Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. All right, 120. The distinguished Senator from Iowa corrected me. But he won't correct me on this bill. He won't correct me on the tragedies of this bill. But I accept his correction. I will go look it up to make sure. As lobbyists for the pharmaceutical and health industry swarm all corners of the Capitol, the Congress is on a mad dash to pass this bill before Thanksgiving, regardless of its contents or its flaws, so long as it can be called prescription drug coverage. Unfortunately, when it comes to their health care security, it appears our Nation's senior citizens will find that they have little for which to be thankful. I have heard some Senators argue that something is better than nothing. Is that what we are being given? Something rather than nothing? Nothing? They try to rationalize a bad bill by claiming that this may be our last chance and you had better take it; something is better than nothing. They argue that we should vote for this now and fix the bill's problems down the road. I have been down that road. I have seen that and heard that many times in my 51 years in Congress. This conference report is a pill that is too bitter to swallow. I am one of perhaps only a handful of Senators in this body who voted to create Medicare. I can say to you, Mr. President, that it was not created overnight. It was not created in the hidden dungeons, in the hidden subterranean caverns under this Capitol. It was created in response to a private sector that would not offer affordable and reliable health insurance to the elderly and the disabled. Few can argue that seniors are not better off today as a result of Medicare. We should not turn our backs on one of the most successful Government initiatives ever created. We should seek ways to strengthen Medicare, not dismantle it. Senior citizens who need life-sustaining medicines want us to get it right. They trust us to get it right. We should reject this bill and work to pass a bill that does get it right. Thanksgiving is an arbitrary deadline. It means nothing when measured against the potential damage that could be done in haste--haste that could jeopardize the health care security of generations to come. We should do better for our senior citizens. We owe them that much. In closing, I thank Senators who have worked hard on this bill, Senators who have toiled late into the nights and weekends. I thank Senator Grassley. I thank Senator Baucus. I thank all Senators. I thank all Senators for listening. By the way, as to Joseph, how long did he live? He lived to be 110 years old.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in any event, the distinguished Senator from Illinois would be recognized at the same time--if I understand the request of the Senator from Nevada. If the Senator from Idaho goes first and then I go next, then the Senator from Illinois would go; or if I go first, and the Senator from Idaho goes next, then the Senator from Illinois would go. So the Senator from Illinois, through his gracious courtesy, which is so characteristic of him, either way, that would suit the Senator from Illinois. That being the case, I have no problem with yielding to the Senator from Idaho next, if he can limit his statement to 10 minutes, which I understood he would.

Mr. BYRD. I will not speak longer than 20 minutes.

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am deeply grateful to these two fine Senators for the kind words they have just spoken, Senator Durbin and Senator Sarbanes. I will go to my everlasting resting place with love and gratitude and affection and admiration and respect for these two Senators and how they have served the Nation and this institution and been loyal and true to the Constitution of the United States forever. I shall think of them and be in their debt. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am under the impression that there will be a session of the Senate either tomorrow or on Monday or on Tuesday or on any number of those days. I am also under the impression that the Senate is rapidly, hopefully, approaching a sine die date for adjournment. Being confronted with those expectations, I want to make a speech about Thanksgiving. I don't want it to appear in today's Record, necessarily, but I would ask for it to appear in the Record of the last day's session prior to Thanksgiving, whatever day that is. I make such a unanimous consent request, that my speech not appear in today's Record but that it appear in the Record of the last day of the session prior to Thanksgiving.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, we have before the Senate the long-awaited Energy bill. For the more than 3 years of its making, we have been led to believe this was to be the piece of legislation that would go a long way toward solving our Nation's energy problems. But instead of providing for our Nation's energy security and stability, this bill does little more than codify back-room bargaining, underwrite the administration's corporate contributions, and further deepen our deficit ditch. This bill is a monstrosity of gifts for special interests. Its passage will mean another lost opportunity to shore up our Nation's energy security, provide for future economic growth, and protect consumer interests. The White House and Republican advocates may argue that this bill is national, comprehensive, and strategic. It is not. Advocates argue that this is a premier jobs bill and that hundreds of thousands of new jobs will be magically created because of the Pixie dust that is sprinkled throughout the bill. But these are empty assertions. This Energy bill will be neither an economic shot in the arm nor a jobs booster. The White House and its secretive energy task force have done their utmost to dictate the terms of energy legislation for more than 3 years now. This energy conference bill is that dismal result. The Republican energy bill negotiators took a page out of the Vice President's playbook by not undertaking their deliberations in an open, transparent, and bipartisan manner. When well-placed corporate heads have a greater voice at the conference table than the minority Members of Congress, then we have truly sold our Nation's energy policy to the highest bidder. This conference was a shameful example of how the big moneyed interests who are bosom pals of this administration, continue to elbow out the best interests of the American people. The American people should also know that the White House and Republican proponents who have so often avowed the free market system and fiscal responsibility are essentially ignoring those policies in this bill today. During the deliberations on energy legislation, the White House raised concerns about unrealistic authorizations and indicated its support for only $8 billion in tax incentives. But now the Bush administration wholeheartedly welcomes and strongly supports this bill regardless of its budgetary impact. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the deficit will be deepened to the tune of $25.7 billion because of mandatory spending and unbalanced tax incentives. This Energy bill, like so many bills that Congress has passed, is another empty promise. The White House's only major goal is to tick off a campaign pledge, regardless of its contents or lack thereof. Furthermore, this bill is replete with unrealistic new authorizations that go far beyond the reality of our limited and shrinking budgetary resources. Passage of this bill is far from a guarantee that the money will flow. How many authorization bills have been passed during the tenure of the Bush administration pledging huge sums of moneys that never came into being? How easy it is to vote to authorize funding, to make a splash in the headlines, and raise hopes about the funds that will flow from Washington, but when it comes to actually putting money in the budget and supporting the promised funding levels in the appropriations bills, this administration jumps ship again and again and again. One need only look at the No Child Left Behind program to see how this game of bait and switch is practiced and played. What complicates the matter further is the number of new programs that have been created in this bill. In a perfect world I would like nothing better than to be able to support a plethora of energy programs that truly advance our neighbor's ability to produce and use energy more cleanly and efficiently. But realistically, this legislation only creates more programs that will have to compete for the same pot of money, and that pot of money is ever dwindling. Instead of focusing on our Nation's highest energy priority needs, longstanding programs-- programs that are working--could well be severely fractured and diluted for years to come. That is not progress. In the end, this bill will just be another empty soapbox for the President to stand upon even though the necessary resources to carry out our energy programs will never materialize. I certainly recognize that there are several important and useful provisions that have been included in this legislation, including a number of specific clean coal programs which I have supported. These and several other provisions have had bipartisan support in the Senate in both the 107th and 108th Congresses. Yet, in the aggregate, this bill will not help us to achieve our energy, economic, and environmental goals and, in many cases, will create even bigger problems down the road. I have long advocated developing a complimentary approach toward our energy and environmental policies. Yet I have serious concerns about this bill's liability waivers, exemptions, and alterations to longstanding environmental laws, and limited consumer protection provisions. Furthermore, like several major tax cut bills and the homeland security legislation, special deals have been stuffed into the nooks and crannies of this bill. Yet some of the matters that rightfully should have been dealt with in this legislation are glaringly absent. I speak, for example, of the coal miners Combined Benefit Fund. Nearly 50,000 retired coal miners and their dependents are facing an imminent crisis. These miners, who live in every State, are in danger of having their health care benefits cut due to a financial emergency in the fund, created by law, to pay those benefits. These are elderly men and women--women for the most part. Most of these are elderly widows who are truly among America's most vulnerable citizens. Yet among all the billions of dollars to help oodles of special, corporate interests in this bill, I find not a penny--not one penny--to help these elderly Americans, most of whom, as I say, are widows. For the past 2 years, as the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, as the Senator who has been on that Appropriations Committee longer than any other Senator in history, I have come to the aid by providing relief to that fund through several appropriations transfers of funds. The Appropriations Committee was not the committee of jurisdiction. Other committees in the Senate are the committees of jurisdiction, not the Appropriations Committee. But I have come to the aid, with the support of my friends on both sides of the aisle in that committee, and especially I remember the support that was rendered on my behalf and on behalf of the coal miners and retired miners by Senator Ted Stevens, my Republican friend. These were transfers that did not cost any State any money to clean up its abandoned mine lands. Yet these retirees and their dependents, most of them probably in very ill health and frail health--I believe the average age of these retirees is in the high seventies, probably near eighty--are being held hostage in some cold-hearted game of chicken. There was a chance in this bill to help them. There was a chance to provide a fix for the program that Congress designed to fulfill our promise to them, but the conferees failed to make that fix. The effort was killed by too many greedy hands grabbing for their own piece of the pie. I hope the Senate and House committees of jurisdiction--not the Appropriations Committee; the Appropriations Committee has helped time and again--I will act next year to ensure that our Government keeps its promise to these retired miners. Certainly, compassion for the old and the sick should prevail over greed. It pains me to conclude that this energy conference report, in its totality does not fully integrate four fundamental principles of good energy policy; namely, energy security, fiscal soundness, consumer protection, and environmental balance. Despite its rhetoric, this White House's lip service and corporate coddling have been the sum total of this White House's energy policy. It began with the Vice President's National Energy Policy plan and concluded with the exclusion of Democrats from the energy conference. As the Sun begins to shine on this leviathan, I hope that Americans will understand that this Energy bill will do little to resolve our energy problems, and if it passes, it could very well turn out to be a Pandora's Box. Madam President, this legislation comes to us at the end of a session, and the Republican majority is attempting to serve up this elaborate and expensive dessert. But these are just empty calories--a delicious photo opportunity for the President, rich filling for industry lobbyists, but, in the end, only empty calories and heartburn for the American taxpayers. Sadly, when all is said and done, the American people will continue to stand in the bread line, hungry for a comprehensive national energy strategy. Madam President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that I may speak on a matter out of order.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the order of business at the moment?

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on November 3, the State of West Virginia lost one of its most enduring and most colorful political figures, A. James Manchin. A. James Manchin was born in Farmington, WV, on April 7, 1927. He had a deep love for West Virginia and its people, and that deep love showed everywhere he went, in every office he held, in everything he did, and with every person he met. With his booming voice, his flamboyant oratory, and his wonderful sense of humor, A. James was an undeniable presence. I find it difficult to imagine traveling around the State of West Virginia and speaking before a crowd without seeing my friend Jimmy Manchin standing there somewhere in the crowd, lifting his hat into the air--by the way, he wore big hats--and shouting out a greeting to me. With his political skills and his tenacious determination to make West Virginia a better place in which to live and work and raise families, Jimmy Manchin won a place in the hearts and minds of people throughout West Virginia. He found a way to touch the hearts of all whom he met. Everybody loved him, even his political opponents. He was a man and a public servant who cared deeply for others and they, in turn, cared a lot for Jimmy Manchin. I first met Jimmy Manchin in 1949. That was in my second term in the West Virginia House of Delegates. Jimmy had been elected to the house of delegates and was being sworn in that year, 1949. So I first met Jimmy Manchin in 1949, as he and I wove our political careers, when both of us served there in the house of delegates. After that, he pursued and held a multitude of political offices. In 1961, President Kennedy named Jimmy Manchin as West Virginia State director of the Farmers Home Administration. In 1972, he was appointed State director of the Rehabilitation Environmental Action Program, REAP, where he was placed in charge of cleaning up and restoring the natural beauty of our State's magnificent rolling green hills and beautiful valleys, which he loved so dearly. His campaign to restore our State's beauty was fueled by his personality and fashioned by his talent for poetic oratory. As part of his REAP campaign, Jimmy called on all West Virginians to ``purge our proud peaks of these jumbled jungles of junkery.'' That was pure A. James Manchin politicking. He understood the theatrical part of politics better than most politicians of this era and, as a consequence, his incredibly successful work for REAP earned him a national ``Keep America Beautiful'' award. In 1976, he was elected secretary of state, and in 1984, he was elected State treasurer. In 1998, he again won a seat in the West Virginia House of Delegates, a half century after his first election to that body. His political career, which spanned 55 years, earned him numerous awards, honors, and recognitions. In 1974, for example, Salem College named him ``Mr. West Virginia,'' while, just this year, the West Virginia Italian Heritage Festival named him ``Italian American of the Year.'' He was an outspoken booster and promoter of West Virginia, a genuine public servant who will be sorely missed by the people of West Virginia. The Bible says: ``In my Father's house are many mansions.'' Well, Jimmy had a way of using this beautiful verbiage from the King James Bible and, before huge audiences he would quote that. ``In my Father's house are many mansions.'' On November 3, our Father brought home one more. My friend, A. James Manchin. Mr. President, my wife Erma and I offer our most heartfelt condolences to Jimmy Manchin's wife Stella and their children, Patricia Lee, Mark Anthony, and Rosanna. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the seven amendments at the desk, to which the distinguished Senator from Missouri alluded, be considered agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and that the Senate immediately proceed to the further consideration of the VA-HUD appropriations bill with the understanding that time on that bill would end no later than 8 o'clock--or would end at 8 o'clock this evening, and that there would be a vote on the VA-HUD bill.

Mr. BYRD. That would be part.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, may I be recognized? May I be recognized for debate?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I shall not object, but I ask for this recognition for the purpose of asking the distinguished majority leader a question. Before I do that, may I say to the distinguished majority leader that I have no intention to become involved in this game back and forth. And I do not say it is a game just indulged in by one side. I have nothing to do with it. I have had nothing to say in it thus far. And at the moment, I do not anticipate having anything to say. My interest is this: I am the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee of the Senate. I have been on that Appropriations Committee longer than any Senator in history. I have been on it 45 years. I would like to see us get one more appropriations bill passed. When I was chairman of the Appropriations Committee for 7 years, I do not believe there was a year in which we did not get all 13 regular appropriations bills passed. We have passed 10 appropriations bills already this year. The distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Stevens, who is the President pro tempore of the Senate, and who now presides, has worked hard and has worked with me, but he has done most of the work in getting those 10 appropriations bills passed. I discussed this matter with him during the vote just preceding the hour of 6 o'clock, and I indicated to him I would like to see us try to finish this appropriations bill, the VA-HUD appropriations bill. And he indicated to me--he is in the chair--he indicated to me he would be glad to work toward that. So here we are. We have finished floor action on 10 of the 13 regular appropriations bills. Only three are left. Those three are VA-HUD; DC appropriations; and CJS, Commerce-Justice-State--three appropriations bills. We are almost finished on VA-HUD. When I came to the floor, my interest was in trying to get that bill finished, making it 11 appropriations bills. So I came to the floor, and I asked the manager on this side, Senator Mikulski, if we could finish it, and how long it would take, in her judgment. She thought it would take perhaps 2 more hours. And I believe, in discussions with Senator Bond, it was also indicated that we might finish that bill in 2 hours. Now, I hoped the majority leader would be in the Chamber prior to the hour of 6 o'clock. I was made aware of his request that he be recognized 2 minutes before 6--5:58 or some such. I was hoping that-- and it was with considerable trepidation, certainly reluctance, that I sought to impose a unanimous consent request that would, for 2 hours, have delayed action on the then-pending unanimous consent--Senate request--the unanimous consent request. I get my tongue a little twisted at age 86. That is my problem. But I waited, hoping the majority leader would come to the floor. I know the demands on him, and I understand that. But I hoped he would be here so that I could make this request prior to this, what I call a game that is going on. Please forgive me if--I am interested in getting the appropriations bills passed. I am not interested in participating in this other matter at all--right now. I have some ideas. I do not thoroughly agree--I do not completely agree with the distinguished majority leader on his interpretation of the Constitution with respect to nominees, but that is for another time. But I have taken the floor now in the hope that we might, on this one day after Veterans Day--and my mother died on Armistice Day, 1918. I was 1 year old back then, lacking a week or something. We have men and women dying in Iraq now. We have veterans by the scores coming back to this country who are injured and who will carry for life the signs of their service in Iraq. I wanted to ask the distinguished majority leader--and I did not want to interrupt his speech, but I want to ask him, with great respect, if he would be willing to let the Senate go, let's say, until 8 o'clock, and then renew the previous order, with the understanding that we finish action on the VA-HUD bill by 8 o'clock, that the time intervening be equally divided between Mr. Bond and Senator Mikulski, and that we enter the order to complete that bill at 8 o'clock. That is all I am asking, that we go another hour and a half, complete that bill, which would make us have 11 bills finished as far as floor action is concerned, with only 2 remaining. Let's get that bill passed. That is important. I was a participant in the filibuster against Abe Fortas. I know something about filibusters. And I just am not willing to enter into one personally right now. But I would like to get this appropriations bill finished.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, further reserving the right to object.

Mr. BYRD. And I do not intend to object, Mr. President. May I say to the distinguished majority leader, 4 million veterans receive health care through the veterans health care system funded by the VA-HUD bill. How should we explain to these veterans that the bill is being set aside?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. How much time do I have remaining.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I will not use all of the remaining time. Department of Defense Authorization Bill

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on May 22 of this year, 2003, I cast my vote in opposition to the fiscal year 2004 Defense authorization bill. I cast that vote to protest the errant course of the defense establishment in seeking larger and larger regular defense budgets. The budget for the Department of Defense is exploding, even if we do not count the vast sums being used to maintain our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The regular defense budget, not including the costs of the war on terrorism in Afghanistan or the other war, the war in Iraq which we started, has gone up by 31 percent since 2000. I will say that again. The regular defense budget, not including the costs of the war on terrorism in Afghanistan or the other war which we started in Iraq, has gone up by 31 percent since 2000. In 2000, Congress authorized $304.1 billion to fund the routine day- to-day operations of our military. The conference report before the Senate today authorizes $401.3 billion to pay the routine bills for our defense establishment. As I say, I am not even speaking of the costs of Iraq on the one hand or the costs of Afghanistan. So if we were to just ignore Afghanistan and Iraq in looking at the costs of the military, we are authorizing today in the conference report $401 billion to pay the routine bills for our defense establishment as against the $304.1 billion that Congress authorized in the year 2000--in other words, roughly $100 billion more today than we authorized in 2000, just ignoring Iraq, on the one hand, and Afghanistan on the other. The growth of the so-called peacetime budget of the Department of Defense is expected to continue into the foreseeable future. The Pentagon estimates that it will request $502.7 billion for routine defense operations in the year 2009. Think of that. That is more than a half trillion dollars. The Pentagon estimates it will request $502 billion for routine defense operations in 2009. But a request for half a trillion dollars--as we will be undertaking in 2009--should be anything but routine, especially if not one red cent of those funds would be for any contingency military operation. Instead, these growing defense budgets are proof that there is no longer any real effort to provide a smarter defense plan that will modernize our forces for the 21st century while eliminating the vestiges of a cold war era military force. Nearly 3 years ago, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced he would conduct a series of top- to-bottom reviews of the Pentagon. I lauded him for doing that. I applauded him publicly and in private conversations. I applauded the Secretary of Defense. Those reviews were supposed to get rid of old weapons systems, field new ones, and refocus the defense establishment to get more bang for the taxpayers' buck. I, along with many others, supported those efforts as announced by the Secretary of Defense. But any hope of modernizing our Armed Forces while maintaining fiscal discipline has gone--gone out the window. The defense transformation effort which began as a frontal assault on irresponsible spending at the Pentagon has been replaced by the quest for flexibility--``flexibility,'' the latest buzzword to describe efforts to consolidate greater and greater and greater power into the hands of a select few at the top of the executive branch. I voted against the Defense authorization bill on May 22 of this year. Why did I do that? I was the only one, the only Senator who voted against it. Why did I do that? I voted against that bill in order to voice my protest to spiraling defense budgets when the American people are expecting smarter spending by their Government, and I will vote against the conference report today to this bill for the very same reason, as well as because it gives rubberstamp approval to consolidating new, broad powers in the Secretary of Defense. This conference report creates the ``National Security Personnel System,'' so-called, which gives the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, unchecked powers--unchecked powers to rewrite civil service rules for civilian employees of the Pentagon. The conference report includes sweeping authorities--sweeping authorities to allow the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, to waive landmark environmental protection laws with a stroke of the pen. The conference report establishes new ``flexibilities''-- flexibilities for the Pentagon to use to develop and deploy an unproven national missile defense system. That is a sinkhole, a sinkhole for your money, the taxpayers' money. The conference report grants new multiyear authority to transfer appropriations--now, get this. Hear me! The conference report grants new multiyear authority to transfer appropriations of unlimited sums. This is not chickenfeed we are talking about. We are talking about unlimited sums of ``your money,'' the taxpayers' money, from numerous accounts in order to increase spending on Navy cruiser conversions and overhauls. These are but a few examples of the new powers granted to the executive branch, downtown, at the other end of the avenue, in this bill--this bill. I am not reading from ``Alice in Wonderland.'' I am reading from this conference report. Our country continues to be threatened by Osama bin Laden. Our troops are under fire in Iraq in the aftermath of a preemptive war, a preemptive war that we started, a preemptive war that our President, as Commander in Chief, started. Fie on us, the Congress! For shifting that power to the President last October, last October 11. Twenty-three Senators in this body voted against shifting that power to the President. I was one of those 23. I was against shifting that power to this President or to any President. It doesn't make any difference to me what his politics--what his political party is, or would be, so help me, God. I would stand against that with any President. Fie on us! Only 23 Members in this body stood firm for the Constitution of the United States under which, power to declare war is vested in the legislative branch. Soldiers are fighting and dying half a world away and the wealth of this great country is being diverted from the United States Treasury in order to carry out an experiment in nation building in Iraq. If there were ever a time to demand more accountability and efficiency in how taxpayer dollars are spent on our military, this is it. But instead of holding the feet of the Secretary of Defense to the fire, Congress gives the Secretary vast new powers to hire and fire workers as he sees fit. Instead of turning the screws--the screws, instead of turning the screws--on this Defense Secretary to straighten out this mess, the accounting nightmare at the Pentagon, Congress grants the Pentagon more flexibility over how it can use funds appropriated to it. We cut the strings by which Congress limits the use of taxpayers' money. Instead of demanding greater accountability over how our military is preparing to meet the military threats of the coming decades, Congress creates new loopholes. The inescapable conclusion, is that Congress has been distracted from the most important issues facing our military posture. Instead, Congress is asked to take action on peripheral matters, and even then we simply pass the buck by closing our eyes and hoping that the Defense Department can straighten itself out if it is invested with enough new powers and ``flexibilities.'' If the leadership of the Pentagon thinks that ``defense transformation'' means getting Congress to stick its head in the sand, count me out. My idea of transformation means spending smarter to build a stronger military, not turning a blind eye to Executive Branch power grabs. It is our fault. I can understand how the executive branch seeks to grab power. The executive branch is operating 24 hours a day every day, 365 days a year. Everywhere its imprint is seen throughout the globe, Congress sleeps. The flexibilities in this bill are the antitheses of accountability. For each new ``flexible authority'' that Congress hands over to the Secretary of Defense--any Secretary of Defense--Congress signs away one more lever that should be used to compel the Secretary to build a smarter defense plan. The Commander in Chief beats his chest and throws down the gauntlet, saying, ``Bring them on,'' in front of the TV cameras, but pictures of the fallen dead coming home to Dover are not allowed. Oh, we don't want to display the pictures of bringing back the caskets at Dover, DE. No. The American people must not see that side of the war. This is a stubborn course that we have chosen that could tie down our forces in Iraq for months and months and months, and years even to come, and it is a course that I oppose today. It is a course I have opposed from the beginning. This ill-advised invasion and occupation of a Middle Eastern country stands to sap--sap--our military power through the attrition of our brave men and women in uniform. The effects of such a toll could affect our national security for decades to come. The United States cannot afford to shelve--to place on the shelf-- efforts to leap forward a generation in military power by investing in a smarter defense plan. If our country does not prioritize efforts to change our military to respond to the asymmetric warfare of the 21st century--whether those threats emanate from North Korea, or a belligerent China, or Iran--the long-term toll of the adventure in Iraq could weaken our military for years to come, just as our Armed Forces were found to be hollow in the years after Vietnam. I will vote against the conference report to the Defense authorization bill. It transfers vast unchecked powers to the Defense Department while avoiding any break with the business-as-usual approach to increasing defense spending. It dodges the most important issues facing our national defense posture, and I cannot support such a bill. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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