Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I want to do that at a time that will accommodate him and the Senate. So if the Senator would let me know right now, if he might, when might be the best time to accommodate him and the Senate.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, did I hear the Senator include the provision that there be no second-degree amendments?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. That is fine.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, what is so lovely as a day in June? I repeat my question. What is so lovely as a day in June? Of course, the Presiding Officer, who graces the Chair this afternoon, she is--I have said enough. People have caught on already. I am talking about somebody who is as lovely as a day in June. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder, they say. Mine Safety Madam President, this morning the Senate unanimously passed critical mine safety legislation in response to the coal mine tragedies that robbed the State of West Virginia of 18 of its sons this year. A process that began with the introduction of the West Virginia delegation's mine safety bill has taken a significant step forward today. We have learned from the tragedy at Sago, and we have learned from the subsequent mining fatalities in West Virginia, Kentucky, Utah, Alabama, and Maryland. If the House acts quickly on legislation and the Federal mine regulators are quick in implementing the bill, the miners of our Nation, the miners of our country, will soon have the oxygen--yes, the oxygen--communications, and rescue teams necessary to save lives and to prevent future tragedies. We saw in Kentucky over the weekend that these mine accidents can happen at any time, so the Senate's quick and unanimous passage of the Senate committee-reported bill this morning is greeted by all who mine coal with welcome relief. On behalf of the many grateful coal miners and their families in West Virginia, I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Senators Mike Enzi and Ted Kennedy. I thank them, yes, I do, on behalf of these people. I was raised in the home of a coal miner. I married, 69 years ago, the daughter of a coal miner. I know about the lives--the joys and the sadnesses that come to the lives--of the men and women who work in the mines. They are a special breed. They are going to a mine, where an explosion has just occurred, to risk their own lives for other men and women who may be trapped in that mine. A special breed. So I thank Senators Enzi and Kennedy for their great work. They have performed a mission. I also thank Senators Isakson and Murray, the chairman and ranking members of the full committee and the Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety, who committed themselves to the task of producing a mine safety bill. They were unyielding in that effort. Along with Senator Isakson, Chairman Enzi and Senator Kennedy visited the Sago and Alma mines in West Virginia. Yes, they did. I thank them again. Along with Senator Isakson, Chairman Enzi and Senator Kennedy visited the Sago and Alma mines in West Virginia. They talked with the families of those who had perished. What a sad day. They took a personal interest in the safety of the coal miners of my State. When it came time to draft a committee bill, the chairman and ranking member graciously solicited the ideas of Senator Rockefeller and myself. Senator Rockefeller has been away for a while recovering from back surgery. He has been away for several weeks now. Senator Rockefeller is a true friend of the coal miners of West Virginia and the miners throughout the Nation. Senator Rockefeller has been recovering from back surgery for several weeks now, but he contributed much--yes, much--to the discussions that produced this bill. Even in recovery, Jay Rockefeller, my esteemed colleague, is a strong presence. He has been and is a strong presence in the Senate, and throughout his career he has been a very forceful advocate for the safety of coal miners, the miners of West Virginia. With Senate passage today, our hopes are high that the House of Representatives will act quickly on legislation that can be enacted into law. The sooner Congress passes legislation, the safer our coal miners will be at work, and the greater the likelihood the future disasters can be prevented. Our Nation's coal miners and their families deserve no less. Amendment No. 4127 Madam President, I will be offering the Byrd-Gregg amendment to fund border security and interior enforcement efforts. For those Senators who want to secure the borders, here me now, those Senators who want to secure the borders, this is the amendment that will help to provide a source of funding to make it happen. Of the 12 million illegal aliens in the country, it is estimated that one in four were lawfully admitted to the United States, but they overstayed their visas to remain here illegally. Of the 19 terrorists who carried out the September 11 attacks, 4 were illegal aliens who had overstayed their visas. Let me say that again for emphasis: Of the 19 terrorists who carried out the September 11 attacks, 4 were illegal aliens who had overstayed their visas. They came as students, tourists, or business travelers. It is estimated that 400,000 illegal aliens who have been ordered deported by an immigration judge have disappeared--get that-- disappeared into the interior of the country. Let me say that again: It is estimated that 400,000--yes, you heard me, 400,000--illegal aliens have been ordered deported by an immigration judge but have disappeared, have faded into, have blended into the interior of the country. Our border and interior enforcement personnel have asked for additional resources and personnel to apprehend and deport these aliens, but those law enforcement agencies have consistently been made to do with less than what they need to do their job. It is a dismal record. To make matters worse, the pending bill grants amnesty to up to 12 million illegal aliens by rewarding them with temporary worker status. The expectation and promise is that many of these illegal aliens who have already successfully circumvented our immigration laws will eventually adjust their status to legal permanent resident or leave the country when their temporary worker status expires. Given the failure to prevent other immigrant workers from overstaying their temporary visas in the past, it is difficult to take such assurances seriously. The pending bill authorizes appropriations of $25 billion--that is a lot of money--over the next 5 years for border and interior security efforts. Yet there is little hope that such funds will ever be made available. The President has consistently underfunded--yes, Senators heard me correctly--the President has consistently underfunded border and interior enforcement in his annual budgets, and he has consistently opposed efforts to replace those funds in the appropriations process. The funding for our border and interior enforcement agencies has been so severely neglected that the President has been forced to deploy the National Guard to our southern border with Mexico. This is a real national security threat that will grow alarmingly worse if this amnesty proposal is carried into effect. Our border security requires real resources not more unfunded mandates. Today, I offer an amendment, along with Senator Gregg, my esteemed colleague--when I say ``esteemed'' I say that with great fervor, my esteemed colleague--the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security Appropriations, to help provide a source of funding to secure our border. The Byrd-Gregg amendment, or the Gregg-Byrd amendment, would require the illegal aliens who would benefit from this amnesty bill to help pay its costs. What is wrong with that? It would require the illegal aliens who would benefit from this amnesty bill to help pay its costs. That sounds pretty good to me. It would require illegal aliens to pay a $500 fee before gaining any benefit from the amnesty provisions of this bill. That is not too high a fee. This fee would be in addition to the other fees and penalties included in this bill. The Gregg-Byrd amendment would dedicate those moneys to the appropriations accounts where border and interior security efforts are funded. Our amendment makes available almost $3 billion. That is no small sum of money: $3 billion. That is $3 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born; $3 for every 60 seconds since our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was born. That is a lot of money. Our amendment would make available almost $3 billion in the next 2 fiscal years to apprehend and detain those aliens who are inadmissible and deportable under the Immigration Act. It would make funds available to help our Border Patrol acquire border sensor and surveillance technology. It would provide funds for air and marine interdiction, operations, maintenance, and procurement; for construction projects in support of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, to train Federal law enforcement personnel, and for maritime security activities. These are essential border security equipment needs that have been neglected for too long--too long--and continue to be neglected. So I think it is only fair and appropriate that the illegal aliens who have created the need for these funds help to finance them. Yes, this is a necessary amendment if Senators hope to secure the border. The Byrd-Gregg amendment would help to provide some certainty that the law enforcement mandates of this bill would be carried into effect. It is not enough to authorize border security. We need to fund it. We need to fund border security. The Senate must ensure that the aliens who are supposed to leave are made to leave, and that the agencies charged with that responsibility have the resources that those agencies need to do their job. I urge the adoption of the Byrd-Gregg amendment. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 4127.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Thomas be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I would. May I defer to my distinguished colleague, Mr. Gregg, that he might speak at this time on the amendment.

Mr. BYRD. I would be agreeable to a time agreement. And I believe my colleague, Senator Gregg, would be willing--he has nodded in the affirmative.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, the bill authorizes $25 billion over 5 years in appropriations. This amendment by Senator Gregg and myself funds $3 billion of that amount. This is a modest sum, a modest amendment, a modest fee increase that Senator Gregg and I are asking for. The pending bill would provide amnesty for the illegal aliens who would benefit from the bill. It would provide a path leading to U.S. citizenship. It would provide access to taxpayer-funded benefits such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, unemployment compensation, food stamps. Illegal aliens who would benefit from the bill are getting a lot, significantly more than what they are being asked to pay into the system. I don't believe that it is too much to ask that they help to fix the border security system that they sought to undermine. This amendment is specific. It targets those areas identified by the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee that are most in need of funds. I also note that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill would authorize $25 billion in appropriations over the next 5 years. Six billion of that is authorized for fiscal year 2007, and Senator Gregg and I, as the chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, are going to be asked to fund many of these border security authorizations. We need a source of revenue with which to do it. So the purpose of this amendment is to provide a source of funding for our border security needs and to do it as quickly as possible. This amendment would make almost $1 billion available for border and interior security needs for the fiscal year 2007, which the Appropriations Committee can provide this summer when it writes the bill. This amendment would make another $2 billion available in the fiscal year 2008. We can't afford to delay this critical funding any longer. I hope Senators will support this amendment. (Mr. DeMint assumed the chair.) I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Byrd-Gregg amendment would provide $3 billion for border security and interior enforcement by assessing a $500 fee on the illegal aliens who would benefit under title VI. The bill authorizes appropriations for $25 billion over the next 5 years with no means to pay for it. The Byrd-Gregg amendment is a modest fee increase that would help to provide essential border security funds. So for Senators who want to secure the border, this is the amendment that will provide a source of funding to make it happen. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote on an amendment to authorize the use of the National Guard along the Southwest border of the United States. Last week, in hearings before the Appropriations Committee and the Armed Services Committee, I asked senior administration officials from the Department of Defense, the Border Patrol, the National Guard Bureau, and other military leaders about my concerns that this mission would detract from the ability of the National Guard to respond to emergencies in their home States. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Chief of the National Guard Bureau General Steven Blum, and other witnesses gave their assurances that this plan to deploy troops to the border would not create a new, strenuous deployment of the Guard, it would not leave our States in a bind should a disaster strike while troops were on deployment, and it would allow Governors to make the final call as to whether National Guard units from their States should be used in support of the Border Patrol. Those witnesses also testified that National Guard units would only be used in missions and roles for which the troops are already trained. I expect the administration to hold firm to these assurances, and the amendment before the Senate would help to limit the scope of the missions for which the Guard may be deployed. While I still have questions about how the National Guard will carry out the missions that are assigned to it, we must not overlook the fact that the administration has missed many opportunities to tighten controls at our borders without depending on our citizen-soldiers to do the job. Since September 11, I have offered nine amendments to provide more funds to hire more Border Patrol agents, strengthen security at our borders, and stop the flow of illegal immigrants and contraband into our country. The administration opposed each one of my amendments, labeling them to be ``extraneous,'' ``unnecessary'' spending that would ``expand the size of government.'' If my amendments had been approved and supported by the administration, there would be thousands more Border Patrol agents on the job today. Real homeland security cannot be found in a patchwork of quick fixes. Sending troops to the border is at best a Band-Aid solution to a serious problem. I will support this amendment, but I will also continue my efforts to provide the funds that are needed to provide lasting improvements to our border security. action consistent with president's plan

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, today the Senate finds itself considering yet another amnesty for illegal aliens. After the defeat of a similar amnesty proposal last month, I had hoped that the Senate had seen the last of these efforts. I had hoped that the Senate, when given the time to consider the overwhelming opposition of the American people to amnesty, would pass a clean border security bill like the House did without amnesty, without a guest worker program, and without an increase in the annual allotment of permanent immigrant visas. Sadly, the Senate is embarking on a path that contradicts everything we know--everything we know--about the position of the American people on this issue. It is an unpopular approach. It is the wrong approach. The other night in his address to the Nation, the President endorsed the Senate amnesty plan to award U.S. citizenship to illegal aliens, and he announced the deployment of up to 6,000 guardsmen to the U.S. border with Mexico. The deployment of U.S. troops is intended to suggest an urgency about gaining control of the border that has been missing for many years, even since the September 11 attacks. Nevertheless, I have my doubts and concerns. Guardsmen have been sent overseas two times, even three times--no, even four times--and have come home fatigued and stressed out. They have been forced to sell businesses and to endure financial hardships because of their long absences. Just a few months ago, the White House proposed to cut the National Guard by nearly 18,000 soldiers. The adjutants general of many States are reporting that they were not involved in discussions about the deployment of the Guard to our borders. So what assurances are there that sending troops to the border won't hamper our ability to respond to the floods in New England, another Hurricane Katrina, or another natural disaster? The National Guard might be able to lend support to our border security, but that role must not be at the expense of the thousands of communities around the country that also depend on our Guard should disasters strike those towns or counties. Press reports indicate that the Guard men and women will not be empowered to arrest aliens who attempt to cross our borders. I cannot help but wonder if this move to detail guardsmen to our borders is a political stunt to look tough at the expense of the brave citizen- soldiers who serve in the Guard. The President would not have to call out the National Guard to secure the borders if he had supported even some--even some--of the nine-- nine, nine--separate amendments that I have offered since September 11 to hire and train more Border Patrol agents. If these amendments had been adopted--I say, if they had been adopted--the law enforcement agents would be in place right now helping to secure the borders. Instead, the administration has consistently opposed these efforts as unnecessary and extraneous spending, saying that those funds would expand the size of Government. When I included $400 million in the fiscal year 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for border security, the President refused to spend it saying: I made my opposition clear . . . We'll spend none of it. That is what he said. That is what the President said. He said: I made my opposition clear . . . We'll spend none of it. As recently as last September, on a party-line vote, the majority defeated an Obey-Byrd-Sabo motion in conference on the fiscal year 2006 Homeland Security appropriations bill to add $100 million for border security. The administration opposed--yes, you heard me correctly--the administration opposed the Byrd-Craig amendment to the fiscal year 2005 supplemental appropriations bill to add $389 million for, what? For border security--border security. Fortunately, the amendment was approved and subsequently, despite administration opposition, the conferees approved $274 million. And as a result, there are now 500 more Border Patrol agents, 218 more immigration agents and investigators, and 1,950 more detention beds in place helping to secure our borders. I will support any realistic effort to secure our borders, but I have to question the sincerity behind sham attempts that accomplish a token presence which only impose further hardship on our National Guard and may put communities at risk from natural disasters. The sense of urgency that comes with deploying the National Guard is belied by the administration's consistent opposition to providing the necessary resources that our border security agencies need to do their job. Last month, I joined Senator Gregg in offering an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill for Iraq to provide $1.9 billion for the Border Patrol to hire the agents and secure the equipment that they need to better secure the border. The President has threatened to veto the supplemental bill. It is difficult to believe that the President would oppose funding our border agencies sufficiently to do the job they were created to do, but that is the situation. Immigration enforcement in our country remains a decidedly half- hearted effort. The administration claims to strengthen border security in one area, and then completely undermines it in another with amnesty proposals. That dangerous inconsistency is at the root of my opposition to the misguided amnesty proposal before the Senate. I oppose this amnesty bill. I oppose it absolutely. I oppose it unequivocally. I oppose this effort to waive the rules for lawbreakers and to legalize the unlawful actions of undocumented workers and the businesses that illegally employ them. Amnesties are the dark underbelly of our immigration process. They tarnish the magnanimous promise enshrined on the base of the Statue of Liberty. Amnesties undermine that great egalitarian and American principle that the law should apply equally and should apply fairly to everyone. Amnesties perniciously decree that the law shall apply to some but not to all. This bill would create a separate set of immigration laws for those who choose not to follow the regular process that everybody else had to go through. It is a slap in the face to every immigrant who had to wait abroad to come to American shores, and to every immigrant who had to struggle and work to become a U.S. citizen. It is a false promise to the many tens of millions of immigrants who would be authorized to settle in the United States under this bill with the infrastructure of our Nation--our schools, our health care system, our transportation and energy networks--increasingly unable to absorb this untenable surge in the population. Many employers are more than willing to take advantage of the cheap labor that this bill would provide, but the responsibility would fall on the Nation as a whole to make the public investments necessary to ensure that these workers do not fall into a state of poverty once they have arrived. We have our own problems to address without having to assume this additional burden to help American businesses find cheaper labor. Amnesties beget more illegal immigration--hurtful, destructive illegal immigration. They encourage other undocumented aliens to circumvent our immigration process in the hope that they, too, can achieve temporary worker status. Amnesties sanction the exploitation of illegal foreign labor by U.S. businesses and encourage other businesses to hire cheap and illegal labor in order to compete. President Reagan signed his amnesty proposal into law in 1986. At the time, I supported amnesty based on the same promises that we hear today; namely, that legalizing undocumented workers and increasing enforcement would stem the flow of illegal immigration. It didn't work then; it won't work today. The 1986 amnesty failed miserably. After 1986, the illegal immigrant population more than quadrupled from 2.7 million aliens to 4 million aliens in 1996, to 8 million aliens in 2000, to an estimated 12 million illegal aliens today. In that time, the Congress continued to enact amnesty after amnesty, waiving the Immigration Act for lawbreakers. The result is always the same: For every group of illegal aliens granted amnesty, a bigger group enters the country hoping to be similarly rewarded. This bill encourages individuals on both sides of the border to flout the law. It is a congressional pardon for lawbreakers--both for illegal aliens and the unscrupulous employers who hire them. What is backward about the pending bill is that it would actually expand benefits to illegal aliens rather than curtail them. It authorizes illegal aliens to work in the country. It grants illegal aliens a path to citizenship. It pardons employers who illegally employ unauthorized workers. It even repeals provisions in current law designed to deny cheaper, in-State tuition rates to illegal aliens. The pending bill is an invitation to immigrants and employers alike to violate our immigration laws and to get away with it. Amnesties are dangerous proposals. Amnesties open routes to legal status for aliens hoping to circumvent the regular security checks. By allowing illegal aliens to adjust their status in the country, we allow them to bypass State Department checks normally done overseas through the visa and consular process. One need only look to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, where one of the terrorist leaders had legalized his status through an amnesty, to know the dangers of these kinds of proposals. Our immigration system is already plagued with funding and staffing problems. It is overwhelmed on the borders, in the interior, and in its processing of immigration applications. It only took 19 temporary visa holders to slip through the system to unleash the horror of the September 11 attacks, and the pending proposal would shove many tens of millions of legal and illegal aliens--many of whom have never gone through a background check-- through our border security system over the next decade, in effect, flooding a bureaucracy that is already drowning. It is a recipe for disaster, and 6,000 National Guardsmen without the power to enforce our immigration laws and arrest illegal aliens are not going to make the difference between success and failure. Our Nation's experience shows that amnesties do not--do not--work. They encourage illegal immigration. They open our borders to terrorists. Our experience shows that we cannot play games with our border security or American lives could be lost. I will oppose this amnesty bill, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD. Probably 20 minutes.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, West Virginians are both a prayerful and a prideful people. We cherish our State, honor its unique heritage, and revere its citizenry. Our respect for one another and for our joint accomplishments is apparent in every cornr and cranny of this wondrous State, filled with unparalleled scenic beauty, old-fashioned hospitality, and a sincere commitment to excellence. Our belief in ourselves and in our abilities is apparent when we welcome our troops home from service overseas; when we watch our sons and daughters receive their high school diplomas; when our communities band together to overcome tragedy; or when we gather together to celebrate shared and lofty achievement. It is always the same: Mountaineer pride runs strong and deep in West Virginia. West Virginia pride is particularly on display today in Buffalo, WV, where Toyota Motor Manufacturing, West Virginia, TMMWV, is celebrating its 10th anniversary. I commend Toyota on its commitment to West Virginia, and I heartily congratulate the company on its celebration of 10 years in the Mountaineer State. I have seen, over the past decade, how hundreds of West Virginians each day have committed themselves to their work at Toyota. The high standards that have been set by the men and women who work at Toyota's facility in Buffalo show that our State, though small in size, successfully plays host to one of the world's largest, most successful, and well-respected companies. Toyota's plant in Buffalo truly deserves its fine reputation, based on its gains in productivity, its high standards for fine quality, and its unfailing commitment to the future. Toyota Motor Manufacturing established its operations in West Virginia in 1996, and currently produces four-cylinder engines for the Toyota Corolla, the Matrix, and the Pontiac Vibe. It also produces V6 engines for the Toyota Sienna and Solara. The plant also manufactures automatic transmissions for the U.S.-built Solara, Sienna and Avalon, the Canadian-built Lexus RX 350, and the Japan-built Highlander, providing quality jobs for over 1,000 West Virginians. And employment there is projected to grow to 1,150 workers when the existing transmission plant is expanded as promised. In fact, last year Toyota announced that it would undertake a $120 million expansion of its engine and transmission plant in Buffalo. As a result, beginning in 2007, Toyota Motor Manufacturing in West Virginia will build 240,000 additional automatic transmissions per year. This will bring the plant's total automatic transmission capacity to 600,000 units, and this fifth expansion by Toyota in West Virginia will bring its total investment there to near the $1 billion mark. Every day, in Buffalo, hundreds of West Virginians commit themselves to superior performance. Toyota has become a highly valued member of the West Virginia business community, and the company's commitment to its continued expansion in our State sends a clear message to the world not only that West Virginia's workforce is top of the line, but also that communities throughout West Virginia make our State a beacon for business, including international investment. The employment provided by Toyota at Buffalo constitutes exactly the type of well-paying jobs, with accompanying health and pension benefits, that West Virginia workers so richly deserve. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to once again congratulate Toyota on its 10th anniversary in West Virginia. I thank Dr. Toyoda for believing in West Virginia. I also congratulate Toyota Motor Manufacturing, West Virginia President Yutaka Mizuno and the men and women of this plant for its all of its truly spectacular achievements in its first decade in our fair State. I would also like to thank my dear friend and colleague, Senator Jay Rockefeller, who worked so tirelessly and in such good faith to bring Toyota to West Virginia. Jay and I, and all West Virginians, are pleased and proud to have Toyota in Buffalo, WV. May this be the first of many more decades of partnership and accomplishment for our State and for Toyota Motor Manufacturing.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I voted to support the Isakson amendment which would have delayed the implementation of the amnesty provisions of this bill until the Secretary of Homeland Security had certified that the bill's security measures are fully operational. I oppose amnesty for illegal aliens--absolutely and unequivocally. Therefore, I support those measures, such as the Isakson amendment, that would prevent the amnesty provisions of this bill from taking effect.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. In my continuing series of statements on the idea of a Senate, I refer today to the necessity of the Senate in the Federal Government by James Madison in the Federalist 62, 1787. Was the Senate really necessary? Was a Senate really necessary? Since the American Revolution, the United States had operated under a single body legislature, but the Framers of the Constitution created both a Senate and a House of Representatives. Writing in the Federalist Papers, a collection of 85 letters, written to newspapers in support of the Constitution's ratification, James Madison explained the unique nature of the Senate and the cautious deliberative role that it would play in the American Government. Federalist 62: The qualifications proposed for senators, as distinguished from those of representatives, consists in a more advanced age and a longer period of citizenship. . . . The propriety of these distinctions is explained by the nature of the senatorial trust, which, requiring greater extent of information and stability of character, requires at the same time, that the senator should have reached a period of life most likely to supply these advantages . . . It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. . . . It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government. . . . The equality of representation in the Senate is another point, which, being evidently the result of compromise between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small States, does not call for much discussion. . . . In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. . . . Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defence which it involves in favour of the smaller States would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other States, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger. But as the larger States will always be able, by their power over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this prerogative of the lesser States; and as the facility and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this part of the Constitution may be more convenient in practice, than it appears to many in contemplation. . . . . . . The necessity of a senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies, to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions. . . . All that need be remarked is, that a body which is to correct this infirmity, ought itself to be free from it, and consequently ought to be less numerous. It ought moreover to possess great firmness, and consequently ought to hold its authority by a tenure of considerable duration. . . . . . . The mutability in the public councils, arising from a rapid succession of new members, however qualified they may be, points out, in the strongest manner, the necessity of some stable institution in the government. On September 17, 1787, the 39 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, meeting in Philadelphia, signed the new Federal Constitution. They agreed that the new Constitution, intended to replace the Articles of Confederation, would take effect when it gained ratification by 9 of the 13 States. To overcome suspicion and outright opposition, supporters of the Constitution needed to convince Americans of the wisdom of the new plan. In the weeks and months that followed, newspapers throughout the States printed opinion pieces that both praised and condemned the proposed Federal structure. Most prominent among these propaganda pieces was a series of letters written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. Signed ``Publius,'' and published in 1788 as ``The Federalist,'' these essays explained how the new Constitution-- dividing the Government into three equal branches--would preserve the Union, reconcile differences among States and political factions, and promote a common welfare, while carefully controlling power through a system of checks and balances. Of the 85 essays the trio authored, seven dealt specifically with the Senate--Nos. 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 75, and 76--while others, such as essay No. 51, discussed the Senate as part of the broader definition of a Federal Government that included a bicameral legislature. In essay No. 62, James Madison eloquently stated the need for a smaller, more deliberative body in the legislative branch to cool the passions and control the urges of democratic masses. By requiring Senators to be at least 30 years old, 5 years greater than the minimum age for their House counterparts, and to be elected by State legislatures rather than through direct popular election, the Framers created an institution designed to provide experience and stability. Such qualifications would be vital in a body to which the Constitution assigned such constitutional duties as providing advice and consent to treaties and to Presidential appointments. Senators also would serve 6-year, overlapping terms, creating continuity by allowing two-thirds of its Members to remain from Congress to Congress. Longer terms, combined with a system of indirect election, would allow Senators to resist the whims of public opinion. The Framers also established equality of States in the Senate, assigning each State two Senators. The ``Great Compromise of 1787,'' reached on July 16, 1787, reconciled the demands of the large States with those of the small States by establishing proportional representation of States in the House of Representatives based on population, and equal representation in the Senate. This compromise guaranteed that the Senate would remain a smaller body than the House, where Members could enjoy more freedom in debate and create the necessary compromises to bring about successful legislation. Of all the qualities established by the Framers, only the system of indirect election has changed significantly over time. Election by State legislatures ultimately proved vulnerable to corruption. Following the Civil War, newspaper reporters accused State legislatures of accepting bribes to elect Senators favorable to special interests or remaining willfully ``deadlocked,'' depriving some States of their Senate representation for months--yes, for months--even years. Reformers reacted to these allegations by advocating a constitutional amendment that would allow the people to vote directly for Senators. This correction to the Framers' handiwork for the Senate went into effect in 1913 as the 17th amendment. The Senate has remained a smaller body where States have an equal voice. It has served continuously now--continuously, may I say to the distinguished occupant of the Chair, the very able senior Senator from the Old Dominion, the State of Virginia--since 1789, never requiring the biennial reorganization necessary in the House. Senators have tended to be somewhat older and more experienced than Representatives, and the Senate has remained--yes, remained--a deliberative institution that has brought caution and stability to the legislative process. As James Madison commented at the Constitutional Convention, the ``use of the Senate is to consist in its proceeding with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom, than the popular branch'' of the Congress. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished and able friend from Alabama. I thank him for his reference to Mother's Day. I do indeed have some remarks that I want to make in reference to Mother's Day. Mr. President, the irises are blooming, their beauty as refined as a Japanese print. Roses are spilling their sweet perfume into the air. A bountiful harvest of sweet, red strawberries is making its way into pies and shortcakes. The phones are busy at the florists around the country. The signs are clear that this coming Sunday the Nation will again observe the annual celebration of that great day, Mother's Day. Mother's Day is beloved by florists, by candy makers, by greeting card producers, by phone companies, and by restaurants, for it is a busy day indeed for them. But the day is also beloved by mothers, for it is on this one day, more than any other day, that they receive credit for their favorite and most important job. This coming Sunday, mothers will be showered with affection, waited upon, called upon, and honored. They deserve all of it, every bit of it. It is the little things that count And give a mother pleasure-- The things her children bring to her Which they so richly treasure . . . The picture that is smudged a bit With tiny fingerprints, The colored rock, the lightning bugs, The sticky peppermints; The ragged, bright bouquet of flowers A child brings, roots and all-- These things delight a mother's heart Although they seem quite small. A mother can see beauty In the very smallest thing For there's a little bit of heaven In a small child's offering. A mother stays with you throughout your life. Her words and her actions resonate. Yes, we can hear her voice echoing across time when we repeat to our children the lessons that mother taught us: ``Sit up straight,'' ``use your napkin,'' ``stop fidgeting and pay attention,'' Do you remember? She said those things to us. ``Say thank you,'' and ``if everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you jump, too?'' Every mother molds and shapes her children in ways large and small, from lessons as important as treating others with thoughtfulness and courtesy to tasks as small as how to fold laundry. Years later, as we teach our own children to fold laundry, we might smile to recall that it was our mother--your mother--who taught us how to fold a shirt in a particular way. It is also probable that she was teaching you to fold it in the same way her mother had taught her--that is the way it is, you know--just as her mother taught her courtesy and just as she taught you. Those gentle hands carried the ingrained lessons of many generations, lessons honed and reinforced over many generations. On Mother's Day, when we honor mothers all across the Nation, we also honor grandmothers and great-grandmothers, whether or not we were fortunate enough to have known them in life. ``Children and mothers never truly part, bound in the beating of each other's heart.'' So wrote Charlotte Gray, and her words speak to the heritable nature of a mother's love. A mother's love. It passes through the generations like our own DNA. Mothers also model efficiency. Mothers were the earliest adopters of ``multitasking,'' long before such a phrase had even been coined. Modern appliances make mothers even more efficient, simultaneously washing and drying clothes while cleaning the house, making dinner, keeping up with the news, and monitoring their children's homework. In today's busy world, working mothers must master such multitasking, and many do it with amazing dexterity, juggling work and family and all of their children's outside activities with all of the skill of a circus act. You know how it goes. Mothers are also the lifeblood of many activities important to their children, from scouting to athletics, parent-teacher associations to Sunday school, music lessons to swim teams. The phrase ``soccer mom''--have you heard that phrase? It accurately reflects a wide swath of American culture. And still mothers find time to nurture, to cuddle, to listen, to heal, and to teach. Henry Ward Beecher observed that ``the mother's heart is the child's schoolroom.'' Think about that. This is surely true, for with every action, every look, every word, be they soft and loving or briskly authoritative, mothers teach their children. Their influence upon the world is incalculable. George Washington, the first President of our great country, that great general who fought at Valley Forge, said: My mother was the most beautiful woman I ever saw. All I am I owe to my mother. I attribute all my success in life to the moral, intellectual and physical education I received from her. Abraham Lincoln said: I remember my mother's prayers and they have always followed me. They have clung to me all my life. He also said: All that I am, or hope to be, I owe to my angel mother. Andrew Jackson noted about his mother: There was never a woman like her. She was gentle as a dove and brave as a lioness. . . . The memory of my mother and her teachings were, after all, the only capital I had to start life with, and on that capital I have made my way. Booker T. Washington. Let's hear what he said. He said: In all my efforts to learn to read, my mother shared fully my ambition and sympathized with me and aided me in every way that she could. If I have done anything in life worth attention, I feel sure that I inherited the disposition from my mother. The leaders of our future are being molded and shaped right now by their mothers. It is hard to imagine that those small faces being wiped clean by their mother's hand might someday smile at us from the Oval Office, or that those chubby fingers might someday operate dangerous machinery. But that childish confidence is fostered by their mother's love, urged on by her unwavering support, and raised up by her tender sympathy. Their mother's support will give them the wings to fly high and to achieve great success. I am sure that these future leaders will someday echo the words of Washington, Lincoln, and Jackson in crediting their mothers for their success--their angel mothers. I have no recollections of my mother. She died on Armistice Day 1918. She told the faithful couple who raised me: Take the baby--I was a baby--and three older brothers and a sister. Take the baby. Keep him as your own. And she went away. I am sure that her prayers have followed me and that today she looks down from Heaven waiting. I don't remember seeing her in this life, but I shall have the opportunity to see her someday. Every child deserves a mother worthy of such sentiments. And as a nation, we are fortunate to possess so many wonderful mothers. There is a poem called ``Mother's Love'' that I would like to recite at this moment. ``Mother's Love": Her love is like an island In life's ocean, vast and wide; A peaceful, quiet shelter From the wind, the rain, the tide. 'Tis bound on the north by Hope, By Patience on the West, By tender counsel on the South, And on the East by Rest. Above it like a beacon light Shine Faith, and Truth, and Prayer; And thro' the changing scenes in life I find a haven there. Mr. President, my own dear mother waits for me. I would like to reflect on this great old poem, ``Rock Me To Sleep,'' and I dedicate it--it is not my poem, but it is the one I love--I dedicate it to my dear wife Erma, who was a wonderful mother to her children, and to all the mothers throughout this broad land. Let us think of them. They thought of us. They rocked us. They gave us comfort. They nurtured us. Think of them, the mothers of America. Backward, turn backward, O time, in your flight, Make me a child again just for to-night! Mother, come back from the echoless shore, Take me again to your heart as of yore; Kiss from my forehead the furrows of care, Smooth the few silver threads out of my hair; Over my slumbers your loving watch keep;-- Rock me to sleep, Mother--rock me to sleep! Backward, flow backward, oh, tide of the years I am so weary of toil and of tears-- Toil without recompense, tears all in vain-- Take them, and give me my childhood again! I have grown weary of dust and decay-- Weary of flinging my soul-wealth away, Weary of sowing for others to reap;-- Rock me to sleep, Mother--rock me to sleep! Tired of the hollow, the base, the untrue, Mother, O Mother, my heart calls for you! Many a summer the grass has grown green, Blossomed and faded, our faces between: Yet, with strong yearning and passionate pain, Long I to-night for your presence again. Come from the silence so long and so deep;-- Rock me to sleep, Mother--rock me to sleep! Over my heart in the days that are flown, No love like mother--love ever has shown; No other worship abides and endures-- Faithful, unselfish, and patient like yours: None like a mother can charm away pain From the sick soul and the world-weary brain. Slumber's soft calms o'er my heavy lids creep;-- Rock me to sleep, Mother--rock me to sleep! Come, let your brown hair, just lighted with gold, Fall on your shoulders again as of old; Let it drop over my forehead to-night, Shading my faint eyes away from the light; For with its sunny-edged shadows once more Haply will throng the sweet visions of yore; Lovingly, softly, its bright billows sweep:-- Rock me to sleep, Mother--rock me to sleep! Mother, dear Mother, the years have been long Since I last listened your lullaby song: Sing, then, and unto my soul it shall seem Womanhood's years have been only a dream. Clasped to your heart in a loving embrace, With your light lashes just sweeping my face, Never hereafter to wake or to weep; Rock me to sleep, Mother--rock me to sleep! Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today the Senate debates S. 1955, the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act. Now, health care is a very complicated subject. The issue of health care involves life-or-death decisions for millions upon millions of Americans who lack even the basic access to affordable health care. The reality is that health care costs are skyrocketing, and the number of individuals with access to medical insurance is diminishing. That is unacceptable. The harsh reality is that 45 million Americans have no health care coverage, including 275,000 West Virginians. That is 275,000 West Virginians who cannot take even the most basic steps to ensure that their health and their lives are not in jeopardy. That is 275,000 West Virginians who may be unaware that an illness or a disease is preparing to spread unabated throughout their bodies. Today, technology enables doctors to discover and treat diseases faster than ever before, and, in many cases, cure these diseases before their effects are irreversible. It is unacceptable--unacceptable--that more and more Americans cannot take advantage of new technological tools to discover problems early. It is past time to do something for these citizens. The current health care crisis hits small businesses especially hard. Small businesses often pay the highest rates for health care benefits because they lack the power to negotiate with big insurance companies. One innovative solution is for small businesses to be able to join together--join together--to ensure that their employees have access to affordable health care. That is why Senator Olympia Snowe and I have introduced the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2005. The purpose of this bill is to enable small businesses in West Virginia and around the country, like corner grocery stores, like the little store my wife and I had once upon a time, restaurants, and hardware stores, to offer health care coverage for their workers. Hard-working Americans employed by these businesses deserve affordable health care. A waitress working the night shift to provide for her child is every bit as deserving of health care benefits as the CEO of the largest corporation. A clerk in a family store should not be priced out of basic health care coverage simply because he works for a small business. There are 275,000 stories like this in West Virginia, and the Federal Government should be taking actions to help these people. While I agree in part with the goals of the bill before us, there are important differences between the bill offered by Senator Snowe and myself and the Enzi bill. The Snowe-Byrd bill, unlike the bill proposed by the very distinguished Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, does not preempt State law by erasing all preventative health tests and treatments. These mandates are the core medical services which are already part of many existing health plans. The amendment I am cosponsoring, with the very able Senator from Maine, proposes to simply put some of the safeguards back that were eliminated by the Enzi bill. Our amendment provides small business workers with guaranteed access to the most important health care screening and services. It is imperative to include procedures guaranteed to catch diseases before the damage can be done. Our amendment guarantees patient access to procedures such as mammography screenings and screenings for prostate and cervical cancers. It is necessary in my State of West Virginia to make sure that diabetics have access to the supplies they need to regulate their blood sugar levels and to allow for maternity stays to assure the well-being of both mother and child after childbirth. Basic requirements such as these are essential keys to the health of all Americans, including those who work for small businesses. That is why Senator Olympia Snowe and I want to offer this amendment. Why prohibit such lifesaving tests? These are basic questions I am asking. Why offer half a loaf to small business employees? I never ceased to be amazed by the medical advancements that have occurred during my lifetime. It is absolutely amazing, unbelievable, these advances that have occurred--penicillin, modern X-ray machines, laser surgery, CAT scans, PET scans. Each day, every day doctors and researchers make critical discoveries and develop new technologies that help people to enjoy longer and healthier lives. And still, too many of our people are unable to take advantage of such advancements. They cannot afford to do so because they lack insurance. We have a moral obligation to find ways to help families gain access to lifesaving medical care. Millions without health care insurance go through life hoping, praying that they will not get sick or will not face a catastrophic medical complication. Living a life free from worries about health care coverage should not be a privilege. It ought to be a guarantee in this country. While Senator Snowe's and my amendment could vastly improve vital coverage currently left out of the Enzi proposal, unfortunately, it looks as though the Senate will not have the opportunity to even vote on the amendment. Our bipartisan amendment, offered to better the bill before us, will never be allowed--ever--a vote in this Chamber. This is not the way the Senate should conduct its business. Purposefully blocking and disregarding amendments on an issue as vital as affordable health care does a disservice--I say again, a disservice--to our people and to this institution. The Snowe-Byrd amendment would make an important improvement to the bill before us. Why employ a legislative maneuver that blocks attempts to improve health care options for small businesses and for their employees? Why? Why? Instead of blocking important amendments, the Senate ought to get to work on improving health care for the 45 million Americans, including 275,000 West Virginians, without health insurance. The lack of affordable health care in this country has reached crisis proportions. Why is that? Why is the Senate cutting off debate? We should be working together in this Senate to find ways to help our people afford health care insurance. We should be discussing the May 15 enrollment deadline in the new Medicare Part D Program. Why can we not have a vote on extending this deadline? Why, I ask, and I ask and I ask again, why, after hearing from millions of the Nation's senior citizens and their worries about the deadline, are we not even talking about their concerns? My office has received hundreds of calls from concerned senior citizens. This is a pressing issue that requires our attention. Yet due to the actions of the leadership, the Senate is being held hostage. To what? To a deadline. Our senior citizens, whose sweat and blood helped to make our Nation great, are now being told that time is up for them. They must choose a health plan immediately or face financial penalties. Because of the complexity of the new Medicare Part D Program, it is only right that our senior citizens be given time to understand their options and make informed decisions when selecting drug coverage. But instead, our elderly citizens are being told to hurry up or face penalties. That is just not good enough for the greatest country on Earth. Where is the compassion that our country is so known for? What is so almighty sacred about Monday, May 15? It is unbelievable that important improvements to the Enzi bill will probably never receive a vote. It is a disservice to the small business employees and owners who deserve relief from the health care crunch. It is absolutely ridiculous that the Senate will not be permitted to consider pressing health issues for our senior citizens, the people who have worked so hard for so many years to build this great country. I urge Senators to reject this process by which we are being gagged and denied a vote on these critical health care issues. I yield the floor. I thank all Senators. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, last Wednesday, Senator Ensign introduced S. 22, the Medical Care Access Protection Act of 2006, a bill that would ``cap'' legal damages awarded to victims of medical malpractice. Senators Santorum and Gregg similarly, just last week, introduced S. 23, the Healthy Mothers and Healthy Babies Access to Care Act, a bill to limit legal damages in cases involving obstetrical and gynecological services. Today I voted not to invoke cloture on the motions to proceed to these two bills, because there has been no debate of these particular measures in the 109th Congress. There have been no hearings scheduled or held on the bills this year, and their provisions raise questions to which West Virginians deserve complete and well-considered responses. The situation in West Virginia today is not as it was several years ago, when the State legislature enacted medical liability tort reform. At that time, there was a perceived crisis based on the escalating costs of medical insurance premiums, and there were serious concerns that doctors and other health care providers may have been leaving the State to avoid the expenses they incurred in protecting themselves from legal liability. Today, however, even the West Virginia State Medical Association, a strong supporter of medical liability reform, advises that, based on the significant changes passed by the West Virginia State Legislature in 2003, the State has ``already seen positive results with recent decreases in insurance premiums and an increase in the ability to recruit physicians to the state.'' Based on the acknowledged success of West Virginia's legislative enactments in this area, it would be irresponsible, if not downright foolhardy, to enact S. 22 and S. 23 with little examination and no recent debate, particularly when the provisions of these bills would explicitly preempt certain State laws. In addition, the bills shorten the time during which patients can bring cases; they limit punitive damages; they exempt from product liability lawsuits health care providers who have prescribed drugs or devices approved by the FDA; and they generally revamp our Nation's medical liability system in the wink of an eye, though the bills' provisions have been subject to little, if any, serious scrutiny. Based on the changes that have occurred in our medical liability system since 2003, legislation of this importance requires careful consideration by the Senate's relevant committees of jurisdiction. To give such important provisions such short shrift, particularly in this changed environment, would do a tremendous disservice to medical providers and patients throughout both West Virginia and the Nation.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank the distinguished and very able chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Mr. Cochran, for all of his hard work on this bill. He has worked hard. He has again proved himself to be a very able chairman, very knowledgeable of the contents of the bill. The President has asked the Congress to approve over $92 billion of emergency spending--man, that is a lot of money; $92 billion of emergency spending--including $72.5 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and $19.8 billion for the Federal response to the terrible hurricanes that struck the Gulf States in August and September of 2005. The Appropriations Committee held several hearings on the request, and we have now debated the bill for nearly 2 weeks. It is a good bill. It is a good bill. I am proud to recommend it to the Senate. But, regrettably, the President has threatened to veto the bill based on his assertion that it is too expensive. In a Statement of Administration Policy that has been made a part of the Record, the administration threatens that the President will veto the bill if it exceeds $94.5 billion. OK. Have at it. Have at it, Mr. President. Currently, the bill totals $108.9 billion. The President complains that the Senate has added funding for purposes other than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and for assisting the victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Nowhere--nowhere--is it written in stone, nowhere is it etched in brass, on golden pillars, that this supplemental--which is likely to be the only supplemental considered for this fiscal year--has to be limited to the costs of the war and Hurricane Katrina. Nor is it etched in stone that the Congress must approve a bill that is below $94.5 billion. The Senate has added funding for a number of critical programs. Despite the administration's rhetoric about securing our borders and providing a layered defense of our ports, the President did not request a dime--not one thin dime--for border security or port security. He did not request a dime for making the coal mines safer for our coal miners. He did not request a dime for our farmers who have been hit with drought and hurricanes, despite the fact that 78 percent of all U.S. counties were designated as primary or contiguous disaster areas by the Secretary of Agriculture or the President in 2005. He did not request a dime for compensating potential victims of pandemic influenza vaccines. The President's request for Katrina victims is inadequate and leaves critical gaps in housing and education. The Senate recognized the weaknesses of the President's request in these areas and judiciously added funds. When the bill is in conference, I will urge the conferees to approve these items. You bet. The conferees should send to the President a bill that meets the needs of this country. That is our duty. If the President wants to veto a bill that funds the troops, if he wants to veto a bill that funds victims of Hurricane Katrina, if he wants to veto a bill that provides critical resources for combating a potential avian flu, if he wants to veto a bill that secures our borders and our ports and helps our farmers to recover from disaster and makes our coal mines safer, have at it, have at it. That is his right under the Constitution. But the Congress should not be bullied by the President into neglecting its responsibility, our responsibility, to provide required funds to meet priority national needs. Because my State of West Virginia is often hit by floods and other damaging disasters, such as the recent accidents in our coal mines, I am quite sensitive to the ability of our Federal Government to prepare for--and respond to--disasters promptly and with competence, which is what our citizens need and what our citizens deserve. Sadly, many of our Federal agencies are no longer up to these fundamental tasks. But this bill includes resources to help Federal agencies restore their capabilities. I am especially grateful to and I especially thank the chairman for including, at my request and the request of others, an amount of $35.6 million for improved mine safety and health programs. In the wake of 18 coal-mining deaths in the State of West Virginia this year--18 coal- mining deaths in the State of West Virginia this year--and another 16 mining deaths in other States, it is imperative that the Congress act immediately to ensure that an adequate number of safety inspectors will be provided for our Nation's mines and to expedite the introduction of critical safety equipment. This week, we have heard testimony from the families of those killed in the Sago explosion in January. We have heard from the coal operators. We have heard from experts. In all of this testimony, one truth is clear: Lives can be saved when the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration places miners' safety and health at the very top of its priority list. We must have more inspectors on the job, yes. We must have better rescue teams trained and equipped and ready to go at a moment's notice. We must have pre- positioned oxygen and emergency supplies in our coal mines. And we must have ways to communicate with trapped miners. It just has to be. We have to do these things. It is simply inexcusable that our miners have oxygen canisters that last only 1 hour, only 60 minutes, when miners may be trapped under the ground for several days, or that the miners may not have emergency communications equipment that can reach the surface in the event of an extended rescue effort. The chairman has my genuine appreciation for including these funds in the committee- reported bill. I also thank Senator Specter, Senator Harkin, and Senator Jay Rockefeller for their support of the initiative. The bill before the Senate also includes a provision to extend the Abandoned Mine Land authority through fiscal year 2007. The AML Program and combined benefits fund are very important programs that are needed by retired coal miners and their families and coalfield communities throughout this country. I thank Chairman Cochran and I thank Senator Specter and I thank Senator Domenici for supporting me in this effort. Finally, the Senate, by a vote of 94 to 0, approved my amendment encouraging the President to budget for the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can't fund these wars on the cheap. Upon passage of this supplemental bill, the total amount appropriated for the war in Iraq, including the cost of reconstruction, will be approximately $320 billion--that is $3.20 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born; think of it, that is a staggering figure--virtually all of it funded through ad hoc emergency supplemental appropriations. And the costs continue to grow and grow. The President refuses to include a realistic estimate of the cost of the wars in his annual budget request.

Mr. BYRD. Would the Chair repeat?

Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for not to exceed 3 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. He continues to rely on ad hoc, poorly justified emergency supplemental requests that he expects the Congress to rubberstamp. As a result, there is virtually no debate about how our country is going to pay for these massive bills. Nobody seems to be minding the store when it comes to controlling the escalating costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The failure of the President to heed the repeated calls by the Senate to budget for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has resulted in more unnecessary spending that is hidden from public view. Until the President begins to include a real estimate of the cost of the wars in his annual budget, American taxpayers will continue to see billions of dollars spent without any true measure of accountability. The Senate has given its strong support to this amendment five times, and the President continues to disregard this direction by the Senate. I hope the 94-to-0 vote on an amendment that encourages the President to include the full cost of the wars in the budget finally, finally, finally gets his attention. I urge adoption of the bill, and I yield the floor.