency that one of our top commanders, GEN David Petraeus, helped to formulate. Clear, hold, and build involves bringing to bear a large number of troops in an area, clearing it of insurgents, holding it secure for long enough to let reconstruction take place. But what the President did not say last night is that, according to General Petraeus and his own military experts, this strategy of ``clear, hold, and build'' requires a huge number of troops--a minimum of 20 combat troops for every 1,000 civilians in the area. If we apply that doctrine to Baghdad's 6 million people, it means that at least 120,000 troops will be needed to secure Baghdad alone. Right now, we have about 70,000 combat troops stationed all throughout Iraq. Even if they were all concentrated in the city of Baghdad, along with the 20,000 new troops that the President is calling for, we would still fall well short of what is needed. But let us assume that the brave men and women of the U.S. military are able to carry out this Herculean task and secure Baghdad against the forces that are spiraling it into violence. What is to keep those forces from regrouping in another town, another province, even another country--strengthening, festering, and waiting until the American soldiers leave to launch their bloody attacks again? It brings to mind the ancient figure of Sisyphus, who was doomed to push a boulder up a mountainside for all of eternity, only to have it roll back down as soon as he reached the top. As soon as he would accomplish his task, it would begin again, and this would go on endlessly. I fear that we are condemning our brave soldiers to a similar fate, hunting down insurgents in one city or one province only to watch them pop up in another. For how long will U.S. troops be asked to shoulder this burden? Over 3,000 American soldiers have already been killed in Iraq; over 22,000 have been wounded. Staggering. Hear me--staggering. And President Bush now proposes to send 20,000 more Americans into the line of fire beyond the 70,000 already there. The cost of this war of choice to American taxpayers is now estimated to be over $400 billion. That means $400 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. That is a lot of money. Hear me now. Let me say that, again. The cost to American taxpayers of this war of choice is now estimated to be over $400 billion, and the number continues to rise. When I say number, I am talking about your taxpayer dollars. That ain't chicken feed. One wonders how much progress we could have made in improving education or resolving our health care crisis or strengthening our borders or reducing our national debt or any number of pressing issues with that amount of money. Man, we are talking about big dollars. And the President proposes spending more money, sending more money down that drain. On every count, an escalation of 20,000 troops is a misguided, costly, unwise course of action. I said at the beginning we ought not go into Iraq. I said that, and I was very loud and clear in saying it. I stood with 22 other Senators. I said from the beginning we ought not to go into Iraq. We had no business there. That nation did not attack us, did it? I said from the beginning I am not going down that road and I didn't and I am not going to now. This is not a solution. This is not a march toward ``victory.'' The President's own military advisers have indicated we do not have enough troops for this tragedy to be successful. It will put more Americans in harm's way than there already are. It will cost more in U.S. taxpayers' money--your money. You, who are looking through those lenses, looking at the Senate Chamber, hear what I have to say. Many commanders have already said that ours is an Army that is at its breaking point. It is a dangerous idea. Why, then, is the President advocating it? This decision has the cynical smell of politics to me, suggesting that an additional 20,000 troops will alter the balance of this war. It was a mistake to go into Iraq. Now we want to pour 20,000 more of your men and women, your sons and daughters, into this maelstrom, this sausage grinder, this drainer of blood and life. We won't alter the balance of this war. It is a way for the President to look forceful, a way for the President to appear to be taking bold action. But it is only the appearance of bold action, not the reality, much like the image of a cocky President in a flight suit declaring ``mission accomplished'' from the deck of a battleship. Remember that? This is not a new course. It is a continuation of the tragically costly course we have been on for almost 5 years now. Too long. I said in the beginning, I won't go; it is wrong; we should not attack that country which has never invaded us or attacked us. Those persons who attacked this country were not Iraqis, right? Somebody says I am right. It is simply a policy that buys the President more time, more time to equivocate, more time to continue to resist any suggestion that the President was wrong to enter our country into this war in the first place. This war, in this place, at this time, in this manner, and, importantly, calling for more troops, gives the President more time to hand the Iraq situation off to his successor in the White House. The President apparently believes he can wait this out, that he can continue to make small adjustments here and there to a misguided policy while he maintains the same trajectory until he leaves office and it becomes someone else's problem. If you are driving in the wrong direction, anyone knows, as you will not get to your destination by going south when you should be going north, what do you do? What should you do? You turn around. I see the Presiding Officer is following me. I saw him use his arm like that. He did just what I did, before I did it. You turn around and get better directions. This President--I speak respectfully when I speak of the President. I speak respectfully of the President; that is my intention--this President is asking us to step on the gas in Iraq full throttle while he has not clearly articulated where we are going. What is our goal? What is our end game? How much progress will we need to see from the Iraqi Government before our men and women come home? I should think that is what the fathers and mothers of our American troops would want to know. What is our goal? What is our end game? In the first place, why are we there in Iraq? Why are we asking for more troops now? How much progress will we need to see from the Iraqi Government before our men and women come home? How long will American troops be stationed in Iraq, to be maimed and killed in sectarian bloodshed? The ultimate solution to the situation in Iraq is political and would have to come from the Iraqis themselves. The Iraqi Government will have to address the causes of the insurgency by creating a sustainable power-sharing agreement between and among Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds, and it is far from clear that the Government has the power or the willingness at this point. But as long as American troops are there to bear the brunt of the blame and the fire, the Iraqi Government will not shoulder the responsibility itself. And Iraq's neighbors, especially Iran and Syria, won't commit to helping to stabilize the country as long as they see American troops bogged down and America losing credibility and strength. Keeping the United States Army tied up in a bloody, endless battle in Iraq plays perfectly into Iran's hands and it has little incentive to cease its assistance to the insurgency as long as America is there. America's presence in Iraq is inhibiting a lasting solution, not contributing to one. Let me say that again. I should repeat that statement. Iraq's neighbors, especially Iran and Syria, won't commit to helping to stabilize the country as long as they see America bogged down and losing credibility and strength. Keeping the United States Army tied up in a bloody, endless battle in Iraq plays perfectly into Iran's hand and it has little incentive to cease its assistance to the insurgency as long as America is there. America's presence in Iraq is inhibiting a lasting solution, not contributing to a lasting solution. The President has, once again, I say respectfully, gotten it backwards. What I hoped to hear from the President were specific benchmarks of progress that he expects from the Iraqi Government and a plan for the withdrawal of American troops conditioned on those benchmarks. Instead, we were given a vague admonition that the responsibility for security will rest with the Iraqi Government by November, with no suggestion of what that responsibility will mean or how to measure that Government's capacity to handle it. The President is asking us--you, me, you, you out there, you who look around this Chamber today--asking us once again to trust him while he keeps our troops mired in Iraq. But that trust was long ago squandered. I weep for the waste we have already seen--lives, American lives, Iraqi lives, treasure, time, good will, credibility, opportunity--wasted, wasted. Now the President is calling for us to waste more. I say enough, enough. If he will not provide leadership and statesmanship, if he does not have the strength of vision to recognize a failed policy and to chart a new course, then leadership will have to come from somewhere else. Enough waste, enough lives lost on this misguided venture into Iraq. I said it was wrongheaded in the beginning and I was right. Enough time and energy spent on a civil war far from our shores while the problems Americans face are ignored. Yes, while the problems that you, the people out there, face--you, the people on the plains and mountains and in the hollows and hills, your problems--we wallow in debt and mortgage our children's future to foreigners. That is what we are doing. We are continuing. We are asking now for more, more, more. Not: Give me more, more, more of your kisses but more, more of your money, more, more of your lives. Enough. It is time to truly change course. Mr. President, it is time to look at the compass, time to change course and start talking about how we can rebalance our foreign policy and bring our sons and daughters home--bring our sons and daughters home. There are a lot of people making political calculations about the war in Iraq, turning this debate into an exercise of political grandstanding and point scoring. But this is not a political game. This is a game of life and death. This is asking thousands more Americans to make the ultimate sacrifice for a war that we now know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, was a mistake. We had no business going into Iraq. We had no business invading a country that never posed an imminent threat, a serious threat to our own country. There were those of us who cautioned against the hasty rush to war in Iraq. And I have some credibility on that score. I cautioned against it, yes. And there were others in this Senate Chamber who stood against the hasty rush to war in Iraq. Unfortunately, our cries, like Cassandra's, went unheeded. Like Cassandra, our warnings and our fears proved to be prophetic--proved to be prophetic. But we are not doomed to repeat our mistakes. We ought to learn from the past. We must understand--and understand it now, and understand it clearly--that more money and more troops--more American troops, more American lives lost in Iraq--are not the answer. The clock--there is the clock above the Presiding Officer's chair. There it is. There is the clock. There is another one behind me on this wall. These clocks are running, running, running on our misadventure. And I can say that with credibility because I said it was a misadventure in the beginning--our misadventure into Iraq. Enough time has been wasted, Mr. President. Enough. Enough. Hear me: Enough. Enough time has been wasted. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BYRD. Those of us who disagreed with the plan to go into Iraq in the beginning--and now who disagree with the request that we put more troops into Iraq--we are not talking about the Normandy beach. That was an entirely different matter. What are we fighting for over here in Iraq? Why are the American people sending their boys and girls into Iraq, a country that has not attacked us? Why are we sending our boys and girls to have their blood spilled in that faraway country? For what? For what are we spending these billions of dollars? I cannot understand it. I say that most respectfully to the distinguished Senator, who is my friend.

Mr. BYRD. Yes. Very well. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BYRD. What is it we are seeking to achieve by putting more troops into Iraq?

Mr. BYRD. Will my friend yield?

Mr. BYRD. He used these words: ``We have no stomach to stay there.'' The question is, How long and at what cost? Stay there how long? How long are the American taxpayers and mothers and fathers going to put up with the use of their sons and daughters and their money? How long are they going to continue to want to--I shouldn't say it that way--how long are they going to continue to put up with this expenditure of blood and money and for what? I thank my friend for yielding. I hope I don't appear to be discourteous in any way.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator for his comments.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise at this moment to discuss a vote earlier today which began at approximately 12 noon on the Vitter amendment to the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007, S. 1. Had I been permitted to vote, I would have voted for the Vitter amendment. Now, why do I say ``permitted''? Why do I say ``had I been permitted to vote''? I say it because even though I was in the Capitol Building and on my way to the Senate floor, and even though my staff had so advised the Democratic cloakroom and was told that I had time to get to the Senate Chamber, the leadership arbitrarily closed the vote before I could get to the floor. That action prevented me from doing my constitutional duty to represent the people of my State of West Virginia. I was not more than 5 minutes from the Senate Chamber. Next year, Mr. President, I will begin my 50th year of service in the Senate. In November, I was elected to serve an unprecedented ninth full term in the Senate. And I was also elected, just days ago, by my colleagues to serve as President pro tempore of the Senate, a position fourth in line in the order of succession to the Presidency of the United States. I have cast, as of 11:59 a.m. this morning, 17,779 rollcall votes. And the vote I was prevented from casting would have made that number 17,780. The last rollcall that I missed in casting a vote was on March 30, 2006. It was 5 days after my darling wife of nearly 69 years had passed away. And so I rise at this time not to blame anybody or to lecture anybody, but I do feel that I owe an explanation to the people of West Virginia why I missed the vote. I take these matters very seriously. And I want to explain to the people, who rightfully expect me to do on this day of January 10--and on every other day that the Senate has rollcall votes--they expect me to be here and to answer the rollcall. I well understand the need to avoid undue delays in transacting the people's business. As majority leader of the Senate from 1977 to 1981, and from 1987 to 1989, I had to wrestle with such issues myself. It is very difficult to accommodate the schedules of 100 Senators and to get the Nation's business done expeditiously. I know all about that. I have been down that road. I have had my feet in those tracks before. But I hope that as Senators, who serve in a body that reveres tradition, seniority, debate, deliberation, experience, and common courtesy, we try to avoid sacrificing an understanding of individual Members' circumstances and constitutional obligations as we aim for efficiency in our work, which we know that the Senate is not expected to be, and never will be--never has been--an efficient body. That is not the way legislation is done in a body such as ours where we do have free and open debate. There is no Senate rule mandating the length of time for rollcall votes. I think we have to be careful and considerate in putting constraints on votes. While I wholeheartedly support efforts to avoid unduly dragging rollcall votes, I also hope that we will not forget the common courtesies for which this body has for more than 200 years afforded its Members, especially when Senators are making every effort to get to the floor and are only a few minutes away from appearing here to cast a vote. No real reason exists to deny this Senator a right to represent his constituents, as I was elected to do. Surely we do not need to coldly sacrifice our regard for Members who, after all, are only human and who experience the travails of life which befall many human beings--we have traffic; we have head colds; we have infirmities or unexpected emergencies--when only a slight accommodation would assist them. After all, we do--when I use the pronoun ``we,'' I include myself--represent real people and we purport to understand human needs and circumstances. I hope that we will reflect that same reasonableness in our treatment of one another and our dealings with one another here in the Senate and studiously avoid overly arbitrary, artificial, sometimes unconscionable and bloodless decrees that are such an ill fit for a legislative body in which each Member carries such tremendous burdens and responsibilities under the U.S. Constitution. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter and accompanying section 102(b) report from the Office of Compliance Board of Directors.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Oxford English Dictionary defines the word ``surge''--s-u-r-g-e--as ``a sudden large temporary increase.'' Note in particular the word ``temporary.'' President Bush's rumored new strategy on Iraq--a surge of U.S. troops intended to quell the violence in Baghdad--is both wrongheaded and headed for failure. As outlined, the surge envisions clearing all violent factions out of Baghdad in an effort which is to be led by Iraqi security forces. Apparently, U.S. forces will provide indiscriminate firepower in another attempt to establish democracy by brute force. This does not seem to me to be the way to win hearts and minds in Iraq. I oppose any surge in Iraq. Only days ago, just days ago, we passed the grim milestone of 3,000 American dead in Iraq. There are few firm numbers on Iraqi lives lost, but estimates are in the tens of thousands. I am reminded of one definition of ``insanity'': making the same mistake over and over while continuing to expect a different result. We have surged before. Still the violence in Iraq worsens. We are close to the beginning of the fifth year--the fifth year--of a war which should never have been started by an administration that fed the Congress and the public false information. This is an administration which has learned nothing--nothing, zilch--nothing more about the country of Iraq than it knew before it launched an unprovoked U.S. attack. Our stated purpose for continuing to occupy Iraq is to help the Iraqi people build a stable democracy. But the difficulty of that task should have been clear before we invaded. It was clear to me. Iraq is a country that was only held together by a brutal strongman, Saddam Hussein. And without the strongman to force cohesion, it is a country with deep ethnic and religious divisions and no central loyalties. There is no tradition of constitutions or equal rights, no unifying common beliefs about individual freedoms or governing with the consent of the governed--none of that commonality of thought that reinforces governing principles in the society at large. The al-Maliki Government would never survive on its own outside the Green Zone in Baghdad, and indeed the point of a surge is to secure only the capital. But what then? After accelerating the violence, even if we are able to lock down Baghdad, what will transpire to keep the insurgency from regrouping elsewhere, possibly fed by Iran or by Syria? How will we then establish the legitimacy of a shaky Iraqi Government? In my view, we may be about to make a critical mistake by moving in exactly the wrong direction in Iraq. Instead of a surge, we ought to be looking at a way to begin orderly troop reduction. The folly of the surge idea is apparent. The insurrection in Iraq is a civil war. The conflict is among warring factions battling for some measure of control over the others. U.S. involvement on one side simply further energizes all the other sides. This surge will only energize them, further provoking a likely countersurge of violence. If it is a true surge--in other words, temporary--the insurrection factions will only work harder to maim and kill our troops and claim victory if we reduce forces. So, in fact, there will probably be no surge but, rather, a permanent escalation of the U.S. presence, which is simply being sold to the American public as a surge. Once again, we get obfuscation and spin from a White House that seems incapable of careful thought and analysis. Any plan to increase troops in President Bush's new strategy is simply a plan to intensify violence, put more American troops in harm's way, risk the lives of more innocent Iraqis, engender more hatred of U.S. forces, and embroil U.S. forces deeper in a civil war. I would like to see a clear defining--a clear defining--of our immediate challenges in Iraq; a realistic discussion about short-term achievable goals; an admission that we cannot remain in Iraq for much longer because the American public will not tolerate it; and benchmarks for beginning an orderly withdrawal conditioned on actions by the Iraqi Government. So, Mr. President, the al-Maliki Government has been duly elected by the people of Iraq. It is time we let them take charge. Let them, Mr. President. Let them take charge. As long as we prop them up and inflame hatred, they will never have the legitimacy they need to make the political decisions that may ultimately save Iraq. In short, it is time to take the training wheels off the bike. Do you know what that means? It is time to take the training wheels off the bike. Our blundering--and it is nothing less--our blundering has inflamed and destabilized a critical region of the world, and yet we continue to single-mindedly pursue the half-baked goal of forcing democracy on a country which is now embroiled in a civil war. Our blinders keep us from seeing the regional problems which are bubbling and which soon may boil. The real damage to the United States is not only the loss of life and the billions of dollars expended, it is also the diminution of our credibility around the world as a country with the will and the vision to lead effectively. Serious diplomacy is clearly in order on the matters of Lebanon, the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and on Iran. Multinational talks were part of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations, but diplomacy usually ends up at the bottom of the administration's option list, and that is where it has landed again. If the ``shoot first'' crowd in the White House continues to stick its chin out and believe that bullets and bombast will carry the day, soon--very soon--our ability to mediate the morass of difficulties in the Mideast and elsewhere may be permanently damaged. Pariahs do not usually carry much weight at negotiating tables. If the lesson in Iraq teaches anything, it is that military might has very great limitations. But then that is a lesson we should have learned many years ago from Vietnam--many years ago from Vietnam.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Byrd are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, we are now 69 days into the fiscal year and only 2 of the 12 appropriations bills are public law. The Senate now has before it a third continuing resolution that funds 13 of the 15 executive branch Cabinet departments through February 15. When it comes to funding bills for domestic agencies, the majority leadership is apparently satisfied with a restrictive continuing resolution. Eight of the 12 bills were never even debated in the Senate. When it comes to caring for our veterans, the education of our children, the health of our elderly, and the ability of our deteriorating infrastructure to sustain a growing economy, the majority leadership is satisfied with a rubberstamp continuing resolution, kicking the decisions down the road to the next Congress. This dismal performance is not the result of the work of the Appropriations Committee. The Appropriations Committee did its work and, on a bipartisan basis, reported all 12 of its bills by July 26. Chairman Cochran did an outstanding job in leading the committee. Sadly, the appropriations process, once again, has fallen prey to politics. Next year, the 110th Congress will have to complete the 2007 appropriations bills, a war supplemental, and the 2008 bills. This will be a huge challenge. However, in the bipartisan tradition of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I am committed to working with my colleagues to meet this challenge.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate is set to give rubberstamp approval to legislation that would waive the most important parts of our nuclear nonproliferation laws, but only with respect to India. This so-called U.S.-India nuclear cooperation agreement is a mistake, and our Nation's efforts to draw a line in the sand against further proliferation of nuclear materials and technology may suffer as a result. This agreement signals the willingness of the United States to look the other way when it comes to compliance with the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty. At a time when nuclear weapons programs in North Korea and Iran are front-page news, the United States should not be giving its blessing to any nuclear weapons program that is not in one hundred percent compliance with all nonproliferation treaties. It is especially galling that the only thing the United States appears to be getting from this agreement is a vague assurance of improved relations. That just does not sounds like a good deal to me. India is a strategically important country, and the influence of the world's most populous democracy is expected to increase in the coming years. Closer relations between the United States and India is a worthy goal. However, the nuclear cooperation agreement before the Senate is a bad deal for the United States, and I will not support it.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Sir Walter Scott, in his poem ``Marmion,'' said these words: Heap on more wood!--the wind is chill; But let it whistle as it will, We'll keep our Christmas merry still. The Senate will shortly adjourn for the remainder of the year. We will return home to our families and friends and begin to think of putting up Christmas decorations and shopping for those special presents that we will give to our loved ones. We will leave much work unfinished, postponed until the new Congress convenes next January. That I regret. Continuing resolutions allow the basic work of Government to proceed, but they do not offer clear guidance to Government offices and programs, and they postpone any new starts or major changes to programs until the regular authorizing and appropriation bills are acted upon. That is unfortunate. However, we may be grateful this Christmas that we live in a nation in which changes in Government may take place in a peaceful fashion in open elections. We may also be grateful that we live in a nation in which the voice of the people can be expressed freely, eloquently, and peacefully. Vox populi, vox diae. This Christmas, we might alter our prayers for those around the world who do not enjoy these same great blessings. Christmastime is a time of peace and celebrating, as Christians do, the birth of Jesus, whose world-transforming message preached peace, tolerance, kindness, and love for all people. I am not quite sure where the message to shop, spend, and wrap presents came from, for it is surely not in the Bible, nor in the teachings of Jesus. These days, it takes effort to carve out enough time and energy from the ceaseless march of consumerism to find the true spirit of Christmas. But, thankfully, it is still present amid all the bright lights and cheery background music. One can see it in the piles of canned goods donated to food banks. One can see it in the response to the ``angel trees'' that let people answer the Christmas wishes of children in their communities. One can hear it in the Christmas choirs that put on magnificent performances. ``At Christmas play and make good cheer, for Christmas comes but once a year.'' So wrote Thomas Tusser, who lived from 1524 to 1580, demonstrating that some good things have changed very little over the years. For the birth of Jesus, the angels sang, and for Him in this cold season, churches across the Nation will be filled with joyous music. The churches of West Virginia are always filled with great music, but at Christmastime the choirs are especially inspired. There are few things more uplifting than coming out of an evening church service, buoyed up by sweet traditional music, and seeing the stars of heaven sparkling like diamonds across the velvet dark sky. All of the carols that we learned as children in church, or around the family piano, sing in our heads, don't they? The three kings following the ``yonder star,'' the stars shining brightly on that holy night, the manger in Bethlehem, and the holy mother and child on that silent night. Each year, these loving memories surface from the deep well of our childhood, each time bringing with them fond memories of happy days and family members no longer with us but still very dear to our hearts. This year, many families will look to the stars to know that far across the globe their loved ones also gaze up at the same stars to recall home and to recall the same old Christmas story. In Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Korea and Kosovo, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and elsewhere around the globe, many thousands of U.S. troops will be spending this Christmas season in a decidedly unpeaceful setting, proudly and bravely wearing the uniforms of this Nation. The National Guard units of West Virginia will have done and will continue to do their part, serving repeated deployments--I say again, serving repeated deployments-- overseas. Many of them will not be able to spend Christmas with their families. For our troops especially, we pray for peace, that they might be soon returned to the loving arms of their families. And to the families of our service men and women, we offer words, hopefully, of comfort, assuring them that none of us can forget that during this holiday season their loved ones are far from home--far from home and far from safety. Our prayers and our wishes are with them always. My soul, there is a country Far beyond the stars, Where stands a winged sentry All skillful in the wars: There above noise and danger, Sweet Peace is crown'd with smiles, And One born in a manger Commands the beauteous files. Henry Vaughn in 1650 wrote those words in his poem titled ``Peace.'' Mr. President, I wish everyone in our Nation and everyone in our Nation's service around the globe a beautiful and peaceful Christmas season. Wherever the demands of the Nation may send you, in your hearts and in your memories you can hear the music and relive the family traditions that make Christmas so very, very special. As this year closes and a new year dawns, we are filled with kind thoughts and bold resolutions. For some, it would be a time also filled with a certain buyer's remorse, as the Christmas bills come due. For others, New Year's resolutions will lead them into gymnasiums in fresh attempts to exercise and work off rich Christmas cookies and cakes. I applaud everyone with such determination. Each new year is a new chance to address our pressing individual issues, be they health related or economic. The new Congress must also be filled with resolve--resolve to respond to the clear messages sent by the people of the United States. We will have much work to do if we are to successfully deal with the situation in the Middle East, the mounting national deficit at home, the rising costs of health care, and myriad other problems. Our resolve must last longer than most introductory gymnasium memberships if we are to set our national house in order. In January, Lord willing, I will begin my ninth term as a United States Senator from the beautiful State of West Virginia, whose motto is ``Mountaineers are always free.'' I have been here long enough to know that we have done it before, and we can do it again. I again thank the people of West Virginia for their votes of confidence in me, Robert C. Byrd, to continue in their service. Mr. President, I close with a favorite poem of mine by James Henry Leigh Hunt, who lived from 1784 to 1859. This is a poem familiar to all of us, to me from my very earliest days in a little two-room schoolhouse. This favorite poem of mine by James Henry Leigh Hunt is entitled ``Abou Ben Adhem.'' During the Christmas season, and especially as we brave the crowds and the traffic at the shopping malls and in the grocery stores, it is good to remember that the true message of the season is to love the Lord and to love our fellow men. ``Abou Ben Adhem'': Abou Ben Adhem (may his tribe increase!) Awoke one night from a deep dream of peace, And saw, within the moonlight in his room, Making it rich, and like a lily in bloom, An Angel writing in a book of gold: Exceeding peace had made Ben Adhem bold, And to the Presence in the room he said, ``What writest thou?'' The Vision raised its head, And with a look made of all sweet accord Answered, ``The names of those who love the Lord.'' ``And is mine one?'' said Abou. ``Nay, not so,'' Replied the Angel. Abou spoke more low, But cheerily still; and said, ``I pray thee, then, Write me as one who loves his fellow men.'' The Angel wrote, and vanished. The next night It came again with a great wakening light, And showed the names whom love of God had blessed, And, lo! Ben Adhem's name led all the rest! Mr. President, I wish you and I wish all Senators and all peoples everywhere a very merry and peaceful and pleasant and memorable Christmas. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BYRD. I thank this friend of West Virginia, this friend of mine. I shall always remember as long as I live--however long that may be--I shall carry in my heart a very warm feeling for him. He is our neighbor. He represents the people of Ohio, our neighbor to the west of the West Virginia hills. I thank him for his friendship and for his services to his people. His people are my people. I wish him well in the days and years ahead wherever he may serve. May God always bless you, my friend, and may He always keep you in the palm of His hand.