Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as the administration searches for a new nominee for the Supreme Court, I hope the White House will not retreat to a political corner and choose a nominee who will only serve to divide the Nation and divide this Senate. I urge the President--hear me now--to select a nominee cut from the same cloth as the new Chief Justice of the United States--moderate in approach, steeped in thought and experience, and committed to the protection of the U.S. Constitution, which I hold in my hand. In partnership, the President and the Senate must do all that they can to avoid rancor and extreme partisanship. That begins with real consultation and a nominee who can bridge the gap between political philosophies. I found it noteworthy--I did--that questions about Harriet Miers' nomination came from Senators, organizations, and individuals from diverse political philosophies. It does not matter who is asking the questions about a nomination; these questions serve the long-term interest of the Nation, those people out there, the American people who are watching us through those lenses. Unfortunately, in this age of partisan politics dominating all else, questions too often are labeled as obstructionism. You remember that? Obstructionism. If you ask questions, you are an obstructionist. Get that, I say to these fine young pages. Nothing could be further from the truth. No. Republican Senators--yes, the Senators who sit over on that side of the aisle--and Democratic Senators, who sit over here, had serious questions concerning the judicial philosophy of this nominee. Asking questions and insisting upon answers from judicial nominees helps to make certain that the American people have faith in their courts. Asking questions is not something to be labeled as obstructionist. How many times have I said that? Rather, it is patriotic to ask questions. Asking questions is part of my duty, part of your duty, Mr. President, part of each Senator's duty as citizens. I think now would be a good time for the Senate to consider a proposal first put forward by Senator Specter in which I joined in the 105th Congress. We introduced legislation to establish a formal advisory mechanism for the Senate in the selection of Supreme Court Justices. Under that proposal, the Senate Judiciary Committee would establish a pool of possible Supreme Court nominees for the President to consider based on suggestions from Federal and State judges, distinguished lawyers, law professors, and others with a similar level of insight into the suitability of individuals for appointment to the Supreme Court. The President would, of course, be free to ignore the pool if he chose to do so, but the advice required by the Constitution would be formally available and the President would know that the individuals in the pool had received a bipartisan nod from the Senate committee required to do the vetting. Senator Specter and I have talked about reintroducing this legislation in the coming days in an effort to guarantee that a broad spectrum of individuals are nominated for the Supreme Court and that the Senate is able, more fully, to fulfill its constitutional role. I am glad there are 14 Senators, ladies and gentlemen, Republican and Democrat, evenly divided, who joined together and who saved the Senate from a terrible blunder called the nuclear option. Some call it the constitutional option. There is nothing constitutional about it. It is unconstitutional on its face, the so-called nuclear option. What a shame that would have been. But the 14 Senators, Republican and Democrat, saved the Senate. That was a historic moment. I say the President was right when he called Senators, when he sought the advice of Senators, when he sent Judge Roberts' name up here. Yes, for once he called me and asked what I thought. I complimented him on calling Senators, seeking their advice. The phrase is advice and consent, not just the word ``consent.'' It also has the word ``advice.'' So I said, and the 14 said, we want to be in on the takeoff as well as on the landing. So seek our advice. Yes. Mr. President, seek our advice. Say to us, Lend me your ears, and I will lend you mine. He did that. The President did that. I complimented him on it. I hope he will do that now. I hope he will not send up a lightning rod, somebody who will just polarize the country and attract bows and arrows. Mr. President, listen to the advice and consent clause in this hallowed document, the Constitution of the United States. Read it. It says ``advice.'' Hear me, Mr. President. Call Senators again. Don't send up someone who will divide the Senate, who will cause a filibuster, and then some would seek to cut off the freedom of Senators to speak. Be careful. Mr. President, please call. Please call me. If you don't call me, call somebody else. Call Senators. Ask them what they think. You can discard our viewpoint if you wish. You don't have to accept our advice. I don't have anybody particularly in mind, but call me. Will you do it, Mr. President? I hope you will. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill is the last of the regular fiscal year 2006 appropriations bills to come before the Senate for consideration. Last year, seven of the regular appropriations bills, including the Labor, Health and Human Services bill, were not debated individually by this body but rather they were inserted into one large, unamendable omnibus package. As I have said on many occasions, the processing of regular appropriations bills in such a manner is not the way the Senate is supposed to operate. I am always very disappointed when the Senate resorts to appropriating by omnibus bills. We are the Senate. This is the Senate. A deliberative body it is supposed to be. Last year, the Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations bill was included in the omnibus package. This is a different year now. This year, the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill was fully debated here on the floor and amended as a stand-alone bill. What a difference. This bill has been on the floor all week, and Senators have enjoyed their right to debate and amend such important language. I thank the distinguished manager of the bill, and the distinguished Senator who acts on this side of the aisle to help manage this bill, Senator Specter and the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin. This is such a comprehensive bill. It covers a lot of programs and activities of the Government--three Departments, and the Social Security Administration. When you include mandatory spending, this bill funds nearly 25 percent of the Federal budget. This bill impacts every citizen in this country in one way or another. Just think about it: labor issues, health issues, human services issues that provides basic humanitarian services for the neediest of our citizens, as well as education issues. As we complete our debate on the Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations bill, I want to extend my appreciation to the subcommittee chairman, Senator Specter, and the ranking member, Senator Harkin. They are a good team on this bill. They have been working together on this subcommittee for so long that they seem to sometimes complete each other's sentences. They hold numerous hearings throughout the year. They gather knowledge from a wide array of experts throughout the country. That is what they do. This subcommittee pours over the testimony, over the reports, the studies, and other related data throughout the year, and its recommendations are reflective of that careful and thorough review. I have never seen a chairman of a committee more fair than Senator Specter has been. Every Senator who wanted to call up an amendment had an opportunity to do so. Senator Specter did not seek to cut off any amendments. No. He was very fair, very considerate, very courteous. And look what a wonderful job he and Senator Harkin have done on this committee. My thanks, my congratulations to both of them. I also extend my thanks to their fine staff. Those staffers worked hard. I appreciate their dedicated service to the Appropriations Committee and to the Senate. I will take 1 minute, or maybe a little longer, to comment briefly about the upcoming supplemental request which I understand the White House will be transmitting to the Congress tomorrow. This will be the third disaster relief supplemental related to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. This request is expected to include $17 billion for various programs and agencies on top of the $62 billion Congress has already approved. In the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Congress approved both of the President's supplemental requests. In each case, Congress approved the bill within 1 day of receiving the request, with no debate and no amendment. Of course, disastrous emergency situations such as that which occurred in the gulf coast region require immediate action by the Congress. However, the White House has waited 7 weeks to send up its third request. The White House should not assume that the Congress will simply rubberstamp their request. I hope the Senate leadership will commit to the Senate that we will have an opportunity to debate and amend the third disaster relief supplemental bill. A $17 billion supplemental should not simply be shoved into an unamendable conference report. There should be an opportunity to debate such issues as whether low-income energy assistance should be provided to all States impacted by increased fuel prices, prices that continue to grow as a result of Hurricane Katrina. The Senate should also have an opportunity to debate how the Katrina supplemental will be paid for. I hope Senators will be afforded this opportunity. I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, my very good friend from the State of Mississippi, Thad Cochran. What a decent man, what a decent chairman he is. What a good job he has done this year processing these appropriations bills. All 11 of the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bills have been debated individually and separately by the Senate. Why is this? This is due in large part to the steadfast determination of the chairman, Senator Cochran. He is a very determined man. He did not give up. He did not give in. He kept on pushing ahead. That reminds me of two frogs that fell over the rim of the crock in which there was milk. The milk was in the crock. Two frogs fell off into that. One immediately kicked a couple of times, turned over on his back with his belly up, gave up, that was all. That frog was gone. But the other, what did it do? It began kicking, kicking, and he kicked and kicked and kicked until there was a little ball of butter. And he kicked a little more, and the ball grew bigger, larger. So the frog then climbed upon the ball of butter and jumped out. It jumped out. That goes to show that if you keep on kicking, you will churn the butter. How about that? Chairman Cochran didn't give up. He just kept on kicking, and he churned the butter. He just kept on pushing forward. That determination of his paid off. I congratulate Senator Cochran for his success in getting all of the regular appropriations bills processed through to the floor, individually and separately. So let me say it again. What a job Chairman Cochran has done this year. I also thank the joint leadership of the Senate, Senator Frist and Senator Reid, for working with Chairman Cochran and with me in scheduling the necessary floor time which enabled us to get on with these bills and debate them. Chairman Cochran has worked with the House Appropriations Committee chairman in determining a schedule for completion of all the conferences on our regular appropriations bills by November 18. I think that is a realistic schedule. I am encouraged that we will be able to reach that goal. While I am not pleased that the appropriations bills significantly underfund critical domestic programs for education, for homeland security, for health care, and for our crumbling infrastructure, I am pleased that the Senate at least had the opportunity to fully debate these issues. I thank the distinguished Senator who sits in the Chair this evening, presiding over the Senate with a degree of dignity and aplomb that is so reminiscent of a day in June when the distinguished Senator's father sat in this Chamber also. I liked him. I like him, too. So I say to the Senator from Rhode Island who presides over the Senate this evening, keep on doing good work, Excelsior, ever up. I thank the Senator. He is a good Presiding Officer. He is a good Senator. He used to be my neighbor. He is a good neighbor, too.

Mr. BYRD. Yes. The Senator is right about that.

Mr. BYRD. Does the distinguished Senator from Michigan wish to speak?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator, if I may, for up to 5 minutes, if she so desires, without losing my right to the floor. Rosa Parks Federal Office Building

Mr. BYRD. I yield, without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. BYRD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, and I have no intention to object, Mr. President, as I understand it, 10 minutes will be utilized by the Senator from Tennessee for remarks only.

Mr. BYRD. I have no objection.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. Amendment No. 2275

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be waived.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have offered an amendment on behalf of the Nation's disadvantaged students and the schools that are struggling to educate these disadvantaged students. Hear me, I have offered an amendment on behalf of the Nation's disadvantaged students and the schools that are struggling to educate them. When Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act 4 years ago-- how short are our memories--it promised--get this--we promised to give schools the funding they would need to help every young person in this country to succeed in the classroom. I wish I had that when I was starting out in a two-room schoolhouse 80 years ago. That promise has not been kept. We have not even come close, and there is no better example of that broken promise than the title I program. Title I is the most important Federal education program we have. Did you hear, Senators? Title I is the most important Federal education program we have. It helps the students who need help the most--who need help. When Caesar was about to drown, Caesar said: Help me, Cassius, or I sink! Here is a program that is not well. It needs help or it will sink-- help for the millions of children who are being left behind. It is also the program that, under the No Child Left Behind Act, will hold schools accountable--yes, hold schools accountable for improving student performance. They should be held accountable. That is why when Congress wrote the No Child Left Behind Act it authorized specific funding levels for title I for every year through fiscal year 2007. But every year--now get this--every year when it is time to appropriate the money, we have come up short. This chart here beside me tells the story. Focus your eyes on this chart. Here is the title to the chart, ``Falling Behind On `No Child Left Behind.' '' How about that? ``Falling Behind On `No Child Left Behind.' '' The numbers are in billions, billions of dollars. Take a good look at this chart, I say. This chart tells the story, a pretty sordid story. The first year of the law, fiscal year 2002--this bar right here--the No Child Left Behind Act authorized $13.5 billion. There it is, the first year: $13.5 billion authorized. How much did Congress appropriate? Congress appropriated just $10.3 billion. The blue shows $13.5 billion authorized. The red shows we fell short. We only appropriated $10.3 billion. In fiscal year 2003, watch this gap. The gap grew wider. The blue line shows that Congress authorized $16 billion, the blue bar, but Congress appropriated just $11.7 billion. There was $16 billion authorized, $11.7 billion appropriated. Each year, as one can see on this chart, Congress has fallen further and further behind, behind in its promise to America's most needy students. The authorized amount for fiscal year 2006--that is where we are now--appropriating moneys for fiscal year 2006, the authorized amount is $22.75, way over here on the chart, $22.75 billion. But the amount in this bill is just $12.8. Look at it. That is $10 billion less than the law promised to these disadvantaged students and to the schools in which they study. What a shame, $10 billion less--$22.75 was authorized, $12.8 billion was appropriated. What a gap, $10 billion. That is $10 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born--$10 billion. That is $10 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. What a gap. What a gap, $10 billion. That is enough to provide the full range of title I services to more than 3 million needy students who are currently being left behind by our Nation's schools. And at the current funding level in the Senate bill, they will continue to be left behind. We got a hard look at some of those disadvantaged students during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Those disasters cast a bright light on a part of America that many people would like to pretend does not exist-- a part of America where the school buildings are crumbling, where there are not enough good teachers, and students are afraid for their own safety. These are real live people, live students who have a future, who have a horizon out there, who have a vision, and yet we are not keeping our promise to them. They are being left behind. I took a piece of plastic clay And idly fashioned it one day And as my fingers pressed it still It moved and yielded to my will. I came again when days were past, The bit of clay was hard at last. The form I gave it, it still bore And I could change that form no more. I took a piece of living clay And gently formed it day by day And molded with my power and art A young child's soft and yielding heart. I came again when years were gone, He was a man I looked upon. He still that early impress wore And I can change him never more. Never more, never more. That is what we are talking about, a piece of human clay, human clay. We are leaving those children behind. Those are exactly the kinds of students who are being left behind today and they are exactly the kinds of students who can be helped by title I. America can do better. I say America can do better for these students. That is why I am offering this amendment to increase funding for title I. I wish I could increase this program by the entire $10 billion to fulfill this commitment, our commitment, the commitment we made when Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act. However, I know I wouldn't get enough votes from the other side of the aisle, I have to say. They are all good people over on the other side. They are all patriotic people. They are good citizens and they are dedicated to the service of the people. But I realize I can be wrong sometimes. I think they are wrong. I don't think some of them will vote for this. We will see. I am proposing instead that we get halfway there. We are just going halfway--$10 billion shortage--$10 billion shortage in our promise for the children, the disadvantaged children of this country, $10 billion short. I am going to ask for half of that, at least try to close half the gap, half of it. I am proposing that we get half the way there, that we close the gap over 2 years: $5 billion now, $5 billion the following year. I am proposing we get halfway there, that we close the gap over 2 years by adding $5 billion. That is enough to fully serve more than 1.5 million disadvantaged students who the administration would leave behind, and we would leave behind. These children will be taught by highly qualified teachers and receive the complete range of instructional services called for under the No Child Left Behind Act. States will benefit from this amendment-- your State, Mr. President, your State, my State. In my own State of West Virginia, schools would receive a total increase of just $800,000 for title I if the bill is passed as it is now. Under my amendment, those students in West Virginia would receive an additional $39 million above the bill. Tennessee would receive an additional $78 million. Do you hear me? The people of Tennessee--are you listening? Are you listening? Tennessee would receive an additional $78 million. Pennsylvania--are you listening? Pennsylvania is the State of which Benjamin Franklin was once president. Yes. Old Ben Franklin. Pennsylvania would receive an additional $185 million. Louisiana would receive an additional $111 million; Mississippi, an additional $62 million. I offered a similar amendment 2 years ago and those who opposed my amendment argued then that Congress is under no obligation to fund title I at the authorizing level because authorizations are only guidelines. Title I is not your average authorization program. Most educational authorizations don't put requirements on States and local school districts, but the title I program in the No Child Left Behind Act puts more requirements on our Nation's schools than any law in the past 35 years. This law requires every State to develop a plan for helping all students reach a proficient or advanced level of achievement within 12 years. That is all students. That is all students, not just those in the affluent suburbs. No, not just those in the affluent suburbs, but poor students in Appalachia. That is where I come from, you see. When I was a boy I would have been included, Robert Byrd. And the gulf coast includes children with disabilities. Do you hear me? Hear, listen. That includes children with disabilities. And it includes students of all races. How about that? And ethnicity. How about that? All races, all ethnicities. Schools must leave no child behind--not your child, not my great- grandchild. And if schools that receive title I funds fall short of this goal, they face serious consequences. Schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress in raising student performance for 2 consecutive years--listen to this--have to give students the option of transferring to another public school. Yes. That means the school has to redirect money it would have spent for instruction and use it--for what?--for transportation instead. This past school year, almost 11,000 schools and districts in the country failed to make adequate yearly progress for at least 2 straight years. Did you hear that? Almost 11,000--11,000--schools and districts in this country failed this past year to make adequate yearly progress for at least 2 straight years. The penalties get more severe the longer the school fails to make adequate yearly progress. Ultimately, if a title I school falls short for 5 years in a row, it can be taken over--get this--the school can be taken over by the State, or the entire staff can be fired. Help me, Cassius, or I sink. These are serious penalties. The entire staff can be fired. There is the door. There is the door. The entire staff can be fired and replaced. That gets pretty tough. That hits close to home. These are serious penalties, and I support them. I believe it is high time that we hold schools accountable for their performance and getting their act together. I believe it is high time we hold schools accountable for their performance. But--here is the conjunction ``but''--I also believe that if we in the Congress are going to demand that schools raise student achievement, we, I, you, Senators, all Senators, all Members of the other body, if we are going to demand that schools raise student achievement, we have a responsibility to provide those schools with the additional resources that they need to improve. That is what we are talking about on this chart. We are falling short. We are falling behind in the No Child Left Behind Act. Unfortunately, as I say, we are not keeping our promise. In fact, for most school districts, Federal funds are moving in the opposite direction. In fiscal year 2004, more than half of the Nation's school districts received less title I funding than they did the year before. What a shame. How about that. Look at that. Listen. Hear me. I will say that again. In fiscal year 2004, more than half of the Nation's school districts received less title I funding than they did the year before. In fiscal 2005, two-thirds of school districts took a cut in title I funding. If Congress passes the Senate bill as it stands now, most districts will receive less title I funding for the third year in a row. That is not what Congress promised. That is not what Congress intended when it passed the No Child Left Behind Act. The funding level for title I in this bill is a betrayal of the law and it is unfair to all people in this country who are working so hard to implement the law. Parents and teachers want their schools to be held accountable. They want every child--not just this one or that one but every child--to succeed. They are holding up their end of the bargain. Are we? Are we holding up our end of the bargain? It is time for the Congress to do the same. I voted for the No Child Left Behind Act. I support the reforms in that law. But schools need more funding if we are truly going to leave no child behind. What is more important than our children? What is more important than the education of our children? I urge my fellow Senators to approve this amendment. We gave our word to the people, didn't we? Yes, we gave our word to the people when we passed the No Child Left Behind Act. Let us keep our word. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I propose that we vote on this amendment. The Senator can still offer an amendment if he wishes to do so after this vote. Let's go. I ask for the vote. I object to any request to set this amendment aside.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have no objection if the Senator wishes to proceed at this time. Am I recognized?

Mr. BYRD. I yield to the Senator, as I may, without any objections, for 10 minutes, and I retain my right to the floor.

Mr. BYRD. I don't either.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, wishes to speak for 5 minutes. If I may take 5 seconds. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I hope the Senate will vote quickly. But before it does, I thank the Senators who have just spoken, particularly the manager of the bill, Mr. Specter. He is an outstanding Senator. I have seen this Senate turn over more than 3 times, complete turnover of 100 Senators more than 3 times. I tell you, my friends, I have never seen a more eloquent, more dedicated Senator to his State, to his people, to the people of this country, to his work here, than Senator Specter. I admire him. Some day when he runs for reelection, I may make a little contribution to him. I will leave that for another time. I also thank my colleagues. What splendid colleagues they are. Senator Dodd, traveling in the wake of the Senator from Connecticut who signed the Constitution of the United States. What a man, Roger Sherman. And then the Senator from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy. What a great State that was and is. Read your history on the Revolutionary War, those times. Someone talked recently about the people of my generation who saw World War I, who lived through World War II and the Vietnam War, the other wars we have participated in, the Great Depression. My, these are great Senators. I can see their pictures out there on the medallions in the room just outside this Chamber. And the chairman and ranking member of this committee, my, what Senators they are. They are right, and they are right to oppose it in saying we don't have the money. I know they are right. But Congress could shift those priorities. How about the big tax cuts for the wealthy? How about the war in Iraq? How much are we spending there in treasure, to say nothing of the blood that is being spilled? Yes, we could do better, but we are doing the best we can under the circumstances now. I don't fault the Senator from Pennsylvania. I admire him. If I were in his position, I would understand his responsibility. My responsibility is to try. We can do better. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, for which I voted, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I prefer to have the vote now.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will vote against the Coburn amendment that would have increased funding for the State AIDS Drug Assistance Program by cutting needed funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC. I have long supported, and will continue to support, increased funding for the State AIDS Drug Assistance Program to assist those suffering from HIV/AIDS in West Virginia and across the Nation. However, I could not support the Coburn amendment that would have reduced funding to upgrade and modernize the public health facilities at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, GA. The current facilities at the CDC are in a state of extreme disrepair. This is unacceptable at a moment when we face a possible avian flu pandemic which could threaten millions of American lives. The CDC serves on the frontlines of our Nation's defense and preparations for such a flu outbreak.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I will be glad to yield for a question.

Mr. BYRD. Yes, yes. I thank the distinguished Senator for his very appropriate observations. The U.N. inspectors were doing their job. They were finding certain weapons, and they were disposing of them. With some more time--I believe it was the top inspector, his name was Blix--he said: We can do this job; it may take some months. We could have done that and saved 2,000 men and women. Oh, what a shame. The inspectors were doing their job. Let me hurry on. Too many lives have already been lost.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, press reports today indicate that the number of American troops killed in Iraq has now reached 2,000--2,000. This is another tragic milestone in this costly and unnecessary war in which too much blood--too much blood, too much blood--has already been spilled. And I offer my deepest sympathies to the brave men and women who have given their lives--that is everything. They have given their lives. They have given their all, everything, their lives--most of these young lives in their 20s or thereabouts--given their lives in selfless dedication to service--2,000--2,000 men and women given their lives in dedication to our Nation. See the empty chairs. Two thousand, 2,000 empty chairs at the table, 2,000. How many hearts have been broken? How many tears have been spilled? I offer to these families my prayers that God, almighty God, may comfort them in their grief over the loss of their beloved husbands, wives, sons or daughters, brothers or sisters. As we mourn the losses that have already occurred in the war in Iraq, Americans should be mindful that all indications are that there will be many more losses to come--many more losses to come, yes, in the most dangerous, the most dangerous country in the world, the most violent country in the world. How would you like your sons or grandsons or granddaughters to go? And for what? For what? They did not ask to be sent to war. They were young. They had life ahead of them. Oh, the lofty horizons they had, the great dreams they had--the dreams, the dreams, yes, the dreams, of these young men and women--2,000--2,000-- 2,000. They did not ask to be sent to war, I say. But each day they carry out their duty. Think of those who are in Iraq. No, they must not stand still in one place, no. Keep on the move. Look all around you. How much they sleep at night and how much their mothers and fathers lie on their pillows to cry out to God to save their sons and daughters, to send them home safely. What a terrible thing. It is only reasonable that the American people and their elected representatives, like you--like you, yes, and like me--ask more questions, questions, more questions, yes. Why? Oh, why? Why? Why? How much longer, how long do we have to suffer? How long do our young people have to look forward to this dreadful trap? I was alarmed last week when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was asked at a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the President's ability to initiate another war. Specifically, Secretary Rice was asked whether the President must seek a new congressional authorization if he were to attack Syria or Iran. Secretary Rice responded: I don't want to try and circumscribe Presidential war powers. How about that. I don't want to try and circumscribe Presidential war powers. And I think you'll understand fully that the President retains those powers in the war on terrorism and in the war on Iraq. I am astounded, I am flabbergasted, I am astonished by that response. The Secretary of State seems to indicate that she believes this President or any other President has the power to redefine the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism--and that power that appears in the Constitution of the United States: Congress shall have power to declare war--has the power to redefine the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism to include a possible attack on Syria or Iran. Think of it. Mr. President, Congress made a grave mistake, Congress made a grave mistake--what a blot on the escutcheon of the Senate--when it voted to pass the resolution which transferred to the President the power to declare war against Iraq. What a shame. What a shame. What a mistake. Oh, my, what a mistake. What a mistake. What a shame. And this Senate for the most part stood mute--mute, mute, silent, speechless. Congress made a grave mistake on October 11, 2002, in passing the resolution that transferred to the President, any President, the power--how about that, the power--that is not what this Constitution says. This Constitution, which I hold in my hand, says that Congress-- that is us, the people's representatives, here and across on the other side of the Capitol--Congress shall have power to declare war. But what did Congress do? Congress shifted that power to declare war, tucked its tail between its legs, so to speak, and walked off the field, threw its sword in the sand and walked off the field, relegated itself then, now, and forever more, until that law is changed, rendered itself speechless. We wash our hands, Congress washed its hands. Congress washed its hands and walked away from that field, with its broken sword in the sand, transferring to the President the power to declare war against Iraq. And for what? For what? Why did we go there? Well, there are all kinds of reasons now they bring but then it was because there were to be found weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Rumsfeld said: Oh, we know where they are; they are in the north, they are in the south, the east and west. We know where they are. Well, where are they, Mr. Secretary? Where are they? Where are they? Two thousand men and women, one for every year that has passed since Jesus Christ was born--2,000, 2,000. And for what? But that resolution was limited to Iraq alone. It had no mention of Iran, no mention of Syria. That resolution cannot possibly authorize a new war against Syria or Iran. Our troops are so deeply mired in this sectarian conflict in Iraq, what point could there possibly be in contemplating an attack on Syria or Iran? Why did Secretary Rice dismiss the notion that the President must first come to Congress if he wishes to broaden this war to new countries--unless our country is under the direct threat of an imminent attack. Then a President has the inherent constitutional power to move to war. The American people seek an end, they seek an end, they want an end to this ongoing bloody war in Iraq, not new conflicts in neighboring countries. For the sake of the Constitution--here it is in my hand--for the sake of the Constitution, for the sake of the American people--there they are. I see them out there through those electronic lenses. Yes, there they are, out into the mountains, the Appalachians, then the Midwest, then the Rockies, then the west coast. They are all over there, the American people--and for the brave members of the U.S. Armed Forces, the President should publicly acknowledge that there will be no expansion of the war in Iraq, none, no expansion, without the authorization of Congress. That is us. That is us, Members of the House and Senate. Not one man, not one body. Two bodies, the House and the Senate, the Congress of the United States. There must be no more mission creep. There must be no more billions committed. There must be no more lives lost without authorization by the people's representatives in Congress, including an open debate and an up-or-down vote. That is what I pleaded for. That is what some of us pleaded for. That is what some of us pleaded for--debate, time, talk, wait, wait until after the election; let's hear what the people have to say and then come back and talk about it. No, it had to be done in a hurry; we have to get it behind us. The Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from Rhode Island and others said: Wait a minute, let's talk about it; let's wait until after the election; we don't have to do it now; let's wait, wait, wait; let's talk about it. No, we were told, get it behind us, get it behind us. I said you will never get it behind us. This man down at the White House is not going to let it get behind us. He has you right where he wants you.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have been around the Senate for a long time, and I have been serving West Virginia for a long time. I have seen many seasons in my time in this Senate, and I know that with each season comes its challenges. There is strength and beauty in West Virginia winters, but the impacts of recent hurricanes and other energy challenges will test our ability to meet our needs this coming season. These colder temperatures mean that West Virginians and Americans in many regions of this country will be struggling to heat their homes. I know, as winter approaches, many West Virginians will be faced with tough choices about whether to use their paychecks to heat their homes, to fill their cars with gasoline, or to buy winter clothes for their children. I sympathize with those who have to make these tough choices, and these hard-working Americans deserve some measure of relief. I strongly support the Reed/Collins amendment. We need to fully fund the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP. This program is critical for those in my State and across the country who will be facing a tough winter. Colder winter months, coupled with the simultaneous challenges of an increase in poverty, a growing elderly population, and ever-increasing home heating costs, will make this program crucial. The LIHEAP program fills the gap for the poorest and most vulnerable of our citizens, allowing them the sanctuary of a warm home, something to which each and every American is entitled. More than 130,000 households benefit from this program in my State. Households, including many in West Virginia, that heat with natural gas are expected to pay an average of $350, or 48 percent, more for home heating this winter than last. This increase will leave many West Virginians even more vulnerable and forced to make tough choices. Therefore, I support this amendment, as I have when it has been previously offered on other fiscal year 2006 Appropriations bills. I cannot stand by and let the throes of winter leave the most vulnerable in my State out in the cold, and I urge my colleagues to support it.