Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this is a technical amendment. It costs no additional funds. It simply fixes a mistake in a grant notice. The fiscal year 2001 Labor-HHS bill included funding for West Virginia University for construction of the neurosciences building. The HHS grant documents sent to the university mistakenly stated that the funds would be available until September 30, 2009, and that was incorrect. The money is expiring on September 30, 2006. This amendment would make the funds available consistent with the grant documents.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the amendment from the Senator from South Dakota. This is not an amendment designed to help our veterans. It is an amendment designed to cut funding for the National Civilian Community Corps, NCCC, that the sponsor of the amendment apparently thought would be more likely to pass if the funds were allocated to veterans health care facilities. The Senator is proposing to strike from the bill the entire $20 million allocated to support the NCCC effort to help Katrina victims. NCCC members deployed to the gulf within 24 hours of Katrina making landfall and have been there ever since. In total, nearly 1,600 NCCC members have provided 320,000 hours of volunteer service. These young people are 18 to 24 years old. They muck out homes, remove debris, rebuild schools and community centers, coordinate the work of episodic volunteers, help families and senior citizens rebuild their homes and lives, and support other needs. The $20 million in the supplemental will support 800 NCCC members who will provide more than 1.2 million hours of service in the gulf coast hurricane recovery effort. Among NCCC's gulf coast accomplishments so far: assisted 1,063,000 people, mucked out 1,500 homes, distributed 1,714 tons of food, distributed 2,790 tons of clothing, served 1,000,000 meals, refurbished 732 homes, supported 542 emergency response centers, leveraged 7,715 volunteers, and completed 1,325 damage assessments. It is important to fund health care for our veterans. That is why I voted for the Akaka amendment to add $430 million to the bill for that purpose. I am pleased that it passed, and I hope the President requests the funds. Veterans deserve every penny of the $430 million added to this bill, but those who have had their lives turned upside down by Hurricane Katrina also deserve the support of the young men and women of the national Civilian Conservation Corps. We should not rob Peter to pay Paul. Therefore, I will vote against this amendment.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the committee report accompanying the fiscal year 2006 Iraq/Katrina supplemental appropriations bill includes the following provision: ``The Committee is aware that the Defense Science Board is studying the management of the Department of Defense's biometrics program and will make recommendations on whether or not the current structure is meeting the needs of the warfighters dependent on the system in Iraq and in the Global War on Terror. The Committee directs no management changes be made until the Defense Science Board completes its study and informs the Congress of its recommendation.'' Would it be the understanding of the Senator from Hawaii that any new or ongoing organization, personnel, or management changes within the Army, to include the Biometrics Fusion Center, be ceased until the Defense Science Board report is complete and briefed to Congress?

Mr. BYRD. Does the Senator also agree that until the Defense Science Board, DSB, study is complete and briefed to Congress, the Biometrics Fusion Center should continue to execute its mission to acquire, test, evaluate, and integrate biometrics, as well as to develop and implement storage methods for biometrics templates?

Mr. BYRD. I thank my distinguished colleague for his comments. emergency conservation program

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent notwithstanding the previous order that has been entered into for this morning, that I be recognized for not to exceed 40 minutes at this time.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, do I have the floor?

Mr. BYRD. I accede to the request of my chairman, but I ask unanimous consent upon the completion of that vote I be recognized to offer an amendment.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, just over 3 years ago the Armed Forces of the United States were sent to fight a new war in Iraq. I was against the entry of our country into that war. At that time, many representations were made that this war would be quick and that it would be easy. On the eve of war, our Nation was already embroiled in a campaign that sought to portray the invasion of Iraq as a quick and cheap way to rid the world of Saddam's regime and his supposed chemical weapons. We were told that the intervention would be as quick as lightning. We now know that the war plans called for a withdrawal of nearly all American troops from Iraq by September 2003. Yet here we are, 3 years, 1 month, and 2 weeks later and 135,000 American troops are still in Iraq; 2,383 American troops have been killed; more than 17,500 American troops have been wounded. And for what? For what, I ask? We were told at the time that the reconstruction of Iraq would cost the American taxpayer almost nothing. Former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said that we are dealing with a country--that is, Iraq-- that can really finance its own reconstruction and we can do that relatively soon. Yet here we are, and the total bill for Iraqi reconstruction being footed by the American taxpayers is running into the billions of dollars. We were told at the time that the cost of military action would be small. Secretary Rumsfeld claimed on January 19, 2003, that the Office of Management and Budget had come up with a number that is something under $50 billion for the cost of that war. Yet here we are and the cost of military operations in Iraq is climbing beyond $290 billion. Astoundingly, the cost of the war in Iraq keeps increasing. According to a Congressional Research Service report released this week, the Iraqi war costs $4.4 billion per month. How about that--$4.4 billion per month in fiscal year 2003; $5 billion per month in fiscal year 2004; $6.4 billion per month in fiscal year 2005; and could reach $8.1 billion per month during this fiscal year. That is an 84-percent increase in the cost of the war in just 3 years. The growing cost of this abominable war in Iraq must come as a shock to Americans who were led to expect a war that could be done on the cheap. But we should pause to ask, at a time when our Government is drowning in red ink, how can it be that spending for the war in Iraq keeps increasing year after year? Passage of this supplemental appropriations bill will mean that Congress will have appropriated $320 billion for the war in Iraq and the end is not yet in sight; there is no light at the end of the tunnel yet. That is not the end of the story. The President has requested a $50 billion bridge fund for the next Defense appropriations bill which will inevitably be followed next year by another large emergency supplemental spending request. Mark my words, it won't be too long before spending on the war in Iraq will eclipse 10 times the figure Secretary Rumsfeld estimated in January of 2003. Talk about being off the mark, talk about being wildly off the mark. Some measure of sanity has to be brought to the spiralling cost of the war. Four times I have offered amendments to defense spending bills to state the sense of the Senate that the President should include a full estimate of the cost of the war. I have talked until I am hoarse about the cost of this war. Four times I have offered amendments through defense spending bills to state the sense of the Senate that the President should include a full estimate of the cost of the war in his annual budget request. And four times the amendments have passed with strong bipartisan support--Republicans and Democrats on that side of the aisle and on this side of the aisle--and four times the amendments have been ignored by the White House. The administration's failure to budget for the war means that neither the White House nor Congress is making the tough decisions about how to pay for the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I support the war in Afghanistan. Yes. We were invaded. This country was invaded. This country was attacked, and the enemy was in Afghanistan. I was for going after those guys. But I did not vote for the war in Iraq. I said it was wrong. There has been no earnest debate about how wartime spending is to fit into the overall budget picture. Instead, the administration has relied overwhelmingly on emergency supplemental appropriations requests to fund the costs of the ongoing wars. These requests are not part of the regular budget debate in Congress, and they are often foisted upon the legislative branch with little in the way of justification, which Congress is then pressed into passing with a minimum of scrutiny. The reliance on supplemental appropriations bills is one symptom of a disease that has struck Washington, and that is the scourge of fiscal irresponsibility. According to data from the Congressional Budget Office, since 2001, the White House has requested a total of $515 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations. That is more than half a trillion dollars that simply does not appear in any of the budget plans passed by Congress. This dependence--this dependence, I say--on supplemental appropriations dwarfs the requests of prior administrations. In fact, the $515 billion of supplemental funding requests in the last 5 years is more than 3\1/2\ times--more than 3\1/2\ times--greater than all the supplemental spending requests from the 10 years previous to the current administration. At a time when our country is facing huge deficits as far as the human eye can see, it is simply irresponsible for the administration to continue to short-circuit the budget process with a never-ending series of huge supplemental appropriations bills. There ought to be some fiscal discipline here in Washington, DC, and that means that the President ought to budget for the cost of the wars. The President pretends that his budget reduces the deficit over 5 years, but he fails to include the full cost of the war in Iraq. Therefore, Mr. President, I offer an amendment, once again, to state the sense of the Senate that the President should include in his next annual budget request a full estimate--a full estimate--of the cost of the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. My amendment states that any funds requested by the President should be placed in regular appropriations accounts, and should be accompanied by a detailed justification for those funds. The Senate must continue to call for responsible budgeting for the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have appreciated the efforts of the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. I have appreciated that. And I thank Senator Stevens for his work with me on the previous four times I have offered this amendment. He is an outstanding chairman of a very important subcommittee. I am grateful for his past support of this amendment on this issue. Now, the Senate--I apologize for my voice. When I was a boy, there came a time when my voice changed. Well, it is changing again, apparently. I guess I cannot claim to be a boy again.

Mr. BYRD. I am getting young again, I am told. The Senate ought to go on the record once again in favor of fiscal responsibility. With the cost of the war in Iraq escalating beyond $320 billion, it is time to bring some sanity to the budget process. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to tell the President to budget for the cost of the wars. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. BYRD. I ask for a vote. I hope we can vote for this amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BYRD. Let's vote. We have voted on this four times already.

Mr. BYRD. Vote. Let's vote. Vote, Mr. President.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I call for the regular order with respect to my amendment.

Mr. BYRD. Let's vote.

Mr. BYRD. The yeas and nays have been ordered.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the order of the Senate business?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify that the Constitution neither prohibits voluntary prayer nor requires prayer in the public schools of this country. On September 25, 1885, an entrancing poem was published in the Glenville Crescent, the local paper in Gilmer County, West Virginia. The poem was attributed to Mrs. Ellen Rudell King, the wife of the Reverend David King, a man of the cloth who ministered to the citizens of Glenville, WV. Over time, people learned that the poem may have been written by the reverend as a gift to his wife Ellen, his soulmate. Just as my beloved Erma was my soulmate the West Virginia Reverend David King also had a soulmate, his wife Ellen. Today we recognize that his poem was a gift not just to his wife Ellen but also to the State of West Virginia and to the Nation. In fact, when the poem was published at the end of the 19th century, its tone was so melodious, its message so inspiring, it drew the attention of a composer named Howard Engle. West Virginians know the story of what happened next. Howard Engle liked the poem so much that he decided to compose a tune to accompany its lyrical verse. In 1961, his musical composition became the West Virginia State song, known by its title today as ``The West Virginia Hills.'' Let me read for the Senators just a few of the stanzas of this beautiful song: Oh, West Virginia hills! How majestic and how grand, with their summits bathed in glory, like our Prince Immanuel's land! Is it any wonder then, that my heart with rapture thrills, as I stand once more with loved ones on those West Virginia hills? Oh, the West Virginia hills! Where my childhood hours were passed, where I often wandered lonely, and the future tried to cast; many are our visions bright, which the future ne'er fulfills; but how sunny were my daydreams on those West Virginia hills! Oh, the West Virginia hills, how unchanged they seem to stand, with their summits pointed skyward to the great Almighty's land! Many changes I can see, which my heart with sadness fills; but no changes can be noticed in those West Virginia hills. Ah, ah, those West Virginia hills. For West Virginians, this song, with its prayerful verse, has always been an uplifting reminder of the memories of our childhoods, our fervent hopes for a bright future, a testament to the beauty of our resplendent natural landscape, and a source of solace in time of trouble. Regrettably, since January, West Virginians have had good reason to seek such solace. As witnessed by all of America since this year began, West Virginia has been beset by unspeakable tragedy. We have lost 18 coal miners--favorite sons of the West Virginia hills--in Boone County, in Logan County, in Mingo County, and in Upshur County. In the words of our ancient sweet song, these tragic events ``our heart with sadness fills.'' But we West Virginians stand strong despite our grief, steadfast in our devotion to one another and to Almighty God, from whom all good things come, from whom all blessings flow. In our Easter season we celebrate the belief in both the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. We know that while our way may not always be God's way, His way is the only way. Therefore, our way must be His way. We know that life's most bitter travails can, at times, sear the human soul, painfully driving good people to their knees--sometimes through no fault of their own. But we also know that as long as there is life, there is hope, and we know that hardship can be endured and in fact diminished through the power--the ever working power--of prayer. We know this. We know it. We know it based on experience. Over these past 5 years, as I watched my childhood sweetheart, my darling Erma--my darling Erma, who is in heaven now--I watched her fall ill and become increasingly frail. But she and I prayed for each other. We prayed every day. There were many good times--many good times--but there were also times that were difficult. Through it all, it was our abiding faith, Erma's and mine which we celebrated in prayer together, which I believe kept us devoted to one another and to God for nearly 69 years, through thick and thin, through good times and hard times. Our marriage was literally made in heaven, and I believe its duration was God's answer to our shared prayer. So when I say that I know prayer can work miracles and move mountains, I speak from experience. I am a witness to the power of prayer. But I am not unique. West Virginians have been and always will be a deeply spiritual and reverent people. In that sense, it remains as true today as it was in 1885 that no changes can be noticed in those West Virginia hills. The Apostle Paul has told us that in the face of affliction--in the face of affliction--it is our job not to give in to discouragement but to proclaim the truth openly and to commend ourselves to every man's conscience before God. So for people of faith, the question remains how best to do this. How do we lift our heads from the darkness to the light--from the darkness to the light? How do we help ourselves and others to keep the faith? The answer lies in three simple words: Let us pray. The Gospel, St. John 14, verse 13, tells us that we can have this confidence in God: that he hears us--yes, that he hears us whenever we ask for anything according to His will. Not always according to our will but according to His will. The importance of prayer throughout all of the millennia is recognized by people of faith in nearly every denomination. Now get this: Yet, in America, prayer is increasingly estranged from public life. Some are hesitant to pray for fear they might offend someone else. How ridiculous, to think that prayer can be offensive. Offensive to whom? Nonbelievers? Well, they need only close their ears. How sad, really, that we cannot share our faith, particularly in an effort to comfort others, without being accused of offending someone or, worse, violating the first amendment to the Constitution. Regrettably, that is the unfortunate situation that confronts the faithful in America today. How can this be possible? Does anyone really believe this state of affairs is consistent with the intent of the Framers of the Constitution? I have referenced the religious beliefs of our Founders many times on the Senate floor, but I think it bears repeating. I think we should not forget the mindset of those who established our representative democracy, this Republic. They were not afraid of prayer. They believed in a Supreme Being, and they did not hesitate to say so. They were proud of their faith. They proclaimed it from the rooftops; yes, from the steeple tops. They did not hang their heads in shame. Listen. Listen. Listen to what John Adams said. He served as Vice President for 8 years under George Washington. He was a member of the Continental Congress. He signed the Declaration of Independence. In an entry in his diary on February 22, 1756, John Adams wrote: Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only lawbook and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. Every member would be obliged in conscience to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity toward his fellow men; and to piety, love and reverence toward almighty God. . . . What a Utopia, what a paradise would this region be. John Adams believed that the Bible could be our only lawbook--think of that. What a small but mighty tome. What about Benjamin Franklin? Was he afraid to discuss religion for fear of offending sensibilities? No, heavens no. When the Congress established a three-man committee, of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin, to design a great seal of the United States, it was Franklin who suggested that the seal be one of Moses lifting his wand, dividing the Red Sea, with pharaoh in his chariot, overwhelmed by water. His suggested motto was, ``Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.'' Thomas Jefferson similarly suggested a Biblical theme, highlighting the children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. These are vivid religious images that our Founding Fathers proposed be adopted as enduring symbols of our representative form of government. The Founders did not view these proposals as repugnant religiosity, something to be kept under wraps for fear of offending the popular culture. They were creating the culture. I have long been opposed to what I call the censorship of religion in America. I have said it before. I say it again. I don't agree with many of the decisions that have come down from the courts concerning prayer in the public schools or prohibiting the display of religious items in public places. I believe in ruling after ruling some of our courts, led by the Supreme Court, have been moving closer and closer to prohibiting the free exercise of religion in America, and it chills my soul. Americans don't want religious censorship-- no. Ours is a religious nation. It may not seem so but it is. We are a religious people. We may not seem so at times, not all of us, but we embrace religion as a people. We draw it close, close to us. We drape it over us, we draw it around us, we envelope our families in its protective shield. We will not shun it. We will not deny it. We will not run from it. We must be free to exercise our religious faith, if we have a religious faith, whatever it may be. The religion clauses of the first amendment state: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . . In my humble opinion, too many have not given equal weight to both of these clauses. Instead, they seem to have focused only on the first clause which says ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,'' at the expense of the second clause, which says, ``or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' Yes, that protects the right of Americans to worship as they please. I have always believed that this country was founded by men and women of strong faith whose intent was not to suppress religion but to ensure that the government favors no single religion over another. This principle makes a lot of sense to me; namely, that government itself should seek neither to discourage nor to promote religion. We can understand the outrage of many fine people of faith who today decry the nature of our public discourse, with its overt emphasis on sex, violence, profanity, and materialism. In addition, we live today with the omnipresent fear of another terrorist attack, global warming, avian flu, rising fuel and health care costs, and a whole panoply of other potential calamities over which we seem to have little or no control. Our Nation has every reason to seek comfort through prayer. Nearly 44 years ago, on June 27, 1962--I was here. I was sitting over on that side of the Chamber, to my left, in the back row. Forty-four years ago, on June 27, 1962, 2 days after the U.S. Supreme Court first struck down prayer in schools, I made the following statement on the Senate floor. I said it then. I say it today. Thomas Jefferson expressed the will of the American majority in 1776 when he included in the Declaration of Independence the statement, ``All men''-- Meaning, of course, women, too-- ``All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'' Little could Mr. Jefferson suspect when he penned that line that the time would come that the Nation's highest Court might rule that a nondenominational prayer to the Creator of us all, if offered by schoolchildren in the public schools of America during class periods, would be unconstitutional. I believe this ingrained predisposition against expressions of religious or spiritual beliefs is wrongheaded, destructive, and completely contrary to the intent of the illustrious Founders of this great Nation. Instead of ensuring freedom of religion in a nation founded in part to guarantee that basic liberty, a suffocation or strangulation, if you might, of that freedom has been the result. The rights of those who do not believe, and they are few in number who do not believe--the rights of those who do not believe in a Supreme Being have been zealously guarded to the denigration--and I repeat, denigration--of the rights of those people who do so believe. The Supreme Court has bent over backward to prevent the government from establishing religion--which is all right--but it has not gone far enough and, in fact, our government has fallen far short of protecting the right of all Americans to exercise their religion. The free exercise clause of the first amendment states: Congress cannot make laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. Well, it seems to me that any prohibition of voluntary prayer in the public schools violates the right of our schoolchildren to practice their free religion, and that is not right. Any child should be free to pray to God of his or her own volition, whether at home, whether at church, whether at school, period. I am not a proponent of repeatedly amending the U.S. Constitution. I believe such amendments should be done only rarely and with great care. However, because I feel as strongly about this today as I have for more than 40 years, I take this opportunity, once again, as I have at least 7 times over the past 44 years, to introduce today a joint resolution to amend the Constitution to clarify the intent of the Framers with respect to voluntary prayer in schools. Our revered Constitution--this sacred document--was conceived by the Framers neither to prohibit nor to require the recitation of voluntary prayer in public schools. Consequently, the exact language of the resolution that I am introducing to amend the Constitution simply makes that clear. It states--get this: Nothing in this Constitution, including any amendments to this Constitution, shall be construed to prohibit voluntary prayer or require prayer at a public school extracurricular activity. This resolution is similar to legislation that I introduced or cosponsored starting in 1962 but more recently in 1973, 1979, 1982, 1993, 1995, and 1997. I believe Members of the Supreme Court have placed exaggerated emphasis on the Framers' alleged intent to erect an absolute ``wall of separation'' between church and state. I do not share that view. I believe the right of every schoolchild to pray or not to pray voluntarily, if he or she chooses to do so, is protected by both the free speech and the free exercise clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Even the Supreme Court in the case of Lynch v. Donnelly, in 1984, agreed that the Constitution does not require the complete separation of church and state. Instead, it mandates an accommodation of all religions and forbids hostility toward any. Let me be clear that what we are talking about is not a radical departure. It is simply a reiteration of what should already be permissible under a correct interpretation of the first amendment. My resolution does not change the language of the first amendment, and it would not permit any school to advocate a particular religious message endorsed by the government. My resolution would simply reiterate the Framers' intent that a child should be able to utter a voluntary prayer. There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about that. This resolution seeks neither to advance nor to inhibit religion. It does not signify government approval of any particular religious sect or creed. It does not compel a ``nonbeliever'' to pray. In fact, it does not require an atheist to embrace or to adopt any religious action, belief, or expression. It does not coerce or compel anyone to do anything. And it does not foster any excessive government entanglement with religion. This constitutional amendment is neutral. It is nondiscriminatory. It does not endorse state-sponsored school prayer. It simply allows children to pray voluntarily, if they wish to do so. It permits children to express themselves on the subject of prayer just as anyone is free to express themselves on any other topic. As Justice Scalia recently held: ``A priest has as much liberty to proselytize as a patriot.'' The Supreme Court has held that the establishment clause is not violated so long as the government treats religious speech and other speech equally. This resolution has a valid secular purpose, which is to ensure that religious and nonreligious speech are treated equally, and this secular purpose is preeminent. This purpose is not secondary to any religious objective. In one of the more recent cases on the subject, the Supreme Court, in Santa Fe v. Jane Doe, reiterated that the religious clauses of the first amendment prevent the government from ``making any law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' But by ``no means,'' the Court held, ``do these commands impose a prohibition on all religious activity in our public schools.'' ``Indeed,'' the Court ruled, ``the common purpose of the Religious Clauses is to secure religious liberty.'' Thus, Justice Stevens wrote: Nothing in the Constitution as interpreted by this Court prohibits any public school student from unvoluntarily praying at any time before, during or after the school day. He went on to declare, though, that ``the religious liberty protected by this Constitution is abridged when the state affirmatively sponsors a particular religious practice or prayer.'' So let me reiterate that the resolution I am introducing today addresses only voluntary student prayer--not state-sponsored speech. In one of her final rulings on this subject, Justice O'Connor held that the first amendment expresses our Nation's fundamental commitment to religious liberty by means of two provisions--one protecting the free exercise of religion, the other barring the establishment of religion. ``They were written,'' she said, ``by the descendants of people who had come to this land precisely so that they could practice their religion freely.'' And, ``by enforcing these two clauses,'' she said, ``we have kept religion a matter for the individual conscience, not for the prosecutor or the bureaucrat.'' We should keep it that way. We should keep it that way. We should keep religion a matter for the individual conscience. But does keeping religion a matter for the individual conscience mean that a schoolchild must stand silent, unable to turn to God for comfort or guidance in times of trial or heartache? No. No. No. Not even our Supreme Court has recognized that. Not every reference to God constitutes the impermissible establishment of religion. Where would we be without recourse to prayer? As we know, even the mighty King David sought guidance from above. In Psalm, 17, he implores: Hear, O Lord, a just suit; attend to my outcry; harken to my prayer from lips without deceit . . . I call upon You for You will answer me, O God; incline Your ear to me; hear my word . . . keep me as the apple of your eye; hide me in the shadows of Your wings. In our Nation's Capitol, just off the Rotunda, there is a small room called the Prayer Room. I was there when it was first dedicated. A small room called the Prayer Room was set aside in 1954 by the 83rd Congress to be used for private prayer and contemplation by Members of Congress. The room is open. Have you ever been there? If you haven't, you ought to go to see that Prayer Room. I go to it still from time to time. The room is open when Congress is in session though not open to the public. The room's focal point is a stained glass window that shows George Washington kneeling in prayer. Behind him are etched these words from Psalm 16:1: ``Preserve me, o God, for in thee do I put my trust.'' What right do we have to take from schoolchildren their right to pray a voluntary prayer when we preserve, protect, and defend and even create a seperate room to enshrine that same right to ourselves here in the Senate? St. Luke, the apostle, tells us that such efforts are as much in our own interest as they are in the best interests of a child. Here is what St. Luke tells us: Ask and you shall receive; seek and you shall find; knock and it shall be opened to you. For whoever asks, receives; whoever seeks, finds; whoever knocks is admitted. What father among you will give his son a snake if he asks for a fish, or hand him a scorpion if he asks for an egg? If you, with all your sins, know how to give your children good things, how much more will the Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him? We must work to be certain that the free exercise clause remains as applicable and respected today as it was at the time it was conceived by the Framers. We must guard its protection so that all Americans, including, yes, children, little children--suffer little children--retain their right freely to practice their religion. Let us make certain that every individual, including any child nestled in the West Virginia hills or anywhere else in America, can pray to God as they please. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify that the Constitution neither prohibits voluntary prayer nor requires prayer in the public schools of this country. On September 25, 1885, an entrancing poem was published in the Glenville Crescent, the local paper in Gilmer County, West Virginia. The poem was attributed to Mrs. Ellen Rudell King, the wife of the Reverend David King, a man of the cloth who ministered to the citizens of Glenville, WV. Over time, people learned that the poem may have been written by the reverend as a gift to his wife Ellen, his soulmate. Just as my beloved Erma was my soulmate the West Virginia Reverend David King also had a soulmate, his wife Ellen. Today we recognize that his poem was a gift not just to his wife Ellen but also to the State of West Virginia and to the Nation. In fact, when the poem was published at the end of the 19th century, its tone was so melodious, its message so inspiring, it drew the attention of a composer named Howard Engle. West Virginians know the story of what happened next. Howard Engle liked the poem so much that he decided to compose a tune to accompany its lyrical verse. In 1961, his musical composition became the West Virginia State song, known by its title today as ``The West Virginia Hills.'' Let me read for the Senators just a few of the stanzas of this beautiful song: Oh, West Virginia hills! How majestic and how grand, with their summits bathed in glory, like our Prince Immanuel's land! Is it any wonder then, that my heart with rapture thrills, as I stand once more with loved ones on those West Virginia hills? Oh, the West Virginia hills! Where my childhood hours were passed, where I often wandered lonely, and the future tried to cast; many are our visions bright, which the future ne'er fulfills; but how sunny were my daydreams on those West Virginia hills! Oh, the West Virginia hills, how unchanged they seem to stand, with their summits pointed skyward to the great Almighty's land! Many changes I can see, which my heart with sadness fills; but no changes can be noticed in those West Virginia hills. Ah, ah, those West Virginia hills. For West Virginians, this song, with its prayerful verse, has always been an uplifting reminder of the memories of our childhoods, our fervent hopes for a bright future, a testament to the beauty of our resplendent natural landscape, and a source of solace in time of trouble. Regrettably, since January, West Virginians have had good reason to seek such solace. As witnessed by all of America since this year began, West Virginia has been beset by unspeakable tragedy. We have lost 18 coal miners--favorite sons of the West Virginia hills--in Boone County, in Logan County, in Mingo County, and in Upshur County. In the words of our ancient sweet song, these tragic events ``our heart with sadness fills.'' But we West Virginians stand strong despite our grief, steadfast in our devotion to one another and to Almighty God, from whom all good things come, from whom all blessings flow. In our Easter season we celebrate the belief in both the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. We know that while our way may not always be God's way, His way is the only way. Therefore, our way must be His way. We know that life's most bitter travails can, at times, sear the human soul, painfully driving good people to their knees--sometimes through no fault of their own. But we also know that as long as there is life, there is hope, and we know that hardship can be endured and in fact diminished through the power--the ever working power--of prayer. We know this. We know it. We know it based on experience. Over these past 5 years, as I watched my childhood sweetheart, my darling Erma--my darling Erma, who is in heaven now--I watched her fall ill and become increasingly frail. But she and I prayed for each other. We prayed every day. There were many good times--many good times--but there were also times that were difficult. Through it all, it was our abiding faith, Erma's and mine which we celebrated in prayer together, which I believe kept us devoted to one another and to God for nearly 69 years, through thick and thin, through good times and hard times. Our marriage was literally made in heaven, and I believe its duration was God's answer to our shared prayer. So when I say that I know prayer can work miracles and move mountains, I speak from experience. I am a witness to the power of prayer. But I am not unique. West Virginians have been and always will be a deeply spiritual and reverent people. In that sense, it remains as true today as it was in 1885 that no changes can be noticed in those West Virginia hills. The Apostle Paul has told us that in the face of affliction--in the face of affliction--it is our job not to give in to discouragement but to proclaim the truth openly and to commend ourselves to every man's conscience before God. So for people of faith, the question remains how best to do this. How do we lift our heads from the darkness to the light--from the darkness to the light? How do we help ourselves and others to keep the faith? The answer lies in three simple words: Let us pray. The Gospel, St. John 14, verse 13, tells us that we can have this confidence in God: that he hears us--yes, that he hears us whenever we ask for anything according to His will. Not always according to our will but according to His will. The importance of prayer throughout all of the millennia is recognized by people of faith in nearly every denomination. Now get this: Yet, in America, prayer is increasingly estranged from public life. Some are hesitant to pray for fear they might offend someone else. How ridiculous, to think that prayer can be offensive. Offensive to whom? Nonbelievers? Well, they need only close their ears. How sad, really, that we cannot share our faith, particularly in an effort to comfort others, without being accused of offending someone or, worse, violating the first amendment to the Constitution. Regrettably, that is the unfortunate situation that confronts the faithful in America today. How can this be possible? Does anyone really believe this state of affairs is consistent with the intent of the Framers of the Constitution? I have referenced the religious beliefs of our Founders many times on the Senate floor, but I think it bears repeating. I think we should not forget the mindset of those who established our representative democracy, this Republic. They were not afraid of prayer. They believed in a Supreme Being, and they did not hesitate to say so. They were proud of their faith. They proclaimed it from the rooftops; yes, from the steeple tops. They did not hang their heads in shame. Listen. Listen. Listen to what John Adams said. He served as Vice President for 8 years under George Washington. He was a member of the Continental Congress. He signed the Declaration of Independence. In an entry in his diary on February 22, 1756, John Adams wrote: Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only lawbook and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. Every member would be obliged in conscience to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity toward his fellow men; and to piety, love and reverence toward almighty God. . . . What a Utopia, what a paradise would this region be. John Adams believed that the Bible could be our only lawbook--think of that. What a small but mighty tome. What about Benjamin Franklin? Was he afraid to discuss religion for fear of offending sensibilities? No, heavens no. When the Congress established a three-man committee, of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin, to design a great seal of the United States, it was Franklin who suggested that the seal be one of Moses lifting his wand, dividing the Red Sea, with pharaoh in his chariot, overwhelmed by water. His suggested motto was, ``Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.'' Thomas Jefferson similarly suggested a Biblical theme, highlighting the children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. These are vivid religious images that our Founding Fathers proposed be adopted as enduring symbols of our representative form of government. The Founders did not view these proposals as repugnant religiosity, something to be kept under wraps for fear of offending the popular culture. They were creating the culture. I have long been opposed to what I call the censorship of religion in America. I have said it before. I say it again. I don't agree with many of the decisions that have come down from the courts concerning prayer in the public schools or prohibiting the display of religious items in public places. I believe in ruling after ruling some of our courts, led by the Supreme Court, have been moving closer and closer to prohibiting the free exercise of religion in America, and it chills my soul. Americans don't want religious censorship-- no. Ours is a religious nation. It may not seem so but it is. We are a religious people. We may not seem so at times, not all of us, but we embrace religion as a people. We draw it close, close to us. We drape it over us, we draw it around us, we envelope our families in its protective shield. We will not shun it. We will not deny it. We will not run from it. We must be free to exercise our religious faith, if we have a religious faith, whatever it may be. The religion clauses of the first amendment state: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . . In my humble opinion, too many have not given equal weight to both of these clauses. Instead, they seem to have focused only on the first clause which says ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,'' at the expense of the second clause, which says, ``or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' Yes, that protects the right of Americans to worship as they please. I have always believed that this country was founded by men and women of strong faith whose intent was not to suppress religion but to ensure that the government favors no single religion over another. This principle makes a lot of sense to me; namely, that government itself should seek neither to discourage nor to promote religion. We can understand the outrage of many fine people of faith who today decry the nature of our public discourse, with its overt emphasis on sex, violence, profanity, and materialism. In addition, we live today with the omnipresent fear of another terrorist attack, global warming, avian flu, rising fuel and health care costs, and a whole panoply of other potential calamities over which we seem to have little or no control. Our Nation has every reason to seek comfort through prayer. Nearly 44 years ago, on June 27, 1962--I was here. I was sitting over on that side of the Chamber, to my left, in the back row. Forty-four years ago, on June 27, 1962, 2 days after the U.S. Supreme Court first struck down prayer in schools, I made the following statement on the Senate floor. I said it then. I say it today. Thomas Jefferson expressed the will of the American majority in 1776 when he included in the Declaration of Independence the statement, ``All men''-- Meaning, of course, women, too-- ``All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'' Little could Mr. Jefferson suspect when he penned that line that the time would come that the Nation's highest Court might rule that a nondenominational prayer to the Creator of us all, if offered by schoolchildren in the public schools of America during class periods, would be unconstitutional. I believe this ingrained predisposition against expressions of religious or spiritual beliefs is wrongheaded, destructive, and completely contrary to the intent of the illustrious Founders of this great Nation. Instead of ensuring freedom of religion in a nation founded in part to guarantee that basic liberty, a suffocation or strangulation, if you might, of that freedom has been the result. The rights of those who do not believe, and they are few in number who do not believe--the rights of those who do not believe in a Supreme Being have been zealously guarded to the denigration--and I repeat, denigration--of the rights of those people who do so believe. The Supreme Court has bent over backward to prevent the government from establishing religion--which is all right--but it has not gone far enough and, in fact, our government has fallen far short of protecting the right of all Americans to exercise their religion. The free exercise clause of the first amendment states: Congress cannot make laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. Well, it seems to me that any prohibition of voluntary prayer in the public schools violates the right of our schoolchildren to practice their free religion, and that is not right. Any child should be free to pray to God of his or her own volition, whether at home, whether at church, whether at school, period. I am not a proponent of repeatedly amending the U.S. Constitution. I believe such amendments should be done only rarely and with great care. However, because I feel as strongly about this today as I have for more than 40 years, I take this opportunity, once again, as I have at least 7 times over the past 44 years, to introduce today a joint resolution to amend the Constitution to clarify the intent of the Framers with respect to voluntary prayer in schools. Our revered Constitution--this sacred document--was conceived by the Framers neither to prohibit nor to require the recitation of voluntary prayer in public schools. Consequently, the exact language of the resolution that I am introducing to amend the Constitution simply makes that clear. It states--get this: Nothing in this Constitution, including any amendments to this Constitution, shall be construed to prohibit voluntary prayer or require prayer at a public school extracurricular activity. This resolution is similar to legislation that I introduced or cosponsored starting in 1962 but more recently in 1973, 1979, 1982, 1993, 1995, and 1997. I believe Members of the Supreme Court have placed exaggerated emphasis on the Framers' alleged intent to erect an absolute ``wall of separation'' between church and state. I do not share that view. I believe the right of every schoolchild to pray or not to pray voluntarily, if he or she chooses to do so, is protected by both the free speech and the free exercise clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Even the Supreme Court in the case of Lynch v. Donnelly, in 1984, agreed that the Constitution does not require the complete separation of church and state. Instead, it mandates an accommodation of all religions and forbids hostility toward any. Let me be clear that what we are talking about is not a radical departure. It is simply a reiteration of what should already be permissible under a correct interpretation of the first amendment. My resolution does not change the language of the first amendment, and it would not permit any school to advocate a particular religious message endorsed by the government. My resolution would simply reiterate the Framers' intent that a child should be able to utter a voluntary prayer. There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about that. This resolution seeks neither to advance nor to inhibit religion. It does not signify government approval of any particular religious sect or creed. It does not compel a ``nonbeliever'' to pray. In fact, it does not require an atheist to embrace or to adopt any religious action, belief, or expression. It does not coerce or compel anyone to do anything. And it does not foster any excessive government entanglement with religion. This constitutional amendment is neutral. It is nondiscriminatory. It does not endorse state-sponsored school prayer. It simply allows children to pray voluntarily, if they wish to do so. It permits children to express themselves on the subject of prayer just as anyone is free to express themselves on any other topic. As Justice Scalia recently held: ``A priest has as much liberty to proselytize as a patriot.'' The Supreme Court has held that the establishment clause is not violated so long as the government treats religious speech and other speech equally. This resolution has a valid secular purpose, which is to ensure that religious and nonreligious speech are treated equally, and this secular purpose is preeminent. This purpose is not secondary to any religious objective. In one of the more recent cases on the subject, the Supreme Court, in Santa Fe v. Jane Doe, reiterated that the religious clauses of the first amendment prevent the government from ``making any law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' But by ``no means,'' the Court held, ``do these commands impose a prohibition on all religious activity in our public schools.'' ``Indeed,'' the Court ruled, ``the common purpose of the Religious Clauses is to secure religious liberty.'' Thus, Justice Stevens wrote: Nothing in the Constitution as interpreted by this Court prohibits any public school student from unvoluntarily praying at any time before, during or after the school day. He went on to declare, though, that ``the religious liberty protected by this Constitution is abridged when the state affirmatively sponsors a particular religious practice or prayer.'' So let me reiterate that the resolution I am introducing today addresses only voluntary student prayer--not state-sponsored speech. In one of her final rulings on this subject, Justice O'Connor held that the first amendment expresses our Nation's fundamental commitment to religious liberty by means of two provisions--one protecting the free exercise of religion, the other barring the establishment of religion. ``They were written,'' she said, ``by the descendants of people who had come to this land precisely so that they could practice their religion freely.'' And, ``by enforcing these two clauses,'' she said, ``we have kept religion a matter for the individual conscience, not for the prosecutor or the bureaucrat.'' We should keep it that way. We should keep it that way. We should keep religion a matter for the individual conscience. But does keeping religion a matter for the individual conscience mean that a schoolchild must stand silent, unable to turn to God for comfort or guidance in times of trial or heartache? No. No. No. Not even our Supreme Court has recognized that. Not every reference to God constitutes the impermissible establishment of religion. Where would we be without recourse to prayer? As we know, even the mighty King David sought guidance from above. In Psalm, 17, he implores: Hear, O Lord, a just suit; attend to my outcry; harken to my prayer from lips without deceit . . . I call upon You for You will answer me, O God; incline Your ear to me; hear my word . . . keep me as the apple of your eye; hide me in the shadows of Your wings. In our Nation's Capitol, just off the Rotunda, there is a small room called the Prayer Room. I was there when it was first dedicated. A small room called the Prayer Room was set aside in 1954 by the 83rd Congress to be used for private prayer and contemplation by Members of Congress. The room is open. Have you ever been there? If you haven't, you ought to go to see that Prayer Room. I go to it still from time to time. The room is open when Congress is in session though not open to the public. The room's focal point is a stained glass window that shows George Washington kneeling in prayer. Behind him are etched these words from Psalm 16:1: ``Preserve me, o God, for in thee do I put my trust.'' What right do we have to take from schoolchildren their right to pray a voluntary prayer when we preserve, protect, and defend and even create a seperate room to enshrine that same right to ourselves here in the Senate? St. Luke, the apostle, tells us that such efforts are as much in our own interest as they are in the best interests of a child. Here is what St. Luke tells us: Ask and you shall receive; seek and you shall find; knock and it shall be opened to you. For whoever asks, receives; whoever seeks, finds; whoever knocks is admitted. What father among you will give his son a snake if he asks for a fish, or hand him a scorpion if he asks for an egg? If you, with all your sins, know how to give your children good things, how much more will the Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him? We must work to be certain that the free exercise clause remains as applicable and respected today as it was at the time it was conceived by the Framers. We must guard its protection so that all Americans, including, yes, children, little children--suffer little children--retain their right freely to practice their religion. Let us make certain that every individual, including any child nestled in the West Virginia hills or anywhere else in America, can pray to God as they please. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate will vote today on two amendments to provide $1.9 billion of critical resources to enhance our border security. I will vote for both amendments. Last month, the Senate began debate on immigration and border security legislation, part of which would authorize a whole host of items intended to secure our borders. The legislation would authorize the hiring of additional Border Patrol agents. The legislation would authorize the hiring of additional immigration enforcement agents and detention officers. It would authorize border surveillance technology and unmanned aerial vehicles. However, the immigration bill is just an authorization bill. If you are serious about border security, you must approve real dollars. Yesterday, the administration sent Congress a Statement of Administration Policy on the pending emergency supplemental bill. I will ask that the statement be printed in the Record. In this statement, the President threatens to veto the bill if it exceeds $94.5 billion. He opposes providing disaster aid to our farmers impacted by drought and hurricanes. He opposes funding for 31 States to repair highways that were damaged by floods, and other disasters. He fails to endorse critical investments in port security. By threatening to veto the bill if it exceeds $94.5 billion, he forces the Congress to make very difficult tradeoffs. By endorsing additional border security funding while capping the bill at $94.5 billion, the President is supporting cuts in his own request for the Department of Defense, or for aiding the victims of Hurricane Katrina. I think this tradeoff is unnecessary and unfortunate. That is why I will vote for the Reid amendment. However, Chairman Gregg has done an excellent job in crafting the $1.9 billion package of border security investments. If the only way to get the additional border security funds is to accept the President's position requiring offsets, then, in this case, I will vote for the Gregg amendment as well. I ask unanimous consent that the before mentioned statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the truly distinguished and able chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Mr. Cochran, for all of his hard work on this bill. He is so diligent, so fair, so honorable. I am proud to serve with him. Mississippi is so well represented in the Senate by this man. As a matter of great pride, I call him my friend, my colleague, my chairman. The President has asked the Congress to approve over $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. When the committee opened its hearings on the supplemental on March 7, I stated my belief that it is our duty to scrutinize the President's request not only for what is in the bill but also for what is not in the bill. I said to the distinguished chairman and to Senator Landrieu and others that I would help them in every way I could in responding to the terrible storms that hit their States. My State of West Virginia is often hit by floods and other damaging disasters, such as the recent accidents in West Virginia's coal mines. I am very 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. Mr. President, the chairman of the committee has taken the bull by the horns. Under his leadership, the recommendations of the committee fill in some of the gaps in the administration's request for funds required to respond to the hurricanes. The committee added approximately $7.4 billion to the President's budget request--that is not chickenfeed--$7.4 billion added to the President's budget request for Federal programs to respond to these disasters. I have to also note that the chairman of the committee included at my request--he would probably have done it, anyhow; perhaps I made it a little easier--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 and another 16 mining deaths in other States this year, 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. It is simply, absolutely, positively inexcusable that our miners have oxygen canisters that last only 1 hour--1 hour--when miners may be trapped underground for several days, or that the miners may not have emergency communications equipment. Think of that. Miners may not have emergency communications equipment that can reach the surface in the event of an extended rescue effort. I tell you, this is something to talk about. The chairman has my genuine appreciation for including these funds in the committee-reported bill. I also thank Senator Specter, Senator Harkin, and Senator Rockefeller for their support of the initiative. By the way, Senator Rockefeller is recuperating from a very serious operation. He may not get back in the harness here until June. I was talking with him a couple of days ago. He probably won't get back until June. John D. Rockefeller, my colleague from West Virginia. 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, by their families, and by coalfields communities throughout the country. I thank Chairman Cochran. I thank Senator Specter and Senator Domenici for supporting this effort. The supplemental appropriations bill includes $67.8 billion for the Department of Defense to prosecute the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Upon passage of this legislation, the total amount appropriated for the war in Iraq, including the cost of reconstruction, will be $320 billion. Mr. President, that is $320 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born 2,000 years ago. That is a lot of money. Man, think of that. That is a staggering figure, but what is even more unbelievable is that the monthly cost of the war in Iraq has been steadily, steadily, steadily escalating. In May 2004, the Defense Department reported to the Armed Services Committee that the cost of operations in Iraq was averaging $4 billion per month. The Congressional Research Service reported this month that during fiscal year 2005, the cost of the war in Iraq had escalated to $5.6 billion per month. The Congressional Research Service estimates that the cost of operations in Iraq during the current fiscal year will grow to $6.8 billion per month. I ask the Chair, can you comprehend how much money that is, $6.8 billion? That is $6.80 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. Contemplate that. The American people ought to be asking how on Earth has the monthly cost of the war in Iraq grown by 70 percent just in 2 years. Isn't there any way to control the cost of the war while making sure that our troops continue to get the support they need? The truth is that the administration is out of control when it comes to asking for emergency spending. According to a Congressional Budget Office report, the White House has requested $515 billion in emergency spending between 2001 and 2006. That is more than 3\1/2\ times the combined total of all--all, a-l-l--all of the emergency spending bills in the previous 10 years. Say that again. Did you hear me? More than 3\1/2\ times the combined total of all of the emergency spending bills in the previous 10 years. The President refuses to include in his annual budget request a realistic estimate of the cost of the wars. As a result, there is virtually no debate about how our country is going to pay for these massive bills. And what is more, these emergency spending requests mean that Congress has only a limited opportunity to scrutinize the administration's spending proposals. As a result, nobody--nobody--seems to be minding the store when it comes to controlling the escalating cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I tell you, I was in favor of fighting the war in Afghanistan, but I was not in favor of going into Iraq. No, man. No. The failure of the President to heed the repeated calls by the Senate--by the Senate, that is this body--to budget for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has resulted in more unnecessary spending that is hidden--hidden--from public view. For example, the President requested $8.3 billion in military procurement to replace wornout or battle-damaged equipment, but this is essentially forward funding of replacement equipment that should be bought using funds in the regular appropriations bill. Since we do not need to buy the same equipment twice, future Defense spending bills need not appropriate procurement funds that have already been approved in previously enacted emergency appropriations bills. This forward funding of military procurement accounts should then mean savings in the regular Defense appropriations bill. But when will these savings appear? With the approval of this bill, the Department of Defense budget for fiscal year 2006 is $534 billion, an increase of 74 percent over fiscal year 2001. Congress has rubberstamped much of this increase without indepth budget justification. 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 more dollars spent without any true measure of accountability. That is why I will again offer an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill that calls for the President to budget for the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Senate has given its strong support to this amendment four times--four times--and the President continues to look the other way, continues to disregard this direction by the Senate. The Senate must insist on a long overdue and responsible step of budgeting for the cost of the war. I am also very disappointed that the White House limited the supplemental request to the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and in response to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. As the Senate debates immigration and border security, it is rather astonishing, wouldn't you think, that no funding was included for border security. Nor were any funds included for port security. Dubai Ports World is now operating terminals at six of our major ports. The ``layered defense''--if I may put quotation marks around those two words--the ``layered defense'' that the administration claims is protecting our ports is, in fact, paper thin-- paper thin. It is just that thin. Nor did the President seek any supplemental funding for preparing for or preventing the outbreak of the avian flu or to help our farmers who have been devastated by drought and by the hurricanes. The Appropriations Committee, under the chairmanship of Senator Cochran, has wisely approved funding for port security, wisely approved funding for the avian flu, wisely approved funding for drought relief, and I hope that border security funding will be approved this week on the floor. I challenge the White House--it is easy to be brave from a distance; I am quite a ways up the avenue from the White House--I challenge the White House--come on--I challenge the White House to get serious about these issues. These are also emergencies. The White House should be leading rather than opposing efforts to improve border security and port security, and it should be preparing for the avian flu and helping our farmers. The administration has a huge credibility gap when it comes to homeland security. There is a continuing drumbeat that another terrorist attack may occur or is even likely. The President, in his State of the Union Address, told the American people: The enemy has not lost the desire or capability to attack us. That is true. One look at the budget reveals an odd complacency. The administration's speech writers and his policy writers seem to be living in different worlds. In response to the administration's decision to allow Dubai Ports World to operate terminals in six major U.S. ports, it is asserted by the administration that it has a robust, layered security system for our ports. And yet for the second straight year, the White House proposes to eliminate the Port Security Grant Program. Of the $816 million the Congress has appropriated since September 11 for port security, only $46 million was requested by the President. There is nothing ``robust'' about that. How serious are we about port security, when the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security don't even know about the decision to sell the operation of six U.S. ports to a State-owned foreign company? How serious are we about port security when Customs and Border Protection inspects only 5 percent of the 11 million containers that come into the country each year? How serious are we when the Coast Guard Deepwater budget for replacing its ships, planes, and helicopters will not be completed until 2026? The administration has not requested one thin dime for port security in this $92 billion supplemental. The committee-reported bill includes my amendment to provide $648 million to fill critical gaps in our paper-thin port security program. The bill now provides resources for more radiation portal monitors, more container inspections, more port inspections, and would fund port security grants at the levels anticipated in the Collins-Lieberman and Stevens-Inouye port security authorization bills. The American people--our people, your people--yes, our people, the American people--expect more than just a paper-thin--you can almost see through that--the American people expect more than just a paper-thin security plan for our ports. The bill, as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee, begins--and Senator Cochran, the chairman of that committee, can take a lot of credit--begins to address this paper- thin port security program by including a total of $648 million to fill critical gaps in our port security program. I thank Senators Dan Inouye, Herb Kohl, and Tom Harkin for their support of my initiative in committee. Whose initiative? Mine, my initiative. Dizzy Dean says it is all right to brag if you have done it. Well, I have done it. The White House should step to the plate and support this effort. While the committee-reported bill has made some progress to address the gaps in the Nation's port security defenses, it virtually ignores border security. The Senate has recently been debating immigration and border security legislation to authorize a whole host of items intended to secure our borders. The legislation would authorize the hiring of additional Border Patrol agents. It would authorize the hiring of additional immigration enforcement agents and detention officers. It would authorize border surveillance, technology, and unmanned aerial vehicles, and fences. I am very concerned--very concerned--about lax border security. In fact, together with our colleague, Senator Larry Craig, and with the support of my Homeland Security Subcommittee chairman, Senator Judd Gregg, I led the effort in the Senate last year to appropriate hard dollars to begin to put real teeth--see these teeth? These are real teeth. They are just 88 years old. These are real teeth. Well, that is what we did. We put real teeth in our border security agenda. We did not merely authorize the hiring of more Border Patrol agents; we appropriated hard dollars to hire 500 more Border Patrol agents, as well as more immigration enforcement agents and detention officers. Don't you feel better about that? I do. I can sleep a little better. I will bet Senator Harkin sleeps better at night because of it. Those 500 Border Patrol agents have been hired and trained and are deployed on our borders. They are out there defending our borders while we are sleeping. Think about that. As we hire more Border Patrol agents and other immigration enforcement officials, they must have the tools they need to do their job. We need to start paying for those tools now so that they will be available as more and more Border Patrol and immigration enforcement officials are hired and trained. I will be talking again about this matter as the Senate proceeds to consider this supplemental appropriations bill. Securing our borders requires more than just hot air. Hot air is cheap. We must put real dollars to work for border security. Mr. President, I am pleased to report to the Senate that the committee-reported bill, under the strong leadership of Chairman Cochran--hey, you people down there in Mississippi better hold on to this man. He does a terrific job on this committee. This bill includes several other initiatives to deal with gaps in funding in the budget request. I would suggest that principal among these gaps is an amount of $2.3 billion required to prepare for and to respond to a potential influenza pandemic such as the avian flu. My mother died during the great influenza epidemic of 1917 and 1918; the great influenza epidemic. So there is money here to prepare for and to respond to a potential influenza pandemic. The World Health Organization recommends that countries stockpile enough antiviral medications to cover 25 percent of the population or 80 million Americans. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, there is a shortfall of 30 million courses. HHS will not receive the antivirals it has ordered until the end of this year. We are also well short of the 20 million goal that has been set by HHS for purchasing prepandemic vaccine. Experts have said that a vaccine is the only effective way to stop the spread of a pandemic. The availability of the vaccine and medicine is limited. The availability is limited. We should not wait to place our orders. The White House should support this effort. The committee-reported bill also includes approximately $3.9 billion for emergency agricultural disaster assistance for farmers and ranchers in States affected by recent hurricanes in the gulf, drought in the southern plains and throughout the western corn belt, and excessive rainfall in North Dakota--North Dakota: Do you know where that is? That is north of South Dakota. North Dakota--and the upper Midwest flood. Nearly 80 percent of all U.S. counties were designated as primary or contiguous disaster areas by the Secretary of Agriculture or the President in 2005. So, Mr. President, the chairman and I look forward to a good debate on this supplemental appropriations bill. It is a good bill, and it is truly responsive--truly responsive--to the needs of the American people. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the very able Senator. Last month, the Senate began debate on immigration and border security legislation, part of which would authorize a whole host of items intended to secure our borders. The legislation would authorize the hiring of additional Border Patrol agents. The legislation would authorize the hiring of additional immigration enforcement agents and detention officers. The legislation would authorize border surveillance technology and unmanned aerial vehicles. However, the immigration bill is just an authorization bill. Now, if we are serious about border security, we must approve real dollars-- real dollars. Together with our colleague, Senator Larry Craig, and with the support of my Homeland Security Subcommittee chairman, Senator Judd Gregg, I led the effort in the Senate last year to appropriate hard dollars to begin to put real teeth into our border security agenda. We did not merely authorize the hiring of more Border Patrol agents; we appropriated hard cash, hard dollars to hire 500 more Border Patrol agents as well as more immigration enforcement agents and detention officers. The administration opposed this effort. But those 500 Border Patrol agents have been hired. They have been trained. They are now deployed on our borders defending our Nation and making us more secure. As we continue to hire more Border Patrol agents and other immigration enforcement officials, we need to give them the tools they need to do their job. Yes. We need to start paying for those tools now so they will be available as more and more Border Patrol agents and immigration enforcement officials are hired and trained. The Border Patrol needs new helicopters because the average age of its helicopters is nearly 40 years. The average age of our Customs primary fixed-wing aircraft is 30 years. All of our border enforcement officials, including the newly hired officials, need more vehicles, including all-terrain vehicles, high-endurance vehicles, and more buses to transport and remove illegal aliens. More radios are needed and other communications equipment, especially for those individuals operating in remote desert areas along our border. Customs and Border Protection has a requirement for 18 unmanned aerial vehicles or UAVs. The immigration bill authorizes more UAVs, but until this morning, we had only one UAV operating on our border. At 5:49 a.m. this morning, where were you? I was asleep. I bet you were, too. At 5:49 a.m. this morning, that one UAV crashed--get that, now--it crashed in the Arizona desert. Clearly, one UAV system is not adequate. The amendment that Homeland Security Chairman Gregg is offering this afternoon provides $1.9 billion--$1.9 billion--in real dollars for our aging border security infrastructure. As ranking member on the Homeland Security Subcommittee, I support that funding. It provides $120 million for fencing and tactical border infrastructure, including an additional $20 million for the fence being constructed in San Diego. It provides-- hear me, now--$790 million for new helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft, UAVs, and the facilities to house and maintain them. It provides $60 million for replacement vehicles for our border and immigration personnel. It provides over $150 million for communications equipment and sensors and cameras and other technology along our border. That ain't all, either. That ain't all. You better believe it. It provides $60 million to expedite the interoperability of the FBI and Homeland Security fingerprint databases so that we can have greater confidence about whom we allow to enter this country. We know that as security at our land borders is tightened, illegal aliens, drug runners, and, yes, terrorists also--terrorists--will turn to our waterways for entry into this country, our country. According to Coast Guard statistics, the flow of illegal aliens through our waterways has more than doubled in the last 10 years, and it will continue to grow. It will continue to grow. The administration has concluded that international migration ``will be one of the most important factors affecting maritime security through the next 10 years'' and that ``a significant commitment of security resources'' is necessary. Yet--could you believe it--the President did not request any supplemental money for the Coast Guard to repair, replace, or enhance its ships, its planes, and its helicopters. The Coast Guard secures our waterways, but the Coast Guard is doing it with ships and planes that, in some cases, date back to World War II. Man, that is a long time. How about that--doing it with ships and planes that, in some cases, date back to World War II? This has resulted in a huge gap between operational commitments and operational capabilities. For instance, total Coast Guard patrol boat hours were only 75,000 in 2004, compared to 100,000 hours in 1998. Under the administration's deepwater modernization plan, this gap will not be closed until 2012. Now, I wonder if I will be around that long. This gap will not be closed until 2012, at the earliest. How about that? Do you believe it? How about that? Current Coast Guard maritime patrol airplanes can only provide half of the hours required to meet operational commitments. At the same time, funding constraints require maintenance on Coast Guard ships and planes to be deferred more and more every year. You may not be around that long, either. No. Who knows? From fiscal years 2001 to 2005, the Coast Guard deferred over $121 million in maintenance needed for its surface fleet and $159 million in maintenance needed for its air assets. The administration has ignored this problem--ignored this problem-- for too long. Recent budget requests by this administration have allowed this crisis to fester, and fester. The pending amendment provides $600 million to accelerate the Coast Guard's program to modernize its fleet of ships and planes. This funding will provide for seven additional maritime patrol airplanes and three new patrol boats. The funding in the amendment would also allow the Coast Guard to retrofit and arm its helicopters, refurbish existing medium endurance ships, accelerate the production of new medium endurance ships, and provide the technology necessary for commanders to speak to each other through a common operating environment. This level of funding is consistent with the recently filed Coast Guard authorization conference report. The President often says that we live in a post-9/11 world. Frankly, the Coast Guard's fleet of ships and planes is fit for the last century. To properly secure the maritime domain, the Coast Guard needs a fleet fit for this century--the here and now, this century. If we are truly serious--and I hope we are--about securing our borders and not just engaging in rhetoric and hot air, then we will put real dollars--real dollars--where the rubber hits the road. So, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Gregg amendment, the amendment offered by Senator Judd Gregg, of which I am a principal cosponsor. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, an oft-repeated metaphor compares the U.S. Senate to a saucer in which a hot liquid is poured to cool. The earliest known written version of this story appears in an 1871 letter from constitutional law professor Francis Lieber to Ohio Representative and later President James A. Garfield. Lieber recounted a story he had heard about Thomas Jefferson's visit to Mount Vernon where Jefferson disagreed with Gen. George Washington over the need for a bicameral legislature, and Washington's response: ``You, yourself,'' said the General, ``have proved the excellence of two houses this very moment.'' ``I,'' said Jefferson. ``How is that, General?'' ``You have,'' replied the heroic sage, ``turned your hot tea from the cup into the saucer, to get it cool. It is the same thing we desire of the two houses.'' The Washington-Jefferson dialogue drew further attention in the writings of the late 19th century American historian Moncure D. Conway, who altered the language and the beverage: There is a tradition that on his return from France, Jefferson called Washington to account at the breakfast table for having agreed to a second chamber. ``Why,'' asked Washington, ``did you pour that coffee into the saucer? Why did you do that?'' ``To cool it,'' answered Jefferson. ``Even so,'' said Washington, ``we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.'' Francis Lieber never discovered the source of this delicious anecdote, but whether or not the incident really occurred, the story has been widely embraced because it conveys the essence--the essence-- yes, the essence--of the U.S. Senate. What is the essence? It is a deliberative body. It is a deliberative body sheltered from shifting public opinion by longer and staggered terms, and originally by being elected via the State legislatures. It serves as a counterbalance to the U.S. House of Representatives. The saucer story explains, in simple terms, the significance of the Senate, from its origins through its evolution into the most powerful upper body of any national legislature in the world. Do you get that? Think about that. Senators and other close observers of the institution have grappled with their own ideas about the Senate seeking to highlight its unique and enduring attributes, and to explain its role in the American system of checks and balances. What is it? What is it? What is it that makes the Senate stand apart from other legislative bodies? What is it? What is it that makes the Senate stand apart from other legislative bodies? Why have its seemingly arcane rules and traditions survived, and what purpose do they serve? Over the next few months, the Lord willing-- You see, from the Book of James in the Bible, don't say ``I'll go here'' or ``I'll go there,'' to this city or that city, and I will be this or that. You better qualify that. As my old mom used to say: Robert, you must say, ``if the Lord willing.'' If the Lord wills it, you will do thus and so--if the Lord willing, or God willing. That has stuck by me all through these 80 and more years: If the Lord wills it. Over the next few months, the Lord willing--I can't say that. You know, if I say over the next few months, who knows? But, if the Lord wills it--God willing, in other words--over the next few months I plan to offer a series of addresses in which I shall sample these ideas of the Senate with some explanation of each observer. Their ideas have ranged from the necessity of the Senate to its role as a balance wheel with the ``people's House,'' the other body. They have focused on the rules of the Senate and its civility and decorum. They have viewed the Senate as a protector of constitutional liberties, a source of stability, and a product of politics. As a deliberative body, the Senate has been hailed as a place for second thoughts, as a continuing body, and as an institution that values its traditions. The form of Senate elections, changed by constitutional amendment, and the rules for unlimited debate and cloture have been adjusted over the years, but the Senate still differs in fundamental ways from the House of Representatives. It stands out, the Senate does--the Senate stands out as a body of individuals with peculiar folkways that have fostered what has been described as the ``Senate type.'' A body of equals among individuals and among States, the Senate has been a difficult institution to lead. Its deliberations have frustrated impatient Presidents. Well, who cares? Senators don't care if they frustrate Presidents. Presidents come and go. Senators may stay on and on and on. Its deliberations have frustrated impatient Presidents, leaders of the House, and even, yes, leaders of the Senate who seek speedy enactment: Let's get it done. We are in a hurry. Let's get it done. Do it now. Remember that TV advertisement which said, ``Do it now, do it here; do it now, do it now?'' There have been many efforts to modernize the Senate in order to meet new challenges. I have been here a long time. I have seen these efforts on the part of Senators. Some of them come over from the House of Representatives. They want to make this body into another House--let's get it done. Get it done; do it now; do it here; fast. Yes, there have been many efforts to modernize the Senate in order to meet new challenges. Able leaders have demonstrated courage and skill in forging alliances and building friendships to pass legislation. I did that when I was leader of the Senate. I forged alliances with such and such a Senator. I forged an alliance. Despite more than two centuries of pressure to change and ``modernize''--let's put quotation marks around that word, ``modernize''--despite more than two centuries of pressures to change and ``modernize,'' the Senate, as an institution, remains remarkably similar to the body created at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. It retains all of its original powers, including providing advice and consent--yes. You said it. You better read that again in the Constitution. It retains all of its original powers, including providing advice and consent to Presidents on nominations and on treaties, serving as a court of impeachment--you better believe it, Mr. President. The Senate can send you home. You better believe that. If the House impeaches you, the Senate will try you. The Senate, don't forget it, serves as a court of impeachment and has an equal say with the House on legislation. The Senate has an equal say with the other body on legislation. As my statements in the weeks ahead--Lord willing, God willing--will suggest, the distinctive features of the Senate have survived for so long because they have purpose and will endure as long as they serve the good of the Nation. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Oregon, who has just spoken, for what he has said. I shall read his speech carefully tonight, the Lord willing, the general theme of which I am in accordance with. His was a speech that had to be said and ought to be said. It was in his words. I might have made it with a change or two. But we are together, as we were when the Senator and I joined the immortal spirits of the 23 who on that day cast the most important vote that I have ever cast in my 48 years now in the U.S. Senate.