Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. How much time do I have under the order?

Mr. BYRD. How much time was there at the beginning?

Mr. BYRD. And 25 minutes remain?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it has been almost 1 month since the explosion that killed 12 miners at the Sago mine in Upshur County, WV, and almost 2 weeks since the conveyor belt fire that killed two miners at the Aracoma Alma mine in Logan County, WV. In that same time, the Mine Safety and Health Administration, MSHA, of the U.S. Department of Labor has briefed my office on several occasions. The Senate Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee, at my request and under the leadership of Chairman Arlen Specter and ranking member Tom Harkin, has held a hearing and solicited testimony from mine safety experts. The West Virginia delegation in the House and the Senate has met with the Governor of West Virginia, Governor Joe Manchin, has met with the White House Chief of Staff, and has met with the acting MSHA Director to review mine safety legislation passed by the West Virginia legislature in the wake of the Sago and Alma tragedies. We now can speak with some certainty about what contributed to the tragedies at the Sago and Alma mines that killed 14 coal miners. We know these tragedies have highlighted gross weaknesses in mine emergency preparedness and the failure of leadership at the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration to get tough about rescue procedures. We know that communications technology in our Nation's coal mines is inadequate. The Federal mine regulators require only that a telephone line connect the working sections of mines to the surface. If that telephone line does not work, in the event of an emergency, the miners trapped underground are cut off from the rescue effort. Those on the surface cannot get a message to the miners underground and the miners underground cannot get a message to those on the surface. At the Sago and Alma mines, families waited, waited, waited in anguish for 40 hours, not knowing if their loved ones were alive or dead because the communications equipment in the mine did not work. We know that Federal mine safety officials cannot immediately locate miners trapped underground. At both the Sago and Alma mines, families waited, and waited, and waited while rescue teams searched meticulously through the underground caverns. Those teams could only make educated guesses about the location of the trapped miners, putting the rescue teams' lives and the lives of the trapped miners at increased risk while the search went on. We know that the MSHA notification and response system is ponderously slow. Federal mine safety officials did not know of the Sago explosion until 2 hours after it happened. It took another 9 hours--9 long, excruciating hours--before rescue teams could enter the mine. The same thing happened at the Alma mine. Federal mine safety officials did not know of the underground fire for 2\1/2\ hours, and in that time the fire spread and got worse. We know Federal mine regulators require only that miners have a 1-hour emergency breathing device; and at the Sago mine, 1 hour of oxygen was not nearly adequate to sustain those miners through a 40-hour rescue operation. We also know that the Mine Safety and Health Administration, tragically-- tragically--abandoned its assessment of the rules governing these 1- hour emergency breathing devices in December of 2001. What a travesty. We know that the mine rescue teams, at both the Sago and Alma mines, were forced to wait for a frustrating amount of time because the coal operators had to negotiate the question of liability before the rescue teams could enter the mines. We know that Federal mine regulators have been aware of this liability problem since 1995. We know that MSHA has not taken steps to address it, or to update and improve the rules related to the number of rescue teams per mine and their ability to respond rapidly. The only recent effort to update these rules was halted by MSHA--now get that-- the only recent effort to update these rules was halted by MSHA in 2002. The Sago mine was a habitual violator with 276 citations and orders issued in 2004 and 2005. The coal operator never paid a fine more than $440, even though mandatory health and safety standards were repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly violated. Meanwhile, MSHA assessed fines as low as $99 for violations that were classified as ``significant and substantial.'' Let me say that again. Meanwhile, MSHA assessed fines as low as $99 for violations that were classified as ``significant and substantial'' in threatening the safety and health of the miners at Sago. MSHA has broad authority to protect coal miners, and the 1977 Mine Act is the strongest and most sweeping workplace safety law ever enacted in the United States, and, yet, even with these tools--even with these tools--the Mine Safety and Health Administration failed-- yes, it failed--to protect the 14 miners who perished at the Sago and Alma mines. What a shame. What a shame. MSHA has the authority to require that secondary communications equipment be available in the event of an emergency. That authority was not used. MSHA has the authority to require that emergency breathing devices be placed in the mines in the event of an extended recovery effort. That authority was not used. That authority was not used. MSHA has the authority to penalize habitual violators, and to close those mines where pattern violations threaten a coal miner's life. That authority was not used. That authority was not used. What a travesty. MSHA is the Federal agency charged with protecting coal miners. I will say that again. MSHA is the Federal agency charged with protecting coal miners, but it has scuttled--get that; it has scuttled--18 initiatives in the last 5 years to update and improve mine safety and emergency preparedness. MSHA's leadership has embraced the status quo as good enough, and that attitude puts miners' lives at risk. In the past, mine disasters such as these have spurred tougher mine safety laws. The Farmington, WV, disaster spurred the 1969 Coal Act, and subsequent disasters spurred the 1977 Mine Act. Now, I was here at the time in both instances. I was in the Senate. This time, the legacy of the Sago and Alma mine disasters must be a tougher agency that will--will--enforce the law. Together with Senator Jay Rockefeller and the West Virginia delegation in the House, I am introducing legislation today that is a mandate for action. Our legislation does not amend the Mine Act. Our delegation takes the position that the Mine Act already provides the Secretary of Labor with every authority necessary to prevent these kinds of tragedies. Instead, the legislation that I am introducing on behalf of myself and Mr. Rockefeller--and which is being likewise introduced in the House of Representatives today--our legislation directs the Labor Secretary to employ the authorities of the Mine Act. It directs the Labor Secretary, within 90 days, to promulgate a series of health and safety rules aimed at improving mine safety enforcement and emergency preparedness. This legislation directs the Labor Secretary to establish a rapid notification and response system. This legislation requires coal operators to expeditiously notify MSHA of emergencies. Any coal operator who fails to expeditiously notify Federal mine safety officials will be subject to a $100,000 fine. We must reduce the amount of time that is lost between a mine emergency and MSHA's notification and arrival on the scene. Our legislation directs the Labor Secretary to reassess regulations that govern mine rescue teams to ensure that their numbers are sufficient and that obstacles to their deployment are minimized. Mine rescue teams ought to be able to respond just as local fire departments would respond to an emergency. It must not take 11 hours. Our legislation requires coal operators to store additional emergency breathing supplies underground to sustain miners who may be trapped for an extended period. Our legislation requires the Labor Secretary to update and improve the rules governing emergency communications equipment that would allow miners underground to communicate with surface rescue efforts, and allow surface rescue efforts to locate miners underground. Never again--never again--should a coal miner or any other miner lack access to a reasonable supply of oxygen underground or be unable to receive directions from the surface about escape routes--never again. On the enforcement side, our legislation requires the Labor Secretary to create a new $10,000 mandatory and minimum penalty for coal operators who display negligence or reckless disregard for safety standards. By negligence or reckless disregard, I am talking about coal operators who knew or should have known of a dangerous condition or practice and failed to take the steps necessary to fix the problem, or who displayed conduct which exhibits a deplorable absence of care for the safety and health of the miners. If penalties are required in this kind of situation, then this statutory floor will help to ensure that those penalties will hurt--let me say that again--if penalties are required in this kind of situation, then this statutory floor will help to ensure that those penalties will hurt, and hurt sufficiently to encourage violators to comply with the law. Our legislation prohibits the use of belt entries for ventilation in contravention of an MSHA regulation issued in 2004, which likely--hear me now--which likely played a part in the Alma fire. Our legislation creates a science and technology office in the Labor Department to help expedite the introduction of the most advanced health and safety technologies into the mines, and to ensure that Federal mine safety officials are actively pulling from other Federal agencies those technologies that can help to protect miners. No longer--hear me; hear me now: no longer--should miners be sent underground with safety equipment that is decades out of date. Our legislation creates the new position of ombudsman in the Labor Department's Inspector General's office to allow miners to more easily report safety violations. To be effective, such a position requires the appointment and the confirmation of someone with at least 5 years--no political hack--someone with at least 5 years of expertise in mine safety and health. No place for a political hack. A miner should never have to feel that he has no options other than to continue to work in a dangerous environment. Now, I speak from the heart. I grew up in a coal miner's home. My dad was a coal miner--a coal miner. I married a coal miner's daughter. Loretta Lynn sings a song. She is a coal miner's daughter. Well, my wife is a coal miner's daughter. My brother-in-law died of silicosis, black lung. His father was killed by a slate fall in a coal mine. So I speak from the viewpoint of a coal miner, a coal miner's son. For 5 years, the leadership in the Labor Department and the Mine Safety and Health Administration has worked against--get that--worked against the health and safety needs of coal miners. If we must hold the hand of the Labor Department--if we have to hold the hand of the Labor Department--and lead it like a stubborn and obstinate child, to force it to promulgate rules to implement the Mine Act and save lives, then that is exactly what we should do. If this administration and if MSHA will not lead, then this Congress must lead, and, if necessary, poke, prod, kick, and push MSHA into fulfilling its mandate. At this late date, we need more than platitudes--more than platitudes--to protect the safety of our Nation's miners. We are not just talking about West Virginia miners, not just talking about coal miners in West Virginia. We need resources. We need swift action. And we need to impress deeply upon the psyche of MSHA--they better hear that--impress deeply upon the psyche of MSHA and the Nation's coal mine operators that the safety of miners will not be compromised for personal profit or for politics. Protecting the safety of our miners is a moral responsibility. Hear me. Protecting the safety of our miners is a moral responsibility, and this legislation will help to make sure that we never, ever forget that. I send the bill to the desk, a bill by Mr. Byrd for himself and Mr. Rockefeller. I ask that it be relayed to the appropriate committee.

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield the floor, and I thank the distinguished leader.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if I may be recognized.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield the floor, and I thank the distinguished leader.

Mr. BYRD. How much time do I have under the order?

Mr. BYRD. How much time was there at the beginning?

Mr. BYRD. And 25 minutes remain?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it has been almost 1 month since the explosion that killed 12 miners at the Sago mine in Upshur County, WV, and almost 2 weeks since the conveyor belt fire that killed two miners at the Aracoma Alma mine in Logan County, WV. In that same time, the Mine Safety and Health Administration, MSHA, of the U.S. Department of Labor has briefed my office on several occasions. The Senate Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee, at my request and under the leadership of Chairman Arlen Specter and ranking member Tom Harkin, has held a hearing and solicited testimony from mine safety experts. The West Virginia delegation in the House and the Senate has met with the Governor of West Virginia, Governor Joe Manchin, has met with the White House Chief of Staff, and has met with the acting MSHA Director to review mine safety legislation passed by the West Virginia legislature in the wake of the Sago and Alma tragedies. We now can speak with some certainty about what contributed to the tragedies at the Sago and Alma mines that killed 14 coal miners. We know these tragedies have highlighted gross weaknesses in mine emergency preparedness and the failure of leadership at the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration to get tough about rescue procedures. We know that communications technology in our Nation's coal mines is inadequate. The Federal mine regulators require only that a telephone line connect the working sections of mines to the surface. If that telephone line does not work, in the event of an emergency, the miners trapped underground are cut off from the rescue effort. Those on the surface cannot get a message to the miners underground and the miners underground cannot get a message to those on the surface. At the Sago and Alma mines, families waited, waited, waited in anguish for 40 hours, not knowing if their loved ones were alive or dead because the communications equipment in the mine did not work. We know that Federal mine safety officials cannot immediately locate miners trapped underground. At both the Sago and Alma mines, families waited, and waited, and waited while rescue teams searched meticulously through the underground caverns. Those teams could only make educated guesses about the location of the trapped miners, putting the rescue teams' lives and the lives of the trapped miners at increased risk while the search went on. We know that the MSHA notification and response system is ponderously slow. Federal mine safety officials did not know of the Sago explosion until 2 hours after it happened. It took another 9 hours--9 long, excruciating hours--before rescue teams could enter the mine. The same thing happened at the Alma mine. Federal mine safety officials did not know of the underground fire for 2\1/2\ hours, and in that time the fire spread and got worse. We know Federal mine regulators require only that miners have a 1-hour emergency breathing device; and at the Sago mine, 1 hour of oxygen was not nearly adequate to sustain those miners through a 40-hour rescue operation. We also know that the Mine Safety and Health Administration, tragically-- tragically--abandoned its assessment of the rules governing these 1- hour emergency breathing devices in December of 2001. What a travesty. We know that the mine rescue teams, at both the Sago and Alma mines, were forced to wait for a frustrating amount of time because the coal operators had to negotiate the question of liability before the rescue teams could enter the mines. We know that Federal mine regulators have been aware of this liability problem since 1995. We know that MSHA has not taken steps to address it, or to update and improve the rules related to the number of rescue teams per mine and their ability to respond rapidly. The only recent effort to update these rules was halted by MSHA--now get that-- the only recent effort to update these rules was halted by MSHA in 2002. The Sago mine was a habitual violator with 276 citations and orders issued in 2004 and 2005. The coal operator never paid a fine more than $440, even though mandatory health and safety standards were repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly violated. Meanwhile, MSHA assessed fines as low as $99 for violations that were classified as ``significant and substantial.'' Let me say that again. Meanwhile, MSHA assessed fines as low as $99 for violations that were classified as ``significant and substantial'' in threatening the safety and health of the miners at Sago. MSHA has broad authority to protect coal miners, and the 1977 Mine Act is the strongest and most sweeping workplace safety law ever enacted in the United States, and, yet, even with these tools--even with these tools--the Mine Safety and Health Administration failed-- yes, it failed--to protect the 14 miners who perished at the Sago and Alma mines. What a shame. What a shame. MSHA has the authority to require that secondary communications equipment be available in the event of an emergency. That authority was not used. MSHA has the authority to require that emergency breathing devices be placed in the mines in the event of an extended recovery effort. That authority was not used. That authority was not used. MSHA has the authority to penalize habitual violators, and to close those mines where pattern violations threaten a coal miner's life. That authority was not used. That authority was not used. What a travesty. MSHA is the Federal agency charged with protecting coal miners. I will say that again. MSHA is the Federal agency charged with protecting coal miners, but it has scuttled--get that; it has scuttled--18 initiatives in the last 5 years to update and improve mine safety and emergency preparedness. MSHA's leadership has embraced the status quo as good enough, and that attitude puts miners' lives at risk. In the past, mine disasters such as these have spurred tougher mine safety laws. The Farmington, WV, disaster spurred the 1969 Coal Act, and subsequent disasters spurred the 1977 Mine Act. Now, I was here at the time in both instances. I was in the Senate. This time, the legacy of the Sago and Alma mine disasters must be a tougher agency that will--will--enforce the law. Together with Senator Jay Rockefeller and the West Virginia delegation in the House, I am introducing legislation today that is a mandate for action. Our legislation does not amend the Mine Act. Our delegation takes the position that the Mine Act already provides the Secretary of Labor with every authority necessary to prevent these kinds of tragedies. Instead, the legislation that I am introducing on behalf of myself and Mr. Rockefeller--and which is being likewise introduced in the House of Representatives today--our legislation directs the Labor Secretary to employ the authorities of the Mine Act. It directs the Labor Secretary, within 90 days, to promulgate a series of health and safety rules aimed at improving mine safety enforcement and emergency preparedness. This legislation directs the Labor Secretary to establish a rapid notification and response system. This legislation requires coal operators to expeditiously notify MSHA of emergencies. Any coal operator who fails to expeditiously notify Federal mine safety officials will be subject to a $100,000 fine. We must reduce the amount of time that is lost between a mine emergency and MSHA's notification and arrival on the scene. Our legislation directs the Labor Secretary to reassess regulations that govern mine rescue teams to ensure that their numbers are sufficient and that obstacles to their deployment are minimized. Mine rescue teams ought to be able to respond just as local fire departments would respond to an emergency. It must not take 11 hours. Our legislation requires coal operators to store additional emergency breathing supplies underground to sustain miners who may be trapped for an extended period. Our legislation requires the Labor Secretary to update and improve the rules governing emergency communications equipment that would allow miners underground to communicate with surface rescue efforts, and allow surface rescue efforts to locate miners underground. Never again--never again--should a coal miner or any other miner lack access to a reasonable supply of oxygen underground or be unable to receive directions from the surface about escape routes--never again. On the enforcement side, our legislation requires the Labor Secretary to create a new $10,000 mandatory and minimum penalty for coal operators who display negligence or reckless disregard for safety standards. By negligence or reckless disregard, I am talking about coal operators who knew or should have known of a dangerous condition or practice and failed to take the steps necessary to fix the problem, or who displayed conduct which exhibits a deplorable absence of care for the safety and health of the miners. If penalties are required in this kind of situation, then this statutory floor will help to ensure that those penalties will hurt--let me say that again--if penalties are required in this kind of situation, then this statutory floor will help to ensure that those penalties will hurt, and hurt sufficiently to encourage violators to comply with the law. Our legislation prohibits the use of belt entries for ventilation in contravention of an MSHA regulation issued in 2004, which likely--hear me now--which likely played a part in the Alma fire. Our legislation creates a science and technology office in the Labor Department to help expedite the introduction of the most advanced health and safety technologies into the mines, and to ensure that Federal mine safety officials are actively pulling from other Federal agencies those technologies that can help to protect miners. No longer--hear me; hear me now: no longer--should miners be sent underground with safety equipment that is decades out of date. Our legislation creates the new position of ombudsman in the Labor Department's Inspector General's office to allow miners to more easily report safety violations. To be effective, such a position requires the appointment and the confirmation of someone with at least 5 years--no political hack--someone with at least 5 years of expertise in mine safety and health. No place for a political hack. A miner should never have to feel that he has no options other than to continue to work in a dangerous environment. Now, I speak from the heart. I grew up in a coal miner's home. My dad was a coal miner--a coal miner. I married a coal miner's daughter. Loretta Lynn sings a song. She is a coal miner's daughter. Well, my wife is a coal miner's daughter. My brother-in-law died of silicosis, black lung. His father was killed by a slate fall in a coal mine. So I speak from the viewpoint of a coal miner, a coal miner's son. For 5 years, the leadership in the Labor Department and the Mine Safety and Health Administration has worked against--get that--worked against the health and safety needs of coal miners. If we must hold the hand of the Labor Department--if we have to hold the hand of the Labor Department--and lead it like a stubborn and obstinate child, to force it to promulgate rules to implement the Mine Act and save lives, then that is exactly what we should do. If this administration and if MSHA will not lead, then this Congress must lead, and, if necessary, poke, prod, kick, and push MSHA into fulfilling its mandate. At this late date, we need more than platitudes--more than platitudes--to protect the safety of our Nation's miners. We are not just talking about West Virginia miners, not just talking about coal miners in West Virginia. We need resources. We need swift action. And we need to impress deeply upon the psyche of MSHA--they better hear that--impress deeply upon the psyche of MSHA and the Nation's coal mine operators that the safety of miners will not be compromised for personal profit or for politics. Protecting the safety of our miners is a moral responsibility. Hear me. Protecting the safety of our miners is a moral responsibility, and this legislation will help to make sure that we never, ever forget that. I send the bill to the desk, a bill by Mr. Byrd for himself and Mr. Rockefeller. I ask that it be relayed to the appropriate committee.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts, my colleague and my friend, Senator Kennedy. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to offer a few observations on the manner in which the Senate has conducted its inquiry into the qualifications of Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr., to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. Regardless of any Senator's particular view of Judge Alito, I think we can all agree that there is room for improvement in the way in which the Senate and, indeed, the Nation have undertaken the examination of this nominee. Let me be clear. I mean no criticism of the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee or any particular member of that committee. I feel compelled to address this issue, not to point fingers, not to scold, not to assign blame, but only to address specific, sincere, heartfelt concerns that have been brought to my attention, by the people of West Virginia in particular. Many people, including foremost, as I say, the people of West Virginia, in no uncertain terms were, frankly, appalled by the Alito hearings. I don't want to say it, but I must. They were appalled. In the reams of correspondence that I received during the Alito hearings, West Virginians--the people I represent--West Virginians who wrote to criticize the way in which the hearings were conducted used the same two words. People with no connection to one another, people of different faiths, different views, different opinions, independently and respectively, used the same two words to describe the hearings. They called them an ``outrage'' and a ``disgrace.'' These were not form letters, ginned up by special interest groups on either the right or the left. These were handwritten, contemplative, old-fashioned letters written on lined paper and personal stationery. They were the sort of letters that people write while watching television, in the comfort of their living rooms, or sitting at the kitchen table. It is especially telling that many who objected to the way in which the Alito hearings were conducted do not support Judge Alito. In fact, it is sorely apparent that even many who opposed Judge Alito's nomination also opposed the seemingly ``made for TV'' antics that accompanied the hearings. It is not just the Senate as an institution which is to blame. The virulence of some outside groups from both sides of the political spectrum added fuel to the fire. Multimillion-dollar advertising campaigns either to proclaim or to denigrate Judge Alito's fitness for the position raged across the airwaves. A solemn constitutional responsibility is not helped when it takes on such a tone. And then there were the media and the media's contribution to the deterioration of this very important constitutional process. Was it necessary to subject Mrs. Alito to the harsh glare of the television klieg lights as she fled the hearing room in tears, fighting to maintain her dignity in response to others with precious little of their own? Have we finally come to the point where our Nation's assessment of its Supreme Court nominee turns more on a simple-minded sound bite or an exploitive snapshot than on the answers provided or withheld by the nominees? Obviously, something is wrong with our judicial nomination process, and we in the Senate have the power to fix it. The Framers of such a great document presumably had something better in mind when they vested the Senate with the authority to confirm Justices of the Supreme Court. In fact, we know they did. In 1789, Roger Sherman of Connecticut defended the role of the Senate in confirming Presidential appointments. He wrote: It appears to me that the Senate is the most important branch in the government . . . The Executive magistrate is to execute the laws. The Senate, being a branch of the legislature, will naturally incline to have them duly executed and, therefore, will advise to such appointments as will best attain the end. Alexander Hamilton also had high hopes for the Senate's ability to render its advice and consent function. He proclaimed: It is not easy to conceive a plan better calculated than this to promote a judicious choice of men for filling the offices of the Union. Exactly what did the Framers mean when they gave the Senate the power to ``consent'' to the confirmation of the judicial nominees? Historically, a majority of the Framers anticipated that the Senate's confirmation or rejection of a judicial nominee would be based on the fitness of the nominee, not on partisan politics or extraneous matters. Based on these assumptions, the Framers presumably did not expect the Senate to spend its allotted time on a nominee staging partisan warfare instead of examining his or her qualifications. Yet the Framers probably also would never have expected that a Senator of a nominee's own party would refuse to ask the candidate meaningful questions. They certainly did not intend for Senators of the nominee's own party to sit silently in quiet adulation, refusing to seek the truth, while smiling indulgently; thus, accomplishing nothing. The Framers expected the Senate to be a serious check--a serious check--on the power of the President. The Framers clearly thought that the Senate's confirmation process ought to be fair, ought to be impartial, ought to be thorough, and ought to exhibit appropriate respect for solemn duty and the dignity of both the process and the nominee. I regret that we have come to a place in our history when both political parties--both political parties--exhibit such a ``take no prisoners'' attitude. All sides seek to use the debate over a Supreme Court nominee to air their particular wish list for or against abortion, euthanasia, Executive authority, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, wiretapping, the death penalty, workers' rights, gun control, corporate greed, and dozens of other subjects. All of these issues should be debated, but the battle lines should not be drawn on the judiciary. They should be debated by the people's representatives in the legislative branch. However, too many Americans apparently believe that if they cannot get Congress to address an issue, then they must take it to the Court. As the saying goes, ``If you can't change the law, change the judge.'' This kind of thinking represents a gross misinterpretation of the separation of powers. It is the role of the Congress--the role of the legislative branch--to make and change the laws. Supreme Court Justices exist to interpret laws and be sure that they square with the Constitution and with settled law. A better understanding of the Court's role would do much to diminish the ``hype'' that now accompanies the judicial nomination process. The role of the Senate in the Alito debate is not to push legislation or to score points for those who either support or oppose specific legislative proposals. The purpose of the current debate is to evaluate the fitness of Judge Samuel Alito to sit on the highest Court of our land, which includes his temperament, his intellectual ability, and his record. In a perfect world, this heavy constitutional responsibility of the Senate would have little to do with party affiliation. Unfortunately, during the first administration of George Washington, as far back as 1795, a bruising confirmation battle over the nomination of John Rutledge to be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court established that the same Senators would consider not merely the qualifications but also the political views of a nominee in deciding whether to support or reject his nomination. I am a Senator who takes this Constitution seriously. I refuse simply to toe the party line when it comes to Supreme Court Justices. And I will make up my own mind after careful contemplation. The President of the United States said partly in jest that he wanted to call me to lobby me on the nomination. I said: Mr. President, I don't lobby very easily. I take my Constitutional duties seriously. I will listen to what anybody has to say, and then, Mr. President, I will make up my own mind. I am a registered Democrat. Everybody knows that. But when it comes to judges, I hale from a conservative State. Similar to a majority of my constituents, I prefer conservative judges. I have been saying that for years and years. That is, judges who do not try to make the law. I was once approached by President Richard Nixon to inquire about my interest in being a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. I was proud to be considered. Whether I would have been nominated, I have no way of knowing. But as I said to my wife: I don't think I would like that position. I would not like that kind of cloistered life. I like the rough-and-tumble of the legislative branch. She said: Then you had better let the President know that. I said the same thing to Senator John Pastore, and he responded in the same way. He said: You had better let the President know that. I declined so that I might continue to serve the people of West Virginia, regardless of what the President may have in his heart and in his mind. This is not to say that I would vote for any judge just because he is a conservative. No. No, sir. If I think a conservative judge is unqualified, I will not vote for him, nor would any other Senator vote for a nominee in that situation. I have voted against judges on both sides of the political spectrum, who leaned too heavily on their political views rather than on existing law, precedents and on the Constitution and who seemed to have a political agenda. Much has been made of the fact that Judge Alito has expressed support of the concept of the ``unitary executive.'' Many are afraid his support for this concept means that he favors a broad expansion of Presidential power. And I shared some of that concern. Judge Alito, however, has stated repeatedly that his support for the concept of the unitary executive does not refer to broadening the scope of the power of the President. Instead, Judge Alito says that this theory refers to the way in which the President utilizes his existing power to faithfully execute the law as it applies to administrative agencies within the executive branch. In describing the unitary executive in his speech before the Federalist Society, Judge Alito stated article II, section 3 of the Constitution provides that the President ``shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' ``Thus,'' he said, ``the President has the power and the duty to supervise the way in which the subordinate executive branch officials exercise the President's power of carrying Federal law into execution.'' Before the Judiciary Committee, Judge Alito was asked point blank whether he thought the concept of the unitary executive refers to expanding the scope of Presidential power, or instead to the President's control over the executive branch. As I understood it, Judge Alito confirmed he was speaking of the latter. Judge Alito was also asked whether he would support an expansion of the scope of Presidential power. Specifically, he was asked if he thought the President should have more power than he is expressly given under the Constitution and by law. Judge Alito stated several times that he would not support that point of view, and he noted, again, that the ``scope'' of the power of the President has nothing to do with the unitary executive. I met with Judge Samuel Alito. I spent close to 2 hours with him. I asked him what he thought about the establishment clause and the free exercise clause and the power of the purse and the congressional power over the purse. I told him that I believed the Supreme Court has gone too far in prohibiting the free exercise of religion in this country. He listened respectfully and said that he understood. He did not pledge to overrule precedent, but he made it clear that he understood and respected my viewpoint. I also advised him of my view that the executive branch is continually and improperly seeking to grab power, more power and more power, and that the separation of powers requires the judiciary to be ever vigilant in stopping the abuse of power by the President and in protecting the powers of the other two branches. I urged Judge Alito, as I urged Judge Roberts before him, to recognize the importance of maintaining the equality of the three branches of our Government, protected by our Constitution. I stressed that he ought to be a Justice who will not forget the people's branch, the legislative branch, the first branch, the primary branch mentioned in the Constitution under article I; the executive is mentioned later on in article II. I requested he not rule in a way that would expand the authority of an already expansionist executive. I reiterated that the Framers did not place the greatest power in the executive but, instead, the Framers put the greatest power in the people--the people, like you and me. The first three words in the preamble of the Constitution are, we all know, ``We, the People.'' The Framers ensured that the people, through us, their elected representatives in the Congress, would have the greatest power in our Government. In response, Judge Alito told me he respected the separation of powers and would not rule in support of a power- hungry President. I liked that answer. I liked Judge Alito. He struck me as a man of his word, and I intend to vote for him. I believe strongly that the Senate has a responsibility to provide its advice and consent with respect to a particular nominee based on the merits or demerits of that nominee, not on focus groups, celebrity endorsements, binders filled with innuendo and slanted analysis or White House photo opportunities. In truth, there is absolutely no way of knowing what any nominee for our Nation's highest Court will do after that nominee is confirmed. One could cite many examples of Justices who surprised the President who nominated them, as well as the Members of the Senate who supported or opposed their confirmation. Once a man or woman has achieved the high honor of a lifetime appointment to our Nation's highest Court, a transformation may occur. The awesome responsibility of protecting our Constitution and preserving the checks and balances for succeeding generations of Americans must elevate and sharpen one's judicial temperament in profound ways. The duty to preserve the freedom of our citizens as enshrined in our magnificent Bill of Rights must ennoble even an already noble mind and character. In the end, the heavy duty borne by Members of the Senate to evaluate and reject or approve the President's nominees for the High Court should come down to each Senator's personal judgment of the man or woman before us, augmented, of course, by such judicial records and writings as may exist. I may not know exactly what kind of Justice Samuel Alito will be. No one does. No one does. My considered judgment, from his record, from his answers to my own questions, from his obvious intelligence, and from his obvious sincerity, leads me to believe him to be an honorable man, a man who loves his country, loves the Constitution, and a man who will give of his best. Can we really ask for more? I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, while the Senate was in recess, the State of West Virginia lost 14 proud sons. On January 2, 13 hard-working, God-fearing men were simply earning their daily bread at the Sago coal mine in Upshur County, WV, when an explosion killed 1 man and trapped 12 others 260 feet below its surface. For 41 long hours, these men waited for help. They waited, they waited, they waited, and they prayed. They wrote farewell messages to their loved ones. How gripping. They waited as the air they breathed gave out and their lungs filled with toxic gases. Above the ground, we all prayed for a miracle such as we had enjoyed with the nine miners who had been trapped at the mine at Quecreek, PA, in 2002 and were found alive. But this time, there was only one miracle. My wife Erma and I, like many others in my great State of West Virginia, continue to pray for the recovery of the sole survivor of the Sago explosion, Mr. Randal McCloy, Jr. But tragically, there were no miracles for Tom Anderson, Alva Bennett, Jim Bennett, Jerry Groves, George ``Junior'' Hammer, Terry Helms, Jesse Jones, David Lewis, Martin Toler, Jr., Fred Ware, Jr., Jackie Weaver, and Marshall Winans. Once again, a small coal-mining town in West Virginia went into deep mourning, and an entire State wept with them. And then, incredibly, 17 days later, a mine fire broke out on a conveyor belt at the Aracoma Alma Mine No. 1 in Logan County, WV, trapping two miners underground. In shock and disbelief, the State once again fell to its knees and prayed and pleaded for a miracle. Forty hours later, we learned that two more miners--Don Bragg and Ellery Hatfield--had perished. Another small coal-mining town in West Virginia went into deep mourning, and again an entire State wept with them. Once again, the national media rushed in to report the disaster to the world. Once again, editorials filled newspapers across the country decrying the dangers of mining coal, denouncing the callousness of coal companies, and questioning the commitment of State and Federal officials to mine safety. Madam President, as a child of the Appalachian coalfields, as the son of a West Virginia coal miner, as a U.S. Senator representing one of the most important coal-producing States in the Nation, let me say I have seen it all before. Yes, I have seen it all before. First, the disaster. Then the weeping. Then the outrage. And we are all too familiar with what comes next. After a few weeks, when the cameras are gone, when the ink on the editorials has dried, everything returns to business as usual. The health and the safety of America's coal miners, the men and women upon whom the Nation depends so much, is once again forgotten until the next disaster. But not this time. Let me say that this U.S. Senator and the West Virginia delegation in the House and in the Senate will do all that we can to prevent that. There is blame to be assessed in the wake of these tragedies and plenty of it to go around. Let us begin with the coal company that operated the Sago mine, which had been issued 276 safety and health violations in 2004 and 2005. Let me try to put that into perspective. Could any automobile driver or any truckdriver rack up 276 tickets for reckless driving and still keep a license? What if someone had 276 mistakes on a tax return? One can bet that taxpayer would be looking at serious penalties and possibly time in a Federal prison. But here was a coal company with 276 Federal mine safety violations still operating. While some of these were minor transgressions, too many of them were ``significant and substantial'' or, simply put, very serious, and yet business went on as usual. It is quite possible that not one of these specific violations contributed to the explosion at Sago. But 276 violations is certainly indicative of a company's sloppy attention toward the well-being of its employees. That should be obvious on its face. What about the agency that is responsible for making sure that coal operators comply with the spirit and the letter of the law--the Mine Safety and Health Administration. Let me be clear that I have nothing but praise for the brave rescue teams that went into the Sago and Alma mines. Anybody who has been around a mine explosion knows the dangers that still lurk not just hours but days after such an accident. To go into a mine after a disaster, after an explosion, and to risk one's own life in an effort to save other lives, as these rescuers do, takes guts. It takes a love for one's fellow man. Coal miners are a special breed. I have seen these miners go into a mine after an explosion, risking their own lives, realizing that another explosion might occur and another tragedy would follow in the wake of the first tragedy. Yes, MSHA is filled with good, well-intentioned, and dedicated professionals, but something is terribly wrong with the leadership at MSHA. Consider that for 4 straight years, President Bush has proposed to cut the budget for coal safety enforcement below the level enacted by Congress the previous year, and for 4 straight years the Congress has had to struggle to partially restore those cuts. Some 190 coal enforcement personnel have been lost over the last 4 years through attrition, and they have not been replaced. The priorities reflected by the Bush administration through MSHA's budget certainly are not indicative of a proper concern for the health and safety of miners. On the day of the Sago disaster, 2 hours went by--2 hours, with 60 golden minutes each, went by--before MSHA even knew about the explosion. It took another 2 hours before MSHA personnel arrived at the scene. It took 1\1/2\ hours before the rescue teams arrived. Another 5 hours passed before the first team entered the mine. The Mine Act requires that rescue teams be available to mines in the event of an emergency, and yet it took 10\1/2\ hours before the first rescue team began its effort at Sago. A short 2 weeks later, similar horrors emerged from a second tragedy at the Aracoma Alma mine and, again, MSHA did not know of the incident for 2\1/2\ hours. Something is incredibly wrong. It is obvious something is very, very wrong at MSHA. The rescue procedures for miners are woefully inadequate. The Sago mine had been cited for 276 violations over the past 2 years, and yet the mine operator never paid a fine larger than $440 and often only paid a minimal $60 fine. Few people realize that even when a fine is assessed, the coal operator can negotiate the fine to a piddling amount. Congress recognized a long time ago that mine safety and health depends on financial penalties that ``make it more economical for an operator to comply'' with the law ``than it is to pay the penalties assessed and continue to operate while not in compliance.'' Clearly, the 276 penalties assessed--whatever the amount of the fine--weren't enough to convince this company to take a hard look at safety for its employees. The Sago mine was a habitual violator--a habitual violator. It was being assessed only the minimum penalties allowed by the law. The maximum penalty could be $220,000 or $1 million, but it makes no difference unless MSHA is willing to impose and collect that maximum amount. Habitual violators must be brought to a state of fearing the consequences of a heavy fine to be paid when assessed. We have to get tough about enforcing the law. At MSHA, complacent attitudes and arrogance rule at the top. At the Senate Appropriations Labor-HHS Subcommittee hearing on Monday, Acting MSHA Secretary David Dye was asked directly about the issue of communications technology: Why are the miners trapped underground not able to communicate with the rescue teams, and can rescue teams better locate trapped miners? Dye was asked directly if technology exists to correct these problems, and he stated for the record that such technology did not exist. Now get that. Let me say that again. At this hearing, conducted by one of the finest Senators on either side of the aisle here, Republican Senator Specter of Pennsylvania, at that record hearing, Acting MSHA Secretary David Dye was asked directly about the issue of communications technology: Why are the miners trapped underground not able to communicate with the rescue teams, and can rescue teams better locate trapped miners? Dye was asked directly if technology exists to correct these problems, and he stated for the record that such technology did not exist. How about that. That statement proved to be utterly, utterly, utterly false. Minutes later, after Dye was asked if such technology existed, the subcommittee heard from a former MSHA Secretary, Davitt McAteer, who verified that such communications technology certainly does exist, and Mr. McAteer put tracking and communications devices on the table-- on the table--right in front of the subcommittee. What does that say about the people leading this agency when they don't even know about the existence of lifesaving technology that ought to be in the mines? What does that say? Shame, shame on them. I am talking about the people leading the agency when they testified that they don't even know about the existence of lifesaving technology that ought to be in the mines. Why is the Acting Administrator of MSHA, charged with protecting the health and safety of coal miners, so abysmally ignorant of these technologies? The families of these miners and the Members of this Congress are owed an explanation. In this day and age of cell phones, BlackBerrys, and text messaging, it is absolutely unacceptable that safe telecommunications technology was not available to the Sago and Alma miners. These weaknesses in mine emergency preparedness are unacceptable. Where is MSHA? Repeating the first question that was ever asked in the history of mankind when God sought Adam in the Garden of Eden in the cool of the day. God said: Adam, where art thou? Well, where was MSHA? Where was MSHA? What is that agency waiting for? Ask the leadership at MSHA. At Sago and Alma, we have seen the disastrous results of complacent attitudes at the top--at the top. A quick look at the list of rules approved and scuttled at MSHA in recent years--from regulations governing mine rescue teams to the use of belt entries for ventilation to inspection procedures to emergency breathing equipment to escape routes, any one of which might figure into the deaths and disasters at the Sago and Alma mines--suggest that something, something, something is terribly wrong. Something is terribly, terribly, terribly wrong, and it ought to be fixed. In 1995, labor and industry jointly proposed a number of initiatives on mine emergency preparedness to improve mine rescue technology and communications. Perhaps one of the most important was to address the dwindling number of mine rescue teams. MSHA has ignored the report and its recommendations. In 2003, the General Accountability Office made a list of recommendations to the Secretary of Labor to help MSHA protect the safety and health of the miners. What happened? MSHA ignored the recommendation. Shame, shame. Our Nation's coal miners are vital to our national economy. During World War I, coal miners put in long, brutal hours to make sure that the Nation had coal to heat our homes, power our factories, and fuel our battleships. In World War II, American coal miners again provided the energy to replace the oil that was lost with the outbreak of that global conflict. During the oil boycott-induced energy crisis of the 1970s, our Nation once again called upon--yes, our Nation once again turned, yes, to the coal miners to bail the Nation out of trouble, and the coal miners did. Coal produces over half of the electricity we use every day in these United States. Here is an example of it all around the ceiling here, the lights that are burning making it bright as day right here in this Chamber. That is coal. That is energy that comes from coal, burning coal--coal that is produced by hard, backbreaking labor in the dangerous mines. Coal is dug out, scratched out by the coal miner. So today America's coal miners provide the electricity--the electricity right here--the electricity that lights the streets of Washington, New York City, Sacramento, and all over this country, and it heats our homes in winter, lights our homes in summer. Those coal miners could provide the key to our Nation's future energy security. You can bet on those coal miners--and they are of a different breed, a special breed. If we made better use of this abundant natural resource, coal, we could reduce our country's dangerous dependency on foreign oil. We could make ourselves less dependent on the rule of despots, and less of a target for the fanatics and the terrorists of the Middle East. God blessed our country. Yes, the Almighty who was there at the beginning blessed our Nation, especially West Virginia with an abundance of coal, and God provided us with the good, the brave, the hard-working coal miners to dig that coal and bring it from the Earth, the bowels, the dark, the black, the darkness. The coal miners have never failed our Nation. I know. I grew up in a coal miner's home. I married a coal miner's daughter. Her brother-in-law died from black lung. His father was killed under a slate fall. We have lived--my family has lived--with coal miners. We have coal miners in our families. We have lost loved ones. The test of a great country such as ours is how serious we are about protecting those among us who are most at risk, whether it be innocent children who need guarding from hunger and disease or our elderly and sick who cannot afford medication. Those men and women who bravely labor in such dangerous occupations as coal mining to provide our country with critical energy should be protected from exploitation by private companies with callous attitudes about health and safety. That is why MSHA exists. That is why we created MSHA. That is why I was here when that agency was created. But MSHA is just a paper tiger without aggressive leadership. If we are truly a moral nation, and I believe that we should be, moral values must be reflected in government agencies that are charged with protecting the lives of our citizens. The last thing that we need is ho hum, arrogant attitudes from this administration and its officials. Such calumny abuses the public trust and results in the kind of loss of life that so grieves families today in Upshur and Logan Counties and all across my home State of West Virginia. Madam President, in memory of the Sago and Alma Miners, and all those who labor and have labored in our nation's coal mines, I ask unanimous consent that the eulogy of Homer Hickam, from the Sago Memorial Service on January 15, 2006, be printed in the Congressional Record.

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, the issue of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve is close to the heart, dear to the heart of the senior Senator from Alaska. I love him. I admire his unyielding commitment to the people of his State. I honor him for that. I consider him a dear friend, a friend over a long period of time, a friend who is close to my heart. My remarks today do not reflect upon him or upon his efforts in regard to the people he represents. My concern is with the rules of the Senate. My concern is with the Senate rules in this book and how the rules are threatened--threatened--by what has been unfolding in recent days. If cloture is invoked on the conference report, Senators have discussed raising a rule XXVIII point of order--that is what we hear-- against the conference report. That point of order is expected to be sustained by the Chair. The question may then be put to the Senate to overturn the ruling of the Chair and, in effect, to negate--get this-- in effect to negate rule XXVIII in order to retain ANWR provisions in the conference report. It has been noted that if the Senate negates the rule, language included in the conference report would restore rule XXVIII by directing the Presiding Officer to apply the precedents of the Senate in effect at the beginning of the 109th Congress. It is true that noncontroversial, extraneous matter is often included in conference reports. There is no doubt about that. It is true that Senators acquiesce on many occasions, choosing not to invoke rule XXVIII. That is true. That is a fact. It is also true that the Senate can reinterpret and set new precedents for the application of its rules whenever it pleases. The Senate can do that. That is as it ought to be. But what has been discussed in recent days is very different--hear me-- very different. It will allow a simple majority of Senators, as opposed to the two- thirds majority required by Senate rule V, to effectively suspend rule XXVIII by negating it and then restoring it so that the rule cannot be used to prevent the passage of the ANWR provisions that have been inserted into the conference report. I say to my colleagues--hear me, hear me, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--that I abhor, I abhor, I abhor this idea. Shame. If such a scheme were carried into effect, it could seriously impair the Senate rules. Hear me. I know about the rules. I spent years in using the rules. Nothing would stand in the way of a majority-- nothing--nothing would stand in the way of a majority, be it Republican or be it Democrat, from routinely negating and replacing Senate rule XXVIII in order to insert controversial legislation into a conference report. This is a very clever, a very clever, a very clever thing that is being put forth here. Today, this process could be employed to suspend rule XXVIII, but tomorrow, it could be employed to suspend the rule XVI prohibition against legislation on appropriations bills, and the day after that, it could be used to suspend who knows whatever rules.

Mr. BYRD. Not yet. I will be happy to yield to my friend. He is my friend. I love him, I told him that, but I love the Senate better. I love the Senate more. I love this man from Alaska. I do, I love him. I feel my blood in my veins is with his blood. I love him, but I love the Senate more. I came here and swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and I would die upholding that oath, just as the Romans honored an oath. And I feel the same about that. I love my friend from Alaska, I say, I love him, but I cannot go down that road. I have told him so. I love him, but I love the Senate more. I know he is going to speak, and I would love to follow him, but I won't be able to, so let my words stand. The record stands. If permitted today, the process could be utilized again and again and again, with terrible consequences for the Senate rules. I understand that Senators are working to avoid this scenario. I hope that effort is successful. Allowing this process to continue unfolding as it has in recent days would cause significant harm to the Senate as an institution. Senators should realize that if negated in the next hour, rule XXVIII would not be restored in its current form until the President signs into law the Defense appropriations conference report, which could take as long as 10 days. In that time, any remaining conference reports, whether a rewritten PATRIOT Act or a continuing resolution, could include almost any--almost any--nongermane provisions without being subject to a rule XXVIII point of order. It is ironic--oh, it is ironic.

Mr. BYRD. May I have 5 more minutes?

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, it is ironic that the Senator from Alaska and I find ourselves on opposite sides of this issue. In the year 2000, we worked together to restore rule XXVIII after it had been negated 4 years earlier. We agreed that it ought to be restored to try to facilitate a return to the regular order in the Senate. My friend remembers as I do the yearend Omnibus appropriations bills that would come back from conference where conferees had to accept all sorts of new matter never before considered by the House or Senate. We included an amendment in the fiscal year 2001 Consolidated Appropriations Act to restore rule XXVIII, with the support of the majority and the minority leaders. Now the question may be put to the Senate to negate rule XXVIII again. I understand the passions surrounding the issue of ANWR, and I honor my friend from Alaska. He is standing up for his State, but I am standing for the Senate. I am standing for the Senate, the Senate's rules under the Constitution of the United States. I understand the passions surrounding the issue of ANWR, but we abandon and undermine these rules at a terrible, terrible price. What a price. This institution and the liberties that its rules protect must come first-- must come first--before political party, whatever it be, Republican or Democrat, and before legislative maneuvering. Those battles are fleeting, but the Senate must stand forever. I do not want to see the Senate, the forum of the States and the last exalted refuge that guarantees a voice to the minority among the din of an overwhelming majority, I do not want to see the Senate take the position that a majority of Senators are entitled to suspend the Senate rules whenever they prove inconvenient. So I urge my colleagues-- please, listen, my friends on both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans--I urge my colleagues to think carefully about this issue. The powerful abolitionist Senator Charles Sumner called the Senate rules the very temple, the very temple of constitutional liberty, and he was right. I plead with my colleagues to not dismantle that temple of constitutional liberty. I urge my colleagues to preserve rule XXVIII in its current form and, if raised, to oppose any motion to overturn the ruling of the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Shame.

Mr. BYRD. Shame.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Right.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate is now on its way to passing the Defense appropriations bill, which will provide essential funds to our troops. The U.S. Armed Forces are comprised of some of the finest men and women our country has to offer. Each of these brave individuals has made the commitment to serve our country, during times of war or peace, and each is deserving of the support of a grateful nation. I particularly wish to salute the fine members of the West Virginia National Guard who have time and again demonstrated their commitment to serving our State and our Nation. These citizen-soldiers have served in all corners of the world while balancing their obligations to their families, to their employers, and to their communities. The Defense appropriations bill is important to our National Guard and all the members of our military. I am proud to have worked with my colleagues to expedite passage of this essential legislation. The Senate is proceeding in a wise course after the cloture vote this morning. The most controversial part of the conference report will be removed, clearing the way for the Defense appropriations bill to pass the Senate and be sent on its way to the White House. It is unfortunate that the deletion of the most controversial provision that was attached to the bill in conference will also result in eliminating needed funds for hurricane relief, LIHEAP, homeland security, and border security. Congress should not delay in providing additional funds for these purposes. There are emergency needs in each of these areas that must be met with quick action. While the ANWR provision will be removed from the bill, I continue to have serious concerns about the avian flu-related liability provisions that were slipped into the conference report without debate. These liability provisions did not appear in either the House- or the Senate- passed bill. These provisions were not in the materials presented to the conference committee during its deliberations. It was not until the dead of night on this past Sunday, after signatures had already been collected on the conference report, that the Republican majority slipped these provisions into the bill before the Senate today. What an insult to the legislative process. It makes sense for Congress to take steps to encourage companies to develop and manufacture lifesaving flu vaccines. Manufacturers and health professionals acting in good faith to protect the public health, by developing and distributing critical vaccines, should not be unfairly penalized for their efforts to protect the American people from the horrors of a pandemic disease. However, our country has a moral obligation to look out for those who may become seriously ill as a result of these vaccines. We are talking about the lives of real American people. There ought to be compensation available to those persons who may suffer adverse effects from these kinds of vaccines. But the liability amendment slipped into the bill does not contain any meaningful provisions establishing a fair compensation system to protect vaccine recipients. Americans who pull up their sleeves to receive an emergency flu vaccine must be provided with some assurance that they would not face economic catastrophe should they be harmed. All of this comes as our country is coming to grips with the threat that the avian flu might spread to our shores. A flu pandemic is one of the most dangerous threats the United States faces today. Medical experts warn that a global, cataclysmic pandemic is not a question of if but when. Like any natural disaster, it could hit at anytime. And when it does, it could take the lives of tens of millions of people. According to the Congressional Budget Office, an avian flu pandemic would deliver a devastating $675 billion blow to the U.S. economy. This administration has failed to adequately respond to safeguard the American people and limit the human and economic cost of such a pandemic. In the event of a flu pandemic, hundreds of millions of Americans will need to be vaccinated as quickly as possible. Yet our current public health infrastructure is alarmingly ill-equipped for this threat. This administration and the Republican-led Congress have weakened the health care infrastructure of this country by starving it of needed funding. The administration has been engaged in a relentless campaign to arbitrarily cut Medicaid and other vital safety-net programs that protect the health of the poor and disabled. I am also disappointed that the majority chose to limit funds for vaccines, medicines, and other tools to combat the avian flu to just $3.8 billion. That level of funding is $4.3 billion below the level that the Senate approved just 2 months ago. The American people deserve better from their elected representatives. They deserve a coherent plan to combat the looming threat of a flu pandemic with significant resources devoted to protecting the public's health. Finally, Mr. President, I regret that so little attention has been paid during the recent debate on this bill to the most important issue facing our country. The ongoing war in Iraq has so far cost the lives of 2,155 members of the U.S. Armed Forces. Including the so-called ``bridge fund'' of $50 billion that is appropriated in this bill, our Nation will have dedicated $259 billion to carry out the war in Iraq. What an enormous sum. More than a quarter of a trillion dollars has been spent on this war that should never have begun. What is more, the newspapers are full of stories that the President is going to ask Congress for another $100 billion in the coming months to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These huge sums of money are being requested and spent for the war in Iraq with no idea of how the White House intends to get our troops out of that country. The President has taken to the speaking circuit to try to rally support for the war, but his statements are simply variations on a theme: stay the course, stay the course, stay the course. Americans are asking questions that the White House has so far refused to address. How much longer will our troops be in Iraq? How many more Americas will perish in this costly war? How many more billions will be spent to support the administration's misguided policies in Iraq? Instead of getting answers to these questions, and instead of changing course in the war in Iraq, this appropriations bill includes $50 billion to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the fact that the President did not request a single dime in his budget for these costs. Let me say again: the Congress is appropriating billions more for the war in Iraq without a request from the President. Is this any way to pay for a war? Although Senators must do our part in providing for our troops serving in harm's way, I do not think that our troops are served by having Congress appropriate funds for the war in Iraq without any explanation by the President or the Secretary of Defense about how these funds are to be used. If the administration wants additional funds to prosecute the war in Iraq, the administration should answer the tough questions about its policy for getting our country out of Iraq.