Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I will certainly yield to my friend very shortly. Let me say, however, continuing my thought, it may well be that the only problem that this bill will actually fix is one of politics. Passing this bill in the waning hours of the 108th Congress means that for all intents and purposes intelligence reform will be removed from the agenda of the next Congress. By passing this bill today, the Senate will be giving political cover to those who wish to dismiss calls for more thorough reform of intelligence agencies to fix problems that are not addressed in the legislation, including the Iraq WMD, weapons of mass destruction, fiasco and the abuse of prisoners in secret detention facilities. Intelligence reform should be done right the first time. But the actual implementation of this bill will be shrouded in secrecy and hidden from public scrutiny. Under this conference report, the total amount of intelligence spending will remain classified so that the American people may never know if the President is shortchanging the reform effort that this bill requires. Senators ought not be so willing to rush this bill through knowing that it may serve as political cover for an administration that has a sorry history of promising big reform efforts that it never funds. Mr. President, I am happy to yield now, if I may retain my right to the floor, to my friend from Oklahoma.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator who has expressed, rightly, his concern. The Senator has cited excellent examples of why this bill is being rushed and why it should not be rushed. I am for intelligence reform. There are many things in this package, I am sure, that are worthwhile. But we cannot fully protect ourselves against terrorists unless we address the gaps in our borders and stem the rise of illegal immigration. There is a great deal of friction in the House of Representatives with respect to this conference report because of the failure to address many of the problems Congressman Sensenbrenner spoke about. I hope we will still have an opportunity to do that. But this is just one area in the conference report that ought to have had more time, but it did not get the time, as the subject matter in its entirety should have had more time. Next year, the President will ask the Congress to pass a sweeping amnesty. It's clear that illegal aliens will continue to pour into this country until the Congress takes action to protect its borders. The 9/11 Commission's endorsement of this legislation will mean nothing if these so-called reforms lead to future intelligence failures. What the American people will remember, however, is that the Congress--the Senate and the House--abdicated its role to fully protect their security interests. The American people will remember that the Congress empowered an unelected bureaucrat while doing little else to protect against future intelligence failures. This process has been hurried and rushed from the beginning. It has been tainted ever since the decision was made to tie its consideration to a political schedule. When the 9/11 Commission needed more time to conduct its investigation into the September 11 attacks, the Congress acted magnanimously in granting a 2-month extension. Senators said at the time: It would be counterproductive to deny the commission the extra 2 months it now says it needs to complete its investigations. . . . Mr. President, the Founding Fathers would be ashamed of the notion that time is a luxury reserved for the unelected members of independent commissions. What about the Senate? What about the elected representatives of the people who serve in this body? The Framers of the Constitution conceived a Senate that would resist the forces that urge us to bend with each change in the political breeze. To the contrary, the Constitution binds Senators to serve the greater causes of the Republic and reserves the power of each Member to demand more time for debate, more time for thoughtful consideration. So shame on us for not invoking that wisdom in claiming the additional time we need to better assess this legislation and to better protect the security of this Nation and to better enhance the well-being of the American people, who stand in need of closer examination and scrutiny of legislation that will provide for their security and the security of their children and the security of the institutions that need that protection and that security. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Fostering the Flow of Information

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. BYRD. I did not hear the request.

Mr. BYRD. I did not hear the request.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senator from Alaska and I have, for months, been importuning the Senate, the leadership, and anyone else who will listen, not to end this session with the passage of an Omnibus appropriations bill. I have, for years, opposed passage of Omnibus appropriations bills. We have seen within these last few years, especially, this excrescence on the skin of the body politic grow until now it has become malignant. I warned and warned and warned against Omnibus appropriations bills. I have complained that the leadership of the body has not worked diligently to prevent our being caught with our backs against the wall at the end of the session and with the absolute necessity at that point to act in haste and to act upon many appropriations bills at once, with all that portends. That makes it difficult, if not impossible, for Members to examine what is in the bill. So much of this is done at the hour of midnight and beyond. Staffs have to read through these bills and work on them, and Senators who cannot do that have to depend upon the work of those staffs. They are literally dead, as it were, with fatigue when they do this job this way. I have, time and time again, said to Senator Stevens: I hope we will avoid Omnibus appropriations bills. There is no good served with Omnibus appropriations bills. When that happens, we invite the executive branch into the exercise. It seems my colleagues, so many of them on both sides of the aisle, do not view that as a danger to the Senate, a danger to the constitutional system, and really a danger to the liberties of the people. We should pass 13 appropriations bills every year. I said that time and time and time again. The distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee at this moment, Senator Stevens, has done his level best to get 13 appropriations bills passed and brought to the floor. But I tell you, my friends, we have lost too much time with other things that could have waited, and now we find ourselves in the bind, when we do not have enough time to do the proper work on these appropriations bills. I am sick of this process. I am ashamed of it. I do not know if there will ever be a better example of what can happen, what can go wrong with this nefarious process of putting off legislation. Appropriations bills are the only bills we actually have to pass. They are bills to keep the Government running. This has to do with the oversight process, the examination of witnesses through the appropriations hearings. This is the absolute best form of oversight, when we can say to a witness from the administration, whatever administration it is: How have you done under this qualification here, that you would be limited to such and such, a number of dollars? What have you done? What has been the result? We are strangulating this oversight tool. We are wiping it out when we do not bring to the floor these bills on time. We get to the pass here. This is the pass. And we are cut off at the pass. Oh, we have to do this. We have to do this. We need to cut the time on the bill. We need to limit ourselves. Here in this case, only two of these appropriations bills have ever passed the Senate. Only two this year, right?

Mr. BYRD. Four passed the Senate. In any event, only two of the nine bills that are in the omnibus have passed the Senate.

Mr. BYRD. Now, that is a shame. That is a disgrace upon the escutcheon of the Senate. I am greatly concerned about that process. I have been, and I have many times expressed it to my dear friend, Ted Stevens, who has worked his tail off in trying to get these bills through the committee and through the Senate. Now, we cannot go on like this. We just cannot go on like this. I hope other Senators and I hope the leadership on both sides will see what can happen when we are brought to the wall, with our backs to the wall, and we have to ram through such important legislation without giving it careful consideration because we do not have the time and we rush these--can you imagine what is happening to the process when we approve appropriations bills in the Senate Committee on Appropriations and then do not bring those bills to the Senate? We do not bring those bills to the Senate. I will tell you, friends, I have been in this body now 46 years this year, and it was never that way in the old times. We always passed the appropriations bills. I believe you will find on the record, we passed them, with my help, on both sides of the aisle. I never did anything by myself. It was an absolute cooperation between both sides of the aisle in the Appropriations Committee. We did not have all of the recriminations and the fault finding. We worked together, and we brought those 13 bills to the floor, and we acted on them. Something badly wrong is happening to the appropriations process in the Senate, and I hope and plead with my colleagues that we take a good look at what is happening and that we all, as it were, rise up in arms against this way of pushing everything to the end of the session. We have squandered time. You remember the filibuster one night we had here? Remember the filibuster one night? Well, that is just one example of how we have foolishly squandered our time. And we have not been in here 5 days a week working. How about that? We ought to do better. I feel very, very badly about what has happened here. I never knew anything about this. I never knew this was in the bill until after I got up in the conference today and urged Senators to vote for it.

Mr. BYRD. I said: I don't like this process. I don't like the fact that the minority is being shut out--at least one stage. I do not think the minority should ever be shut out. That is not in the book of the legislative process. That is not in the legislative process as I taught it over at American University. That is not in the legislative process as I learned it from those who came before me. That is not in the legislative process as it was when I was the majority leader.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for an additional 10 minutes, if necessary.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair and I thank all Senators. And so it is a terrible albatross around the neck of the Senate, and it is a terrible disservice to the people of these United States, who need to have their Senators examine bills carefully. Part of it is our fault. We don't have to be out of here on Mondays. We don't have to be out of here on Friday afternoons. They didn't run the Senate like that when I was coming up here. I didn't run the Senate like that when I was majority leader. I told my own crowd: You elected me leader, and you can throw me out if you want to, but as long as I am leader, I am going to be leader. I am not here for the pleasure of Members. I am here to get the work done. And we worked and we had votes. Any of you who were here when I was majority leader, we had what were called bed check votes on Monday morning at 10 o'clock. So I don't like this process. We are getting paid to work 5 days a week, 6 days a week, or 7 days a week, if it is necessary. I hope we don't start coming in here on the Sabbath and working. We need to keep the Sabbath day holy. But I say to you, my friends, we ought to get away from this bog-tailed schedule that we work on here--being in the Senate 2 days a week, or 2\1/2\ days. So there are many things that can be attributed to the breakdown here. There are many complaints that can be made, many fingers can be pointed, and many truths can be stated, pointing out where we are falling down. A number of Senators, may I say, have come to the floor to denounce, rather harshly, this provision that was included in the Omnibus appropriations bill, which would authorize--I know Ted Stevens; he would never want this kind of authority. That is laughable. He would never want this kind of authority. I would not either--chairmen of the Appropriations Committee and their designees to access the tax returns of companies and individuals. Why, this is a slam at the integrity of the Appropriations Committees of the two Houses, and especially it is a terrible thing to have somebody put this in a bill and lay this burden on the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. We don't want that. I have been chairman and I would not want that kind of authority. I want to thank Senator Stevens for coming to the floor and pledging to do what he can to correct this problem. I recognize that is not his fault. It is the inevitable result of a horrendous process that has developed in these last few years. You can go back and see the record for yourselves. The record speaks and the record tells the truth. I want to assure my colleagues that I knew nothing of this provision until after I had made my fine speech in the caucus talking about this bill, how good it was and how bad it was, and then urged Senators to vote for it, saying that it was better than having a continuing resolution. And lo and behold, the distinguished Senator from North Dakota got up right behind me and he and the Senator from Montana pointed out that this language was in the bill. I had not seen it. If I had known about it, I would have been the first Senator to the floor to deplore it. I would have done everything in my power to keep it from being included. It is egregious and it ought to make every Senator hopping mad at the process that caused it, at the process that caused this in the wee hours of the night--to have our staffs operate with fatigue in going over these matters. Why do we have to do it in the wee hours of the night? Because you are up against the gun, up against the deadline. Look at this massive piece of work that must be examined. This is what happens--I will say it again--when the Congress writes legislation behind closed doors. This is what happens when the Congress tries to cobble together nine appropriations bills, seven of which have never been considered by the Senate, into an Omnibus appropriations bill. This is exactly why we failed the people out there who are watching through those electronic lenses. We fail the American people when we cannot complete the appropriations process on time. I think it is a disservice to the chairman of the committee and to Senators who try hard to keep things going here and to move on a schedule that will get us through and not keep us waiting until the end of the session, when it is too late to act with care and to properly operate the oversight process. We open ourselves up to these kinds of abuses. I am told that the Senate now will do something about this. We have already allowed a unanimous consent request here that has been agreed to. I hope--that isn't quite enough--the majority leader, who was here a moment ago, will try to get a commitment from the Speaker of the House.

Mr. BYRD. Very well. I am told by my colleague, Senator Stevens, that we have that commitment. Well and good. They will join the Senate in passing the joint resolution to remove this provision. I am also concerned about what the distinguished Senator from North Dakota brought up when he spoke of the fact that when a bill is passed into law, it is a law, and it is either going to be repealed or vetoed. We need to hear from the leaders of both bodies that this provision will be removed, and we need also to hear from the leaders of both bodies that this won't happen again. I myself had said that I would vote for this bill. I am going to vote against it out of protest against this awful process. I have campaigned against this process on the floor; I have urged that we not let ourselves get into a situation wherein we have to nail together, tape together, put together pieces of appropriations bills, and whole appropriations bills, and come out with an Omnibus appropriations bill. And now we are going to be faced with a conference report that we cannot amend. So I will vote against this process. I will not support a process that results in this kind of chicanery. I thank all Senators for listening. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, we are now in day 51 of the fiscal year. In order to finally bring the fiscal year 2005 appropriations season to a close, the Senate has before it a $388 billion, nine bill, 3,016-page monstrosity of a bill. Here it is, right here on the desk. Take a look at it. Of the nine appropriations bills in the bill, only two were ever debated in the Senate. The conference report includes a miscellaneous division that contains 32 unrelated provisions, most of which have never been considered by the Senate. There is not a single Member in this body who can say that he or she has read this bill. It contains complex and controversial matters. It contains an across-the-board cut of eight-tenths of 1 percent that arbitrarily reduces veterans medical care programs, health care programs, highway construction, and global AIDS programs. At midnight last night, a 64-page small business reauthorization bill was put in the bill without consultation. It contains controversial matter that was not in the freestanding bill that the Senate debated over a year ago. During the development of the appropriations bills this year, the House and Senate reviewed the President's budget carefully and, in some cases, approved provisions that moved the Nation in a different direction from that which the White House wanted. The White House issued veto threats on several of these issues. The Senate provision to block the administration's overtime regulation which could eliminate overtime pay for 6 million Americans is dropped from the bill. Provisions that were in both the House and Senate bills concerning Cuba trade are all gone. The Senate provisions to overturn the Mexico City family planning policy and modify the Kemp-Kasten rules for funding the U.N. Population Fund have disappeared. At midnight last night, at White House insistence, and through the intervention of the House Republican leadership, the language that would have required a fair competition before Federal jobs are contracted out was pulled from the bill. Yet here we are on a Saturday, 51 days into the fiscal year, forced to vote on this monstrosity in the form of a $388 billion unamendable, unread conference report. The bill is entitled ``Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005.'' It should be entitled ``Lame Appropriations Act, 2005.'' The Federal fiscal year started on October 1. While we have been waiting for the Republican leadership to bring appropriations bills to the floor, the country's schools, the country's hospitals, the veterans seeking health care, the FBI agents fighting terrorism, the construction workers wanting to build bridges and highways, the farmers, and the scientists across America have had to wait. Why the delay? First, despite the fact that we have a Republican President, a Republican House, and a Republican Senate, our Republican Government could not produce a budget. We had a record deficit for fiscal year 2004 of $413 billion. This Bush deficit exceeded the deficit record that he set for fiscal year 2003 of $375 billion. Yesterday the President signed a bill to increase the debt limit to a record $8.2 trillion--$8.2 trillion of debt, and yet we do not have a budget. Without a budget, the appropriations process was delayed. We are living in a land of make-believe. For months, the Senate pushed aside work on appropriations bills to focus on political debates. We pushed aside the people's interest so party interests could take center stage before the elections, but in doing so we failed, once again, to get our job done. This is a lameduck Congress, but the lame politicking in this Senate started long before this week. Time after time, we have put a hold on the investments in this Nation that every Senator knows we must make in order to put points on a political scoreboard, like this is some big game. But when we play games like these, the real losers are the American people. Fifty-one days into the fiscal year and, once again--this is not the first time--once again, we have a mammoth, unamendable omnibus conference report in front of us. Sadly, it has become almost an annual ritual that we shackle ourselves with these omnibus monstrosities. It is not good--not good for the Senate, not good for the American people, not good for your political system. We did in 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2004. When I was chairman from 1989 to 1994 and again in 2001, we produced 13 individual bills annually. That is the way to protect Congress's power of the purse. That is the way to protect the American people. That is the way to respect Members' rights to debate important legislation. We should not go down this road again next year. The woolly mammoth became extinct ages ago. I hope one day that the same will be said for such mammoth appropriations bills. The fact that we have such massive legislation on our desks tonight is not the fault of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the senior Senator from Alaska, Ted Stevens. He would have moved Earth and sky if it had meant finishing 13 individual appropriations bills on time. But not even his Herculean efforts could change the plain and honest truth of this Senate. Namely, when it comes to this Senate today, politics wins every time. I would be remiss if I did not thank my chairman, my colleague, my friend, Senator Ted Stevens. This will be the final appropriations conference report that Senator Ted Stevens will guide through this Chamber, and how we will miss that fine, steady hand at the helm. While he does not leave the Appropriations Committee, thank God, he does leave the chairmanship after this session. I thank him for his unflinching friendship over the years. We do not always agree, Senator Stevens and I. No. I respect his views. I hope he respects mine. And the same can be said of the chairmen and ranking members of the appropriations subcommittees, both when this side is under control of the Senate and when this side is in the minority. At the end of the day, we always know that party is not the most important aspect of life. Faith in God, love of family, the Constitution and the country, Senator Stevens knows, as I do, that these are far more important than the fate of a partisan agenda. Because of the limitations placed on the Congress by the administration, more veterans will go without medical care. I have to say that this administration meddles in the appropriations process more than any other administration I have ever seen in my 46 years as a Senator, and as my 52 years as a Member of the Congress. Fewer children now will receive the educational services promised by this President and this Congress in the No Child Left Behind Act. Scientists will be left scrambling for research dollars. Families living in rural America will see their clean water pushed off for another year. This bill shortchanges America's future, and I say to all Senators that because of the President's arbitrary limits on discretionary spending, $8 billion worth of increases above the President's budget request that were contained in the bipartisan Senate appropriations bill were eliminated. Now, that is the White House meddling, a White House that does not seem to recognize that there is a Constitution of the United States; a White House that does not seem to recognize that there is a separation of powers; a White House that does not seem to remember that the legislative branch is not indeed subordinated to the executive branch. Relative to the Senate bills, title I education for the disadvantaged is cut by $661 million; special education by $658 million; the National Institutes of Health by $537 million; EPA clean and safe drinking water grants are cut by $312 million; VA medical care by $235 million; $975 million in cuts in public housing; $277 million is cut from the National Science Foundation and the effort to help communities to hire new police officers; the COPS program is cut by $154 million. These are big numbers. Honestly, they probably do not mean much to people, but behind each dollar is an American citizen. Cuts to special education mean that fewer children with disabilities will receive the specialized services they need. Cuts to title I mean that young people living in poor school districts will have fewer classroom opportunities to brighten their paths to their future. Fewer dollars for COPS means fewer officers on the streets, the very time when crime is up and the terrorist threat is very real across America. That brings us to where we are today. The legislation before us includes some increase above the President's request for such programs as veterans medical care, highways, low-income home energy assistance, State and local law enforcement, the manufacturing extension program, Amtrak and Corps of Engineers construction. However, I cannot vote for this Omnibus appropriations bill, and I extend my sincere apologies to my colleague, Ted Stevens. I honor him and I will always remember him as one of the very finest chairmen of the Appropriations Committees under whom I have served in my 46 years in this body, but I cannot vote for this Omnibus appropriations bill. I intended this morning to vote for it. Omnibus bills bring the White House to the table and put them in charge. I have said that time and time again. Let me say it again. Omnibus bills bring the White House to the table and put them, the White House, in charge. Omnibus bills allow the White House to set arbitrary ceilings on spending. Omnibus bills preclude Members' rights to debate significant issues. Omnibus bills produce bad legislation, such as the ill-conceived language on giving staff authority to review tax returns. Need I say more? No, I shall not say more. I will vote no. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President----

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will be happy to yield. I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the distinguished Senator for not to exceed 10 minutes, and that I may then be recognized.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak without regard to germaneness, with the understanding that the time be charged against me under the cloture rule, and that I not speak beyond 10 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Byrd are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today I voted against invoking cloture and ending debate on the conference report accompanying the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill, H.R. 1047. Normally, this is a non-controversial bill passed by unanimous consent. However, this year's bill is different. While it contains many provisions that I support and have worked with other Senators to someday enact, it also includes a specific provision to repeal the Antidumping Act of 1916. This bill would repeal the 1916 Act in response to an international ruling, which found that this U.S. trade law is WTO-violative even though no court ruling under this U.S. law has resulted in any need for the United States to compensate any of America's trading partners. I disagree with repeal of the Antidumping Act of 1916, because I believe that this attempt by the WTO to force the United States to abolish this trade law, legitimately enacted at the start of the prior century, is misguided and unfair. Our trade foes have little reason to criticize this trade law; few cases have been brought under its provisions, and even fewer have resulted in judgements against any foreign firm. The WTO's attempt to abolish this law is simply one of a long line of decisions by this international body meant to open U.S. markets to cheap, unfairly traded imports, and to undermine the ability of the United States Congress to exercise its sovereign right to regulate domestic and foreign commerce. Repealing this U.S. trade law would set a bad precedent and could only encourage other nations to seek similar, ill-informed ``justice'' at the WTO. That, in turn, will lead to disaster for the U.S. industrial base, where American producers will assuredly suffer the ill-effects of increased, dumped imports, which will drive down the prices of American-made goods and put more and more American manufacturers out of work.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in a matter of days, families across this Nation will gather around the table to celebrate Thanksgiving, that quintessential American holiday on which we pause to give thanks for our many blessings as a Nation and to celebrate that most precious gift of all, the love and fellowship of our families and friends. There will be many empty chairs at the table this year as America observes the second Thanksgiving holiday since the invasion of Iraq. As many as 140,000 U.S. military personnel are currently serving in Iraq and another 20,000 in Afghanistan. What that means in human terms is that tens of thousands of American families will be sitting down to a somber Thanksgiving dinner, their prayers of thanksgiving tempered by their fears for the safety of their loved ones. Others, the families and loved ones of the more than 1,200 American troops who have been killed in Iraq, will sit down to a dinner seasoned with sorrow, the empty chair at the table a wrenching reminder of the terrible cost of war. Whatever one believes about the justification of the war in Iraq, it is an indisputable fact that the troops on the ground, and their families and friends here at home, are bearing the heaviest burden of the President's decision to go to war. And on holidays like Thanksgiving, when family and friends are held especially close to the heart, the weight of that burden becomes especially hard to bear. It is easy to talk about war in the abstract. It is easy for the President and his military advisers to point to the steady progression of U.S. victories against the insurgents in places like Falluja and Mosel as evidence that we are winning the war in Iraq. It is easy to be armchair quarterbacks in a bloody battle raging halfway across the world. But as anyone knows who has visited wounded troops at Walter Reed Army Hospital, who has gazed into the eyes of young widows or grieving parents, or who has read the poignant stories of the fallen, there is no such thing as war fought in the abstract or battles waged in statistics. War, to those who must fight it and to their loved ones who must endure it, is painfully real and painfully present at the table, on Thanksgiving and on every other day of the week for the duration of the conflict--and sometimes for long after the fighting has ceased. These are the men and women on the front lines of the battle, and it is they whom we must salute and thank for their sacrifice. I was struck by an article in the November 14 edition of the Los Angeles Times on the psychological toll that the war in Iraq is taking on U.S. soldiers and Marines. According to the newspaper, the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research has found that 15.6 percent of marines and 17.1 percent of soldiers surveyed after returning from Iraq reported suffering from major depression, generalized anxiety, or post- traumatic stress disorder. Even more disturbing, the article predicted that the reported statistics were only the tip of the iceberg. According to the Times article: Army and Veterans Administration mental health experts say there is reason to believe the war's ultimate psychological fallout will worsen. The Army survey of 6,200 soldiers and Marines involved only troops willing to report their problems. The study did not look at reservists, who tend to suffer a higher rate of psychological injury than career Marines and soldiers. And the soldiers in the study served in the early months of the war, when tours were shorter and before the Iraqi insurgence took shape. The Los Angeles Times went on to quote Dr. Matthew J. Friedman, a professor of psychiatry and pharmacology at Dartmouth Medical School and the executive director of the VA's National Center for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder: ``The bad news is that the study underestimated the prevalence of what we are going to see down the road,'' he said. What a chilling forecast. One has only to look at the video footage of the house-to-house, mosque-to-mosque combat in Falluja to understand the tremendous psychological stresses on the young servicemen who form the vanguard of our assault against the insurgents in Iraq. One has only to read of the wary convoys of soldiers and Marines who are tasked to traverse the treacherous stretches of deadly Iraqi highways day after day after day, or to edge their way into labyrinthine alleys of Baghdad's most dangerous neighborhoods, to understand the sheer psychological hell of the war in Iraq. The Pentagon keeps a daily log of U.S. military troops killed or wounded in Iraq. As of this morning, November 19, the Pentagon reports that 1,214 American troops have been killed in Iraq and another 8,956 wounded, more than half of them so severely injured that they could not be directly returned to duty. Barely more than halfway through the month, November 2004 has already turned into the second deadliest month for American military forces since the United States invaded Iraq in March of 2003. Where and when will the carnage end? The casualty statistics are heartbreaking enough, especially on the cusp of what is supposed to be one of the most joyful seasons of the year. But they do not represent the whole story. The Defense Department does not tally the walking wounded, those soldiers and Marines who return home from duty physically fit but emotionally scarred, sometimes for life. These men and women are also casualties of the war in Iraq, and they and their families may suffer just as deeply as those whose wounds are plain to see. Modern medicine has come a long way in mending the broken bodies of soldiers wounded in combat, but I fear the military still has a long way to go in identifying and mending the broken psyches of otherwise healthy veterans. And so on this Thanksgiving, I hope that all Americans will take a moment to pray for the safety of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, for the eternal salvation of those who have died in service to their country, and for the speedy recovery of all who have been wounded, including those who are suffering from the invisible ravages of emotional wounds. I also hope that Americans will take a moment to pray for the families and loved ones of all those who have been called to duty in the battle zones of Iraq and Afghanistan. We cannot fill the empty chair at the table, but we can offer an abundance of love and support for our neighbors and friends whose lives have been upended by the war, and we can pray most fervently that our troops will be returned home quickly, and that their families will not have to endure another Thanksgiving without them. Praise Almighty God for His kindness, His love, His mercy. Thank Him. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the end of the 108th Congress marks the end of an era. It marks the end of a remarkable career of a remarkable man. I will not say goodbye to Senator Hollings. His personality, his sense of humor, his achievements, his legacy will forever be a part of this Chamber. But I do take a few minutes of the Senate's time to thank Senator Ernest Hollings. I thank him for being an outstanding Senator. I thank him for his service to our country. I thank him for being a friend. I have been honored to call him my colleague for almost 40 years. The man who is destined to become a legend in the political history of South Carolina politics was a New Year's Day baby. He was born on January 1, 1922. After graduating from the Citadel, he served in the U.S. Army during World War II. This combat veteran, who served in North Africa and in Europe, was awarded seven campaign stars and was discharged with the rank of captain. After the war, he earned his law degree from the University of South Carolina in 1947 and then began his extraordinary career in public service in 1947. That was the year in which he earned his law degree. In 1947, at the age of 26, he was elected to the South Carolina State Legislature where he served until 1954, while 1947 was the year in which I was sworn in at the West Virginia House of Delegates in Charleston, WV. During his last 3 years in the South Carolina State Legislature, he served as its speaker pro tempore. In 1954, at the age of 32, he was elected Lieutenant Governor of South Carolina. Four years later, in 1958, at the age of 36, he became one of the youngest men ever elected Governor of his beloved State. From what I understand, he was an outstanding Governor. Senator Hollings would be outstanding in any office in which he would ever serve. He earned a reputation as the education Governor because he raised teachers' salaries, launched new and innovative educational programs, including a superb technical training program, and set up a commission that improved the State's higher education system. In 1966 he was elected to the Senate. Here he has stayed for 38 years. I am glad he stayed. He has been a very colorful Senator, an outstanding and outspoken Senator with a booming voice. The stentorian voice could be heard, I am sure, throughout this Chamber, without a public address system. When he first came here we had no public address system in the Senate. When I first came here, we had no public address system in the Senate, but we had Senators who could be heard. It was a practice in those days for other Senators to gather closer to the Senator who was speaking. It was also a practice for other Senators to be informed when a new Senator was going to speak. New Senators did not speak the first week or the first month, but only after several months did they speak. Before they spoke, the word went around that so and so was going to deliver his maiden speech or her maiden speech. In those days there was one lady in the Senate, Margaret Chase Smith of Maine. But we didn't have any public address system. I recall when we started to discuss having a public address system in the Senate, I was opposed to it. I wanted the Senate to remain the Senate of the decades that had preceded our own times. But he was colorful and he was a Senator who had that booming voice that could be projected and heard in the galleries, and today Senator Hollings does not need a microphone. He was from the old school of Senators who placed public interest over partisan politics. Oh, that we had more Senators like that, more Senators like Senator Hollings who put first the public's interest, the interest of those people who are watching through that electronic eye just behind the Presiding Officer's desk; the eyes of the people come through that electronic eye, which extends the galleries beyond the capacity that we see here. It extends those galleries out to the outermost parts of the country, north and south, out to the Pacific, out to the great Rocky Mountains, out to the broad prairies, out to the farms, out to the hills of West Virginia, that great medium. This Senator from South Carolina, unlike so many Senators of today, placed the public interest over partisan politics. And he still does. He never hesitated to criticize a President of his own political party as well as the opposition party when he knew in his heart and in his conscience that President was wrong. If it were a President of his own party, let it be. While in the Senate, Senator Hollings has served on the Senate's Budget and Appropriations Committees, served as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, served as chairman of a number of Senate subcommittees. Just as he had been a loyal and proud servant of his own State of South Carolina, he has been a loyal and proud servant of our country. In the Senate, he has been a forceful advocate of a responsible energy policy. In fact, as early as 1967, Senator Hollings was warning that our country faced a future of energy crises, and he was calling for a national energy policy. He authored legislation to create the Department of Energy and the Automobile Fuel Economy Act that requires the miles-per-gallon sticker on new cars. He has been a determined advocate of a cleaner and healthier environment. In this effort, he formulated legislation to protect our marine environment, sponsored legislation to prevent the dumping of polluting materials in the ocean, and authored the Coastal Zone Management Act to protect our coastal waters and tidelands. He is the recognized legislative ``father'' of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA. In the Senate, Senator Hollings continued promoting technical training as he fought to establish trade schools that specialize in retraining workers and offer alternatives for people who choose not to pursue a university degree. In the Senate, Senator Hollings has tenaciously opposed trade deals that threaten American jobs. Oh, if there were more like him. His fights in this area have involved opposing Presidents, opposing Presidents whom he charged were ``giving away the store'' in our trade treaties. He has fought to protect and increase Social Security benefits for our elderly Americans. Concerned about the widespread poverty across the South, in 1968, he undertook a series of ``hunger tours'' that highlighted the issue. He later authored a powerful study, ``The Case Against Hunger: A Demand for a National Policy'' that advocated programs to address the persistence of abject poverty in the United States. Putting his words into action, he helped lead the congressional effort to establish the Women, Infants, and Children--WIC--nutritional assistance program, and he helped to advance the Nation's community health centers, which provide primary and preventive health services in underserved communities. Long before the Bush administration's record-breaking budget deficits, long before today's incredible $7 trillion national debt, Senator Hollings was an eloquent and powerful advocate of budget discipline. I did not always agree with his efforts, such as the Gramm- Rudman-Hollings law, but I never questioned Senator Hollings's dedication to trying to restore fiscal sanity to America's deficit addictions. Although he has long been a Senator of power and influence, during the great majority of his time in this Chamber, he remained the junior Senator from his State. Even after serving 36 years in the Senate, he was still outranked by his colleague from South Carolina, Senator Strom Thurmond, making Senator Hollings the longest serving junior Senator in history, whatever that means. I have often wondered, having been a junior Senator and being a senior Senator now, what we mean by ``junior Senator''? Well, we know what it means, but that is all. It was at the age of 80 that Senator Hollings finally became the senior Senator from South Carolina. He had earned it. He had earned it just as he has earned the respect and the gratitude of the people of South Carolina and the men and the women in this Chamber. Now, unfortunately, my friend and colleague is leaving us. Again, I will not say farewell to him. I will only thank him for his service and wish him well in his private life. I will always remember and cherish our years of working together on the Appropriations Committee and for the best interests of our great country. It isn't enough that we say in our hearts That we like a man for his ways; And it isn't enough that we fill our minds With psalms of silent praise; Nor is it enough that we honor a man As our confidence upward mounts; It's going right up to the man himself And telling him so that counts. Then when a man does a deed that you really admire, Don't leave a kind word unsaid, For fear to do so might make him vain Or cause him to lose his head; But reach out your hand and tell him, ``Well done'', And see how his gratitude swells; It isn't the flowers we strew on the grave, It's the word to the living that tells. Now, unfortunately, my friend and colleague--a strong colleague on the Appropriations Committee, where we two have served all these many years--is leaving us. Again, I will not say farewell to Senator Hollings. I will only thank him for his service and wish him well in his private life. I will always remember and cherish our years of working together. I shall always remember, too, that loyal, dedicated, devoted helpmate, Peatsy, who stood always at his side, always there to be his best confidant. Yes, Erma and I will miss Peatsy. In closing, then, let me speak just a few words from the ``Character of the Happy Warrior'' by William Wordsworth, because I think they represent my feelings toward Ernest Fritz Hollings: Who is the happy Warrior? Who is he That every man in arms should wish to be? * * * * * 'Tis, finally, the Man, who, lifted high, Conspicuous object in a Nation's eye, Or left unthought-of in obscurity,-- Who, with a toward or untoward lot, Prosperous or adverse, to his wish or not-- Plays, in the many games of life, that one Where what he most doth value must be won: Whom neither shape or danger can dismay, Nor thought of tender happiness betray; Who, not content that former worth stand fast, Looks forward, persevering to the last, From well to better, daily self-surpast: Who, whether praise of him must walk the earth For ever, and to noble deeds give birth, Or he must fall, to sleep without his fame, And leave a dead unprofitable name-- Finds comfort in himself and in his cause; And, while the mortal mist is gathering, draws His breath in confidence of Heaven's applause: This is the happy Warrior; this is he That every man in arms should wish to be. Mr. President, I yield the floor.