Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have a proposed modification to the amendment which I have discussed with the distinguished manager of the bill, the chairman of the committee, Mr. Cochran. I send the modification to the desk and ask that it be stated by the clerk.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am prepared now to go to a vote, if the distinguished chairman is also prepared. And I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may I just be sure that we are clear on this language. I understand that the language as read by the clerk is agreed to on both sides.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Right.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, for not to exceed 10 minutes, without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask if the Senator will add my name as a cosponsor to both amendments.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, the bill before us contains funding for a number of items that can hardly be described as emergencies, despite the fact that they are contained in an emergency supplemental funding bill. One of those items that fairly leaps off the page is a $36 million earmark, tucked away in the report under military construction for the Army, to build a new, permanent prison at Guantanamo, Cuba. Why is this tucked away as an emergency? It is to house detainees from the war on terrorism. What struck me about this item is that the American people are being asked to build a permanent prison to house 220 prisoners from the war on terrorism when the courts have not yet determined the legal status of the detainees or whether the United States can continue to hold these individuals indefinitely without charging them with a crime. We are walking on thin ice here--thin ice. If ever there was a case of putting the cart before the horse, this seems to be it. Construction of a new permanent prison in Guantanamo assumes that the United States has in place a solid policy and a valid requirement for the long term internment of detainees at that site when in fact neither the policy nor the requirement has been validated. Ever since the Supreme Court ruled last year that U.S. law applied to Guantanamo, and that prisoners held there could challenge their detentions in Federal Court, the status of the detainees at Guantanamo has been a matter of open debate. A flurry--we have reached beautiful spring weather now, but a flurry of subsequent legal challenges mixed with allegations of prisoner abuse have only muddied the waters further. In August, a Federal district judge ruled that the military tribunals being conducted at Guantanamo must be halted because they did not provide minimally fair procedures and violated international law. Hey, look out here. Look what we are doing. Where are we going? Meanwhile, another Federal judge recently stopped the Government from transferring detainees from Guantanamo to other countries pending a review of the process. What is wrong with that? At the heart of the Guantanamo detention controversy is whether the detainees are entitled to prisoner of war status under the 1949 Geneva Convention, or are they, as the administration contends, ``enemy combatants'' who are entitled to no judicial oversight. It is a complex legal debate that is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. And yet the White House has determined that the construction of a $36 million maximum security prison at Guantanamo is such an urgent requirement that it cannot allow the courts to rule on the validity of the administration's detainee policy or even wait for the regular appropriations process. Not even wait for the regular bill--put it in the supplemental. This despite the fact that there is currently no overcrowding at Guantanamo, that the prison population is steadily declining--down to approximately 540 from a high of about 750--and that the Pentagon has already built a $16 million, permanent, state-of-the-art maximum security prison at Guantanamo to hold 100 prisoners. At the same time, according to an article last month in The New York Times, the Defense Department is trying to enlist the aid of the State Department and other agencies to transfer more prisoners out of Guantanamo, in an effort to cut by more than half the current population at Guantanamo. The fact is, the Pentagon has no idea at this point how many detainees from the war on terrorism are facing long term detention, or where they will eventually end up. As Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld put it at a hearing before the Senate Appropriations Committee in February, ``The Department of Defense would prefer not to have the responsibility for any detainees.'' For once, I agree with Secretary Rumsfeld, particularly given the allegations of abuse that have dogged the Defense Department's treatment of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as Guantanamo. The Defense Department should not automatically assume an open-ended burden of being the world's jailer of foreign enemy combatants. Given all the uncertainties concerning the future requirements for detention facilities at Guantanamo, where--oh where, tell me--is the urgency in this request? The Defense Department insists that prisoners currently in custody at Guantanamo are in conditions that are safe, secure, and humane. The current detention facilities at Guantanamo include Camp 4, where detainees live in 10-man bays with nearly all-day access to exercise yards and other recreational privileges; Camp 1, where detainees are housed in individual cells with a toilet and sink in each cell; and Camp 5, the new 100-bed maximum security prison that the Pentagon boasts would be envied by many States. Camp Delta also boasts a 19-bed detainee hospital, which military officials describe as a state-of-the-art facility, complete with first-rate dental care. With the exception of the existing maximum security prison, these are temporary facilities, but according to the Defense Department, they are designed to provide safe, secure, and humane housing for the prisoners. As the Pentagon is quick to point out, the concrete slab and open-air chain-link enclosures that originally housed prisoners when the Guantanamo detention facilities opened in January of 2002 are long gone. The Defense Department, in its justification for the new prison, asserts that the existing temporary facilities are nearing the end of their useful life, will not meet Geneva Convention requirements, and will be subject to continued scrutiny by the International Committee of the Red Cross, the ICRC, until facility standards are raised. Playing the Geneva Convention card is a curious tactic coming from an administration that selectively cherry-picks which of the Geneva Convention standards it chooses to apply to the prisoners at Guantanamo. The only Geneva Convention requirements cited by the Defense Department in its justification for the new prison are that housing units and core functions should be contiguous and allow for communal conditions where practical--certainly nice-to-have amenities but hardly a core requirement for the humane treatment of prisoners. In fact, the ICRC's main concern about Guantanamo, according to the organization's website, is not contiguous detention units but the fact that the administration has attempted to place the detainees in Guantanamo beyond the law. Building a new prison will not address that concern, and it will not exempt the Guantanamo detention center from the watchful eyes of the Red Cross. Nor will allegations of mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo be resolved by trading one set of cell blocks for another. There may indeed be advantages to moving more Guantanamo prisoners from temporary into permanent detention facilities, but until we have a clearer picture of the number of prisoners who will be housed there over the long term, there is no compelling reason to rush into spending $36 million of your money--it is your money--the taxpayers' dollars to build a prison based on guesstimates instead of facts. At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee last month, Gen Bantz Craddock, Commander of the U.S. Southern Command, which oversees Guantanamo, was asked what the Pentagon was doing to improve the quality of life for the U.S. military personnel assigned to Guantanamo. General Craddock replied that he had submitted a list of unfunded requirements of several million dollars for U.S. military facilities. But, he continued, ``we are watching this closely because we don't want to get out in front of the policy with regard to the long-term detainee issue down there.'' That is good advice from General Craddock, and I would suggest that we apply it to the detention facilities at Guantanamo as well. It is the policy that should drive the construction, not the other way around. Before we ask the American taxpayers--before we ask you, the people out there who are watching the Senate Chamber here with open eyes, with open ears and probably with open mouths, you, it is your money--before we ask you, the American taxpayers to spend $36 million to build a brand new permanent prison for foreign detainees at Guantanamo we should make sure that we have an ironclad requirement for that prison. Until the courts have resolved the legal status of the prisoners and until the Department of Defense and the administration determine the role of the department in the long-term detention of the prisoners, building a permanent maximum security prison at Guantanamo is premature. Madam President, are there any pending amendments ahead of this amendment?

Mr. BYRD. I will take my amendment in the order in which the amendment has been called up. I ask unanimous consent ahead of time if it may be in order to have the yeas and nays on my amendment, even though it won't be voted on at this moment.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to ask for the yeas and nays at this time.

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

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair, and I thank all Senators.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Senator Durbin's amendment touches on a critical issue: the strains being placed upon the National Guard and the Reserve by the long deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. He correctly points out that these deployments have resulted in a financial crisis for unknown numbers of American families who have loved ones called to duty, pulled out of their civilian careers, and sent half a world away for long periods of time. The amendment pending before the Senate would compensate those members of the National Guard and the Reserve who suffer a loss of income because they are away from their civilian jobs--but only if those jobs are with the Federal Government. The many Guardsmen and Reservists who work in the private sector would not be helped by the amendment. I am very sympathetic to the plight of the families of National Guardsmen and Reservists who have found themselves in dire financial straits because of a long, unexpected deployment that takes the family breadwinner away from his job. I have heard from families in West Virginia who could be facing financial ruin because of a soldier's drop in income due to a protracted, 18-month deployment. However, the Congress is approaching this problem from the wrong end. The heart of this matter is not how much Uncle Sam may pay our citizen- soldiers. The problem is that our National Guard and Reserve are being deployed, and re-deployed, for such long periods at a time. The United States hasn't sent so many part-time soldiers overseas in half a century. In addition to causing financial hardships for many American families, the pace of these deployments is threatening to break the back of the National Guard and the Reserve. In 2003, I offered two amendments to limit the deployment and re- deployment of the National Guard and Reserve. Unfortunately, the Senate voted down those amendments, and the strains on the National Guard and the Reserve continue and, in some cases, are worsening. Until Congress limits the excessive deployments of our citizen-soldiers, or until our troops start coming home from Iraq, there will continue to be myriad strains on our troops and their families. It is not reasonable to expect the government to compensate our troops and families for each difficulty or strain that this foolish war in Iraq has caused, because our national treasure is finite. What's more, I am concerned that the amendment on which the Senate will soon vote will have financial consequences for many years down the road. Our country is neck deep in red ink, and Congress must be judicious in enacting benefits that grow to have a life of their own well after the Senate has voted. This problem is compounded by the refusal of the President to budget for the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If the White House does not budget for the war, there is no way to increase revenues or lower other spending in order to balance the budget. In the coming days of debate on this emergency supplemental appropriations bill, I will offer an amendment on this crucial point. Despite these reservations about the pending amendment, the bottom line is that the families of many National Guardsmen and Reservists are experiencing real financial hardships. Although this amendment will only take care of some of those families, it will provide a lifeline to families who are struggling to make ends meet because of the demands of the war in Iraq. I commend the Senator from Illinois for his commitment to the National Guard, and I will support him on this amendment. However, when the Senate next considers relieving the strains caused by the long deployments of the Guard and Reserve, the Senate should not adopt a piecemeal approach. The heart of the matter is our open-ended mission in Iraq. Unless that matter is addressed head-on, Congress will continue to find more and more ways to spend our nation's scarce treasure. That is not a wise fiscal course.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, 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, am I recognized?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, the Pentagon defends the current facilities for the incarceration of prisoners at Guantanamo as being safe, secure, and humane. There is no emergency, unforeseen or otherwise, that requires the immediate construction of a 220-bed maximum security prison to relieve existing deficiencies at Guantanamo, and so it is premature. That is part of the case I am making, it is premature. Why have this item in this bill? Why in an emergency supplemental bill? It is premature to ask the American taxpayers to spend $36 million--it is your money, I say to the taxpayers--to build a permanent maximum security prison at Guantanamo when the courts have not yet determined the legal status of the detainees at Guantanamo or have not determined whether the United States can continue to hold them indefinitely without charging them with a crime. The prison population at Guantanamo is steadily declining, down to about 540 from a high of 750. The Department of Defense reportedly hopes to further cut the current population by at least half. However, DOD has not given a firm estimate of how many detainees it expects will require long-term incarceration. Why all the hurry? The 220-bed prison is a guesstimate--a guesstimate--not an estimate. The Department of Defense has already built one permanent maximum security prison at Guantanamo, a $16 million state-of-the-art facility completed less than a year ago that has the capacity to hold 100 prisoners. Temporary detention facilities at Guantanamo include several camps in which prisoners are housed in individual cells with a toilet and sink in each cell, and one camp where detainees who are considered the least dangerous are housed in 10-man bays with all-day access to exercise yards. The Department of Defense contends that these temporary facilities are nearing the end of their useful life, but the Department does not argue they are unsafe or uninhabitable. The U.S. military has many urgent unmet needs, some of which are emergency status needs. Construction of a second permanent maximum security prison at Guantanamo is not among these urgent, unmet needs. This is a decision that should be deferred until the courts have resolved the legal status of the detainees at Guantanamo and until the Defense Department determines the number of detainees it expects to hold in custody for the long term. What I am saying right now is the request is premature. Let us wait until the courts do their job. Then we will have a picture of what we need to do. Let us not be premature in spending the taxpayers' money when there are too many unanswered questions that ought to be answered and which in time will certainly present us with a clear picture of the permanent needs. I thank the Chair and thank all Senators.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Baucus, I ask unanimous consent that Cuong Huynh, a fellow on his staff at the Finance Committee, be accorded floor privileges during the consideration of H.R. 1268, the emergency Iraq-Afghanistan supplemental appropriation bill, and any votes thereon.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Cochran of Mississippi, for his generosity and for his very gracious and courteous action in this regard. I thank him for the time. I will not use the entire 10 minutes. I take it I may yield some of that time, if I wish, to other Senators. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have strained America. The cost of these wars has strained the Federal budget. The deployments of the National Guard and the Reserves have strained American families. The toll of the wars on our troops and their equipment has strained the readiness of our Armed Forces. But there is no one who bears more of the strains of these wars than the veterans who have served our country in combat. According to the Department of Defense, nearly 12,000 troops have been wounded in Iraq and another 442 have been wounded in Afghanistan. These troops have received the finest medical care our military can offer, but untold numbers of service men and women will require long- term care from the Department of Veterans Affairs. However, the VA is also feeling the strains of war. VA hospitals are seeing more and more veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time the aging veterans from World War II, Korea, and Vietnam are most in need of the VA's health care services, to which they are entitled. However, the administration has not met this growing demand for VA health care services with budget increases. Fortunately, Congress has stepped in and added billions in needed funds in recent years. Last year, Congress added $1.2 billion to the President's request for veterans health care. Two years ago, Congress added $1.57 billion to the President's budget for VA health care. But the shortfalls in the veterans budget continue. The Disabled American Veterans, in its independent budget for fiscal year 2006, estimated that the White House budget for VA health care is $3.4 billion less than what is required to care for all veterans who are entitled to care. Clearly, more needs to be done to care for veterans. The Murray-Akaka-Byrd, and others, amendment would increase veterans health care by $1.98 billion. These funds are targeted to provide care for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan to increase mental health services and to support local VA hospitals and clinics. This is a commonsense amendment to support the men and the women who have borne the wounds of battle. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair and again thank my chairman, Mr. Cochran. May I yield the remaining time to Senator Murray and Senator Akaka?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the International Clean Energy Deployment and Global Energy Markets Investment Act of 2005. This is a forward-thinking, made-in-America action plan that can serve as a building block that puts the right structure and mechanisms in place, mobilizes the necessary resources, and helps define the course we will have to take in order to better design the global energy system that will be built in coming decades. But let me also state up front what this legislation does not do. It is not intended to be a substitute for the need to seek globally binding climate change agreements that would include commitments from the largest industrial and developing country emitters of greenhouse gases. However, my legislation can serve as a meaningful first step to seriously engage developing countries in tackling the critical link between our mutual energy and climate change challenges. Additionally, such engagement can be a new cornerstone for the U.S. to demonstrate that we are committed to working with other nations on a broad range of international issues. We must start by honestly addressing several bottom line issues. We know that the world's population will likely grow by about 50 percent during this century, and those people, most of whom will live in developing nations, will be seeking the necessary resources to live. These nations will be growing rapidly and their requirements for energy will follow suit for the foreseeable future. But at the same time, we know that growth needs to be undertaken in as clean and efficient a manner as possible. When economies heat up so does energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and that global change. How can any nation's economy continue to grow and provide good jobs in a way that does not undermine its environment and vice versa? How do we find ways to address these problems of mutual concern for our citizens and for their children and grandchildren? These issues matter as much in the United States as they do in places in China, India, Brazil, and Mexico. This legislation's journey began several years when I included, in the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, language that called for a clean energy exports and market development strategic plan. The Bush administration sent that report to Congress in October 2002. Since that time, I have been urging, cajoling, and pushing Federal agencies like the Department of State, Department of Energy, Department of Commerce, and the U.S. Agency for International Development to cooperate more and increase public/private efforts to help export U.S. clean energy technologies and open more of these markets abroad. It is now time to take the next step and introduce this legislation in order to expand upon that foundation. By taking this next step, I am suggesting that we must work together to develop a broad-based action plan that builds on American ingenuity, encourages the export of made-in-America clean energy technologies, helps advance developing country climate change engagement, increases international sustainable development, and strengthens interagency and public/private cooperation. The objectives of this legislation further include efforts to increase access to clean and reliable energy services, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase energy security, and integrate these goals in a manner that is consistent with U.S. foreign policy interests around the world. Finally, my legislation essentially codifies and enhances the administrative structure that has already been put in place. On a related but separate note, I am very aware that on February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol came into force. As the primary author of Senate Resolution 98, which passed unanimously in 1997, I worked to establish core principles which should be part of any future binding, international climate change agreement. Those principles were that a treaty should be cost effective and should include the participation of developing nations, especially the largest emitters. The Kyoto Protocol does not meet those principles for the United States. There have been widely varying interpretations of that resolution, especially by the Bush administration. The Byrd-Hagel resolution was intended to guide our Nation's role in international negotiations, not kill that effort. It was meant to strengthen the hand of any administration as it sat at the international negotiating table, but this White House has used the Senate's vote as an excuse to totally abandon the negotiations and offer, instead, only hollow alternatives. Yet, it is the height of hypocrisy for the Bush administration to claim that it is defending that resolution's principles when, as a matter of fact, it has disregarded its very purpose. That Senate resolution directed that any climate change treaty include commitments for the developing world, like China and India, which will surpass the U.S. in greenhouse gas emissions by 2025. These commitments could lead to real reductions. An international treaty with binding commitments also could allow for developing countries' continued economic growth with relatively modest requirements at first, pacing upwards, with ultimate goals to be achieved over time. Moreover, given their expected economic growth and energy demands, developing nations are a primary market for clean energy technologies. But, this multi-billion dollar window of opportunity could close for the United States. With little pressure on developing countries to reduce or contain their emissions growth, these potentially enormous markets for clean energy technologies, made in the U.S., could slip away. Thus, my legislation can serve as a commonsense foot-in-the-door to help jump start efforts to seek fair and effective globally binding agreements in the future. Despite this, the President has clearly stated that the U.S. would only pursue voluntary measures both domestically and internationally, and he continues to follow that path despite the fact that no major environmental problem has ever been solved by a purely voluntary basis. Since retreating from the international forum, his own climate change program is a strong testament to prove that voluntary actions are not likely to result in any serious decrease in overall emissions. While global climate change is long-term problem, it does not mean that we can put off action indefinitely. If we wait for decades to take more significant actions, then more radical measures will likely be necessary. Additionally, I have long said that the U.S. needs a comprehensive, national energy strategy that has bipartisan support. A serious energy efficiency program, bolstered by the promotion of renewable energy and other clean home-grown energy sources, provides a compass point for a U.S. energy strategy. At its core, we must rely on our nation's domestic energy assets, especially coal. Coal must become a primary fuel source for new energy demands into the 21st century. However, to do so requires that we think differently about coal. It is a myth to say that the U.S. or other major nations like China and India will stop burning coal any time soon. Yet, we must begin to treat this plentiful resource like black gold and use it in a much cleaner and more efficient way. We must accelerate the deployment of commercial-scale technologies that move us away from simply burning coal toward the enhanced ability to transform coal into a variety of energy products. We can begin to meet this challenge by demonstrating and deploying advanced power generation, especially coal gasification and carbon sequestration technologies, as well as by producing synthetic fuels and, eventually, hydrogen for use in other sectors of the economy. This broad approach also requires sending strong and clear regulatory and market signals which can significantly reconcile numerous environmental and climate change concerns, stimulate technology deployment, and set the stage for coal into the future. The path that I am proposing here today goes far beyond the energy proposals that this White House has offered. Pursuing this course will take steadfast leadership, hard work, and American ingenuity to move forward in a responsible, balanced, and intelligent way. It is time for industry, labor, academic, environmental, and community interests to work with policymakers to find common ground. Commonsense market-based and regulatory approaches, emerging technology platforms, and new policy perspectives can bring these divergent groups together. I believe it is time to send the message that there will likely be a binding carbon management regime in place for the U.S. at some point in the future. It may not be in place tomorrow or the next day or even in the next 2 to 4 years. It may also be a modest approach initially, but it is on the horizon. We certainly cannot run until we have walked, and we cannot walk until we have taken a step. But we can no longer stand still forever. By acting boldly, we can champion a new energy and environmental legacy that will benefit all the world's citizens. With regard to my legislation's introduction today, our Nation must recognize the incredible impact that U.S. technologies and ideas can have in helping to meet other nations' energy needs in a more sustainable way. We must work to open and expand international markets for a range of U.S. clean energy technologies and simultaneously address global energy security, economic, trade, and environmental objectives. I thank you for this opportunity and hope this legislation will receive serious consideration. I urge Members to see this as a key component of the architecture that will be necessary if we ever hope to seriously tackle the tough energy and environment issues before us as well as a way to enhance our broader foreign policy and climate change efforts around the world. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this is the first appropriations bill brought to the floor under the chairmanship of my good friend, the senior Senator from the great State of Mississippi, Thad Cochran. He has scrubbed the numbers so that, as he has pointed out, the bill is under both the President's request and the House of Representatives allowance. I commend Senator Cochran for his efforts. This was not easy. He has been fairminded. He has been evenhanded in the processing of this bill. I will say a few words about our former chairman, the very distinguished Senator from the State of Alaska, Ted Stevens. Because of the committee chair term limits imposed under the Republican Caucus, Ted Stevens has taken over the reins of the Senate Commerce Committee. He will do a good job there. He is always up to the deed, up to the moment. He carries his responsibilities manfully, nobly, and he never forgets the Constitution of the United States, the fact that this Government is under that Constitution, that the separation of powers is a part of that Constitution, that the Senate is equal to the House of Representatives, and they make up the Congress of the United States, and that the Congress is equal to each of the other branches, the executive branch and the judicial branch. But Senator Stevens, although he has left the chairmanship, and had to leave by virtue of the Republican Caucus rules, still serves on the Appropriations Committee. He chairs the Subcommittee on Defense. He very ably chairs that subcommittee. He has had a lot of experience. He knows what he is doing, and he has a mind that is like a tar bucket. Everything that hits it sticks to it. He will continue to be a power. He has served and he continues to serve the people of Alaska with honor and dignity as their Senator. Both of these men, the former chairman and the current chairman, are true gentlemen to the depths of their hearts in their relations with their colleagues. We know they are fair, and we are grateful for that. Senator Cochran has worked hard to produce this fiscal year 2005 emergency supplemental appropriations bill. As he explained, it totals $80,581,832,000. That is $1,460,796,000 below the President's budget request and $785,046,000 below the House-passed bill. The supplemental bill that is before the Senate includes over $74.4 billion for the Department of Defense. I must say that our men and women in uniform are indeed among the finest of our country's citizens. I heard the chairman read the letter from a man who was instrumental in helping the people who had been disadvantaged by the recent tsunami. This man was on a helicopter. He helped move that fixed-wing aircraft into the various parts of one of the islands or more than one perhaps. I was there 50 years ago. I had to sleep in the mosquito cages, and I looked at a huge tarantula crawling around and listened to lizards over in the windows rustling about in the room in which I was to sleep. Well, this is terribly hot. Gee whiz, when I went there you had to lie down. You did not have enough energy to walk around. You slept in mosquito cages. Well, think of what this man who wrote the letter was going through on the helicopter. He was on a mission of mercy--mercy--thank God. I salute him for that letter. What a graphic story of what was going on, and the service our men and women were performing. I salute them for their valor. I thank them for their service. But we owe our troops more than mere gratitude for a job well done. We owe our troops the confidence of a clearly defined military mission, one that has measurable goals and benchmarks and, more importantly, one that has an identifiable endpoint. In short, we owe our troops--our men and women, our magnificent troops--in Iraq not only the resources with which to fight the war but also a strategy to end that war. I was never in favor of it in the beginning, but that is a matter of record and history. Unfortunately, the President's supplemental budget request fails to deliver what our troops need most. The President is asking the Congress to continue to shovel out money into United States military operations in Iraq with no further clarity as to what goals the military is expected to achieve, no hint--not even a hint--of a possible timetable, and no end to the occupation in sight. The recent elections in Iraq gave the United States a unique window of opportunity to change course in order to lower the profile of the American military presence and to open the door to greater international cooperation. But the administration, despite all of its conciliatory gestures to our European allies, has effectively squandered that opportunity. The very size of this supplemental request sends a clear message that the United States is not winding down its military operations in Iraq. Instead, the United States appears to be gearing up either to accommodate a permanent military presence in Iraq or to establish a launching pad for other military operations in the region. Oh, how long--how long--is this going to continue in this fashion? Either way, we are sending the wrong signals to the people of Iraq, to its neighbors in the region, and to the larger international community. Instead of taking this opportunity to temper anti-American sentiment among disaffected Iraqis and their neighbors, the administration has turned up the heat, and now the Iraqis are saying: Get out. Leave us alone. Come back some other day, but let us alone. Let us alone. Those protests are mounting. The administration has turned up the heat with the construction of new military facilities in Iraq and the construction of the most costly Embassy in the world in Iraq, a country of only 25 million inhabitants. You taxpayers out there who are watching this debate through those magnificent lenses, it is your money, your sons, your daughters. I am troubled by many aspects of this request. I want to support our troops. I fully intend to support our troops. I would not think of doing otherwise. They are there. They have been there too long. Few of them asked to go there, but they are there. They are the empty chairs at the table on Thanksgiving, on Christmas, on holy days--empty chairs. I am not willing to give the executive branch carte blanche to run roughshod over the Congress and to pursue policies never debated fully on this floor. The request sent to the Congress by this administration contained ``ambiguous flexibilities'' to spend money on unspecified activities with little or no involvement of the Members of Congress. I am grateful that Chairman Cochran has responded to my entreaties to limit these extraordinary authorities. I suggest the committee bill still goes too far. The President also requested, and the bill still includes, ambitious policy initiatives, including the construction of a permanent maximum security prison at Guantanamo, Cuba, and a host of seemingly enduring military facilities in Iraq. Why? The courts have yet to determine what the legal status is of detainees from the war on terrorism or whether the United States can continue to hold them indefinitely without charging them with any specific crime. Yet this bill includes $36 million to build a permanent prison facility at Guantanamo Bay. I went there years ago. These are policy decisions, not simply pocketbook issues. Decisions to build permanent facilities should not be made via an emergency supplemental appropriations bill. In fact, the White House has turned on its head the definition of an emergency supplemental appropriation. In his budget, the President calls on Congress to deploy a stricter standard for what constitutes emergency spending, spending that is thus excluded from constraints on spending. He urges the Congress to only approve emergency spending for activities that are ``necessary expenditures, sudden, urgent, unforeseen, and not permanent.'' Yet the President has asked the Congress to approve funding for the most expensive U.S. Embassy in the world. And he hasn't done it in a regular bill; he has done it in an emergency war supplemental. This Embassy would be larger than the U.S. Embassy in Russia, larger than the U.S. Embassy in China, larger than the U.S. Embassy in Saudi Arabia, and 10 times the size of most U.S. Embassies. Funds to staff that Embassy, which will not be needed until fiscal year 2006, are also requested in this emergency bill. As noted earlier, to build a permanent prison at Guantanamo Bay is also requested. A supplemental bill is being used to tunnel deeper and deeper and deeper into Iraq with no definitive exit strategy in sight and no light on the horizon. This request encompasses serious and far-reaching policy questions, and we are having it shoved down our throats. Moreover, on July 17, 2003, the Senate voted 81 to 15 for my amendment expressing the sense of the Senate that the President should request funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--they are two different wars--in the regular budget, rather than through emergency supplemental appropriations bills. On June 24, 2004, I offered the same sense-of-the-Senate amendment which was approved by an even wider margin in the Senate by a vote of 89 to 9. Both sides joined in. Republicans and Democrats joined in that vote. It was 89 to 9. These are strong, emphatic, definitive votes. This provision was included in both the fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 Defense Appropriations Acts. I didn't put those words in those acts alone. It was with the support of Republicans and Democrats on both sides of the aisle. So much for the views of the Senate. Instead, the White House chose to seek an $81.9 billion emergency supplemental for fiscal year 2005 and requested nothing for the war for fiscal year 2006. This is not truth in budgeting. This is not leveling with the American people about their money. This is not truth in budgeting. This is hocus-pocus. Now you see it; now you don't. It is not there. Tactics such as this hide the real cost of the wars. I say it to you people out there who are watching through those lenses, watching the most deliberative body, upper body in the world today--and I hope it remains that way; I hope the nuclear option is pushed aside--tactics like this, putting these requests into emergency supplementals, hiding the real costs of the wars. The American people don't see those costs. That is wrong. That is not being fair with the American people. That is not being honest with the American people. That is not being straightforward with the American people. That is not laying it on the line with the people who are going to pay the cost. By seeking $81.9 billion as an emergency supplemental, rather than in his budget, the President avoids a debate about priorities and how the war should be paid for. By seeking an $81.9 billion emergency supplemental for the war, by asking for that much money in an emergency supplemental for the war in Iraq, the President avoids any discussion of the tradeoffs that are inherent in a decision to spend another $81.9 billion on defense and foreign aid. If the President's emergency request for 2005 is approved, the Congress will have approved over $210 billion just for the war in Iraq. How much is $210 billion? That is $210 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born 2,000 years ago. How much is it? That is $210 for every minute that has passed since Jesus Christ was born 2,000 years ago. While the budget deficit grows to record levels, the President tells us we have to cut domestic programs by $192 billion over the next 5 years. The President tells us we have to charge veterans--those brave men and women--for their medical care, and we have to cut grants for firefighters and first responders, that we cannot adequately fund the No Child Left Behind Act, and that we should cut funding for the National Institutes of Health. For fiscal year 2006, the President fails to request any funding for the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will say that again. For fiscal year 2006, the President fails to request any funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The President pretends that he cannot project what the war will cost in 2006. Well, I assure the American people the costs will not be zero. The President will not tell the American people what the war in Iraq will cost. No, he will not tell the American people what the war will cost in Iraq. It is your money, I say to the people of this country. Republicans, Democrats, Independents, whatever you will, it is your money. Nor will the President give the American people a plan for getting out of Iraq. How long are the American people going to suffer under the weight of this colossal burden? The President continues to insist on borrowing the money to fund the war in Iraq 1 year at a time through emergency supplemental appropriations requests. So far, the Department of Defense has received appropriations of $16 billion, $14 billion, $7 billion, $10 billion, $63 billion, $65 billion, and $25 billion for the costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq--all emergency spending, one piece at a time, and all of it, adding to our horrendous debt. What a shame. What a colossal shame. In his budget for fiscal year 2006, the President's only plan to help pay for his tax cuts and his war in Iraq is to slash that small portion of the budget that pays for priorities at home. In order to hide the consequences of his proposed cuts in domestic programs--cuts of $192 billion over 5 years--the President's budget excludes the details that are traditionally included in the budget. However, based on data the Office of Management and Budget has provided to the Congress on the levels of funding in each of the next 5 years, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has studied the impact of the proposed cuts. Adjusted for inflation for 2010, when the President's proposed reductions would reach their full dimensions, education funding for kindergarten through the 12th grade would be cut by $4.6 billion or 12 percent. Grants to States and localities would be cut by nearly $22 billion in 2010. The number of low-income women, infants, and young children receiving assistance through the WIC supplemental nutrition program would be cut, cut, cut by $670,000. The number of children in low-income working families who receive childcare assistance would be cut, cut, cut by $300,000. The number of low-income families, elderly people, and people with disabilities who receive rental assistance through the provision of rental vouchers that help them to afford modest apartments would be cut, cut, cut by $370,000. Environmental protection would be reduced by 23 percent, including EPA programs that support State and local efforts to ensure clean drinking water, reduce air pollution, and upgrade sewage treatment facilities which would be sliced 28 percent. I call on the President--Mr. President, I say this to the President in the White House--to send Congress a budget amendment this week that includes his estimates for the real costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are tradeoffs we are making to fund these efforts to the tune of about $1 billion a week. There needs to be a debate about that. The issue becomes crystal clear when these war costs are shown as part of the regular budget process. As we consider the budget for fiscal year 2006, Congress should understand the full cost of the wars. I want to say that again. I shall say it again. As we consider the budget for fiscal year 2006, Congress should understand and the American people should understand the full costs of the wars, and especially the war in Iraq, so that we, the Members of Congress, can make reasoned spending choices so that we can inform our constituents about how we plan to pay for those choices. Again, I thank my chairman. I thank the staff, the magnificent staff of the Appropriations Committee, the staff who worked hard to help our chairman and to help me and to help the members of our Appropriations Committee in our efforts to bring this full bill to the floor. The majority staff is led by Keith Kennedy. There is a man, Keith Kennedy. He knows what he is doing. He knows this bill up and down and sideways. Keith Kennedy. I am gratified that the chair has chosen him, and I am also thankful to the chair that he has chosen a man like Mr. Kennedy. I am also thankful for the minority staff, led by Terry Sauvain, that man from Notre Dame, and a deputy named Chuck Kieffer. He has worked on both the legislative and executive sides. He knows the appropriations process inside, outside, from the executive branch viewpoint and from the legislative side. I thank all of the members of the appropriations staff on both sides of the aisle. I thank the Chair, and I thank all Senators. Again, I thank my illustrious chairman. I yield the floor.