Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, that request is supported on this side of the aisle 100 percent.

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, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, my speech will probably need 40 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that I may utilize as much time as I need.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in my home State of West Virginia and all across America, our people are frustrated and outraged with the soaring cost of gasoline. The rising cost of gasoline means workers in West Virginia are seeing their paychecks dramatically reduced by the simple fact that they have to drive to get to work and to get back home. It is darned difficult and expensive for a coal miner to pay $2.25 a gallon to drive his pickup truck to work on the two-lane, hilly, winding roads of West Virginia. Noting that West Virginians have become ``hawkish about watching gas prices,'' the Charleston, WV, Gazette of March 11, 2005, pointed out that they ``have few mass transportation options, travel farther to work, and often traverse [much] more rugged terrain.'' Automobiles are essential for West Virginians to get to work. According to Census data, although West Virginia is a relatively small State, workers in West Virginia spend more time commuting to work than the national average. Mr. President, 86 percent of West Virginians use cars or trucks to get to work, and nearly 75 percent of West Virginians commute by themselves in their pickup trucks and other such vehicles. The percentage of people in West Virginia who own a pickup truck is almost double the national average. Nearly one-third of West Virginians must travel outside their home county to get to work. Let me say that again. Nearly one-third of West Virginians must travel outside their home county to get to work, a figure that is 17 percent above the national average, and an average West Virginian drives more miles--now get this--the average West Virginian drives more miles each year than average Americans throughout the rest of the country. The point is this: West Virginians rely on their cars and their pickup trucks to keep West Virginia working. Large, rugged vehicles are not an expensive luxury for workers in West Virginia and in many other rural States, and anyone who has tried to navigate the narrow, uphill climbs of West Virginia's mountains by weaving around corners, constantly slowing, constantly accelerating and stopping and starting knows the need for these rugged vehicles and, regrettably, the cost of fueling them. Imagine navigating that kind of terrain not only to work but also in getting children to school, as well as to the grocery store. The frustration and the outrage of West Virginians paying $25, $30, and $45 just to gas up is certainly understandable. Family budgets already strained by the rising costs of health insurance, the rising costs of college tuition, and other everyday expenses are being stretched even thinner by these recordbreaking gasoline prices in West Virginia. West Virginia's small businesses depend on deliveries. Floral shops, pizza parlors, produce shippers, taxi companies, construction and remodeling businesses, plumbers, electricians, landscapers are finding it harder to make ends meet. Many are going out of business. I recently read of an independent trucker who lives and works in Norfolk, VA, telling the Christian Science Monitor that last year she paid more than $250 a week for fuel, and that was making her life as a single parent very difficult. She was even forced to decide between paying a doctor bill for her child or buying new tires for her truck. Guess who lost. ``My truck lost,'' she explained. Today's record high gasoline prices in West Virginia are affecting literally everyone from commuters, consumers, and businesses to public and private agencies. Meals on Wheels programs are having trouble delivering meals. Think of it. Local governments already straining to pay for essential services in these days of cutbacks in Federal assistance are simply overwhelmed in their efforts to keep schoolbuses, police cars, firetrucks, and other city and county vehicles in operation. What a shame. The damage is devastating and is everywhere. Last year, polling data showed that more than half of the American people said the rising cost of gasoline had been hard on them financially while more than a third said it had caused them serious problems. U.S. consumer confidence fell for a third month in March, and this is being attributed to the cost of gasoline. It is awful. It is terrible. At one time, inflation was called the cruelest tax. Soaring energy costs are the ecumenical tax. Did everyone get that? Soaring energy costs are the ecumenical tax. Why? They tax everyone with a car or a truck--everyone, regardless of race, sex, age, occupation. Low-income workers are being hit the hardest, however, as they usually have to travel the farthest to work because of the need for affordable housing. They have less access to mass transportation. One can understand that when they look at those mountains in West Virginia. And they drive older, less fuel-efficient vehicles. As the American people cry out for help in this current crisis, what do they do? They look to Washington for action. The White House's response to this outcry has been to moan and groan about the failure of Congress to pass its so-called energy plan and recycle old legislation. When it comes to dealing with today's energy mess, the White House is out of gas. For three Congresses, an energy bill has clanged about Washington like Marley's ghost. The administration's national energy policy has been drafted by special interests, ironed out behind closed doors now and presented as a fait accompli for Members to support, take it or leave it. But the national energy policy in its totality would do little to seriously address our energy needs now or in the long term. The only major provisions that might provide tangible progress are the energy tax incentives, but these, too, could be a mirage as the President's proposed fiscal year 2006 budget only provides $6.7 billion over the next 10 years for all energy incentives, only about a third of what was provided 2 years ago in the Senate Energy bill. Analysis by the Department of Energy's own Energy Information Administration, EIA, of the Energy bill of the 108th Congress has clearly shown that the bill would have a negligible impact on increasing production, reducing consumption, lowering imports, or affecting energy prices. Now, take that home for dinner. Furthermore, this administration actually significantly slashes funding for oil and gas research programs. Like its agricultural policies, the administration's energy policy promises the American people a rose garden. It ruminates with much rhetoric but then fails to fertilize with funding. While the White House has failed to propose any serious policy options or take any action to remedy the current crisis, I am suggesting that it is time--it is time, I say to the White House--to get serious. It is time that this Nation makes the necessary investments so we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil. What does this mean? It means getting the next generation of vehicles on the road. It means investing in fuels that can be made from domestically secure sources such as agricultural residues and through coal gasification. It means investments in building. It means upgrading our refining and pipeline infrastructure in order to move our petroleum products to market. At the end of the day, it requires that we set our sights on the goal of getting off foreign oil. Senator Bingaman sent a letter to the Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in April 2004. That letter laid out 13 concrete actions that President Bush could take to respond to high gasoline prices. I concurred with many of these recommendations in a letter to the President myself in May 2004. However, this administration has not followed through on any of these suggestions. Right now, more than ever, what we need are not only long-term policies but also near-term programs and actions that address the immediate problem. For one thing, as the great British economist John Maynard Keynes reminded us, ``In the long run we are all dead.'' I am also reminded of the response that an aide to President Franklin Roosevelt gave when asked why the administration was acting so quickly and forcefully at the time to put people back to work during the dark days of the Great Depression--I lived in them--when in the long run market forces would eventually do it. The aide, Harry Hopkins, snapped: People do not eat in the long run. They eat every day. While we do need long-term energy policies to reduce our dependency on foreign energy, we still drive cars every day during the dark days of these soaring gasoline prices. American workers, American consumers, and American small businesses suffer because of the failure of their Government to provide short-term relief. Here are some suggestions which might provide assistance. The White House could direct the Secretary of Energy to suspend the delivery of oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve until market conditions improve. We might consider liberalizing the vehicle depreciation allowance to assist workers who daily commute more than 30 miles one way to work, and $15.5 billion in targeted tax incentives over the next 10 years, including $2 billion to deploy advanced clean coal technologies, would help to strengthen the economy, enhance our Nation's energy resources, promote an array of advanced energy technologies and increase jobs while promoting a healthy government. Yes, we can do more. We can do plenty. We need an investigation into what is going on and why the people in West Virginia and other States are getting squeezed, why the people in West Virginia and other States are getting gouged, when huge oil companies are enjoying recordbreaking profits. I call on the White House to direct the Federal Trade Commission to review whether speculations in the futures market may be playing a role in driving up gasoline prices. I call for a congressional investigation to ascertain the role of oil companies in setting the steep price that West Virginians and people in other rural States pay at the pump. Finally, I urge the White House to stop wimping out and to confront OPEC. Press these oil-producing countries to increase oil supply to help stabilize global prices. While running for the Presidency, George Bush promised to get tough with OPEC, especially the Saudis. Now, Mr. President, is the time to do it. The White House should work on rehabilitating its own weak, creaky spine which has kept it from playing hardball with the foreign countries that sell us most of our oil. In his book, ``Plan of Attack,'' Bob Woodward reported that Saudi Arabia offered to fine-tune oil prices in the months before the 2004 Presidential election. Why not use the bully pulpit now to call for increased oil production? Why not dispatch the Secretary of State to OPEC countries to twist arms and knock heads together to get an increase in oil production? Why does the White House remain silent, as silent as a stone, when OPEC announces, as it did on March 30, that it had ruled out an increase in oil production? Why does the administration hold its tongue when Middle Eastern potentates collude to separate working Americans from their hard-earned dollars? Instead of reading headlines about tough administrative action to reduce oil prices, we read of scandals about lucrative billion-dollar, no-bid contracts for Iraqi oil fields. Instead of lowering prices at the pump in the USA, less than 18 months ago the White House asked Congress to approve $900 million in taxpayer money to send more gasoline to filling stations. Where? Baghdad. The President might not have a short-term energy strategy for the United States, but he has a great one for Iraq. The only problem is that the American people are paying for it twice, once on April 15, the day our income taxes are due, and once again on every trip to the filling station. I yield back the remainder of my time. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, opponents of free speech and debate claim that, during my tenure as majority leader in the United States Senate, I established precedents that now justify a proposal for a misguided attempt to end debate on a judicial nomination by a simple majority vote, rather than by a three-fifths vote of all Senators duly chosen and sworn as required by paragraph two of Senate rule XXII. Their claims are false. Proponents of the so-called nuclear option cite several instances in which they inaccurately allege that I ``blazed a procedural path'' toward an inappropriate change in Senate rules. They are dead wrong. Dead wrong. They draw analogies where none exist and create cock-eyed comparisons that fail to withstand even the slightest intellectual scrutiny. Simply put, no action of mine ever denied a minority of the Senate a right to full debate on the final disposition of a measure or matter pending before the Senate. Not in 1977, not in 1979, not in 1980, or in 1987--the dates cited by critics as grounds for the nuclear option. The Congressional Research Service confirms that only six amendments have been adopted since the cloture rule was enacted in 1917, and ``each of these changes was made within the framework of the existing or `entrenched' rules of the Senate, including rule XXII.'' In none of the instances cited by those who threaten to invoke the nuclear option did my participation in any action deny the minority in the Senate, regardless of party, its right to debate the real matter at hand. Let us examine each of these so-called precedents in greater detail. October 3, 1977--Enforcing Senate Rule XXII Against Improper Post- Cloture Delay: In 1977, the Senate invoked cloture on S. 2104, described as ``a bill to establish a comprehensive natural gas policy.'' Shortly thereafter, two Senators began a postcloture ``filibuster by amendment,'' after a supermajority of the Senate had already chosen to invoke cloture (under the Senate rules) and had made clear its desire to bring debate on the bill to close. Though the Senate had voted to invoke cloture by an overwhelming vote of 77 to 17, two Senators nonetheless continued to offer amendments, to request quorum calls, and to offer amendments to amendments to preserve and extend time on the bill post-cloture. Their efforts, as confirmed by the Chair, ran directly contrary to the purpose of rule XXII, which is to limit debate. The tactics employed were sufficiently egregious that the Senate spent 13 days and 1 night debating the bill, which included 121 rollcalls and 34 live quorums. Cloture having been invoked by an overwhelming vote, I then made the point of order that: when the Senate is operating under cloture, the Chair is required to take the initiative under rule XXII to rule out of order all amendments which are dilatory or which on their face are out of order. Critics have alleged that my actions in this instance ``cut off debate'' and somehow constitute a precedent for ending a filibuster of a judicial nominee by 51 votes before cloture has been invoked. But that argument is erroneous. The Senate was operating postcloture. The Senate had voted 77 to 17 to end debate. I didn't do that; the Senate took that action. If anything, my actions clarified that rule XXII means what it says. The text of rule XXII provides explicitly that, once cloture is invoked, ``no dilatory motion, or dilatory amendment, or amendment not germane shall be in order.'' Therefore, once Members have voted to invoke cloture, dilatory amendments or actions are simply out of order. Senators still retain their hour of postcloture debate. Senators still have the right of appeal. Some have falsely alleged that I even acted to impede debate on that appeal, but they are mistaken yet again: Under the provisions of rule XXII, appeals from rulings of the Chair were not and are not debatable postcloture. Nothing that was done in 1977 changed rule XXII or sent a shock wave through the Senate. Nothing that was done restricted the right of Senators to wage a filibuster against a nominee or legislation before cloture is invoked. No action taken affected the fundamental right of Senators to debate the natural gas deregulation bill; they had already debated the bill and, of their own volition, had decided to end their debate by an overwhelming vote. Instead, I sought to end dilatory tactics postcloture, when such tactics were, and remain today, prohibited by the plain text of paragraph two of rule XXII. I simply sought a ruling from the Chair to enforce Senate rule XXII. In fact, when, in 1977, my point of order was sustained, the Chair in so doing noted that the point of order was consistent with the purpose of rule XXII, which ``is to require action by the Senate on a pending measure following cloture within a period of reasonable dispatch.'' When the Chair's ruling in support of my point of order was thereafter appealed, that appeal was tabled in the Senate by another overwhelming vote of 79 to 14. No Member of the minority in the Senate lost his right to debate the natural gas deregulation bill. Their ability to debate the bill was not tampered with or impeded in any way. Each Senator retained the right to debate, under the Senate rules, the bill both precloture and in the hour that was provided to each Senator under rule XXII postcloture. Thus, contrary to current assertions, in 1977, a strong, bipartisan, supermajority of the Senate, supported by, among others, Minority Leader Howard Baker and myself, endorsed this necessary effort to halt postcloture dilatory tactics consistent with Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate. That is completely unlike the so-called nuclear option that is currently being discussed by some in the Senate. I sought to enforce rule XXII; not to destroy it. January 15, 1979--Enforcing Rule XXII Against Improper Post-Cloture Delay: At the beginning of the new Congress in 1979, I, as Senate majority leader, introduced a resolution to make various changes to Senate rule XXII, the bulk of which addressed circumstances postcloture. Recently, on March 10, 2005, a Senator spoke on the Senate floor and stated that this resolution serves as a precedent for the nuclear option. However, my resolution served to enforce rule XXII, not to destroy it. My introduction of S. Res. 9 was influenced by the postcloture dilatory tactics that were suffered by the Senate during its consideration of the natural gas deregulation bill during the preceding Congress. My efforts in that regard were supported, on a bipartisan basis, by Minority Leader Howard Baker who stated in response to my introduction of S. Res. 9: I point out, as I am sure most of our colleagues are aware and will recall, that in the case of the most recent post- cloture filibuster, it was the majority leader and the minority leader, with the distinguished occupant of the chair, the Vice President, in the chair at the time, who managed to establish a line and series of precedents that created the possibility to at least accelerate the disposition of the controversy and conflict. The point of the matter is that this is not, nor has it been, a matter that is purely partisan in its character. . . . He added: I share with the majority leader the belief that the post- cloture filibuster, a creature of fairly young age and recent development, is one that the Senate has not focused on adequately. I am prepared to do that and I want to do that. As the minority leader in the Senate recognized at the time, the text of rule XXII provides explicitly that, once cloture is invoked, ``no dilatory motion, or dilatory amendment, or amendment not germane shall be in order.'' Therefore, once Members vote to invoke cloture, dilatory amendments or actions are impermissible. No proposal of mine in 1979 restricted the right of Senators to filibuster a nominee or a piece of legislation prior to the invocation of cloture, consistent with Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate. And the position I took at the time enjoyed support on both sides of the aisle. November 9, 1979--Strengthening Rule XVI Against Legislation on Appropriations Bills: Opponents of free speech and debate in the Senate cite a third event as a supposed basis for their proposed ``nuclear option.'' In November 1979, during consideration of a Department of Defense Appropriations bill, Senator Stennis raised a point of order that an amendment to change the rate of pay for military personnel, which had been offered by Senator Armstrong, constituted legislation on an appropriations bill and was therefore out of order under the express terms of Senate rule XVI. Legislative amendments to appropriations bills violate Senate rule XVI. However, by precedent, the ``defense of germaneness'' arose. According to this practice, which evolved outside the text of rule XVI, if the House has acted first to ``open the door'' to legislate on an appropriations measure, a Senator could respond with a legislative amendment, provided that it is germane to some House legislative language. If a point of order were made that an amendment constituted legislation, a ruling by the Chair on that question would be preempted by a vote on the germaneness of the amendment to the House language. This practice was justified only if the House had included legislative language in its bill. But this practice made a mockery of the rule if the House had not included any legislative language. When Senator Stennis raised the point of order that the Armstrong amendment constituted legislation on an appropriations bill, Senator Armstrong asserted the defense of germaneness, meaning that his amendment was germane because it was relevant to the House bill. At that point, I made the following point of order: I make the point of order that this is a misuse of the precedents of the Senate, since there is no House language to which this amendment could be germane and that, therefore, the Chair is required to rule on the point of order as to its being legislation on an appropriation bill and cannot submit this question of germaneness to the Senate. I was concerned that, as a threshold matter, the amendment should not be considered because there was no House language to which the proposed amendment could possibly be germane. The Chair noted that while this was a case of first impression, my point was ``well taken,'' and he sustained my point of order. Senator Armstrong then appealed the ruling of the Chair, and I moved to table that appeal. My motion was adopted by the Senate. Critics claim that my actions in this instance were contrary to the plain language of rule XVI, because rule XVI at paragraph four states, ``all questions of relevancy of amendments under this rule, when raised, shall be submitted to the Senate and be decided without debate.'' But their assertion that I acted in a manner contrary to rule XVI is false. My point of order went not to the issue of legislating on an appropriations bill, but to a different issue: The concept of ``defense of germaneness.'' Nowhere in rule XVI is there a reference to the concept of ``defense of germaneness.'' The source and subsequent application of defense of germaneness and its threshold test is not rooted in any Senate rule. Instead, it dates back to a precedent, which is identified by Riddick's Senate Procedure as a ``theory,'' which was ``enunciated'' by Vice President Marshall in 1916, that, ``Notwithstanding the rule of the Senate . . . when the House of Representatives opens the door and proceeds to enter upon a field of general legislation . . . the Chair is going to rule, but of course the Senate can reverse the ruling of the Chair, that the House having opened the door the Senate of the United States can walk through the door and pursue the field.'' Second, my efforts were to avoid the misuse of precedent and thereby enforce the express provisions of Senate rule XVI, which prohibits legislation on an appropriations bill. It is only by precedent that germaneness justified a legislative amendment on an appropriations bill, and only if the House opened the door. My goal was to preserve proper precedent and strengthen rule XVI; not to weaken it, as the nuclear option would do to rule XXII. My actions did not establish any precedent to destroy the right of extended debate in the Senate. In fact, the Senate's action affected only the ability to offer certain amendments to particular legislation, and, even then, the Senate minority's rights to appeal a ruling of the Chair were fully preserved. March 5, 1980--Enhancing the Right of Debate of Nominations on the Executive Calendar: Critics of extended debate also reference a motion I made in 1980 to proceed directly to a nomination on the Executive Calendar. They claim that this created a precedent making a motion to proceed to any nomination on the Executive Calendar nondebatable. It did no such thing. At the time, a nondebatable motion to go into executive session automatically put the Senate on the first treaty on the Executive Calendar. This meant that moving to the Executive Calendar required consideration of treaties before nominations, simply because the Senate's Executive Calendar prints both treaties and nominations in the order in which they are reported out of their respective committees of jurisdiction, and treaties are then printed in the first section of the Calendar. But the placement of treaties and nominations on the Senate Calendar was not and is not based on any great precedent or legal requirement that would elevate treaties to a position of prominence greater than nominations. Instead, the placement of treaties and nominations on the Senate Executive Calendar is simply the result of a clerical printing convention. There has never been a logical reason for the Senate to distinguish between a motion to proceed to a nomination and a motion to proceed to the first treaty. Because there is no substantive reason that the Senate should have to go to treaties before being able to consider a nomination, it seemed logical that the Senate should be able to proceed directly to a nomination on the Executive Calendar. My motion to proceed directly to the first nomination, rather than a treaty, did not inhibit or frustrate Senate debate in any way. The Chair explicitly confirmed that it did not contravene any precedent or Standing Rule of the Senate. Moreover, it also did not restrict the ability of the Senate to filibuster the nomination itself. In fact, disposition of the nomination remained, as it is today, fully debatable in several respects. A nomination remains fully debatable when it comes before the Senate, and motions to proceed from one nomination to another are also fully debatable when the Senate is in executive session. May 13, 1987--Enforcing Rule IV Against Improper Debate of a Motion To Approve the Journal: In 1987, a Republican minority led a filibuster seeking to prevent the Senate from considering a defense authorization bill. Prior to moving to the bill, I sought unanimous consent that the Journal of the preceding day ``be approved to date,'' a routine request in the course of Senate business. The Journal is the official record of the proceedings of the Senate, and under Senate rule IV, the Journal of the preceding day must be read following the prayer by the Chaplain unless, by nondebatable motion, the reading of the Journal is waived. In this instance, Senator Dole objected to my request that the Journal be approved by unanimous consent, and the question of whether the Journal should be approved was put to a vote. Under Senate rule XII, if a Senator declines to vote during a rollcall, he or she must, at the time his or her name is called, give a reason for not voting. In an unusual occurrence, Senator Warner advised the Chair that he ``decline[d] to vote for the reason that I have not read the Journal.'' Rule XII requires that if a Senator declines to vote, the Presiding Officer must put a nondebatable question to the Senate on whether it is ``permissible for the Senator to decline his right to vote on the issue.'' The Chair called for the vote to determine whether Senator Warner should be excused from voting on the Journal. However, before that vote was completed, Senator Dan Quayle stated that he, too, declined to vote, because he said, ``I do not believe a Senator should be compelled to vote.'' The Chair asked the clerk to call the roll on whether to excuse Senator Quayle from voting, when Senator Symms stated that he, too, declined to vote for the same reason. At this point, there were four Senate votes pending. if additional Senators in the Chamber similarly chose to decline to vote, seriatim, the process could have continued forever. Recognizing that, just a bit over a year previously, the Senate had deliberately amended rule IV to make the motion to approve the Journal a nondebatable motion, I made a point of order that the requests of the Senators to decline to vote were not in order. I stated: that in amending rule IV, the Senate intended that a majority of the Senate could resolve the question of the reading of the Journal. I make my point of order that a request of a Senator to be excused from voting on a motion to approve the Journal is, therefore, out of order and that the Chair proceed immediately, without further delay, to announce the vote on the motion to approve the Journal. Through a series of subsequent motions and votes, I prevailed in rectifying what I observed at the time was an extraordinary situation illustrated by a series of, in essence, ``votes within a vote.'' Contrary to erroneous allegations by some, my actions in this regard did not set a precedent that ``changed Senate procedure to run contrary to the plain text of a Standing Senate Rule.'' In fact, the action I took achieved exactly the opposite result: It ensured that Senate procedure would conform more closely to both the intent and the plain text of Senate rule IV. At the time, one Senator mistakenly stated that the Chair could not entertain a unanimous consent request to suspend the application of rule XII in this instance. But that is an incorrect understanding by a Senator who was referring to rule XII, paragraph 1--where Senators cannot seek to be added to a vote that they missed, and the Chair may not do it or entertain a request to do so, a rule that was not in question and has always been strictly enforced by the Chair--not rule XII, paragraph 2, which was in dispute at the time. Again, the actions I took were to enforce both rules IV and XII. Should I, instead, have endorsed a procedure whereby one Senator after another could simply decline to vote and put each Senator's reasons for declining to vote to another vote? Should Senators have been permitted, one after another, to decline to vote, then force a vote on each one's reason for not voting, on what is a nondebatable question in a nondebatable posture? Had I not raised a point of order against this abusive practice, it could have been used in innumerable future circumstances, and the Senate would not be able to complete a vote on any measure or matter, ever. It would, again, have made a mockery of the Senate's rules. Keep in mind that, if the tactic were ever legitimized, it could be employed to prevent a judicial nominee from ever receiving a vote. It should be further noted that the point of order I made applies only to proceedings on motions to approve the Journal. Both the Presiding Officer and I confirmed this specifically in response to a question from Senator Alan Simpson. As I then stated: where Senators decline to vote on other rollcall votes in other situations--this point of order does not go to those. This point of order only goes to the unusual situation, the extraordinary circumstances, in which the Senate found itself today, when it was trying to act on a motion to approve the Journal to date, and when three Senators in succession stood to say, ``Mr. President, I decline to vote on this rollcall for the following reasons.'' Elsewhere, I also expressly stated that, ``for the legislative history,'' the precedential value of my point of order was ``confined only to that situation in which the Senate is trying to complete a vote on a motion to approve the Journal to date . . . It is confined to that very narrow purpose.'' The Senate's decision on that day was fully consistent with the text of rules IV and XII, which provides expressly that the question of whether a Senator could decline to vote, ``shall be decided without debate.'' The decision, once again, further enforced the existing rules of the Senate. This stands in stark contrast to the proposed nuclear option, which would contravene, by a simple majority vote, the express text of rule XXII, which applies to ``any measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate,'' and which requires an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn. Let me state, once again, that no action of mine cited by the proponents of the nuclear options has ever denied a minority in the Senate its right to full debate on the final disposition of a measure or matter pending before the Senate. The steps discussed here have all gone toward strengthening or enforcing Senate rules, or clarifying the application of Senate precedents--not undermining them. The Senate has been the last fortress of minority rights and freedom of speech in this Republic for more than two centuries. I pray that Senators will pause and reflect before ignoring that history and tradition in favor of the political priority of the movement.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I oppose the taxation of Social Security benefits. Nevertheless, deficits continue to rise to alarming levels, and the tax cuts authorized by this budget resolution will worsen those deficits significantly. I urge the Finance Committee to pay for any tax cuts included in the reconciliation bill authorized by this budget resolution. In 1993, Congress was at it again, and that year the Clinton tax was passed. The Clinton tax allows 85 percent of a senior's Social Security Benefit to be taxed if their income is above $34,000 for a single and $44,000 for a couple. The additional money this tax raises doesn't even go to help Social Security's solvency--instead it goes into the Medicare program. I was in Congress in 1993, and I fought with many of my colleagues against the Clinton tax. Unfortunately, we lost that fight and the tax went into place. Some people may argue that this is a tax only on so-called ``rich'' seniors, but that just isn't the case. In fact, the income thresholds both for the 50 percent tax and the 85 percent tax haven't changed since they were first enacted back in 1983 and 1993. A lot has changed in the last two decades, and more and more seniors are being affected by these taxes. In fact, it is estimated that over 15 million beneficiaries pay taxes on their Social Security benefits. Eleven million of these pay taxes on up to 85 percent of their Social Security benefit. On one hand, we tell seniors to plan and save for retirement, and on the other we tax them for doing just that. In the past, there have been efforts by members of Congress--including myself--to remove the Clinton tax. Today, the amendment I am introducing finally takes steps to repeal the Clinton tax. The amendment provides additional money under reconciliation so that this tax can be rolled back. This means that the 85 percent tax tier would be eliminated and the maximum amount of Social Security benefits that could be taxed would be 50 percent. This amendment will allow millions of seniors to keep more of their Social Security benefits in their pocket. Some of us have been trying to undo this tax for years, and this amendment finally gives us an opportunity to do that. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to end this unfair tax on seniors and their Social Security benefits. Mr. President, I yield back my time.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Montana for his overly charitable and very gracious comments concerning my efforts. I thank him for his work, likewise. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to allow the Senate to once again pass a $318 billion highway bill. That is precisely the bill that the Senate approved last year by a vote of 76 to 21. Now, my good friend, the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Gregg, was among the 21 Senators who voted against last year's highway bill. I don't have any expectations he will support the amendment. My plea is to the 73 Senators still serving in the Senate who voted for that highway bill last year, Republicans and Democrats alike. We must reverse the continuing deterioration of the highways and transit systems in our State. We know the right vote was cast in February of last year when we approved a $318 billion highway bill despite the veto threats of the President. We know that the highway and transit needs in the States have not diminished one thin dime since that vote last year. Today I am asking my colleagues to vote again for a budget that will allow for a $318 billion highway bill. Just yesterday, the Environment and Public Works Committee marked up a new highway will. The bill marked up yesterday in committee provides far less funding than the bill passed last year, so that the bill's total would stay within the level of funding that President Bush has said he would accept, namely, $284 billion. That lower level of funding, $284 billion, is the level incorporated in the budget resolution before the Senate. The product of yesterday's committee markup is harsh medicine--harsh medicine, indeed--to all 50 States in our Nation. The bill approved in committee yesterday distributes almost $25 billion less to our States in formula funds than the bill approved by more than three-quarters of the Senate last year. We now see precisely the amount of money that States will lose as a result of this retreat because it represents the elimination of almost 1.2 million jobs that would have been created without that lost funding. A major benefit of the committee having marked up its bill yesterday is that every Senator can see what their State will lose as a result of this retreat. Currently sitting on every Senator's desk is a table comparing the amount of funding that was distributed by a formula to every State between 2005 and 2009 under the bill approved by the Senate last year and the smaller bill approved by the Environment and Public Works Committee yesterday. I have taken the liberty of including in this table the size of the job loss that results from these funding reductions. I ask unanimous consent this table be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. BYRD. I ask every Senator to take a close look at this table before voting on this amendment. Senators should be aware of precisely the amount of investment and the number of jobs their State will be losing if they vote against this amendment. In my state of West Virginia, failure to adopt this amendment will mean a loss of almost $275 million and this amendment will mean a loss of almost $275 million and more than 13,000 desperately needed jobs. For several larger States--such as Florida, Georgia, and Ohio--the loss over a 5-year-period to each State is more than $1 billion and more than 50,000 jobs. Mr. President, before any Senator argues that my amendment just increases spending without ensuring it will be spent on highways and mass transit, let me point out that my amendment restores the special highway and transit budget categories. Every additional penny provided by this amendment will be required to be spent on our highways or mass transit programs. The offset for my amendment is the very same type of financing mechanism that served to enhance the receipts to the highway trust fund and were included in last year's highway bill with the bipartisan support of the Senate Finance Committee.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may I ask for 1 additional minute?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I know that some Members are saying that it is foolhardy to try to pass a highway bill at $318 billion because the President has already vowed to veto a measure of that size. But I wish to remind my colleagues that our job--our job here--is to legislate based on our recognition of what is needed by our States and by the Nation. It is the President's job to either sign that bill or veto it. So I ask my colleagues, why do our constituents send us here if we do not look out for their needs? We have been sent here to vote our conscience and to stand for the needs of our constituents. So in offering this amendment today, I am saying to my colleagues, let's do our job. Let's adopt a budget that will enable us to pass a highway bill that we believe addresses the transportation and commerce needs of the Nation. The President will review that piece of legislation, and he will either sign or veto it. That is his job. That is his prerogative. But now is not the time to back away from the country's transportation needs. When the roll is called on this amendment, Senators will be faced with a stark choice. They can either vote for the level of highway spending that they received in last year's highway bill or they can resign their constituents to ever worsening congestion.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair and implore my colleagues to vote for the amendment. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this amendment would boost the amount of funding in the budget to allow for a highway bill totaling $318 billion. That is the same size as the highway bill we passed last year. Every Senator should look at the table on their desk and see how much money and how many jobs he or she is foregoing by voting against this amendment. The offsets for the amendment are not new taxes. The offsets are precisely the same offsets that were used in the finance title of last year's highway bill. I urge the Senate to approve the amendment.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I voted in support of Senator Smith's amendment to strike $14 billion in Medicaid cuts from the budget resolution and instead create a bipartisan Medicaid commission to study how to best reform the program. Sound policy--not arbitrary budget cuts--should be the driving force for strengthening and improving the Medicaid program. A Medicaid commission could help foster a much-needed dialogue about how to take prudent steps to make this critical safety net stronger and sustainable in the long term. More than 40 million Americans, including 300,000 West Virginians, rely on Medicaid. In West Virginia, the health care safety net-- comprised of hospitals, nursing homes, home health agencies, physician offices, and community health centers--relies heavily on Federal Medicaid funding to care for the poor, disabled, and elderly. If Medicaid funding is capped at an arbitrary funding level, states, such as West Virginia, will be left to shoulder the burden of increasing health care costs on their own. The health care needs of low-income people do not magically disappear just because there are fewer federal funds made available. It is my hope that a bipartisan consensus of policies can be reached to best address the challenges confronting the Medicaid program. The passage of the Smith Amendment to establish a Medicaid commission is a constructive first step toward that goal. Amendment No. 216

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may I inquire of the distinguished majority leader, will there be a session tomorrow?

Mr. BYRD. If we are not going to have a session, my first inquiry would be, how many days will the Record remain open for statements?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, upon the conclusion of the vote, I may be recognized to make some statements for the Record.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Smithers, WV, is a town of 904 residents on the banks of the Kanawha River, just outside of the state capitol of Charleston. Last October some 1,500 active coal miners and retirees, along with their wives, their children, their families, sat inside a hot and crowded gymnasium trying to cope with how, in a few short weeks, their lives had been turned upside down. Two months earlier, a bankruptcy judge whom they had never met, and who resides in another state, vitiated their collective bargaining agreement. In West Virginia, this judge cost 270 active miners their jobs, and, along with 1,270 retirees and their dependents, rescinded their health benefits. These folks gathered in that gymnasium trying to understand what had happened and what could be done. They are the Horizon miners. They are good, strong people. They devote themselves to their labors, and take pride in their work. They are committed, hardworking individuals who contribute much and ask for nothing more than simple fairness. And so imagine how they are made to feel, the anguish, frustration, and betrayal they are made to feel, when they learn the health benefits they labored for, the job security they I toiled for, has been taken away. One can hardly blame these workers for feeling as though the world has ganged up on them. Their former employer, Horizon Natural Resources, for which they loyally worked for many years, had lobbied intensely in bankruptcy court to eliminate the health benefits of its own employees. In a U.S. court, where every honest man should expect a fair shake from an impartial judge, these workers were betrayed by the judicial system. The judge, with the rap of a gavel, vitiated the 1992 Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act, legislation passed by the Congress and signed by the President, to provide qualified coal miners with guaranteed health benefits, a promise dating back to President Harry S. Truman's pledge to John L. Lewis in 1946. One judge overturned a 60- year-old promise that had been codified by the Congress and endorsed by three Presidents. It was a disgraceful, shameful act. These Horizon coal miners, betrayed by their employer, beguiled by the courts, now turn to their elected representatives in the Congress for help. And, thanks in large part to the efforts of Congressman Nick Rahall and Senators Rockefeller and Specter, the Senate is in a position to get something done. Building on Senator Rockefeller's efforts, Senator Specter has introduced legislation to help the Horizon miners. I urge the Judiciary Committee to take a careful look at that legislation. I urge the committee to hold hearings, and to listen to the plight of those coal miners and their families affected by Horizon's bankruptcy. This is an issue that affects not just the Horizon coal miners, but workers across the Nation who have seen their pension and health benefits taken from them. It is happening across West Virginia. It is happening across the Appalachian region. It is happening in Indiana, Kentucky, and Illinois. In West Virginia, it is affecting elderly workers who are near retirement. What security they had is gone. What they had been promised, they have no time to get back. In such circumstances, it is incumbent upon the Congress to take action. I urge the Finance Committee, as well as the Judiciary Committee, to consider these issues. I urge both committees to hold hearings and solicit testimony from those workers affected. The chairman of the Finance Committee has said that his committee ought to look at the issues raised by Senators Specter and Rockefeller in the context of a comprehensive review and a comprehensive solution. That makes sense, and I am encouraged by his statement. Abraham Lincoln reminds us that ``Inasmuch [as] most good things are produced by labor, it follows that [all] such things of right belong to those whose labor has produced them.'' The Horizon miners labored for their health benefits, and they ought by right have them. Let us organize our efforts. Let us build momentum, and let us, at long last, take a stand in defense of the men and women who epitomize America's time-honored work ethic.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this Sunday is special for two reasons. It is the first day of spring and it is also Palm Sunday, the beginning of the Christian Holy Week. Both events mark triumphant arrivals, of Jesus into Jerusalem, and the start of the season of rebirth, of lengthening days, warm earth, and growing things. At this time of year, many people quote an adage to the effect that ``March comes in like a lion, and goes out like a lamb.'' An unknown poet said it better: The March wind roars Like a lion in the sky, And makes us shiver As he passes by. When winds are soft, And the days are warm and clear, Just like a gentle lamb, Then spring is here. The exact origins of the March saying are not clear. Observers of the weather may assert that the saying reflects common springtime weather patterns, when shifting pressure gradients create the strong gusty winds so closely associated with March. Indeed, March marks the beginning of the tornado season in North America. We have certainly seen some strong cold winds recently, shaking the few remaining dry brown leaves out of the trees and whirling them across lawns and roads. Daffodils and crocus have been lured into bloom only to be buried under snow or ice. This year, winter is still roaring in March, with howling winds, snowstorms, ice, and rain across the nation. The poet Henry Van Dyke (1852-1933) once observed that: The first day of spring is one thing, and first spring day is another. The difference between them is sometimes as great as a month. We can but hope that the gentle lamb-like weather arrives soon. Some skywatchers believe the adage has a heavenly source. They point out that the constellation Leo, the lion, is rising in the eastern horizon at the beginning of March, hence the ``coming in like a lion,'' while Aries, the ram, sets on the western horizon at the end of March, and so ``departs like a lamb.'' Some Christian observers point out that March is typically a Lenten month, in which Jesus, the Lamb of God, is sacrificed on the cross, only to return in the future as the Lion of Judah to rule over the world of men. I do not know which theory is correct, but each is plausible and intriguing. They provide food for thought as gardeners rake out flower beds and till vegetable plots on the warm, sunny afternoons that crop out amid the rain and late snow flurries. They reassure us that, whichever is true, the world is behaving normally. If we are only patient a little while longer, the March winds will push winter along and leave the glorious spring in their wake. Age is supposed to bring with it patience, but I find that each year I am just as eager for spring to arrive as I was when I was a boy. I may be even more eager than I was as a boy, since snowball fights and sledding down hills have been replaced with shoveling walks, scraping icy windshields, and higher heating bills. I am ready to shed my winter coat, ready to feel the sun on my face, ready to see the flowers bloom and the grass grow. I am ready to plant a few tomatos. I may not run through the fields and woods anymore, but I like to sit outside with my wife, Erma, and watch our little dog explore the backyard. I look forward to watching my grandchildren hunt for Easter eggs in the soft, new grass. The vernal equinox marks the first day of spring, the perfect balance of light and dark, day and night. On Sunday, for the first time each year, day and night are equal. But then the sun triumphs over the dark days of winter. Each day through the spring, the period of sunlight grows a little longer, like the grass in the yard. Each day, the birds start singing a little earlier, and continue their song just a little later in the evening. For winter's rains and ruins are over, And all the season of snows and sins; The days dividing lover and lover, The light that loses, the night that wins; And time remembered is grief forgotten And frosts are slain and flowers begotten, And in green underwood and cover Blossom by blossom the spring begins. So wrote the poet Algernon Charles Swinburne--1837-1909--in his 1965 poem, ``Atalanta in Calydon.'' In March, the daffodils, crocus, and forsythia bloom, adding their springtime yellow and Lenten purple to winter's faded palette of gray and brown. But look closely, and you can see buds swelling into life on twigs and branches. Vibrant reddish buds reassure gardeners that the roses came through the winter, and will soon grace us with their beauty and sweet fragrance. The glorious parade of bloom and blossom will soon begin. It seems more than happy coincidence that Easter is a springtime event. Like spring itself, the story of Easter is one of rebirth, of light triumphing over darkness. Palm Sunday, the arrival of Jesus into Jerusalem those many years ago, is shadowed with the knowledge of the dark days to come--Jesus' betrayal, capture, and tortured procession with the cross on his back and crown of thorns on his brow. But after his death comes his resurrection and ascension, his rise from the darkness of the tomb to the light of Heaven. Each spring, as we relive his great sacrifice for us, we can rejoice in his great promise of rebirth, even as we are surrounded by the earth's rebirth. The celebration of birth and growth persists even in the most commercialized aspects of today's Easter celebration. Like the March winds adage, the origins of the Easter egg have been lost to time, but for untold centuries, eggs have symbolized fertility, resurrection and new life. The ancient Greeks, Persians, and Chinese exchanged eggs during their spring festivals. Some pagan traditions held that Heaven and Earth were formed from two halves of an egg. Christian traditions have adapted this ancient symbol to the Easter ritual, wedding the ideas of earthly rebirth to spiritual resurrection. Once forbidden during Lent in the Middle Ages, eggs reappeared on Easter Sunday on the dinner table as well as being given as gifts. In Greece, eggs are dyed red to represent the blood of Christ. In Germany and Austria, green eggs are exchanged on Maundy, or Holy, Thursday. Many cultures have developed elaborate decorations for blown or hardboiled eggs, from the graphic Russian `pysanki' eggs to those with religious symbols and scenes carefully painted on them. Whatever the tradition, Easter eggs remain a springtime delight. The fun of making them is overcome only by the fun of hiding them and watching small hands tightly clutching decorated baskets loaded with their brightly colored bounty. Of course, today's Easter baskets are also filled with chocolate eggs, jelly beans, and marshmallow treats-- some 90 million chocolate Easter bunnies, 700 million marshmallow Peeps, and 16 billion jellybeans each year, according to some reports. Older Easter food traditions, such as the hot cross buns once given to the poor by monks, and pretzels, with crossed arms resembling a person at prayer, have fallen from favor before this onslaught of sugar. As Erma and I watch our children, our children's children, and now, our great-grandchildren, continue this happy custom, we are thankful once again for these, our blessings. Their new lives, like those of children everywhere, are treasured gifts. On this coming Easter, in this first week of spring, I know I am not alone in giving thanks. I close with a short poem by Louise Seymour Jones, called ``Who Loves a Garden.'' In just a few lines, she marries the spheres of heaven and earth, the greening of the land, the rebirth of the flowers as well as the spirit, and work that is a labor of love. Who Loves a Garden Who loves a garden Finds within his soul Life's whole; He hears the anthem of the soil While ingrates toil; And sees beyond his little sphere He waving fronds of heaven, clear. Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BYRD. Can the Chair inform the Senate as to how many days speeches will be received for printing in the Record before the recess formally begins?

Mr. BYRD. Very well. I am informed, Mr. President, that the Senate will be in this coming Monday for a brief period for acceptance of speeches only. Yes. All right. I thank the Chair. That answers my question sufficiently. Mr. President, I thank all Senators, I thank the staff, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on March 9, 2005, President Bush went to Columbus, OH for one of his many town hall meetings. Besides attempting to sell his Social Security plan, he also spoke about the need for a national energy policy. Not surprisingly, he raised the specter of high gas prices, increasing natural gas rates, and electricity blackouts as a justification to pass his energy plan. However, this issue needs more than just rhetoric. It needs real solutions. The American people need look no further than the President's budget request to question that commitment to a serious energy policy. The President has cut funding for a number of important energy programs in his budget. For example, he has said that he supports clean coal technologies. He started professing his support on the campaign trail in October 2000, and he promised to commit $2 billion over 10 years for the Clean Coal Technology demonstration program. This is the very program that I started back in 1985. Yet, each of his five budgets has failed to meet that goal. This year, he only requested $50 million, instead of the promised $200 million. In effect, he has promised those in the coal fields one dollar but has only anted up two bits. Furthermore, he touts the need for the FutureGen project but cannot say where the funding for this facility is going to come from down the road. His only option right now is to raid other clean coal programs, and I will not stand by and let him rob Peter to pay Paul. The White House has proposed and the Majority has adopted just $4.56 billion in energy tax incentives over five years in this Fiscal Year 2006 budget. How much did the President include for clean coal tax incentives in this year's budget request, or in previous years' budget requests? Nothing! We cannot demonstrate and deploy the next generation of clean coal technologies based on what this administration is actually willing to put on the table. The administration's co-called support for the clean coal technology programs is indicative of its support for so many important energy programs. This administration's much narrower package of energy tax incentives is inadequate to achieve our national energy policy goals. I have long believed that the U.S. needs a comprehensive and balanced national energy policy. The looming concerns of electricity blackouts, energy prices, and increased dependence on foreign energy sources represent ominous clouds on the horizon. Sadly, our energy problems, like so many other challenges, are being addressed with ever shrinking funds and band-aid solutions. The pattern has been repeated over and over again. The Bush administration generates new initiatives, fails to fully fund them, and then simultaneously cuts other important programs. At the same time, we have witnessed attempts to put a moratorium on federal gas taxes, to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and to make secretive deals with Saudi Arabia to produce more oil. We have endeavored to treat the symptoms, rather than the core problem, for far too long. This President may talk a good game, but how are we going to fix our energy ills with this President's prescription? The United States needs affordable, reliable, and clean energy resources and technologies to support a growing economy and a healthy environment. We need a comprehensive, balanced, and diversified national energy policy that will promote a strong energy efficiency program and bolster our Nation's coal, natural gas, oil, renewable, nuclear, and other clean domestic energy technologies. A strong energy policy must help to maintain and upgrade these our critical energy infrastructure and support, retain, and create energy-related manufacturing and other service jobs that are an underpinning of our economy. A bipartisan energy strategy should encourage increased use of the most advanced energy supply and energy efficiency technologies and must support increased investments in an array of energy research and development programs. Our Nation needs to begin defining alternative pathways and new approaches that go beyond the extremist debates and simplistic solutions that define our very demanding energy security and environmental challenges. It is time to move along that path. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support an appropriate, equitable, and diversified mixture of at least $15.5 billion in targeted energy tax incentives over the next ten years, and I urge the Finance Committee to find offsets so that this can be done in a fiscally sound way. In the 108th Congress, the Senate supported a similar level for energy incentives. The Senate's Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Resolution, the last budget that Congress passed, provided for $15.5 billion in energy tax incentives over ten years. In 2003, the Senate Finance Committee adopted and the Senate passed a balanced and bipartisan package of energy tax incentives in the amount of $19.8 billion over ten years as a part of the Senate Energy Policy Act of2003, part of which was offset. I supported that energy tax package as it provided an array of targeted energy incentives, including approximately $2 billion to deploy advanced clean coal technologies. Such an energy tax incentives package would help strengthen the economy, enhance our Nation's energy resources, promote an array of advanced energy technologies, increase jobs, and provide for a healthy environment. Is there a Member in this Chamber who is opposed to that? If there are going to be tax cuts in this budget, then we must increase funding for a range of energy tax incentives. Supporting at least $15.5 billion in energy tax incentives will send a strong message that these incentives are necessary to develop a national energy policy, and I urge my colleagues to stand with me in this request. Unless we can increase the pie for all of these energy technology approaches, there will not be enough to achieve our energy goals in any serious way.