Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as we look out the window in most of our great country, we can witness the season change, the change in the season, and we can feel it. The air has become crisp with autumnal chill. The leaves on the trees change their color; from the exuberant, green lushness of the summer months to the tired, brown, yellow, and red of the autumn, much like the graying hair of a man advancing in age. Nature can sometimes mimic human events with a subtlety that no words can quite convey. As our country heads into the season that is celebrated with the love of family and the love of home, Americans should also look across the landscape of America and reflect upon the loss of so many young Americans in the 12 months since autumn last fell upon us. Think about it. In the past year, more than 820 servicemembers have lost their lives in Iraq. The evening news features pictures of American troops who have perished in service to our flag, in service to our country. I am struck by these colorful mosaics of these troops, amen; the green and blue of their uniforms set against the background of the bold colors of our flag, Old Glory, Old Glory. Each of these proud troops holds an expression of pride and courage, even though many of them appear to be so young. Note their ages--18, 19, 20, 21--just starting out in life, having one full glance of what is around them. I can only imagine the grief of their loving families during this time of the year, as the somber tones of fall contrast with the joy of being with family during the upcoming holidays. I pray that God, Almighty God, will comfort those who have suffered losses, that He will bless the fallen in their everlasting life, and that His hand will protect those who still serve in harm's way. That so many have sacrificed during this war in Iraq is reason enough to ask questions about our Government and about our Government's policy in that faraway land. Our troops continue to shed their blood, and our Nation continues to devote enormous sums of our national wealth to continue that war. The Constitution protects the American people from unjust laws that seek to stifle the patriotic duty to question those who are in power. But it is the courage of the American people that compels them to actually speak out when those in power call for silence. If anything, attacks on patriotism of freedom-loving Americans may result in even more Americans fighting against attempts to squelch the constitutional protections of freedom. Since our country was sent to war on March 19, 2003, 2,073 American men and women have been killed. Yes, 2,073 Americans have died. Nearly 16,000 troops have been wounded. Our military is straining under the repeated deployment of our troops, including the members of the National Guard. They come from all walks of life. They are lawyers. They are teachers. They are preachers. They are coal miners. They are farmers. More than $214 billion has been spent in Iraq and the end is not in sight. More than $214 billion spent in Iraq and the end is not in sight. Urban combat takes place each day, every day, in Baghdad, all day long. Every day and night. Veterans hospitals in our own country are threatened by budget shortfalls, and yet Americans are still left to wonder, when will our brave troops be coming home? When? I opposed this war in Iraq from the outset. From the beginning I spoke out against our entry into this war. I pleaded with my colleagues. I pleaded with the White House. I asked questions that have not been answered. I spoke out against the invasion of a country which did not pose an imminent threat to our national security. I said so then--and I was right. I opposed the war in Iraq from the outset. From the word go, I opposed it. But our troops were ordered to go to Iraq and they went. The question is, now, when will they come home? The administration has so far laid out only a vague policy, saying our troops will come home when the Iraqi Government is ready to take responsibility for its country. When our troops are no longer needed, when the job is done, they will come home. We will not stay a day longer than we are needed. That sort of political doublespeak is small comfort to the mothers and the fathers of our fighting men and women, the mothers and fathers who turn and toss upon their pillows, whose tears wet the pillows, whose prayers break the silence of night. Oh, when will they come home? Bring my boy home. Oh, God, this awful war. Wednesday evening the Vice President of the United States, even claimed that criticism of the administration's war in Iraq was dishonest and reprehensible. Did you hear that? Hear me, now; let me say that again: On Wednesday evening the Vice President of the United States, the man who is within a heartbeat of being the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States even claimed that criticism of the administration's war in Iraq was ``dishonest and reprehensible.'' Since when are we not to lift our voices? Are the American people not to lift their voices in criticism of the administration's war in Iraq? Is it dishonest on the part of the American people to do that? Is it reprehensible on the part of mothers and fathers of sons and daughters who were sent to that most dangerous country in the world? Is it reprehensible? Did the Vice President measure his words? The Vice President's comments come on the heels of comments from President Bush, who said: What bothers me is when people are irresponsibly using their positions and playing politics. That's exactly what is taking place in America. Listen to that. The President and the Vice President need to reread the Constitution, take another look at that inimitable document. Asking questions, seeking honesty and truth, and pressing for accountability is exactly what the Framers had in mind. What would George Washington say? What would Alexander Hamilton say? What would James Madison say? What would Gouverneur Morris say? What would James Wilson say? Questioning policies and practices, especially ones that have cost this Nation more than 2,000 of her bravest sons and daughters, is the responsibility of every American and is also a central role of Congress as our duty as the elected representatives of a free people. We--you, you, you and I--we are the elected representatives of the American people, the people all over this vast land, its plains, its prairies, its mountains, it valleys, its lakes, its rivers, its seas. Yes, we are the men and women who are tasked with seeking the truth. Is that irresponsible to seek the truth? But instead of working with the Congress, instead of clearing the air, the White House falls back to the irksome practice of attack, attack, attack; obscure, obscure, obscure; attack. The American people are tired of these reprehensible tactics. If anything is reprehensible, it is these tactics. Circling the wagons will not serve this administration well. What the people demand are the facts. They want the truth. They want their elected leaders to level with them. And when it comes to the war in Iraq, this administration seems willing to do anything it can do to avoid the truth, a truth I believe will reveal that the Bush administration did, indeed, manipulate the facts in order to lead this Nation down the road to war. War. War. The administration claims that the Congress had the same intelligence as the President before the war and that independent commissions have determined there was no misrepresentation of the intelligence. But neither claim is true. The intelligence agencies are under the control of the White House. All information given to the Congress was cleared through the White House. And the President had access to an enormous amount of data never shared with the Congress. There was a filter over the intelligence information the Congress received. That filter was the administration, which is actively engaged in hyping the danger and lusting after this war, this terrible war in Iraq. Remember the talk of weapons of mass destruction? Remember the talk of mushroom clouds? Remember? Remember the talk of unmanned drones? The so-called proof for war was massaged before it was sent to Congress, to scare Members, and leaked to reporters to scare people. No independent commission has stated that the case for war was indisputable. Commissions have looked at how the intelligence fell short, but none have yet examined possible political manipulation. Even the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence slowed its examination, stalled its examination of possible White House manipulation. My colleague from West Virginia, the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Jay Rockefeller, is rightly pressing for answers. Right now we are engaged in a mission with no definition. That is troubling because without a clearly defined mission, it is impossible to determine when our effort is truly accomplished. This week, the Senate had the opportunity to establish some very basic benchmarks for progress in Iraq, benchmarks that would have clearly outlined goals and provided accountability in meeting those goals. The proposal, offered by the senior Senator from Michigan, Senator Carl Levin, was a modest, flexible approach that would have given our troops, their families, the American people, and the Iraqi people some basic guidepost. Unfortunately, the Senate turned its back. It could not see the wisdom of this approach. It could not bring itself to see the wisdom of the approach. So, my fellow Senators, it is vital that we have benchmarks against which to gauge our progress. That is how we can measure effectiveness and, most importantly, how we know when the job is done. The administration's strategy of keeping our troops in Iraq for as long as it takes--have you heard that before? Keeping our troops in Iraq for as long as it takes?--that is the wrong strategy. Who knows how long it will take for the Iraqi Government to institute order in that fractured, unhappy, miserable country? Unfortunately, the questions that the American people are asking about the missteps and the mistakes in the war in Iraq are not being answered by this White House, not being answered by the administration. Vice President Cheney has dismissed these important questions as ``making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war.'' Now, listen to that. The Vice President of the United States has dismissed these important questions as ``making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war.'' How about that? Perhaps the Vice President should question White House aides about using war for political advantage. For example, on January 19, 2002, the Washington Post reported that Karl Rove--get this--advised Republicans to ``make the president's handling of the war on terrorism the centerpiece of their strategy to win back the Senate and keep control of the House in this year's midterm elections.'' Does the Vice President have anything to say about that? Let me say that again. On January 19, 2002--I read about it at the time; I did not miss it--the Washington Post reported that Karl Rove advised Republicans to ``make the president's handling of the war on terrorism the centerpiece of their strategy to win back the Senate and keep control of the House in this year's midterm elections.'' That was said on January 19, 2002. That was quoted in the Post on that date. Yes, does the Vice President have anything to say about that? The Vice President also lashed out at those who might deceive our troops: The saddest part is that our people in uniform have been subjected to these cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out. Now, listen to that. Was the Vice President trying to clarify some of his past statements on Iraq? Was he? On March 24, 2002, the Vice President said that Iraq ``is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time.'' There was no doubt about it, to listen to the Vice President--no doubt. On August 26, 2002, the Vice President said: Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. Let me go back and read the quote. Let me repeat it. On August 26, 2002, here is what the Vice President said: Simply stated, there is no doubt-- Get that-- Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. That is the end of the quotation. On March 16, 2003, the Vice President said: We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. Do you remember that? On March 16, 2003, there it is, the Vice President said: We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. Are these the ``pernicious falsehoods'' that the Vice President believes our troops have been subjected to? That is, of course, a rhetorical question. Far from questioning his own statements about the war in Iraq, the Vice President's comments are a ham-handed attempt to squelch the questions that the American people out there are asking about the administration's policies in Iraq. The American people should not be cowed. They should not be intimidated. And Senators should not be intimidated by these attempts to intimidate. The American people should not allow the subject to be changed from the war in Iraq to partisan sniping in Washington. Instead, the American people must raise their voices--hear us--the American people should raise their voices--hear us, listen to us--the American people must raise their voices even louder to ask the administration the same simple questions: What is your policy for Iraq? Answer that. What is your policy? Is it stay the course? When will the war be over? How many more lives will this war cost? When will our troops return home? Mr. President, the holiday season is almost upon us. Americans will soon sit down at their Thanksgiving tables. They will gather together to give thanks to Almighty God, give thanks to Him for the blessings that have been bestowed upon America's families. As we gather, there will be an empty seat at many tables. Some chairs will be empty because a service member is serving his or her country in a faraway land. Other seats will be empty as a silent tribute to those who will never, never return. Each of these troops has fought to protect our freedoms, including the freedom of Americans to ask questions--yes, the freedom to ask questions. Our troops have fought for that freedom--people back home, their families, might ask questions, their friends might ask questions--the freedom to ask questions of their Government, the people's Government. The whole picture, the truth is that the continued occupation of Iraq only serves to drive that country closer to civil war. They do not want us there. They do not want us there. How would you feel, Senators, how would you feel if our country were invaded by another country? You would want them out. You would do anything you could to get them out. American troops are now perceived as occupiers, not as liberators. The longer we stay, the more dangerous Iraq becomes, and the more likely it is we will drive the future government further from a democratic republic and closer to religious fundamentalism and, not insignificantly, the more American and Iraqi lives will be lost--forever. I, for one, believe that it is time to say ``well done''--``well done''--to our brave fighting men and women. May God bless them one and all. Let us say, job well done, and start to bring the troops home. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, last night, as the Senate was working into the late hours of the night and tensions were running high, our esteemed and beloved colleague, the former chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, took me by the arm and pulled me aside. There was something he wanted to show me. There was something that my esteemed and beloved colleague, Ted Stevens, wanted to say to me and wanted to show me. There was something he wanted to show me. It was an article that his daughter Lily Stevens had written about the U.S. Capitol, and he wanted to share it with me. I was touched by this. I know Lily. What a prodigious memory she has. Ah, what a rose in full bloom, what a lovely woman, Lily. She adores her father. He adores her. With everything that was going on in the Senate at the time, Senator Stevens was showing a father's pride in his daughter's accomplishment. I have literally watched Lily grow up. In her article, she points out that her father was already a Senator when she was born, and while she was a baby, her father would bring her to the Capitol--I have seen him many times--and carry her around in a basket. I remember that, just as I remember how she attended a number of my parties, and I attended a number of hers. I watched her grow into the remarkably--talented person she is today. She is a graduate of Stanford University and is currently a law student at the University of California at Berkeley. Lily is not only prodigious and intelligent, but she also is a polite, courteous, gracious, and charming young lady. Senator Stevens is so proud of her, and he has a right to be. The article his daughter wrote is an outgrowth of her senior thesis at Stanford University, and as I read it, I understood why Senator Stevens was so excited about it and why he wanted to share it with me. Titled, ``The Message of the Dome: The United States Capitol in the Popular Media,'' the article explores the ways in which the Capitol has served and communicated with the general American public over the years. It discusses the Capitol as a symbol to the American people and how the meaning of that symbol has changed over time. This beautifully written article skillfully conveys the sense of wonder that awaits every first-time visitor to Capitol Hill. With a trip to the Capitol, Lily points out, a visit to Washington goes well beyond ``a vacation in the leisure sense.'' It becomes ``an education journey, one in which the visitor can learn more about the government and the history of the United States.'' And Lily's article makes fascinating and intriguing points about this building in which her father, Senator Ted Stevens, and I work. Visitors to the Capitol, Lily Stevens writes, while sharing certain common experiences, still find their own individual interests. As she quotes one author: ``The Capitol means many things to many people.'' Lily Stevens makes the point about how the Capitol functions as a ``national shrine,'' a place for appreciating our democratic form of government and for praising our Nation, our history, and our national leaders. And she explains how, over the years, the Capitol has functioned as a church. Indeed, religious services were once held in this building. And the Capitol still performs many functions that are religious in nature, like funeral services for certain national leaders. Statuary Hall, she points out, can be seen and interpreted as ``an American Westminster Abbey.'' How about that? There is so much fascinating reading in this article, I could speak long about it. I am asking that it be printed in the Congressional Record, and I urge all my colleagues to read it. I promise you, you will enjoy it. Senator Ted Stevens is also entitled today to his own personal congratulations. Why? Today, November 18, is Senator Stevens' birthday. How about that? Senator Stevens' birthday, today. A wonderful man, a great legislator. Today Senator Stevens is 82 years young. Oh, to be 82 again. Just to be 82 again, oh, my. I said to Ted: ``The next 5 years are going to be the heaviest, Ted.'' I know. Five years ago I didn't need those canes, no. My feet and legs were still good. Senator Stevens and I have worked together in the Senate since 1968, and we have been on the Senate Appropriations Committee together since 1972. In all this time together, I have always known Senator Ted Stevens to be an outstanding Senator, a great colleague, and a trusted friend. Oh, I realize he may grumble every now and then. He is getting a little bit grumbly. But you can forgive him for that. You never have to be concerned about turning your back on him. He is honest. He is straightforward. And his word is his bond. Over the years we have had our spats, but never once did I doubt our friendship, our admiration for this country, its flag, each other, and our ability to work together. So today, Ted, I say in the words of the poet: Count your garden by the flowers, Never by the leaves that fall. Count your days by the sunny hours, And not remembering clouds at all. Count your nights by stars, not shadows, Count your life by smiles, not tears. And on this beautiful November afternoon, Senator Stevens, count your age by friends, not years. I conclude my remarks by again congratulating Senator Stevens on his 82nd birthday and on his beautiful daughter's marvelous work. I thank Ted Stevens for being a superb colleague and a great friend, a great servant of his people in Alaska, and for sharing Lily's article with me. I ask unanimous consent to print the article in the Record.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as the City of New Orleans and countless other communities along the U.S. gulf coast continue to clean up from the twin disasters that were Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, as Florida reels from yet another major hurricane there, as U.S. casualties in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts soar above 2,000, and as scandal engulfs the White House itself, it might seem difficult to find anything to be thankful for on this Thanksgiving. For many families in the United States this holiday season, the tables, if tables they can find to set, will be set with fewer plates than usual, and the fare might be somewhat skimpier than in years past. Their homes are in ruins, their jobs lost, their friends and family members scattered, and their prospects for rebuilding the lives they once knew are uncertain. It can be difficult to take the long view in the face of such circumstances, or to reflect on history with any equanimity, even though history is replete with examples of recoveries from terrible disasters. One has only to think of Hurricane Camille, or the Great Depression, or World War II, or the San Francisco earthquake, the great Chicago fire, to find evidence that out of the ashes of war and devastation can come the rebirth of cities, communities, and economies. There is hope. There is also much worth celebrating as families sit down to their Thanksgiving tables. We may be grateful that the loss of life to the hurricanes was not greater. We can all celebrate the tremendous outpouring of support that spontaneously erupted from the hearts, hands, and wallets of Americans outside the gulf coast disaster zone and from friends around the world who were glad to come in their turn to our assistance as the United States has in the past come to theirs. Communities all along the periphery opened their doors to welcome refugees from the storms, and volunteers flooded into the area in such force that relief organizations were overwhelmed. The public response to the gulf coast disasters was truly inspiring and heartwarming. It proved that a core value of this Nation, its sense of community, remains strong and vital. We can also celebrate the ability of our Nation's first responders to learn from their mistakes. While the planning and response to Hurricane Katrina was in most people's estimates pretty abysmal, the preparation for and response to Hurricane Rita was a little better. And, unfortunately for the people of Florida, they have gotten a lot of practice in the last couple of years, and their preparations for and response to hurricanes is well rehearsed. There is much we can learn from these terrible events, and hope that we take those lessons to heart. The brightest spot in the war in Iraq is the performance of our troops. Day after dangerous day, they do their duty. They patrol, they seek out insurgents, they struggle to provide a secure environment for the rebuilding of that nation. Day after day, they face down their own fears and travel those lethal roads to take the battle to the enemy. However one may feel about the path that led us to Iraq, we can feel nothing but love, pride, and respect for our men and women in uniform. Whatever the circumstances under which we sent them there, through misread intelligence or misleading rhetoric, the U.S. military has gone, and gone again and again, and performed their duties with courage and dedication. Even the scandal that now haunts the White House, and which is beginning to wash over the President's closest advisors, may give us cause for celebration, and not for any partisan reasons. As Americans, we may be thankful for living in a nation in which no man is king, to rule at his own whim and to undermine his detractors at will and without consequence. We may be thankful for our system of government, with its checks and balances between the three branches of government firmly established in our Constitution. And we may celebrate the wisdom of guaranteeing freedom of expression and the existence of a free press. Though the wheels of government may sometimes grind exceedingly slowly, we can be grateful that they still can be pushed and cajoled into conducting their oversight functions and asserting those checks and balances. That is what keeps this country strong. President Abraham Lincoln said ``Let the people know the truth and the country is safe.'' Whatever may be the final outcome of the investigation into possible retribution by the White House against Ambassador Wilson and his wife for Wilson's role in unmasking a fraud in the government's case for going to war in Iraq, the Nation is safer and better off for having the means for citizens, acting through their elected officials and their legal system, to challenge possible abuses of power. So even in these dark days, there is cause for thanksgiving. I hope that the recent dip in gasoline prices will allow families to come together, pull out the good china and set a beautiful table overflowing with all the dishes that make this feast so memorable and so mouthwatering: turkey, roasted, grilled, smoked, barbequed or deep fried; stuffing in all its regional variations with herbs or oysters or sausage or cornbread; hams coated in pineapples and cloves or cured with smoke or sugar; cranberries served jellied or chopped, with oranges or not; green bean casserole with a crown of fried onions; yeast rolls or biscuits dripping with butter or gravy; sweet potatoes in casseroles or with marshmallows and brown sugar; and pies--glorious pies with spicy pumpkin topped with whipped cream, and fruit pies in flaky shells, topped with cheese or ice cream. Americans know how to cook, and all the variations on our traditional Thanksgiving meal surely mean that this feast will never settle into routine. Thanksgiving. Can there be a better day? It starts with parades to watch for the youngsters. Then the action in the kitchen heats up, competing with football games and the happy arrival of guests for our attention with a whole array of enticing aromas and clattering noises. The meal itself is wonderful, with family and friends around the table giving thanks and meaning it. And after the meal, in the warm glow of a full stomach, there is time for companionship as the leftovers are put away and the dishes are washed. The evenings are primed for walks in the cool weather, or short naps, or other sports, before the leftovers make their first reappearance. There are few days like this, devoted entirely to family without the distraction of, say presents at Christmas or Easter egg hunts. Thanksgiving is the one time we can really focus on all that we have to be thankful for just by looking around that table. My wife Erma and I have so much to be thankful for, and I know that she joins me in wishing a very happy thanksgiving to all Americans. May each of you, no matter how desperate your present circumstances may be, be blessed and see all that you have to be thankful for. Mr. President, I wish you a happy Thanksgiving. I would like to close with a poem by Charles Frederick White, written in November 1895. His words serve to remind us that Thanksgivings past were not very different than today. Thoughts of Thanksgiving Thanksgiving Day is coming soon, That long remembered day When nature gives her blessed boon To all America. On that glad day, in all our land, The people, in their wake, Give thanks to God, whose mighty hand Deals blessings good and great. The roast goose, steaming on the plate, The sweet potato cobbler, The cranberry sauce, the pudding baked, The seasoned turkey gobbler, All these delights and many more, From north, south, west and east, Do all the nation keep in store For this Thanksgiving feast. Alas, for those who are denied This blessed boon of God! May all the needy be supplied Like Israel by the rod.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator will yield briefly--and I am not going to keep my friend from Texas waiting. He has been standing and waiting to be recognized. It was a pleasure, may I say to my friend, to call to the attention of Senators this beautiful article written by Senator Stevens' daughter Lily. She is a really precocious child. I have watched her from almost day one. I admire her. She is a well-bred woman. She is the flower of womanhood. She is seeking always to enlarge her mind and doing a great job of it. I am pleased the Senator feels that he rejoices that her article has been mentioned by me. I want to assure him that he is entitled to every plaudit I can bring to bear on this subject. I hope he conveys my love and my admiration to his daughter Lily. And may I say to the Senator, ``Thou art my guide, philosopher, and friend,'' as the Pope once said. I mean every word of that. I treasure our friendship, I say to Senator Stevens, and may his beautiful daughter continue to do her work and complete her studies and go on to higher things. She is a fine model, and many of us can learn from her efforts to improve herself. I will certainly do that myself. I thank the Senator. I thank him very much.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill to reinstate a hydroelectric license for a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project in Grafton, WV, be printed in the Record.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I ask that Senators address each other in the third person, not in the second person.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am increasingly alarmed about the congressional budget process as it now operates. I helped to write the Budget Act of 1974. At the time, I served as chairman of the Subcommittee on the Standing Rules of the Senate. The subcommittee was tasked with studying the budget process reforms reported by the then-Senate Government Operations Committee as they affected the Senate rules. I met with a working group of staff that was comprised of 10 standing committees of the Senate, and which included 90 hours of meetings during 25 sessions over a 16-day period. After the staff had completed its work, I spent many hours with the Senate Parliamentarian and met in all day sessions and over holiday weekends with the staff from the Congressional Research Service and the Senate legal counsel. I helped to manage the Senate's floor deliberations of the Budget Act as majority whip, and, when the Senate completed its many weeks of debate and amendment, I served on the conference committee that finalized the Budget Act. I studied the Budget Act. I championed it. I supported it. And so I can say, without equivocation, that the process the Senate utilizes today hardly resembles the process envisioned in 1974. The budget process used today obscures more than it clarifies the tax and spending decisions of the Congress. Through a growing list of 60-vote points of order, it is weakening the ability of the Congress to exercise its power over the purse, deferring more and more authority over fiscal matters to the executive branch. The budget process increasingly serves as a means to circumvent the role of the Senate to deliberate, and, lately, it has been used in a way that has fostered an unprecedented and unbroken string of deficits and debt. I have spoken many times about how the budget reconciliation process has been distorted and the extent to which that process has been used to worsen deficits and unnecessarily limit debate and amendment. Here today is another example of one of these reconciliation bills, where debate is limited, amendments are curtailed, and arms are twisted to get the bare minimum of a majority of Senators to advance partisan legislation, only to see a brandnew bill rewritten in a closed conference committee that excludes any voice of dissent. This week, the already grossly abbreviated reconciliation exercise has been curtailed further, as the normal 3-day debate is crammed into a period allowing for less than 2 days of debate. Meanwhile, Senators are distracted with other legislation that must be addressed before the Senate breaks for the Thanksgiving holiday--legislation that is more pressing than the extension of some of these tax cuts which will not expire for several more years. The budget process has been distorted, where reconciliation is abused by both sides eager to score political points. Reconciliation is no longer simply a budgetary device to round out the numbers at the end of the fiscal year, as it was intended in 1974. It has become a favorite mechanism for bypassing the rules of the Senate for circumventing the limits imposed upon the capricious passions of a determined majority. Once a Senator's right to debate has been waived, what is left can almost be described as a state of chaos in the Senate. If you think that term ``chaos'' seems a bit extreme, just wait a few more hours for the vote-arama to begin. Soon, the statutory limit of 20 hours of debate on this bill will expire, and the Senate will enter into a consent agreement whereby 2 minutes of each debate are allocated to each amendment and Senators are forced to vote blindly in rapid succession on amendment after amendment after amendment. Many of these amendments have never been seen before by the Senate, and many will not even be explained to Senators prior to the casting of their votes. To the credit of Senators Gregg and Conrad, the number of amendments considered in vote-aramas have been limited in recent times, but vote- aramas continue to occur nonetheless. Just 2 weeks ago, the Senate considered the so-called Deficit Reduction Reconciliation Act of 2005. After the 20 hours of debate had expired, the Senate entered into an agreement by unanimous consent that limited debate to 2 minutes per amendment prior to each vote. In one day, the Senate considered 41 amendments, with only 2 minutes of debate per amendment, and with only 16 of those amendments offered prior to the expiration of debate. That is 25 amendments that the Senate had not debated, or even seen before, receiving votes based upon whatever knowledge Senators could extract from the din in just 2 minutes. In 2003, the Senate considered 84 amendments in this manner, without any of those amendments being offered, debated, or generally made available to Senators before casting their vote. In 2001, the number of amendments considered in this manner was 78, again without any of those amendments being offered, debated, or generally made available to Senators before casting their vote. All together, in the last 6 years, the Senate has considered 246 amendments to budget resolutions and reconciliation bills, within a so- called vote-arama process that does not allow the Senate to debate amendments or, in too many cases, to even see amendments before Senators are asked to cast their vote. God help the American people. I once described vote-aramas as pandemonium, which was the Palace of Satan designated by Milton in Paradise Lost. But that term almost fails to describe the ignominy of the Senate when it becomes engulfed in these budget carnivals. It's embarrassing to the institution. It is no way to legislate. We cannot claim to serve the interests of our constituents if we don't have time even to read the amendments on which we are casting our votes. Read The Federalist Paper No. 62 by Madison: ``It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.'' Vote-arama means Senators are flying blind. I have pleaded with the Senate to avoid using this reconciliation process because I abhor what it does to this institution. It is not a necessary exercise. The Budget Act does not require it, nor does the Budget Act require, or even mention, the use of vote-aramas. We are doing this to ourselves. This is self-inflicted abuse, and our Nation suffers as a result. Since 2001, this reconciliation process has yielded an unbroken string of unprecedented deficits and debt. At $339 billion in the fiscal year 2003, $412 billion in the fiscal year 2004, and $317 billion in the fiscal year 2005, budget deficits have grown to record levels 3 years in a row. Within 5 years, the national debt is projected to rise to $11 trillion. The interest payments on that debt is growing to enormous levels and will surpass in 2010 a whopping $314 billion per year. That is $314 billion that could be used to build and modernize our transportation and energy infrastructure, but that will be paid to foreign and domestic bond holders instead. If there is a force that is sinking the budget into an ocean of deficits and debt, it resides, at least in part, among abuses of the budget process. Outside of the budget reconciliation process, Senators could insist that tax cuts be offset. These are not controversial tax extensions. The alternative minimum tax relief, the deduction of college tuition and teacher classroom expenses, the section 179 expensing and research and development credit--all of these could pass overwhelmingly if offsets could be found, and it could be done without having to put the Senate through this exercise. Senators might even have the opportunity to thoughtfully consider amendments to the bill to develop compromises that improve the legislation and satisfy both parties. Senators could go home touting a piece of bipartisan legislation that all sides find agreeable. I call upon the Republican and Democratic leadership, as well as the members of the Budget Committee, and all Senators, to help reform this process. The process as it currently operates is intolerable, and it damages this institution severely. Whatever political advantage may be claimed today, this process ultimately weakens the Senate as an institution, and does a great disservice to the American people.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill to reinstate a hydroelectric license for a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project in Grafton, WV, be printed in the Record.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Senator Reid, I want to thank you for your support and assistance in shepherding this conference report to this point today. I plan to support this bill, but I have a specific point of clarification that I would like to discuss with you regarding the provisions related to the fiscal year 2006 FutureGen funding. I have not opposed the FutureGen program and have supported the administration's requests for this project over the last 3 years. However, I have and will continue to raise concerns about how this administration is going to fund the FutureGen program when it has not been able to provide adequate and sustained funding for core key fossil research and development programs. This situation appears only more ominous as our budgetary constraints worsen by the year and, adding to that, are new energy programs that were authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 which will further heighten and constrain funding pressures. The fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Conference Report provides the $18 million for FutureGen that the administration has requested. However, even larger funding requests are going to be required if this initiative is to move forward according to its schedule. It is my understanding that the Congress has deferred $237 million of clean coal technology funding until fiscal year 2007 and will give full consideration to the administration's funding requests for the FutureGen initiative utilizing these funds. Would it be your expectation that the Congress will only consider the administration's FutureGen requests from the deferred amount contingent upon the administration providing full funding requests for the clean coal and other fossil energy research, development, and demonstration programs, especially the Clean Coal Power Initiative that was woefully underfunded in fiscal year 2006?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator for that clarification. When there are so many other unmet fossil energy funding needs, as I have and will continue to reiterate, I cannot and will not support such a transfer from deferred funds, in whole or in part, to the FutureGen initiative until all other critical fossil energy programs are fully funded to the satisfaction of the Appropriations Committee in fiscal year 2007 and future years. I will certainly consider new moneys requested in the administration's budget request, but I will first prioritize other key fossil energy programs and other needs as a priority above the FutureGen program from deferred funds. This administration has been playing shell games with FutureGen. They have been attempting to rob Peter to pay Paul which is simply masking the underlying problem of continued inadequate funding commitments for other core fossil energy programs. Would it also be the Senator's understanding that other fossil energy programs have equal, if not greater, funding needs and that there is no guarantee that any portion of the $237 million in the deferred clean coal technology fund will be transferred to the FutureGen program in fiscal year 2007 or future years. Should the administration or other interested parties expect that the deferred amount will be set aside, in whole or in part, for FutureGen in fiscal year 2007 or beyond?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the U.S. is to remain competitive and keep pace with its growing energy demands, then we must take stock, as a nation, of our energy security, economic growth, and environmental protection and make these issues top national priorities. We cannot achieve greater energy security with our continued, piece-meal efforts. It is time to devote new innovation and ingenuity to energy policy and blaze a path forward. We must strive to be free of the chains of foreign oil. To do that, we must seriously invest in the energy resources that we have here at home, and coal should be at the heart of that effort. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, which I supported and which was signed by the President in August 2005, made many promises to the country on energy policy. To make good on those promises, the administration must be willing to put financial support behind these initiatives. Will this administration do so in subsequent budget requests for the clean coal and many other important energy programs? The Energy Policy Act of 2005 is only a way station on a long journey and more work remains ahead. It is a start, and I am committed to continuing to work toward that goal. Yet I continue to be concerned about this administration's commitment to funding fossil energy research, especially because new clean coal and other energy programs were authorized in the Energy bill. There is only so much blood that one can squeeze out of a turnip. So where are we going to find the funding for these new programs? In related matters, H.R. 2419, the fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Conference Report provides sufficient funding for the fossil energy research and development, R&D, programs for the Department of Energy, DOE. But this effort requires a much more sustained and increased commitment in future years if this Nation is to be successful in going beyond an incremental approach toward new breakthroughs on the use of fossil energy resources. In this conference report, I worked to ensure that there was adequate funding for coal R&D at the National Energy Technology Laboratory, the Nation's premier Fossil Energy Laboratory. In addition to coal, other energy research investments that must not be overlooked are within the oil and natural gas R&D programs. Oil and natural gas provide 60 percent of America's energy needs, and demand for both will continue to rise, resulting in significant price increases. By 2025, U.S. reliance on fossil fuels is expected to grow from the current 85 percent to 90 percent. But the administration's budget proposal for oil and natural gas technology R&D for fiscal year 2006 was reduced by 75 percent from fiscal year 2005 levels. The administration's fiscal year 2006 budget request was $20 million for both programs. The funds were to be used to conclude the oil and natural gas programs. The DOE's R&D spending for oil and natural gas has consistently ranked at the bottom of the scale. If the United States is to maintain its ability to produce its domestic supplies for oil and natural gas at a reasonable cost to consumers, then Federal expenditures on R&D must fill some of the void left by the private sector, primarily independent producers. Furthermore, how is this administration going to fund FutureGen when it has not been able to provide adequate and sustained funding for other fossil energy programs? The fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Conference Report provides the $18 million for FutureGen that the administration has requested. However, even larger funding requests are going to be required if this initiative is to move forward according to its schedule. I stand behind the agreement reached in the conference report, but the Congress will consider its FutureGen requests contingent upon the Administration maintaining adequate funding for other clean coal and fossil energy programs. When there are so many other unmet fossil energy funding needs, I cannot and will not support the transfer of monies from the clean coal technology account to a FutureGen account. In fiscal year 2007 and beyond, I will not support the transfer of any moneys, in whole or in part, to the FutureGen initiative that are not a part of the administration's request unless and until other critical fossil energy programs are fully funded. This is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul and masks the underlying problem of continued inadequate funding commitments for the fossil energy programs by this administration. There are other fossil energy programs that have equal, if not greater, funding needs. Additionally, the Clean Coal Power Initiative, CCPI, is a program that was initiated in 2001, to demonstrate the economically and environmentally acceptable use of coal. The CCPI was the successor to the long and successful Clean Coal Technology Program that I initiated in 1985. The CCPI program, if pursued, will continue to lead to the successful development of a set of coal-based technologies that will be cost effective and highly efficient and achieve greater control of air and water emissions compared to currently available technology. President Bush committed to funding the CCPI program during his first campaign speech made in West Virginia in 2000. The President pledged to provide $2 billion over 10 years for this program, yet the administration's budget requests have not met that goal. Over a period of 5 years, the President has requested a total of approximately $530 million, including only $50 million this year. This is barely more than half of the funding pledged to the program. A great deal more funding will be required in fiscal year 2007 and beyond if the program is to remain on a schedule consistent with the President's commitment. The DOE is in the practice of issuing a solicitation every other year and has done so twice to date. This practice has been required in order to collect enough appropriations for a single solicitation. While I am fully aware of the fiscal limits we currently face and the immense pressure on the budget, it is crucial that the CCPI reach the necessary funding level in order to initiate a solicitation in fiscal year 2007. The fiscal year 2007 CCPI budget request must be substantially higher than the fiscal year 2006 request in order to maintain a schedule of solicitations every second year, and I strongly encourage the administration to submit a request in an amount sufficient to initiate a third CCPI solicitation in fiscal year 2007. Finally, the Office of Fossil Energy has been lacking in leadership for far too long. There remains a strong team in place, along with a new director, at the National Energy Technology Laboratory, but that must be matched with a strong Fossil Energy Assistant Secretary. This position has now been vacant for at least 20 months. This post should be filled by someone who can bring strong technical, policy, and managerial experience and who can work well with a variety of constituencies. In conclusion, I would like to thank Senators Domenici and Reid for their leadership and assistance on this conference report. I would also like to thank Senator Domenici's staff Scott O'Malia, Roger Cockrell, and Emily Brunini as well as Senator Reid's staff, Drew Willison and Nancy Olkewicz for their hard work. This is the first year that fossil energy R&D programs were included in the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. This is a good conference report given the very tough fiscal circumstances that we faced. I have urged Senators Domenici and Reid to give greater oversight and scrutiny to the administration's fossil energy requests and look forward to working with them on this important matter next year. Because our Nation's energy security is so important, the fossil energy R&D programs, especially the clean coal programs, require strong support. I will remain ever watchful and strongly supportive of them in the coming years.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this Friday, November 11, is celebrated in this country as Veterans Day. It is always held on the 11th of November in memory of the end of World War I. In that ``War to End All Wars'' what wishful, optimistic thinking. All guns were laid down on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, at 11 o'clock a.m. on November 11, 1918. On that fateful hour, I am sure that many prayers of thanksgiving flew heavenward as Doughboys and their families rejoiced at their survival in spite of the most bitter and horrible fighting the world had yet experienced. World War I saw the introduction of new and more deadly forms of warfare, as technology and chemistry were brought to bear on the battlefield. Horses were replaced by the first crude tanks and self- propelled guns. Monoplanes and biplanes brought warfare to the skies overhead for the first time. Chemical weapons, terrible and deadly, clouded the trenches. Diseases stalked the fields as well, from trenchfoot to the deadly Spanish flu that killed combatants and civilians alike. It was a dreadful time, one that would surely erase the desire to battle, if only that desire could be wiped from the human genome. In 2005, in wake of World War II, the Korean war, the Vietnam conflict, the cold war and repeated conflicts in the Balkans, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, World War I seems almost quaint. There was no threat of nuclear war bringing vast destruction to our homeland. There was no threat of terrorist attacks against innocent civilians. There was some respect for noncombatants, and there were no kidnappings or concentration camps. Today's battlefield is amorphous. It touches humanitarian volunteers and journalists. It strikes at soldiers in their weary bivoacs, and it threatens to reach again into our everyday lives and travels. Our battle-stained soldiers get no rest. This Veterans Day, we are at war on three fronts. First, let us never forget that we have troops in Afghanistan, still struggling to defeat the remnants of those who attacked us on September 11, 2001. They do not receive as much press coverage as the conflict in Iraq, but their fight is taking place in the heartland of the Taliban, the refuge of last resort for the mastermind of the 9/11 attack, Osama bin Laden. Our prayers go out to those brave men and women who labor in the deserts and the high, cold mountains of that embattled land. Your efforts and your sacrifices are not forgotten. Second, we also have troops in Iraq, in a battle of our choosing. It is a battle that is consuming a high and bloody price on each difficult day. Our anxious prayers are with those men and women too, who must face each day not knowing what is around each comer or along each dangerous roadway. They may be sure, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that whatever we do here to question or investigate the circumstances that led to their deployment to Iraq, they have our unwavering respect and support in addition to our prayers. Those of their comrades who have paid a dear price and who lie wounded in hospitals have our thanks and sincere wishes for a speedy recovery. To the families who have lost a loved one in battle in service to our Nation, we owe a great debt. They have no Veterans Day prayer of thanksgiving, only the honored memory of their loved one. Our third war is taking place at home, as the Nation struggles to put in place protections to deter, prevent, or respond to a terror attack within our borders. The military, the Department of Homeland Security, and State and local first responders all must define and organize themselves to meet these new threats. We are all familiar with the early responses, from machine-gun wielding National Guardsmen patrolling our airports to fighter jets circling overhead on combat air patrol. We now dutifully take our shoes off for inspection before boarding a plane, and we park farther from public buildings. We are reviewing what role the military should play in responding to terror attacks or natural disasters. We are debating what legal protections and due process are due to those who are accused of involvement in suspected terror plots. We are weighing what loss of privacy with regard to our electronic transactions, even our library book withdrawals and Web searches, is commensurate with the threat to our safety. These new threats have made significant changes in our way of life, to be sure. Thankfully, we have not been tested again so far. The changes in our daily routines are minute, however, in comparison to the challenges facing our men and women in uniform. Their foes wear no uniforms, no recognizable insignia. They travel in crowds, in taxis and buses, in private cars and cement trucks loaded with explosives. They target diplomats, journalists, and those laboring to improve local living conditions as well as those in uniform. They target their own countrymen serving to keep the peace on their neighborhood streets. They come from other nations, driven by a fanaticism most of us cannot fathom, let alone comprehend. Our men and women in uniform are fighting the hardest kind of war against a chameleon foe hidden in plain sight among the passing crowd. They have made repeated trips to the battlefield as our overstretched forces must deply and redeploy. My heart goes out to them and my prayers are with them. American men and women in the military services customarily state that they are proud to serve, proud to answer the Nation's call. Know that this Senator, too is proud--proud and thankful for the bravery and skill of our Nation's soldiers, sailors, and airmen. And I am proud of the families who support our troops with their love, their care packages, their prayers, and their loving welcomes home. On Veterans Day, the Nation pays its respects to the men and women who have served and are now serving our Nation in uniform, and who have faced or are facing our foes in battle. Give them your thanks, and give them their due. They are true patriots. They have faced great dangers for each and every one of us. Mr. President, I close with a poem by Edgar Guest: The things that make a soldier great and send him out to die, To face the flaming cannon's mouth nor ever question why, Are lilacs by a little porch, the row of tulips red, The peonies and pansies, too, the old petunia bed, The grass plot where his children play, the roses on the wall: 'Tis these that make a soldier great. He's fighting for them all. 'Tis not the pomp and pride of kings that make a soldier brave; 'Tis not allegiance to the flag that over him may wave; For soldiers never fight so well on land or on the foam; As when behind the cause they see the little place called home. Endanger but that humble street whereon his children run, You make a soldier of the man who never bore a gun. What is it through the battle smoke the valiant soldier sees? The little garden far away, the budding apple trees, The little patch of ground back there, the children at their play, Perhaps a tiny mound behind the simple church of gray. The golden thread of courage isn't linked to castle dome; But to the spot, where'er it be--the humblest spot called home. And now the lilacs bud again and all is lovely there, And homesick soldiers far away know spring is in the air; The tulips come to bloom again, the grass once more is green, And every man can see the spot where all his joys have been. He sees his children smile at him, he hears the bugle call, And only death can stop him now--he's fighting for them all.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote to approve the fiscal year 2006 Defense authorization bill. The passage of this legislation is important to all Americans who are now serving in the U.S. Armed Forces, but especially to those who are serving in harm's way. Our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan require all the support that our Nation can give them until the day that they can return to their homes. Our military prides itself in being the most capable and the best trained fighting force in the entire world. The Constitution places in Congress the responsibility to ``raise and support armies'' and to ``provide and maintain a navy.'' It is therefore of the greatest importance that Congress provide our troops with the equipment that they need for their dangerous missions. The wars that continue in Iraq and Afghanistan are unlike the conflicts that the United States has fought in the past two decades. In the first Persian Gulf War or Kosovo, our military depended on high- tech aircraft and smart bombs to quickly overwhelm our enemies. Today, in Iraq, our awesome airpower is of limited use. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are, by and large, the wars of the soldier and the marine. These are the wars of the foot soldier, carried out in the hostile streets of foreign cities. These troops do not enjoy the near- invulnerability of stealth aircraft or cruise missiles. Our troops do not see the enemy as a blip on a radar screen, because often the enemy is seen eye to eye. With this being the reality of urban warfare, there must be a new focus on providing our ground troops with the equipment that they need to fight and survive in the urban combat environment. The Defense authorization bill reported by the Armed Services Committee makes steps in this direction. It authorizes $1.4 billion in spending to protect our troops serving overseas. This figure includes $500 million to detect and destroy roadside bombs, $344 million for up-armored HMMWVs, and $118 million for body armor. But more must be done to provide our troops with the next generation of weapons that will help our troops prevail in ground combat. More needs to be done to apply the technology that allows our military to dominate the air and the seas to build a new generation of weapons that will allow our troops to dominate the ground. One such technology that deserves investigation is the SPIKE missile system currently being developed by the Navy. The SPIKE missile is designed to be a low-cost, lightweight, precision-guided rocket that would allow our troops to accurately engage enemies at great range. If this technology is successful, it could provide our ground troops with the same sort of revolutionary advantage that precision-guided munitions provided to our advanced aircraft a decade ago. There are also emerging opportunities for the use of unmanned aerial vehicles to support the warfighter on the ground. While important UAVs like Global Hawk provide intelligence about what is going on in large sections of a country, our ground troops often need to know what is happening on the other side of a hill. Smaller UAVs can provide our troops with a decisive advantage in urban environments. Important projects like SWARM, being developed by Augusta Systems in Morgantown, are exploring ways to allow small UAVs to work together to seek out our enemies on the battlefield, eliminating the chance that our troops could be taken by surprise. The next step is to use small UAVs as ways to strike first, before our ground troops come into the range of our enemy's weapons. Our military is only beginning to tap the growing potential of UAV technology to support our troops on the ground. The Department of Defense is currently engaged in the Quadrennial Defense Review, a top-to-bottom study of our military strategy, posture, and equipment that will guide this Nation's defense research and development and procurement policies for the next 4 years. With this review underway, it is an ideal opportunity to place a new emphasis on bringing cutting-edge technology to our troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. I urge the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the other Pentagon officials who are carrying out this study to broaden their view of what our troops require. The QDR should propose new technologies to protect our troops from the threats that they face in combat, and it should also accelerate the development of new weapons systems that allow our soldiers to dominate the battlefield in urban environments. The Department of Defense should place these efforts on the top of its priorities: we should not wait for the next war to give our troops the advantage of new, high-tech weapons. Instead, the Pentagon and Congress should make every effort to arm our troops with the next generation of technology, today. For so long as our troops are serving in harm's way, we must give them not only the armor and protection, but also the weapons, that they need to ensure that they will come home safely.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. What is the business before the Senate?

Mr. BYRD. The Snowe amendment to what?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia, a man for whom I have great respect. In 1787, during the drafting of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers struggled with the question of how to create a government that would simultaneously govern and yet remain accountable to the people. The Framers developed a number of principles with which every schoolchild should be familiar: Direct and indirect representation, checks and balances, separation of powers. In addition to these great principles, the Framers were also insightfully pragmatic. For example, in article I, section 9, the Constitution gives the Congress--us, the Senate and the House, the Congress--the power of the purse. As Cicero said, there is no fortress so strong that money cannot buy it. Money cannot take it. That section also requires accountability for how the people's tax money is to be used. Here is what it says: . . . a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time. The Founding Fathers, among whom were the Framers, the Framers understood the importance of informing the American people about how their taxes are spent. However, this constitutional requirement has frequently clashed with the realities of the modern day bureaucracy. In no other Government agency, is this clash more evident than in the largest department, the Department of Defense, with its budget that is approaching half a trillion every year. How long would it take to count $1 trillion at the rate of one dollar per second? That is pretty fast counting, one dollar per second. How long would it take to count $1 trillion at the rate of one dollar per second? Guess. What is the guess? Thirty-two thousand years. That would be quite a while. I wouldn't be around to hear the counting of $1 trillion at the rate of one dollar per second. The Department of Defense, with a budget that is approaching half a trillion dollars per year--that takes 16,000 years to count--is unable to adequately account for the funds that are appropriated to it. What a shame. Are you astounded? It is amazing, isn't it? That is astonishing. Despite decades of congressional scrutiny, multibillion dollar reform efforts and promises for progress, the Pentagon is unable to pass an audit of its books. How about that? The Pentagon is unable to pass an audit of its books. I have been saying this now for how many years, pretty close to 5 years that I have been saying this. Secretary Rumsfeld admitted it. He said he was going to do something about it. Dr. David Walker, the Comptroller of the United States and the head of the Government Accountability Office, has stated: Numerous management problems, inefficiencies, and wasted resources continue to trouble DOD's business operations, resulting in billions of wasted resources annually at a time when our nation is facing an increasing fiscal imbalance. We ought to listen to that. That ought to get everyone on their feet. Stand up and take notice. He is talking about billions of dollars of the people's money. That is your money; your money; yes, your money; and your money. Turn to the four corners of the Earth, the proverbial four winds. It is your money that goes down the tubes each year, down the tubes. These billions are not being spent on training our troops. These billions are not being spent on providing health care for the families of our troops. We are talking about billions of dollars in spending that neither improves our national security nor returns value to the taxpayers. It is as if this huge amount of money vanishes into thin air. In this time of tight budgets, in this time of huge deficits, this is exactly the sort of Government waste the Congress needs to eliminate. The taxpayers cry out, even the rocks cry out. When Secretary Rumsfeld came before the Committee on Armed Services in January of 2001, I asked Secretary Rumsfeld what he was going to do about this. That was in 2001. What are you going to do about it? So I asked him what he was going to do about this. This what? This $2.3 trillion in unsupported accounting entries that appeared in the Pentagon's ledgers in fiscal year 1999. Mr. President, $2.3 trillion is a lot of money, isn't it? I believe our national budget exceeded $1 trillion--when was it, may I say to the distinguished Senator from Virginia, when did our Government budget first exceed $1 trillion? I believe that was 1987; am I correct? Now, here we were in 1999, when I noted that there was in the Pentagon's ledgers, this number $2.3 trillion in unsupported accounting. Secretary Rumsfeld said that the accounting mess was, to use his words, ``monumental.'' He used the word ``terrifying.'' And he said it would take ``a period of years,'' it would take ``a period of years to sort it out.'' So I said: Well, let's get started. It is past time. Since January 2001, the Department of Defense has made progress in some areas. For example, the Pentagon has been successful in reducing the abuse of Government-issued credit cards. But the toughest work remains ahead, and there are serious doubts that the Pentagon is up to the task of tackling these difficult problems. The previous Defense Department Comptroller, Dov Zakheim, set a goal to have the Pentagon pass its first audit by fiscal year 2007. However, this deadline is increasingly looking like a pipedream. Dr. Walker of the General Accounting Office said, earlier this year, in a hearing before the Armed Services Committee's Readiness Subcommittee: The goal for 2007 is totally unrealistic. It's not credible on its face. How about that? That is quite astonishing. In fact, for the first time, the GAO listed the Defense Department's business transformation project on its annual list of ``high risk'' Government programs. Now, this should lead the Congress to question whether the Defense Department is moving forward in its efforts to straighten out its books or if it is heading into even greater financial chaos. Mr. President, I cry out for the American people. Oh, how they cry out because of the burden, the never-ending, the increasingly heavy, the increasingly unbearable burden. They simply can no longer afford the billions of wasted dollars through the Pentagon's broken accounting systems. That is why I offer an amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Akaka and Senator Lautenberg, to put the Defense Department on the right track to fix its broken accounting and financial management system. It is broken, so it needs fixing. Yes, it needs fixing. Why? Because it is broken. This amendment, which is similar to bipartisan legislation introduced earlier this year, would create a Deputy Secretary of Defense for Management to bring order to the Pentagon's bloated bureaucracy--the Pentagon's bloated bureaucracy. The Deputy Secretary for Management would be directly responsible--directly responsible--for overseeing reform in the areas of accounting, human resources, information technology, acquisition, and logistics, among others. These are the key areas identified by the Government Accountability Office as being most in need of stronger oversight. Getting these programs on the right track could save taxpayers billions of dollars per year by eliminating waste, inefficiency, and duplication--duplication, redundancy. Based upon the recommendations of the GAO, the Byrd-Akaka amendment would create a 7-year term for the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Management. This fixed term of service is required to ensure that the Pentagon lays out a single plan for reform and sticks to it--lays out a single program for reform and sticks to that single program for reform. Above all else, the Defense Department needs this sustained, high-level leadership if it is ever going to fix its accounting problems. Well, there are some critics who might argue that the Department of Defense already has high-level leadership concerned about financial management and accounting practices. Well, that is probably true. So what. It is, indeed, true that Secretary Rumsfeld and his Acting Deputy Secretary, Gordon England, both have spoken often about the importance of straightening out the Pentagon's books. But this amendment is not about the Secretary, not about the Deputy Secretary of Defense. If experience shows us anything, it is that Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries come and go, but the Pentagon's accounting problems remain. The Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries come and go, but the Pentagon's accounting problems do not go away. They do not go away. They remain. In the 15 years since the Congress passed the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, which requires every Government agency to pass a financial audit, the Pentagon has seen five--F-I-V-E--Secretaries of Defense, eight--E-I-G-H-T--Deputy Secretaries of Defense, and five--F- I-V-E--Comptrollers. How about that. How can any major reform plan hope to succeed if the Department's leadership is in such a constant turnover, such a constant state of change? Plans for accounting reform have been written, written, written, and rewritten more times than anyone can count. Billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent in the vain attempt to implement a never-ending series of reform proposals, each one of which claims to be the plan that will finally straighten out the Pentagon's books. But do you know what. These proposals, plans, and programs just are not getting the job done. They do not amount to a hill of beans. They are not doing the work. In fact, just a few short weeks ago, the Department of Defense finished creating another revised plan to fix its accounting systems and inaugurated another new agency to implement the new plan. Well, while some may argue that this means the Pentagon is finally getting serious about its efforts to balance its books, I see history repeating itself--yes, more new plans, more new plans, more new plans, but little hope for success. Mr. President, the time has come and passed for a real shakeup of the Department of Defense. That giant bureaucracy needs to be tamed--needs to be tamed. While the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense have a multitude of competing priorities, including their responsibility to oversee the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon needs a single official to focus on the day-to-day management of the Department of Defense. The Byrd-Akaka amendment creates a Deputy Secretary of Defense for Management to do that. Too much of the American people's hard-earned tax dollars are lost through the waste and inefficiency of the Defense Department's bureaucratic morass. It is time for reform. I urge my colleagues to support the Byrd-Akaka amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the proposal coming, as it does, from the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, gives me pause. First, I send the amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. BYRD. Will that occur this day?

Mr. BYRD. Continuing, the Department of Defense has served our country well. But from time to time Congress has needed to make changes, such as the Goldwater-Nichols Act, to fix problems that have arisen. We know what the problem is. The Department needs someone to dive in and fix these accounting problems. The GAO has told the Congress what is needed to fix these problems. My amendment does just that. One more year means more money spent. One might ask the rhetorical question, how many more years does Congress need to wait before it acts? I don't slough off the proposal nonchalantly or ``chalantly.'' I would like to think about that. Let me do just that. While the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Ensign, speaks, let me converse with the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. BYRD. Fine, if we could set this amendment aside until after the two votes. In the meantime, let the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Ensign, speak, and then have the amendment set aside until after the two votes. Meanwhile we can confer.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I have great respect for the Senator. I am interested in what he said. Let us confer a little bit and think a little bit about this during the two votes that are about to take place. Perhaps we can find out what the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from Virginia have in mind. Perhaps we can work out something that will be in the best interest of the country. I would like to think about that. I thank the Senator. Let's just hold it in abeyance for a little while until after the votes, and then we will come back to it.