Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this coming Monday, Americans across the Nation will hang flags at their doors and place small flags and flowers on the gravesites of loved ones and soldiers in a tradition that stretches deep into history, perhaps back to the advent of warfare. The selection of the last Monday in May is unique to the United States, but remembering and honoring those fallen in battle is deeply ingrained in the human heart. On this day, these sons and fathers, uncles and brothers and, more recently, daughters and mothers, aunts and nieces are family members to us all. Lost to us too early, their images remain frozen in time, young faces trying to look stern in crisp uniforms. Their sacrifices on battlefields from the Argonne to Tripoli, Pearl Harbor to Iwo Jima, Porkchop Hill to Hamburger Hill, Kabul to Baghdad have kept the Nation safe and carried the American ideals of liberty and democracy across the surface of the globe. This week, as the Senate struggled and ultimately overcame an arcane but fundamental challenge to our constitutional system of checks and balances, we have, I believe, honored the memory of all of those soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. They defended the Nation and the Constitution from without; a bipartisan group of Senators this week defended it from within, thank God. I rejoice that 14 Senators could rise above partisan politics to understand and preserve the carefully crafted balance of powers inscribed in our Constitution. Without the Constitution, the millions of lives and billions of dollars spent over the years on our Nation's defense, the flower of our youth and our hard-earned treasure, would have gone for naught. Our form of Government, acknowledging the might of the majority but protecting the rights of the minority, balancing populous States against States with smaller populations, preserving the voice and will of the people as the ultimate check against the rise of a tyrant king, that is our greatest treasure. It is the preservation of our form of Government that merits committing our young to the bloody horrors of battle. It is perhaps appropriate, in this context, that the Senate's battle is concluded just before Memorial Day, which originated after our Nation's most divisive and bloody war ever fought on our home soil. The Civil War pit over 2.2 million Union soldiers against just over 1 million Confederate soldiers, resulting in almost 600,000 deaths, a third in battle and the rest from war's accompanying furies of disease and privation. It is a tribute to the heart's powers of healing that soon after the war, individuals and communities could put aside their differences in the graveyard and simply mourn their losses together. Over 42 million American patriots have risked their lives for our Nation since the Revolutionary War. Over 17 million war veterans, of among over 25 million veterans of military service, live among us still. I salute them all, and thank them and their families for their bravery and their patriotism. Of the 42 million Americans who saw battle during their military service, over 650,000 died in battle. That is 650,000 families who received the terrible news that their loved one had been killed. In World War II, the tragic news often came by telegram, and Americans learned to dread the sight of those envelopes. As of May 23, 2005, in connection with Operation Iraqi Freedom, 1,623 families have answered the door to the solemn faces of two officers whose hard duty it is to report the tragic news that another life has been lost. Another 186 families have gotten the same sad news coming from Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. My prayers go out to these families. There are no words that can console the grieving heart at times like these. The widow's flag, folded with care after a military ceremony, offers little comfort. But these brave men and women, and the families they leave behind, are part of a long chain of sacrifice and grief that firm the resolve of the Nation. Never should we forget their service to the Nation and the Constitution. Never should we squander their sacrifice on momentary partisan advantages that erode the integrity of the Constitution and, in turn, the continued health and vitality of our form of government. On this Memorial Day, and on every Memorial Day, I urge Americans to put out their flags and to honor the fallen. I further urge them, in the spirit of those first Memorial Days, to put aside partisanship in favor of true patriotism, and to love and preserve our Nation and our Constitution in a lasting tribute to those who have given their lives in its defense. As is my custom on these occasions, I would like to close with a poem. This piece is by Edgar Guest, and is called, ``Memorial Day.'' Memorial Day The finest tribute we can pay Unto our hero dead today, Is not a rose wreath, white and red, In memory of the blood they shed; It is to stand beside each mound, Each couch of consecrated ground, And pledge ourselves as warriors true Unto the work they died to do. Into God's valleys where they lie At rest, beneath the open sky, Triumphant now o'er every foe, As living tributes let us go. No wreath of rose or immortelles Or spoken word or tolling bells Will do today, unless we give Our pledge that liberty shall live. Our hearts must be the roses red We place above our hero dead; Today beside their graves we must Renew allegiance to their trust; Must bare our heads and humbly say We hold the Flag as dear as they, And stand, as once they stood, to die To keep the Stars and Stripes on high. The finest tribute we can pay Unto our hero dead today Is not of speech or roses red, But living, throbbing hearts instead, That shall renew the pledge they sealed With death upon the battlefield; That freedom's flag shall bear no stain And free men wear no tyrant's chain. ``No Tyrant's Chain.'' I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Republican side for yielding me 10 minutes. So I yield myself 10 minutes. (The remarks of Mr. Byrd are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.''

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today I am introducing S. 1133, the Clean Coal Research, Development, Demonstration, and Deployment Act of 2005. I am proud to have Senators Rockefeller and Specter as cosponsors of my bill. This comprehensive clean coal technology legislation will help provide for a new era for coal. I have looked into the past; I recognize the enormous challenges that are before us; and I see coal's future. The bill authorizes important programs at the Department of Energy as well as provides a major package of targeted federal energy tax incentives. It supports a research and development program and tax incentives to encourage the use of advanced coal technologies at coal- fired power plants. The bill also promotes a major investment in a national industrial gasification program. It is a balanced and financially sound proposal, and it recognizes that there are new horizons opening for coal. The Byrd-Rockefeller-Specter bill works to balance these ever expanding opportunities in a very reasonable and responsible way. We must move forward with the development and deployment of advanced power generation and carbon capture and sequestration technologies. Coal also has a future in producing chemicals, alternative transportation fuels, and other important products for use in the economy. My legislation can begin to initiate that effort. There are those who have wanted to push coal aside like stove wood and horse power as novelties from a bygone era. But we cannot ignore coal as part of the solution to our future energy challenges. Over the past several years, I have been diligently assembling a set of proposals that can provide a comprehensive approach for the near- and long-term viability for coal, both at home and abroad. It is time that we reexamine the opportunities for coal, and let the past be our guide to the future. Mr. President, I hope other Senators will review S. 1133, and I urge them to cosponsor this legislation.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today I am introducing S. 1133, the Clean Coal Research, Development, Demonstration, and Deployment Act of 2005. I am proud to have Senators Rockefeller and Specter as cosponsors of my bill. This comprehensive clean coal technology legislation will help provide for a new era for coal. I have looked into the past; I recognize the enormous challenges that are before us; and I see coal's future. The bill authorizes important programs at the Department of Energy as well as provides a major package of targeted federal energy tax incentives. It supports a research and development program and tax incentives to encourage the use of advanced coal technologies at coal- fired power plants. The bill also promotes a major investment in a national industrial gasification program. It is a balanced and financially sound proposal, and it recognizes that there are new horizons opening for coal. The Byrd-Rockefeller-Specter bill works to balance these ever expanding opportunities in a very reasonable and responsible way. We must move forward with the development and deployment of advanced power generation and carbon capture and sequestration technologies. Coal also has a future in producing chemicals, alternative transportation fuels, and other important products for use in the economy. My legislation can begin to initiate that effort. There are those who have wanted to push coal aside like stove wood and horse power as novelties from a bygone era. But we cannot ignore coal as part of the solution to our future energy challenges. Over the past several years, I have been diligently assembling a set of proposals that can provide a comprehensive approach for the near- and long-term viability for coal, both at home and abroad. It is time that we reexamine the opportunities for coal, and let the past be our guide to the future. Mr. President, I hope other Senators will review S. 1133, and I urge them to cosponsor this legislation.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, yesterday I voted to invoke cloture on the nomination of Priscilla Owen to sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Today I shall vote to confirm her nomination by an up-or-down vote. I voted to invoke cloture on this nominee and have committed to do so on a number of other pending nominees to preserve the right of extended debate in the Senate. For 200 years, Senators have enjoyed the right to speak at length on matters dear to them. This essential right has been rightfully employed for generations to protect minority rights--both in the Senate and nationwide. It would have been a travesty to have permitted this cherished right of extended debate to be extinguished simply as the result of a political squabble over a handful of judges. While passions over these seven judges have run high, it is necessary for the Senate to look at the bigger picture and stop this partisan bickering over these few judges. Now is the time for logic and reason. Now is the time for cooler heads to prevail to address the truly weighty matters that confront our nation--matters like the need of every American to obtain necessary health care, sufficient pension benefits, and affordable energy. I voted four times previously not to invoke cloture on Priscilla Owen because I respected the right of the Senate to hear further debate concerning her qualifications, her philosophy, her temperament, and exactly what she would be like if she were confirmed to fill this lifetime position on the Federal bench. Having examined these aspects, as well as her prior record as a justice on the Texas Supreme Court, I shall vote in support of her nomination. I know that some critics assail Justice Owen's belief that, in certain circumstances, minors should be required to notify their parents prior to obtaining an abortion. However, I cannot help but believe that in many, but perhaps not all, cases, young women would do well to seek guidance from their parents or legal guardians, who would have their best interests at heart when these young women are confronted with making such a difficult decision--a life-altering decision that carries with it extraordinary consequences. I have a long history of support for parental notification in these kinds of difficult circumstances. For example, in 1991, I supported legislation that would have required entities receiving grants under title X of the Public Health Service Act to provide parental notification in the case of minor patients who seek an abortion. Based on my examination of the totality of circumstances that surround this nomination, I have decided to support the nomination of Priscilla Owen to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I read from the King James version of the Holy Bible, from the 22nd chapter of Proverbs, the 28th verse: Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set. Mr. President, in his second inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln observed that: With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God give us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds. . . . Mr. President, I have always believed that the Senate, by its nature, attracts and probably also creates men and women of the quality and character who are able to step up when faced with crises that threaten the ship of state, to calm the dangerous seas which, from time to time, threaten to dash our Republic against rocky shoals and jagged shores. The Senate proved it to be true again yesterday, when 14 Members-- from both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats; 14 Members--of this revered institution came together to avert the disaster referred to as the ``nuclear option'' or the ``constitutional option''--these men and women of great courage. As William Gladstone said, in referring to the Senate of the United States, the Senate is that remarkable body, the most remarkable of all the inventions of modern politics. I thank all of those Republicans and Democrats who worked together to keep faith with the Framers and the Founding Fathers. We have kept the faith with those whose collective vision gave us this marvelous piece of work, the Constitution of the United States. Thank God--thank God-- that this work has been done and that it has been preserved, that a catastrophe has been averted. Article II, section 2, of the Constitution gives to the President the power to nominate, and ``by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,'' to ``appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States. . . .'' There are two parts to that phrase: the ``advice'' on the one hand, and the ``consent'' on the other, and both must be present before any President can appoint any nominee to the Supreme Court or any other Federal court. It is, therefore, a shared responsibility between the U.S. Senate and the President of the United States. By its agreement yesterday, the Senate is keeping that construct alive, this shared responsibility between the President of the United States, on the one hand, and the Senate of the United States, on the other. The agreement that was obtained yesterday by the cooperation between and among the 14 Members of the Senate--representing Republicans and Democrats--it was that agreement that reminds us of the words of our Constitution, by encouraging the President of the United States, on the one hand, to consult with the Senate of the United States, on the other. In other words, the Senate will be in on the takeoff, meaning prior to sending up his nominees for our consideration. In recent times--and by that I mean under Presidents of both parties--there has not been all that much consultation by the President with the Senate. So here we are, in the Senate, offering the hand of partnership to the Chief Executive and saying: Consult with us. That is what the Framers intended, that the President of the United States should consult with the Senate. You don't have to take our advice, but here it is. And by considering that advice, it only stands to reason that any President will be more assured that his nominees will enjoy a kinder reception in the Senate. The agreement, which references the need for ``advice and consent,'' as contained in the Constitution, proves once again, as has been true for over 200 years, that our revered Constitution is not simply a dry piece of parchment. It is a living document. Yesterday's agreement was a real-life illustration of how this historical document continues to be vital in our daily lives. It inspires, it teaches, and yesterday it helped the country and the Senate avoid a serious catastrophe. Mr. President, for this reason and others, I ask that at the end of my remarks the agreement reached by the 14 Senators be printed in the Record.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I do this so that we in the Senate and the President may all have a way of easily revisiting the text of that agreement for future reference. On the heels of this agreement, I believe that we should now move forward, propelled by its positive energy, in a new direction. We should make every effort to restore reason to the politically partisan fervor that has overtaken our Senate, this city, and our country. We must stop arguing and start legislating. Divisive political agendas are not America's goals. The right course lies someplace in the middle. It is our job to work as elected representatives of a reasonable people to do what is right, regardless of threats from any of the angry groups that seem dedicated to intimidation. The skeptics, the cynics, the doubters, the Pharisees, those who are intoxicated by the juice of sour grapes did not prevail and must not prevail. The 14 Republican and Democratic Senators rose above those who do not wish to see accord but prefer discord. Chaucer's ``Canterbury Tales''--we have all read Chaucer's ``Canterbury Tales'' in high school--contains ``The Pardoner's Tale.'' The story tells about the journey by the pilgrims to Canterbury, to the shrine of Canterbury. The scene took place in Flanders, where once there sat drinking in a tavern three young men who were much given to folly. As they sat, they heard a small bell clink before a corpse that was being carried to the grave. Whereupon, one of the three called to his knave and ordered him to go and find out the name of the corpse that was passing by. The boy answered that he already knew and that it was an old comrade of the roisterers who had been slain, while drunk, by an unseen thief called ``Death,'' who had slain others in recent days. And so out into the road the three young ruffians went in search of this monster called Death. They came upon an old man and seized him, and with rough language they demanded that he tell them where they could find this cowardly adversary who was taking the lives of their good friends around the countryside. The old man pointed to a great oak tree on a nearby knoll, saying, ``There, under that tree you will find Death,'' that monster. In a drunken rage, the three roisterers set off in a run until they came to the tree, and there they found a pile of gold--eight basketfuls of florins, newly minted, round, gold coins. Forgotten was the monster called Death, as the three pondered their good fortune. And they decided that they should remain with the gold until nightfall, when they would divide it among themselves and take it to their respective homes. It would be unsafe, they reasoned, to attempt to do so in broad daylight, as they might be fallen upon by thieves who would take their treasure from them. It was proposed that the three draw straws, and the person who drew the shortest straw would go into the nearby village and purchase some bread and wine and cheese, which they could then enjoy as they whiled away the daylight hours. So off toward the village the young man who drew the shortest straw went. When he was out of sight, the remaining two decided that there was no good reason why this fortune, this pile of gold, should be divided among three individuals. So one of them said to the other, ``When he returns, you throw your arm around him as if in good sport, as in jest, and I will rive him with my dagger, and with your dagger, you can do the same. Then all of this gold will be divided not among three of us but just between two of us--you and me.'' Meanwhile, while the two were planning the demise of the third, the youngest rogue, as he made his way into the town, thought to himself what a shame it would be that the gold would be divided among three, when it just as well could be so easily belong only to the ownership of one, himself. Therefore, in town the young man went directly to an apothecary and asked to be sold some poison for the large rats and a polecat that had been killing his chickens. The apothecary--the pharmacist--quickly provided some poison, saying that as much as equaled only a tiny grain of wheat would result immediately in sudden death for the creature that drank the mixture. Having purchased the poison, the young villain crossed the street to a winery, where he purchased three bottles--two for his friends, one for himself. After he left the village, he sat down, opened two bottles of wine and deposited an equal portion in each, and then returned to the oak tree, where the two older villains did as they had planned. One threw his arm, as if in jest, around the shoulders of the third, and both buried their daggers in him. He fell dead on the pile of gold. The other two villains then sat down, broke the bread, cut the cheese, and opened the two bottles of wine. Each took a good, deep swallow, and then, suffering a most excruciating pain, both fell dead upon the pile of gold and upon the body of the third. So there they were across the pile of gold, all three of them dead. Their avarice, their greed for gain, their love of material things had destroyed them. There is a lesson here in Chaucer's Tales, as given to us by ``The Pardoner.'' The strong temptation for political partisanship that has prevailed in the Senate can tear this Senate apart and can tear the Nation apart and confront all of us with destruction, so that in the end we three--the President, the Senate, and the people--will all be destroyed, as it were. So we almost saw that happen here on the Senate floor--until yesterday, when that catastrophe, looming as it was before the Senate, was averted. I applaud the fact that the center, the anchor, held, and we stood together for the good of the country against mean-spirited, shallow, political ends. Mr. President, I implore all of us to endeavor to lift our eyes to the higher things. We can perform some much needed healing on the body politic. If we can come together in a dignified way to orderly and expeditiously move forward on these nominations, perhaps we can yet salvage a bit of respect and trust from the American people for all of us, for the Senate, and for our institutions of free government. We have a duty, at this critical time, to rise above politics as usual, in which we savage one another, and in so doing, destroy ourselves, like the three villains in ``The Pardoner's Tale.'' Let us put the Nation first. The American people want us to do that. In the long run, that is how we will be judged and, more importantly, it is how the Senate will be judged. It is easy to tear down; it is difficult to build. I saw them tearing a building down, A group of men in a busy town. With a ``Ho, Heave, Ho and a lusty yell, They swung a beam and the sidewall fell. I said to the foreman, ``Are these men skilled? The type you would hire if you had to build.'' He laughed, and then he said, ``No indeed, Just common labor is all I need; I can easily erect in a day or two, That which takes builders years to do.'' I said to myself as I walked away, ``Which of these roles am I trying to play? Am I a builder who works with care, Building my life by the rule and square? Am I shaping my deeds by well-laid plan, Patiently building the best I can? Or am I a wrecker who walks the town Content with the labor of tearing down.'' Mr. President, it is easy to tear down, but it takes a long time to build. We have been 217 years in building this Senate, making it what it was intended to be by the Framers who wrote it 219 years ago, who established three equal coordinate branches of Government, who established a separation of powers, who established checks and balances in this Constitution of the United States. The work of those Framers and the work of the larger group of Founders took 219 years. It was about to be destroyed in a single day, this day. But thank God 14 Senators from both sides of the aisle met and rose above partisan politics and kept the faith with the Framers and with the Founders so that our posterity might enjoy the blessings of liberty, the blessings of freedom of speech, the roots of which go all the way back to the reign of Henry IV, who reigned from 1399 to 1413 and who in 1407 proclaimed that the members of Parliament--the House of Lords and the House of Commons--could speak freely and without fear. And those words were written into the Declaration of Rights, which declaration was submitted to William III of Orange and Mary, a Declaration of Rights which included freedom of speech in Parliament. That declaration was presented on February 13, 1689, to William III and Mary. They both accepted it and were then proclaimed by the House of Commons joint sovereigns of the nation. Then, on December 18, 1689, those words were included in a statute, the English Bill of Rights--freedom of speech, the roots going back a long way. That freedom of speech then was provided to those of us in the Senate, provided by the Constitution, and since 1806, when the provision for the previous question was discarded upon the recommendation of Vice President Aaron Burr, since 1806 that provision for the previous question or the sudden cutting off debate was discarded. Since 1806, until the year 1917, the year in which I was born during the administration of Woodrow Wilson, that freedom of speech has prevailed in the Senate, and it has lived since then except for unanimous consent agreements and the cloture provision which was first agreed to in 1917, the cloture provision shutting off debate under the rules of the Senate. Freedom of speech has reigned in this body, and it still lives, thanks again to the 14 Republicans and Democrats who rose above politics yesterday and came forward with this accord. So, Mr. President, let us be true to the faith of our fathers and to the expectation of those who founded this Republic. The coming days will test us again and again, but let us go forward together hoping that in the end, the Senate will be perceived as having stood the test, and may we, both Republicans and Democrats and Independents, when our work is done, be judged by the American people and by the pages of history as having done our duty and as having done it well. Our supreme duty is not to any particular person, not to any particular President, not to any political party, but to the Constitution, to the people of the Nation, and to the future of this Republic. It is in that spirit that we may do well to remember the words of Benjamin Hill, a great Senator, a great orator from the State of Georgia, his words being inscribed on a statue in Atlanta, GA, as they are and as they appear today upon that monument: Who saves his country saves himself, saves all things, and all things saved do bless him. Who let's his country die dies himself ignobly, and all things dying curse him. Remember that ancient proverb: Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. Exhibit 1 Memorandum of Understanding on Judicial Nominations We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and Democratic Leader Reid. This memorandum confirms an understanding among the signatories, based upon mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future judicial nominations in the 109th Congress. This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominations; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the Senate's Judiciary Committee. We have agreed to the following: Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit). B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit). Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist. B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII. We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word ``Advice'' speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President's power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration. Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate. We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold. E. Benjamin Nelson, Mike DeWine, Joe Lieberman, Susan Collins, Mark Pryor, Lindsey Graham, Lincoln Chafee, John McCain, John Warner, Robert C. Byrd, Mary Landrieu, Olympia Snowe, Ken Salazar, and Daniel Inouye.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak sadly. I have been a Member of Congress--now I am in my 53rd year. Two other members have served longer than I. Only 11,752 men and women have served in the Congress of the United States since the Republic began in 1789. That is 217 years. Those two Members were the late Senator Carl Hayden of Arizona, who was chairman of the Appropriations Committee when I came to this body, and Representative Jamie Whitten of Mississippi, who was a member of the House Appropriations Committee, a man with whom I served. So only two others have served longer in the Congress, meaning the House of Representatives or the Senate or both--only two. I say to Senators and you, Mr. President, can you imagine my feelings as I stand now to speak in this Senate, which tomorrow--24 to 36 to 48 hours from now--may be changed from what it was when it began, when it first met in April of 1789 and from what it was when I came here to the Senate now going on 47 years ago. I can see Everett Dirksen as he stood at that desk. He was the then- minority leader. Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas was the majority leader. Yes, I can see Norris Cotton. I can see George Aiken. I can see Jack Javits. I can see Margaret Chase Smith of Maine, the only woman in the Senate at that time, as she sat on the front row of the Republican side of the aisle. I can see others, yes. How would they have voted? How would they have voted on this question which will confront us tomorrow? How would they have voted? I have no doubt as to how they would have voted. I have no doubt as to how they would vote were they here tomorrow. And so my heart is sad that we would even come to a moment such as this. Sad, sad, sad, sad it is. I rise today to make a request of my fellow Senators. In so doing, I reach out to all Senators on both sides of the aisle, respectful of the institution of the Senate and of the opinions of all Senators, respectful of the institution of the Presidency as well. I ask each Senator to pause for a moment and reflect seriously on the role of the Senate as it has existed now for 217 years, and on the role that it will play in the future if the so-called nuclear option or the so- called constitutional option--one in the same--is invoked. I implore Senators to step back--step back, step back, step back-- from the precipice. Step back away from the cameras and the commentators and contemplate the circumstances in which we find ourselves. Things are not right, and the American people know that things are not right. The political discourse in our country has become so distorted, so unpleasant, so strident, so unbelievable, it is no wonder, then, that people are turning to a place of serenity, a place that they trust to seek the truth. They are turning to their religious faith in a time of ever-quickening contradictory messages transmitted by e-mail, by BlackBerrys, by Palm Pilots, answering machines, Tivo, voice mail, satellite TV, cell phones, Fox News, and so many other media outlets. America is suffering sensory overload. We hear a lot of talk, but we do not know what to make of it. So some are turning to a place of quiet, a secure place, a place where they can find peace. They are turning to their faith, their religious faith. Our Nation seems to be at a crossroads. People are seeking answers to legitimate questions about the future of our country, the future of our judiciary, and what role religions play in public lives. But it is difficult to find the quiet time to contemplate or to build a consensus in response to these profound questions when the venues for serious discussion of these issues often amount to little more than ``shoutfests,'' ``hardball,'' and ``Crossfire.'' Mr. President, what is next, ``Slash and Burn'' ``Your faith or mine?'' Perhaps because so few traditional channels of communication even now in the Senate provide a venue for thoughtful discussion, Americans are seeking answers to political and legal questions not in Congress or in the courts but through a higher power, through their religious faith. In fact, it is the reaction of some to recent court decisions that has fueled the drive by a sincere minority, perhaps, in this country, the drive, where it might be a majority in this country, the drive toward the pillars of faith. Many American citizens since the early religious people are angered and alienated by a belief that their views are not respected in the political process. They are deeply frustrated, and I am in sympathy with such feelings. I do not agree with many of the decisions that have come from the courts concerning prayer in school or concerning prohibitions on the display of religious items in public places. For example, concerning freedom of religion, the establishment clause of the first amendment to the Constitution states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . . In my humble opinion, too many have not given equal weight to both of these clauses but have focused only on the first clause which prohibits the establishment of religion, with too little attention and at the expense of the second clause, which protects the right of Americans to worship as they please. I have always believed that this country was founded by men and women of strong faith whose intent was never to suppress religion but to ensure that our Government favors no single religion over another. This is reflected in Thomas Jefferson's insistence on religious liberty in the founding of our Republic. In his Virginia Act for Establishing Religion Freedom, Jefferson wrote that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinion or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and that shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. In 1962, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case called Engel v. Vitale. In that case, a group of politically appointed State officials drafted a prayer to be recited every day in the New York public schools, but the Supreme Court struck down the law, holding that the practice violated the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution. While I strongly support voluntary prayer in schools, I can understand how the Supreme Court refused to require schoolchildren to recite a prayer that was drafted by government bureaucrats to be force-fed to every child. That decision rested on a principle that makes a lot of sense to me--namely, that government itself may not seek either to discourage or to promote religion. In response to a question about the role of religion in society, President Bush recently stated that he believes religion is a personal matter--and it is a personal matter. It is a personal matter, something that must be revered but not imposed by the Government. The Federal Government must not prevent us from praying, but it should not tell us how to pray, either. That is a personal matter. That is a personal decision. On May 5, our National Day of Prayer, the President reminded us that this special day was an annual event established in 1952 by an act of Congress. Yet, as said, it is part of a broader tradition that reaches back to the beginnings of America. So the President reminded us that from the landing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock to the launch of the American Revolution, the men and women who founded this Nation in freedom relied on prayer to protect and to preserve it. And, of course, the President was right. Thus, we can all understand the outrage of many good people of faith who decry the nature of our popular culture with its overt emphasis on sex, violence, profanity, and materialism. They have every reason to seek some sort of remedy, but these frustrations, great as they are, must not be allowed to destroy crucial institutional mechanisms in the Senate that have protected minority rights for over 200 years and, when necessary, must be available to curtail the power of a power-hungry Executive. Yet this is the outcome sought by those who propose to attack the filibuster. At such times as these, the character of the leaders of this country is sorely tested. Our best leaders search for ways to avert such crises, not ways to accelerate the plunge toward the brink. Overheated partisan rhetoric is always available, of course, but the majority of Americans want a healthy two-party system built on mutual respect, and they want leaders who know how to work together. In fact, Americans admire most leaders who seek to do right, even when doing so does not prove politically advantageous in the short term. The so-called nuclear option has been around for a long time. It didn't require a genius to figure that one out. Any cabbagehead who fell off of a turnip truck could have done that. That is easy to figure out. It has been around since the cloture rule was adopted in 1917-- yes. I call it the turnip truck option, not the nuclear option, not the constitutional option. I call it the turnip truck option. It could have been talked about and suggested by someone who fell off a turnip truck and got up and dusted himself off and got back on the truck and fell off the turnip truck again--so turnip truck No. 2. Let it be that. The nuclear option, as I say, has been around for a long time, but previous leaders of the Senate and previous Presidents, previous White Houses, did not seek to foist this turnip truck option upon the Senate and upon the right of the American people to have freedom of speech on the part of their representatives in the Senate. So the nuclear option--yes, it has been around for a long time. Nobody wanted to resort to such a suicidal weapon. But until today, wisdom and cooler heads prevailed. In 1841, for example, a Democratic minority tried to block a bank bill supported by Henry Clay. Clay threatened to change the Senate's rules to allow the majority--have you heard that before?--to allow the majority to stop debate, just like our current majority leader. I say this respectfully. But Thomas Hart Benton angrily rebuked his colleague, Henry Clay, accusing Clay of trying to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate. There is no need to tamper with the Senate's right of extended debate. It has been around for a long time. In 1806, the Senate left it out of the Senate's rules. In the 1806 version of the Senate's rules, ``the previous question,'' as it now is still being used in the House, ``the previous question'' was left out, left behind. It had only been used a few times prior to 1806. It was in the 1789 rules of the Senate, yes. It was in the rules of the Continental Congress, ``the previous question.'' It is in the rules of the British Parliament, yes. But the Senate, in 1806, decided, on the basis and upon the advisement of the Vice President of the United States, Aaron Burr, to discard it. The text of the actual cloture rule, rule XXII, was not adopted by the Senate until 1917, the year in which I was born. Today, rule XXII allows the Senate to end a debate with 60 votes, what we call invoking cloture. I offered that resolution, to provide for a supermajority of 60 votes to invoke cloture. I believe it was 1975. That was a resolution which I introduced. So that is what we have today. But from 1919 to 1962, the Senate voted on cloture petitions only 27 times and invoked cloture only 5 times. Political invective and efforts to divide America along religious lines may distract the electorate for the moment, but if, heaven forbid, there should be a true crisis or calamity in our country, the American people will stand shoulder to shoulder to support our country. Why can't we, then, their Senators, their leaders, find the courage to come together and solve this problem? Nearly 4 years ago, our Nation was attacked by al-Qaida. In a Herculean effort, we came together to help the good people of New York and the patriotic citizens who worked at the Pentagon. Why can't we find some of that spirit today in the Senate? The time-honored role of the Senate as protector of minority views is at risk, and those who are in the majority today may be in the minority tomorrow. Don't forget that--the worm turns. Our country has serious problems. Baby boomers are facing retirement with sorely diminished savings, savings hard to accrue in the face of exploding prices for gasoline, prescription drugs, housing, fuel, medicine and shelter--not frivolous purchases, all essential to survival. Alarmingly, all are becoming less affordable, even for affluent Americans. But beyond them, what is happening to America's poor today? Has anybody noticed? Has anybody noticed? The point is that the current uproar over the filibuster serves only to underscore the mounting number of real problems--real problems--not being addressed by this Government of ours. Over 45 million persons in our country, some 15 percent of our population, cannot afford health insurance. Is your father included? Is your mother included in that number? Is your grandfather included? Is your grandmother included in that number? Our veterans lack adequate medical care after they have risked life and limb for all of us. Our education system produces 8th graders ranked 19 out of 38 countries in the world in mathematics and 12th graders ranked 19 out of 21 countries in both math and science. Poverty in these United States is rising, with 34 million people or 12.4 percent of the population living below the poverty level. Think of it. Our infant mortality rate is the second highest of the major industrialized countries of the world. Yet we debate and we seek solutions to none--none--none of these critical problems. Instead, what do we focus on? We focus all energy-- we sweat, we perspire, we weaken ourselves, we focus all energy on the frenzy over whether to confirm seven previously considered nominees who were not confirmed by the Senate in the 108th Congress. Doesn't that seem kind of odd? Isn't that kind of odd? That seems a bit irrational, doesn't it, I say. Hear me. Maybe it sounds crazy. If I wanted to go crazy, I would do it in Washington because nobody would take notice, at least, so said Irvin S. Cobb. Would anyone apply such thinking to their own lives? My colleagues, would you insist on resubmitting the same lottery ticket if you knew it was not a winner? Unfortunately, many Americans seek as an anecdote to their frustrations with our current system a confrontation--yes, we have to have it--a confrontation over these seven nominees and the preposterous solution of permanently crippling freedom of speech and debate and the right of a minority to dissent in the Senate. I ask the Senate, please, I ask the Senate majority leader, please, I ask the Senator minority leader, please, I ask the White House. I noticed the other day, I believe last Thursday, in the Washington Post--I will bring it with me tomorrow--I noticed that the White House did not want to compromise on this matter. The White House did not want to compromise. Here we have the executive branch talking to the legislative branch, two of the three branches, two of the three equal coordinate branches of Government, talking through the newspapers that it does not want to compromise. I ask the Senate to take a moment today to reflect on the potentially disastrous consequences that could flow from invoking the so-called nuclear option. Anger will erupt. It may not be the next day or immediately. One may not see these things come about immediately, but in time they will come. They will come, they will come, they will come. Anger will erupt in the Chamber and it will be difficult to address real problems. I implore, I beseech, I importune, I beg the Senate to consider how posterity will review such a significant occurrence, destroying 217 years of checks and balances established so carefully by the Founding Fathers 219 years ago. Will the light of posterity shine favorably on the shattering of Senate precedent solely to confirm these seven nominees, nominees whose names have been before the Senate for consideration in the previous administration? Won't this maneuver be viewed for what it really is, a misguided attempt to strong-arm the Senate for a political purpose driven by anger and raw ambition and lust for power? Will that be remembered as a profile in courage? What has happened to the quality of leadership in this country that will allow us even to consider provoking a constitutional crisis of such magnitude? I tell you, I am deeply, deeply troubled. I am almost sick about it, the frustration that I have had over thinking about this, this awful thing that is about to happen, unless we draw back. Have we lost our ability to look toward the larger good? Even a child is known by his doings, whether his work be pure and whether it be right. That is according to Proverbs, 20th chapter, 11th verse. I ask the Senate to come together and to work toward a compromise. Yes, the Washington Post last Thursday said the White House doesn't want a compromise. But I beg the Senate, I beg those on the other side of the aisle and those on my side of the aisle to reach a compromise, work toward a compromise. What the current majority seeks to employ against the minority today can be turned against the majority tomorrow. John Adams once said: Even mankind will, in time, discover that unbridled majorities are as tyrannical and cruel as unlimited despots. Does not history prove as much? I ask the Senate to seek a compromise. Where is the gentle art of compromise? Edmund Burke once stated: All government, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue and every prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter. Let the Senate step away from this abyss and see the wisdom of coming together to preserve the checks and balances. May we stop and draw back and remember that we are all Americans before we permanently damage this institution, the Senate of the United States, and in doing so, permanently damage the Constitution as we permanently damage this institution, the Senate of the United States, and the country we love. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. BYRD. I wonder how much time the minority will give to me? I shall proceed. Mr. President, today I wish to speak about the history of freedom of speech in the Senate, about the cloture rule which, when invoked, limits debate, a bit about the background here that might help all Senators if they care to read or listen, and the people out there who are listening, help them to understand a little more about what this is all about. It is a matter of very great interest to the country and to the Republicans and to Democrats and to independents, to people from all walks of life. It is in that spirit that I seek to talk just a little while about this subject which is of great concern. I hope to have more to say on another day, but today I will limit myself to talking about the background, what this is all about, and the history that brings us to where we are today. In recognition that the duty imposed on the President faithfully to execute the law requires persons sympathetic to his program, the Senate traditionally has given the President great leeway in choosing his policymaking subordinates, especially those in his Cabinet and those in sub-Cabinet positions. The Senate has more or less uniformly followed this practice, as a matter of grace and in the spirit of cooperation, to ensure that the executive branch functions as a team in implementing and enforcing the laws. What has been the fairly general practice with respect to the appointment of executive branch policymakers, however, has not always applied to judicial nominations, and the arguments to the contrary are at odds with the separation of powers doctrine, common sense and history. The Constitution establishes a Supreme Court and gives Congress the power, in its discretion, to constitute inferior tribunals; nowhere in the blueprint of our Government is it hinted--is it even hinted; nowhere is it even hinted--that the high Court or any other Federal court is the President's court. Some may say, well, the President should have his own Cabinet. He should have his Cabinet. He should be able to choose his Cabinet. And there is considerable weight to be given to that point of view. But I do not think that any of us should maintain that the President is entitled to have his own court. That is the point. So nothing in the Constitution suggests that either the Justices or the judges should be the President's men. Let me say that again. Nothing in the Constitution suggests that either the Justices or judges should be the President's men or women, as it were. In fact, the Constitution refutes this notion by granting Federal judges lifetime tenure and by making their compensation inviolable. The men who met in Philadelphia in that hot summer of 1787 were practical statesmen. They were experienced in politics, statesmen who viewed the principle of separation of powers as a vital check against tyranny. And so I ask, can a rubber stamp be ``a vital check against tyranny''? If the Framers had intended the Senate simply to endorse the President's selections, the Senate could have been left out of the process altogether. Clearly, the men who met at Philadelphia, nearly 219 years ago, had in mind a more substantive role for the Senate. The Senate has more than once flexed its political muscles to reject a Presidential nominee, including the rejection or withdrawal of 15 Cabinet nominations and 26 Supreme Court nominations. Confirmation power is one of the major constitutional provisions that separates the Senate from the other body, the House of Representatives. It has been the subject of numerous articles, books, novels, and even motion pictures. As early as Henry IV, who reigned from 1399 to 1413, English Parliaments effectively controlled the King's royal council and household. Several officials of Henry IV's household were dismissed at the insistence of the House of Commons. Both the household officials and the members of ``the great and continual council'' were named in Parliament. So I say to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, who presently presides over the Senate, with a degree of aplomb and grace and dignity that is so rare as a day in June, that the Senate routinely debated nominations in closed session in the beginning. John Tyler was the first Vice President to become President on the death of the incumbent. Early in the Tyler administration, President Tyler broke with the Whig majority in the Senate, which thereafter frustrated his efforts to appoint his own supporters to office. Nothing in the Senate's history has ever, ever matched the spectacle that occurred on March 3, 1843, the last day of the Senate's session, when President Tyler came to the Capitol, just down the hall, to sign legislation and to submit last-minute nominations. Tyler nominated Caleb Cushing to be Secretary of the Treasury, not once, not twice, but three times that night. Are you listening? Three times. And each time, the Senate rejected Cushing by an even larger margin than before, the votes being, as recorded in the Senate Executive Journal, 19 for to 27 against, then 10 for to 27 against, and on the third time, 2 for Caleb Cushing and 29 against. Three times President Tyler named Henry A. Wise to be Minister to France--that same evening--and Wise, too, was thrice rejected. Senator Thomas Hart Benton reported that ``nominations and rejections flew backwards and forwards in a game of shuttlecock.'' In all--in all--the Senate turned down four of President Tyler's Cabinet nominees: in addition to Cushing, David Henshaw as Secretary of the Navy, James M. Porter as Secretary of War, and James S. Green as Secretary of the Treasury. And that ain't all. The Senate turned down four of President Tyler's nominees to the Supreme Court: John C. Spencer, Reuben H. Walworth, Edward King, and John M. Read. It is a record of rejection unmatched--unmatched--by any other President. What a spectacle. ``History,'' wrote the poet Byron, ``with all her volumes vast, hath but one page.'' Byron was saying there that history does repeat itself, so it only needs one page. We should do well, then, Mr. President, to look backward into the past where we shall find that due diligence by the Senate in fulfilling its ``advice and consent'' responsibility in the appointment process has been, in Hamilton's words, ``an efficacious source of stability'' in the Government of the Republic. Mr. President, in his Manual of Parliamentary Practice, Thomas Jefferson quoted ``Mr. Onslow, the ablest among the Speakers of the House of Commons,'' as follows. Here is what Mr. Onslow had to say: It was a maxim he had often heard when he was a young man, from old and experienced Members-- like myself-- that nothing tended more to throw power into the hands of administration, and [into the hands of] those who acted with the majority of the House of Commons, than a neglect of, or departure from, the rules-- ``the rules''-- of proceeding; that these forms, as instituted by our ancestors-- yours and mine-- operated as a check and control on the actions of the majority, and that they were, in many instances, a shelter and protection to the minority, against the attempts of power. Now, Thomas Jefferson himself wrote that whether the rules of a legislative body: . . . be in all cases the most rational or not is really not of so great importance. It is much more material that there should be a rule to go by than what that rule is; that there may be a uniformity of proceeding in business not subject to the caprice of the Speaker or captiousness of the members. It is very material that order, decency and regularity be preserved in a dignified public body. Therefore, Mr. President, all legislative bodies need rules to follow if they are to transact business in an orderly fashion, and if they are to operate fairly--I have heard that word used a good bit here-- efficiently, and expeditiously. On April 7, 1789, the day after a quorum of Senators had appeared--so you see the Senate just goes back to April 6, 1789--a special committee was created to ``prepare a system of rules for conducting business.'' The committee consisted of Senators Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, Caleb Strong of Massachusetts, William Maclay of Pennsylvania, and Richard Bassett of Delaware. All five of these committee members were lawyers. Each had served in his State legislature, the procedures of which were indebted to colonial and English experience. Two had served in the Continental Congress, which was also indebted to colonial and English precedents, and three had participated in the Constitutional Convention, whose members had created the Senate. Obstructive tactics--we have heard a lot about that lately--in a legislative forum, although not always known as filibusters, are of ancient origin. Plutarch reported that when Caesar returned to Rome after his sojourn in Spain, his arrival happened at the time of the election of consuls. ``He applied to the Senate for permission to stand candidate,'' but Cato--Cato the Younger--strongly opposed his request and ``attempted to prevent his success by gaining time; with which view he spun out the debate till it was too late to conclude anything that day.'' The sun went down. That ended the debate. Filibusters were also a problem in the British Parliament. In 19th century England, even the members of the Cabinet accepted the tactics of obstruction as an appropriate weapon to defeat House of Commons initiatives that were not acceptable to the government. Now, in this country, I say to the Presiding Officer and the distinguished Senator from Tennessee and my other colleagues, experience with protracted debate began early. In the first session of the First Congress--that is going back quite a ways. I have only lived one-fourth of all the time that has transpired since that First Congress convened. But in the first session of the First Congress, for example, there was a lengthy discussion regarding the permanent site for the location for the capital. How about that. Fisher Ames, a Member of the House from Massachusetts, complained that ``the minority . . . make every exertion to . . . delay the business.'' That is what we are talking about. That sounds like a filibuster, doesn't it? Senator William Maclay of Pennsylvania complained that ``every endeavor was used to waste time.'' That sounds like a filibuster, doesn't it? Well, long speeches and other obstructionist tactics were more characteristic of the House than of the Senate in the early years. So it started over there. But the House, on February 27, 1811, ``decided . . . that after previous question was decided in the affirmative, the main question should not be debated.'' So there you have it. They moved the previous question. That still is done in the other body. The practice of limiting debate dates back to 1604--my, that is over 400 years; that is 401 years--when Sir Henry Vane first introduced the idea in the British Parliament. Known in parliamentary procedure as the ``previous question,'' it is described in section XXXIV of Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice, as follows. Here is the way Thomas Jefferson explained the previous question: When any question is before the House, any Member may move a previous question . . . -- That is the way it is done over in the House, Mr. President: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question-- whether that question (called the main question) shall now be put. Mr. Speaker, they say in the House: I move the previous question. Jefferson went on to say: If it pass in the affirmative, then the main question to be put immediately, and no man may speak anything further to it, either to add or alter. That is Thomas Jefferson speaking through his writing. The journals of the Continental Congress record that the previous question was used in 1778. Get that. This is the Continental Congress. When did it first meet? It first met in 1774, the First Continental Congress. So the journals of the Continental Congress record that the previous question was used in 1778. Section 10 of the rules of the Continental Congress read: While a question is before the House, no motion shall be received, unless for an amendment, for the previous question, to postpone the consideration of the main question, or to commit to. The rules adopted by the Senate in April 1789 included a motion for the previous question. According to historian George H. Haynes, when Vice President Aaron Burr delivered his farewell address to the Senate in March 1805--200 years ago--he, Aaron Burr, the Vice President of the United States, ``recommended the discarding of the previous question,'' because in the preceding 4 years during which he had presided over the Senate, it had ``been taken but once, and then upon an amendment.'' So, Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Tennessee, who is presiding, and other Senators, when the rules of the Senate were codified in 1806--that was the first revision of the rules, in 1806-- reference to the previous question was omitted. The previous question allowed the Senate to terminate debate: Mr. President, I move the previous question. Or in the House: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question. If that gained a majority, no further debate. The previous question will be voted on. In 1806, when the rules of the Senate were first codified, reference to the previous question was omitted. Since then it had only been used 10 times from the years 1789 to 1806, and it has never--it has never, it has never--been restored. Henry Clay, in 1841, proposed the introduction of the previous question. Here we have Henry Clay proposing that they bring back the previous question. But he abandoned the idea in the face of opposition. Those Senators did not want the previous question. They did not want to terminate debate. They wanted freedom of speech. When the Oregon bill was being considered in 1846, a unanimous consent agreement was used as a way to limit debate by setting a date for a vote. When Senator Stephen Douglas proposed permitting the use of the previous question in 1850, the idea encountered substantial opposition and was dropped--dropped, dropped. They did not want the previous question. They did not want to terminate debate. They wanted to be able to speak on and on and on. A filibuster? Well, perhaps. An effort to reinstitute the previous question on March 19, 1873, failed by a vote of 25 for to 30 against. The final impetus for a cloture rule came as a result of a 1917 filibuster, one of the most famous in the Senate annals--against an administration measure permitting the arming of American merchant vessels for the duration of the World War. I believe that was 1915. On February 26, President Wilson--I was born during one of the administrations of Woodrow Wilson--President Wilson appeared before a joint session of Congress to request legislation authorizing the arming of merchant ships. The President announced that the rules of the Senate would have to be revised--now get this--the rules of the Senate would have to be revised before he would call a special session of the entire Congress to deal with the war emergency. And so, Mr. President, the fate of the unlimited debate was sealed. The principal responsibility for the cloture resolution rested with the new Democratic majority leader, Thomas Martin of Virginia. Under his guidance, a bipartisan committee of the Senate's leaders drew up a proposal providing that a vote--get this--by two-thirds of those present and voting could invoke cloture on a pending measure. Two- thirds of those present and voting. By a vote of 76 to 3 on March 8, 1917, after only 6 hours of debate, the Senate adopted its first cloture rule. Mr. President, 1917, that was the year in which I was born. In 1949 now, President Harry S. Truman sought to clear the way for a broad civil rights program, and his first step was to push for liberalization of the cloture rule. His efforts produced a bitter battle at the beginning of the 81st Congress. The Senate adopted a compromise measure that proved to be less usable than the one it replaced. It required that two-thirds of this entire Senate vote for cloture rather than two-thirds of those present and voting. That was 1949. The new rule differed from the old in that it allowed cloture to operate on any pending business or motion, with the exception of debate on rules change. This meant that future efforts to change the cloture rule would themselves be subject to extended debate without benefit of the cloture provision. Now we are getting down into my time. At the beginning of the 86th Congress--I came to Congress during the 83rd Congress when Harry Truman was getting close to the end of his tenure--at the beginning of the 86th Congress, Senate majority leader, Lyndon B. Johnson, offered and the Senate adopted by a 72-to-22 rollcall vote, a resolution to amend Senate rule XXII. Approved on January 12, 1959, after 4 days of debate, the resolution permitted two-thirds of the Senators present and voting--going back to the very beginning of the cloture rule--two- thirds of the Senators present and voting to close debate, even on proposals for rules change. It also added to rule XXII: The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed and provided in these rules. These rules, these rules in this book, the ``Senate Manual.'' On February 28, 1975, I submitted a resolution providing that debate in the Senate be closed by a vote of three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn, except in the case of a measure or motion to change the rules of the Senate, when a two-thirds vote of Senators present and voting would be required to close debate. On March 7, 1975, the Senate adopted my substitute providing that three-fifths of all Senators chosen and sworn could invoke cloture. This provision applied to all measures except those amending the rules of the Senate which still required a two-thirds vote of Senators present and voting. Four years later on February 22, 1979, the Senate agreed to a resolution that I submitted establishing a cap of 100 hours of consideration once cloture had been invoked on a measure. Under my resolution, each Senator would be entitled to 1 hour of time. Senators could yield their time to the majority or minority floor managers of the bill or to the majority or minority leaders. Except by unanimous consent, none of the designated four Senators could have more than 2 additional hours yielded to him or to her. These Senators in turn could yield their time to other Senators. If all available time expired, a Senator who had not yielded time and who had not yet spoken on the matter on which cloture had been invoked could be recognized for 10 minutes for the sole purpose of debate. The 1979 resolution made in order only those first-degree amendments submitted by 1 p.m. the day following submission of a cloture motion, with second-degree amendments in order only if submitted in writing 1 hour prior to the beginning of the cloture vote. The substitute amendment contained the current overall limitation of 30 hours of consideration after cloture has been invoked. So that brings us up to the present day rules with reference to debate and limitation of debate in the Senate, the current cloture rule. That puts us where we are now, and I thought it would be well just to review briefly the history of unlimited debate in the Senate and then the cloture rule limiting debate--the cloture rule as initially adopted requiring two-thirds of those present and voting; and then in 1949, two-thirds of those elected and sworn; and then again in 1975, two-thirds of those Members present and voting, that is where we are--so that we might have this basis for a better understanding of where we go from here. I thank you, Mr. President. I thank all Senators, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. I have an amendment. I would like to offer it at a time when it would be mutually agreeable to the managers.

Mr. BYRD. Very well. I will get my amendment, if the two managers will consent that I be recognized to offer it.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will very shortly. In the meantime, might 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. President, I will shortly call up an amendment. Before doing so, I would like to recall a statement by the late Reverend Peter Marshall, possibly, even probably, the most famous and well known of the Senate chaplains, who offered this prayer at the opening of the second session of the 80th Congress: Let us not be content to wait and see what will happen, but give us the determination to make the right things happen. Sometimes we can do that, sometimes we can't, but at least we can try. For too many months now, the Congress and the administration have taken a ``wait and see'' approach when it comes to today's life- altering price of gasoline. The administration has pinned its rhetoric to an energy plan, waiting and hoping to tout a reduced dependence on foreign oil, while conceding that no energy plan will provide immediate relief to high prices at the pump. The American people have waited and have waited and have waited for the United States to get tough on OPEC and other nations responsible for the recent spike in gasoline prices. Their elected leaders offer explanations and more explanations and still more explanations and equivocations about why such action has not reduced prices at the pump. The American people are out there listening and they are watching; they see what is going on here on the Senate floor. They watch us through those electronic lenses behind the Chair, the Presiding Officer. The American people waited anxiously for the President's prime-time news conference, hoping to see at last that somebody would proffer some kind of relief from high gas prices. My, how they do hurt. How they do pinch, don't they? Yes. Ultimately, the American people were disappointed as their pleas for relief were again rebuffed. The people have waited, they have waited, they have waited, and they are still waiting. They waited while gas prices have gone up and up and up. The patience of the American people is running out. When will it end? The American people watched incredulously as the House of Representatives passed an energy bill last month, including $8 billion of energy tax cuts. These are tax cuts for many of the corporate conglomerates who are enjoying record-breaking profits from today's oil prices. Yet the Congress declines--it declines, it declines, and it declines again and again--to provide relief to the workers who must bear the brunt of these price spikes at the pump. I am talking about the working people of America, people whose hands are soiled with honest toil, the working people in America. They are in South Carolina, North Carolina, and West Virginia. While the big oil companies are making big money, hand over fist, from high gas prices, the only relief the Congress has seen fit to provide is to the very oil companies--not the people--making all the money. They are making all the money. The irony is incredible, but not only is it incredible, it is contemptible. It is the little guy who is getting the shaft because we refuse to stand up for him or her. Well, the time has come to take a stand. This Congress continues to ignore the working man and the single mother. There are lots of them out there and they have to go through this every day when they drive up to the pumps. Think of them. Who is here to take a stand for them--the little guys? There are lots of them out there. The little guy is getting the shaft because we refuse to stand up for him. Again, this Congress continues to ignore the working man and the single mother. This administration continues to ignore the working man and the single mother, and it continues to ignore the outdoorsman who can no longer afford to fill up his pickup truck or SUV for a weekend of work--yes, they even work on the Sabbath; they have to sometimes--or for a weekend of hunting and fishing. If the Congress cannot wave a magic wand to lower prices at the pump--and it cannot--at least we can provide short-term relief to compensate workers, and that relief ought not be delayed. We have those workers in Texas, we have them in Oklahoma, and we have them in West Virginia. I talk with them every day. The time has come; the clock is moving. Relief ought not be delayed. The time has come for the Congress to take action. We must take action. We have heard that television statement: Do it now, do it here. I addressed the Senate last month about this issue, highlighting the impact that high gas prices have had on rural States such as mine, rural States such as New Hampshire. Yes, there are rural areas all over this country. When gas prices soar, the impact on rural families can be devastating and can be cruel. In my State of West Virginia, the impact has been brutal. It saps the economic strength of the State. It squeezes anybody who owns a vehicle, and it chips away at the income of workers who must commute. They have to commute, there is no way around it. Think of those mountains, those stately, majestic mountains in New Hampshire, West Virginia, and Tennessee. It chips away at the income of workers who have to commute to and from and across and in between those mountains. Households must curtail essentials, and families must do without other things. They have to get that gasoline, they have to get to work, they have to get that bread and butter on the table. Businesses lose customers. Think about that. I was once in a small business. I was once a small, small businessman. I know what it is. You have to meet a one or two or three-person payroll. And business includes customers. As the pocketbook strings tighten more and more, profits decrease, operating expenses sore, workers' paychecks suffer more and more. Residents of rural States must drive longer distances to and from work, inflicting burdensome costs on commuters. I am talking about the States of Virginia, Georgia, New Hampshire, as well as West Virginia-- not just West Virginia. Rural States have less access to public transportation. What does that mean? That means subways and buses and car pooling are not usually available to rural commuters. I am talking about the States of South Carolina; Kansas; Iowa, where the tall corn grows; Oklahoma, as well as West Virginia. Not just West Virginia. Hear me now, it is not just West Virginia. In Appalachia--13 States are in Appalachia. West Virginia is the only one wholly in Appalachia. In Appalachia, rural roads, twisting and winding and bending around the hills and mountains, exacerbate the financial pain. I am talking about the States of Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, yes, as well as West Virginia. Not just West Virginia; other States as well. When gas prices spike, rural commuters often have no disposable income to absorb the price flux. What does this do? It forces painful cuts in essential expenditures. I am talking about the States of Idaho, North Carolina--where I was born-- Ohio, South Dakota, as well as West Virginia. So it is not just West Virginia. The people of these States and all across America, all across the Great Plains and the prairies, the mountains, the Ozarks, the Rocky Mountains, all throughout the land, people in these States are crying out for action by Congress. So today I offer an amendment to answer that call. We hear you, we should say. Yes, we hear you. So I have an amendment that says we hear you. My amendment would provide a temporary $500 tax credit for commuters who travel 250 miles per week to and from work. Isn't that a reasonable approach, a temporary $500 tax credit for commuters who travel 250 miles per week, and many of them travel more than that? Oh, yes. But we put a limit on it, for commuters who travel 250 miles. If you travel 240 miles, that is not enough. So we try to be very reasonable. Why shouldn't a man or woman who travels 240 miles a week be helped, too? We know how difficult it is to move legislatively. I have only been in this Chamber 47 years, 47 years looking around these walls. ``Novus ordo seclorum,'' it says on that wall, ``a new order for the ages.'' And ``in God we trust.'' ``In God we trust.'' I have seen these walls for 47 years. Yes, I came over from the other body where I used to say: Thank God for the Senate. I never thought of coming over here to change the Senate rules to make us another House of Representatives. No, I said thank God for the Senate. Here we are. My amendment would provide a temporary $500 tax credit for commuters who travel 250 miles per week. What does that amount to per day? Mr. President, $50 for a 5-day week; is that what it is? It is $50 a day for a 5-day week. The credit would be available in rural, low-income States where public transportation is not readily available. Go down to Welch, WV. Travel into the hills and mountains of New Hampshire. The credit would be available in rural, low-income States where public transportation is not readily available. The credit would be limited to the tax year 2005, 1 year, and it fits within the congressional budget so as not to worsen projected deficits. That is reasonable, isn't it? This is not a complicated proposal. The arguments in favor of providing relief to workers is obvious, having been made by Members of Congress and the administration for many months now. So we put off action day to day, month to month, year to year, waiting for supposed long-term solutions to take effect while we are recreant, while we refuse to provide relief for the immediate hardship. Let us not delay any longer. Let us not equivocate about economic theories that clearly are working to the detriment of the American workers. Now is the time, and it may be the only time, to vote to provide relief from high gas prices. Now is the time to vote to recognize the plight of workers at the gas pump. Oh, they say, well, this amendment may not be germane. Oh, this would set a precedent. What is wrong with that? How are precedents set? What is a precedent, if it isn't something new, if it isn't something that goes against the grain of something that has gone before? That is how we get precedents. I have seen many precedents set in this Senate, so do not come here with that argument. I do not know, the Chair may rule this amendment is not germane. I suppose someone might even ask the Chair. Now is the time to provide relief, a vote to forgo a policy of wait and see. It is time to show determination in making the right things happen. Amendment No. 635 to Amendment No. 605 (Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit for rural commuters)

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 635 and ask that the clerk read the amendment.

Mr. BYRD. I make that consent request, Mr. President. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I respect the very able Senator for the position he has taken. I can understand that position, and I appreciate it. I have discussed this with the Senator. I do not have a suggestion for an offset. I commend the Senator and Senator Baucus on what they have jointly done to advance this bill and what they have jointly done to increase the amounts of money available. I understand completely the Senator's position. I do not blame him for it. He states it correctly, but I will say that the amendment does not worsen projected deficits. The amendment fits within the congressional budget. That is why it is not subject to any budget points of order. Deficit projections within the congressional budget will not worsen if this amendment passes. I do respect the Senator. I know we are both in sympathy with what the people in the mountains, the prairies, the plains, and valleys of this great country have to deal with. I am sorry that the amendment is not germane. I understand that. At least I do not think it is. Perhaps the Senator would like to have a ruling from the Chair. I would hope the Chair would say that the amendment would be germane. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be permitted to address a question to the distinguished minority leader without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask my minority leader, what was his proposition that he recommended?