Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have long admired the distinguished Senator from Tennessee. [Disturbance in the Galleries.]

Mr. BYRD. I do not say that facetiously.

Mr. BYRD. Some people are serious when they say things. But I have admired the Senator as a great physician. He speaks of his long service to veterans. I speak of a long service to veterans--more than 51 years in this Congress. I was here when the Veterans Administration was created. About Friday--Friday----

Mr. BYRD. I am the recipient of the Franklin Delano and Eleanor Roosevelt Award for Freedom from Fear. I will receive that award on Saturday. I am not in a position to drive up on Saturday morning and receive that award. My wife is invited also with me. She cannot go. So I have to go on Friday, and the train leaves at 1 o'clock. As far as I am personally concerned, I would be happy to come in and finish those 2 hours and get the--I believe there are four votes that are going to be scheduled on clotures that morning. Well, I have cast more rollcall votes than any living Senator, any deceased Senator, any Senator in the history of this Republic, any other Senator. I have 16,627 or 8 or 9--somewhere along there. I say all that to say this: I do not want to miss any rollcall votes on Saturday. I take great pride in my rollcall record extending over 45 years in the Senate. It is 98.7 percent. So I missed less than 2 percent of the votes. Could we agree then--I do not want to put myself in the position of my own leaders, as I did not want to put myself in the position of the distinguished majority leader on the other side. I would like to be able to make the four votes on Friday, catch my train at 1 o'clock, and go up and receive this very prestigious award. Could we work something out to that effect?

Mr. BYRD. No. I reserved the right to object. May I have another minute? I am not participating in this whatever you call it--marathon, talkathon, blame-athon, or whatever it is. That is not of my interest right now. I am interested in the appropriations bill. It can be passed in 2 hours or less. As far as I am concerned, we could pass it now, just have a rollcall vote on it, the VA-HUD, but that would depend upon the two managers. I am not going to impose on the time of the Senate and the majority leader, but I ask the majority leader, would he please put the request in some form to finish this bill within the next hour, have a vote up or down within the next hour?

Mr. BYRD. Thank you, Mr. President. I remove my reservation and thank the majority leader.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, November 11, Veterans Day, is the day of reverence for American veterans. It is the day of the year set aside to honor the people who have defended our country, our way of life, and our freedom. It is the day that allows us to pause to recognize their patriotism, their love of country, their willingness to serve, and their willingness to sacrifice. Just last year, President Bush called Veterans Day the day that we ``show our gratitude to the veterans of the United States Armed Forces''--a day when ``we honor veterans and we honor their families, and we offer the thanks of a grateful Nation.'' The very origins of this day are both historic and symbolic. It began at the 11th hour on the 11th day of the 11th month--that is, 11/11/11-- of 1918 when the allied powers signed a cease-fire agreement with the central powers, thus bringing to an end the 4-year bloody nightmare known as World War I. The next year, the United States set aside November 11 as Armistice Day to remember and honor the sacrifices that men and women made during World War I. In 1926, a congressional resolution officially named November 11 Armistice Day. Twelve years later, in 1938, Congress made Armistice Day a national holiday. In 1954, following World War II and the Korean war, Congress made November 11 a day to honor veterans of all wars, and therefore changed the name of this most important day to Veterans Day. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the President of the United States at the time, asked Americans to use this day to ``remember the sacrifices of all those who fought so valiantly on the seas, in the air, and on foreign shores, to preserve our heritage of freedom.'' In the first Presidential ``Veterans Day Proclamation,'' President Eisenhower proclaimed: It is my earnest hope that all veterans, their organizations, and the entire citizenry will join hands to insure proper and widespread observance of this day. Just how important and symbolic this day had become to the American people and, especially, our veterans, was demonstrated in the reaction to the Uniform Holiday bill of 1968. This legislation was part of an overall plan to make holidays part of a 3-day weekend, which would, in turn, encourage travel, recreational and cultural activities, and stimulate greater industrial and commercial activity. In so doing, this legislation changed the observance of Veterans Day from November 11 to the fourth Monday in October. Seldom in all of my 51 years in Congress has Congress so misjudged the feelings of the American people. American veterans in particular, and Americans in general, demanded that the observance of Veterans Day be restored as November 11. It was all right to monkey around with Columbus Day, we learned, and even the birthday of the father of our country. But we should have never touched November 11. According to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, November 11 has a special meaning to veterans of all wars and is a part of American history. Of all the days in the year, the one day which has the most significance to those citizens who made an extra sacrifice in the national interest by their service in the Armed Forces is November 11. Many States simply continued to celebrate November 11 as Veterans Day. Immediately, Members of Congress introduced legislation to redesignate November 11 as Veterans Day. My former colleague in this Chamber, Senator Robert Dole, who himself was a World War II veteran and was destined to become a majority leader of the Senate and a nominee of the Republican Party for Vice President and President, proposed such legislation. He called November 11 a ``legal holiday that provides a unique and fitting day of recognition for our American veterans.'' It is the day, Senator Dole declared, when the Nation pays ``tribute and homage to the men and women who have given so much in their quest for world peace and freedom.'' By 1975, 42 States, including my own State of West Virginia, had returned to the practice of celebrating Veterans Day on November 11. In that year, Congress approved legislation to return the annual observance of Veterans Day to November 11. President Gerald R. Ford signed the bill, stating: It has become apparent that the commemoration of this day on November 11 is a matter of historic and patriotic significance to a great many of our citizens. It is a practice deeply and firmly rooted in our customs and traditions. More recently, when legislative ideas were circulating through Congress to bolster voter participation in Federal elections, at least one proposal centered on designating Veterans Day as the national election day. In response to that proposal, my office was flooded with phone calls from veterans, saying: ``Please don't take away our special day.'' Mr. President, November 11 is their special day. It is for this reason that during the years in which it was my privilege to serve as the majority leader of the U.S. Senate, I was always determined that this legislative body would not be in session on this most important and symbolic date. I always wanted to make sure that my colleagues and I had the opportunity to take part in the many ceremonies that take place on this day in honor of the courage and the sacrifice of America's veterans. I always wanted to make sure that this Chamber paid proper homage to the men and women to whom we owe so much. Writing about the thousands of soldiers who lost their lives during the bloody battle at Antietam, Civil War historian, Bruce Catton, pointed out that these men did not die for a few feet of a cornfield or a rocky hill; they died that this country might be permitted to go on, and that it might be permitted to fulfill the great hope of our Founding Fathers. So may it be said of most every person who has worn our Nation's uniform. These people served and they sacrificed to permit this country to go on to fulfill the great hope of our Founding Fathers. And it is proper and it is right that we take one day a year to pay our most profound respect to the men and the women who have worn our Nation's uniform, and to thank them. I thank them and we here in the Senate thank them on this day for what they have given, for what they have sacrificed, and for their love of country. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Syria has long been considered by the United States to be a rogue state. Syria continues to associate with terrorist groups, including those that have carried out ruthless attacks that set back the cause of peace in the Middle East, leading it to be placed on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism. Syria has occupied Lebanon continuously since 1976, in violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 520. The United States is justified in seeking to apply political and economic pressure on Syria to change its foreign policy. However, I will vote against the Syria Accountability Act. Of the 22 pages of this bill, only six pages relate to sanctions that the United States may apply to Syria. The other pages contain 51 clauses of findings, senses of Congress, and statements of policy. These nonbinding provisions build a case against Syria, and I fear that those provisions could later be used to build a case for a military intervention against Syria. In many cases, the non-binding clauses in the bill appear to gloss over the complex situation with respect to Syria. For example, on page 11, the bill speaks of ``hostile actions'' by Syria against U.S.-led forces in Iraq. Yet, the evidence is inconclusive as to the role of the Government of Syria in the attacks that have been carried out against our troops in Iraq. Such insinuations could be used to build the case for a preemptive military intervention against Syria, which, unfortunately, is a very real possibility because of the dangerous doctrine of preemption hatched by the administration. Other language in the nonbinding clauses may simply be ill- considered. For example, on page 7, the bill quotes an unclassified CIA report that says that it is ``highly probable'' that Syria is working on biological weapons. In the very next clause, however, the bill quotes an Under Secretary of State as saying that Syria ``is pursuing'' the development of biological weapons. It is exactly this kind of shading of intelligence probabilities becoming certainties for which Congress has criticized the administration and its intelligence agencies for creating the hysteria that led to war in Iraq. Could Congress be so willing to make the same mistake with respect to Syria? The United States should use economic and diplomatic leverage to pressure Syria to change its support for terrorism and alter its foreign policy. The sponsors of this legislation have made improvements to several nonbinding provisions in this bill, and they have worked to address some of my more serious concerns. While I appreciate their cooperation, I still cannot support this legislation. The findings, statements of policy, and sense of Congress provisions in the Syria Accountability Act could be used to build a case against Syria that could too easily be hyped to imply congressional support for preemptive military action against that rogue state. I will vote against this bill because of that dangerous course that it may portend.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I am glad to yield.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I begin by thanking the distinguished Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, and the equally distinguished Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, for their courtesies and accommodations to me on this occasion and on innumerable, innumerable previous occasions as well. We are now in the sixth week of fiscal year 2004 and the Congress has only presented the President with 4 of the 13 appropriations bills. The third continuing resolution under which most of the Government is operating expires on November 21. Regrettably, the Senate has yet to approve 3 of the 13 bills. The House and Senate Republican leaders have expressed their intent to move to what has become known as an omnibus appropriations bill. I hope that the Senate does not once again fall prey to this monster known as an omnibus. An omnibus is a legislative creation without a mother or a father. It is more like a Frankenstein creature--a being patched together from old legislative body parts that don't quite fit. And just as Dr. Frankenstein was quite surprised by the results of his creation, so may we be startled by the results of ours. Hastily drafted legislation, as Senators in this body well know, often has strange and unintended consequences. This omnibus would include at least three and as many as seven bills. It would be at least a $130 billion ``Frankenstein'' of a bill, and no one knows what other appendages would be attached to it as the Republican leaders rush to close out this session of Congress. Under the cloak of a continuing resolution, the House has already passed just such a $190 billion omnibus bill that would fund 9 of the 15 Departments. In accordance with the Constitution, revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives and, by custom, most appropriations bills likewise originate in the House, but under the guarantees of the Constitution, as those guarantees flowed from the Great Compromise of July 16, 1787, the Senate has the right to amend those revenue and appropriations bills, as in all other bills. The House can open the door to legislation on an appropriations bill, but if the Senate is denied the opportunity to consider amendments, or is severely limited in the number of amendments which it may consider, Senators are thereby denied the opportunity to offer amendments of their own and the potential for the achievement of truly good legislation in the final result, is, accordingly, lessened. The people's right to representation in the Senate would be denied and the likelihood of legislative errors in the final product is increased. I believe creating an omnibus bill would be a grave mistake. The Framers saw the Senate as a powerful check against an overreaching executive. If free and unlimited debate is bridled and the right of Senators to offer amendments is hindered or denied, is not the Senate's power to check the executive accordingly diminished? Sadly, the House and Senate have resorted to omnibus bills many times in recent years. In January of this year, Congress produced a monstrous 11-bill omnibus. For fiscal years 1996, 2000, and 2001, we produced omnibus bills that contained five bills each year. In fiscal year 1997, we had a six-bill omnibus, and in fiscal year 1999, we had an eight- bill omnibus. Every one of these massive bills, written in the compressed environment of a threatened Government shutdown, resulted in the White House being at the table, writing our appropriations bills with us. Which party commands the White House at a given time should really make no difference as to how we conduct our duties in the writing of appropriations bills. We are here to work with, but also to act as a check on the occupant of the White House, and to reflect the people's will. We are not performing that watchdog function when we invite the White House behind closed doors. I stood in this Senate and decried the omnibus bills during the last administration. I do so again today. I deplore this process. Through this process we, in effect, circumvent the supreme law of the land. We circumvent the Constitution. Just as I expressed to the Senate during the Clinton administration, by producing omnibus appropriations bills, we blur and we blend the very clear lines of the separation of powers set out in our national charter. Instead we cook up an unsavory soup which will be force-fed to the American people in order to avoid a completely avoidable Government shutdown. Between fiscal year 1986 and fiscal year 2003, 25 appropriations bills were incorporated into omnibus appropriations legislation without having first been considered by the Senate. For example, the Labor-HHS- Education and Foreign Operations bills were included in omnibus legislation four times each without having ever been considered by the Senate. The people are certainly entitled to a full debate when it comes to deciding how to spend their tax dollars. After all, it is their money, isn't it. We heard that cry over and over again during the tax cut debate. May I observe that it is the people's money in an appropriations bill as well. Some may believe that we have had so many omnibus bills in the last decade that defaulting to an omnibus bill has become an inevitable part of the legislative process. I stand here today to tell the Senate that this is not the case. In the 7\1/2\ years that I chaired the Appropriations Committee, from 1989 to 1994 and in 2001 and 2002, I never resorted to an omnibus bill to complete the 13 bills. What it takes to avoid the omnibus is the will and the drive to stand up for the rights of all Senators to debate important legislation and to complete all 13 appropriations bills. I commend Senator Ted Stevens for his valiant efforts to move the appropriations bills forward this year. I know that he would prefer that the Senate debate the remaining bills as freestanding bills. The situation that Chairman Stevens finds himself in is not of his making. I must ask our leaders, why are we not considering appropriations bills the rest of this week? Why was the Senate in recess the week of October 6? Why was the Senate in recess for the entire month of August? Why is the Senate taking 3 days this week to debate judicial nominations? I am pleased that the Senate leaders have allowed the Senate to debate the Transportation-Treasury bill, Foreign Operations and Agriculture bills. However, I remain concerned that there will be an effort to fold all of the remaining conference reports into an omnibus bill along with a polyglot of unknown authorization bills and the White House will dictate the contents of the bill. I am concerned that once again the leadership will dictate to the Appropriations Committee that we include legislative matter in the omnibus bill that were not considered in the appropriations bills when the bills were before the House or Senate. There are already rumors swirling that the FAA conference report, the Water Resources Development bill, the Internet Tax Moratorium bill, and the healthy forests bill will be dropped into the omnibus. In 1999, the Senate reinstituted rule XVI, concerning legislating on an appropriations bill. In 2000, the Senate reinstituted rule XXVIII in order to avoid the insertion of new matter in conference reports. I hope our leaders will not allow these critical rules, which protect Members' rights to debate, to be abused. In the past, before rule XVI and rule XXVIII were reinstituted, omnibus bills were used to enact scores of such measures, such as Medicare givebacks legislation, a tax extenders law, Community Renewal Tax Relief, Immigration Reform legislation, and debt collection legislation. We should not travel this dark and pot-hole-riven road again. I am also concerned that the Senate has been passing bills with promises of spending on critical programs that will prove to be pure fantasy. The Senate approved $1.3 billion for veterans medical care on the Iraq supplemental and in conference, what happened? It disappeared, just like that. Houdini was there. The Senate, by a vote of 63-31, approved $1 billion to implement election reform legislation that the President signed last October 2002 but he underfunded in his budget. However, the Transportation-Treasury conferees have not been given any additional allocation to fund this increase. The Senate approved a $289 million increase for global AIDS, but the conference has been given an allocation that will force them to reduce the Senate Foreign Operations bill by $1.2 billion. The Labor-HHS-Education conferees are being told that they have to cut the Senate bill by $765 million. I hope the Senate will not fall back on an across-the-board cut on all programs to pay for these requirements. The bills are already lean. Across-the-board cuts will hurt veterans programs, homeland security programs, transportation programs and education programs. Last Spring, this Senate approved a budget resolution that put tax cuts first. We knew at that time that the budget resolution would explode our deficits by placing tax cuts for the wealthy at the front of the line and funding for critical veterans programs, education programs and homeland security programs were at the bottom of the pile. Now that decision is coming home to roost. I fear that the Senate will soon be asked to sweep the bad news into a single, omnibus bill and ship it down to the White House. I call on our leaders to reject the easy allure of the Frankenstein omnibus. We should debate each of the remaining bills and send the President all 13 bills for his consideration, for his signature or for his veto. The Senate is the upper house of a separate branch of government, with institutional safeguards that protect the people's liberties. We should not fall prey to the omnibus. We should not allow enactment of massive, monstrous, omnibus appropriations bills to turn Senators into legislative automatons. The Senate should rise up and reclaim its full constitutional powers by insisting that we will work whatever amount of time it takes, for whatever number of days of the week it takes, to take up and pass all appropriations bills. We should never again revert to using an omnibus appropriations bill, which will likely come before this Senate in the form of an unamendable conference report. We should insist on a full debate on all of the remaining appropriations bills and send the President 13 regular appropriations bills. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, has the Pastore rule run its course for the day?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for such time as I may require.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, through its shortsighted actions, this administration perpetuates an infinite mirage and a boundless facade. This administration hopes to fool the American people into swallowing its wrongheaded policies with no questions asked. These policies have a superficial appearance of reality, but they are beyond comprehension--beyond grasp. They hover like a mirage on the horizon. We are lulled into believing that if we just stay the course, we will eventually reach some sweet, glorious watering hole. However, the truth is that there is nothing tangible, nothing solid, nothing with form or substance on the horizon. Regardless of whether it is Iraq or an energy bill, one need only connect the dots to see that the same questionable tactics are readily apparent. When the President announced to the world, ``Either you are with us or against us,'' he alienated many potential allies abroad. The administration uses the same posturing in terms of an energy bill. It is either the administration's way or no way, as it opposes any alternative approaches that do not fit into its little black box. There was a horrible rush to pass the Iraqi resolution in this body last year. This administration is using the same tactics to dictate the terms of a very bad energy bill this year. This facade is all too obvious as the White House's only goal is to pass a bill seemingly regardless of its substance or lack thereof. The administration's national energy policy plan will do about as much to improve the Nation's energy security as the administration's invasion of Iraq has done to stem the tide of global terrorism. In the past, the administration attempted to make a case that linked September 11 and Saddam Hussein. These links have failed to materialize, but the administration is still trying to make that link. Not one Iraqi was among the hijackers of airplanes on September 11--not one. So it must be a matter of great chagrin to the administration that it has been unable to bring forth the evidence of that linkage. Predictably, the administration is now attempting to make the same connections between its national energy policy and a comprehensive energy strategy. This link will also be proven groundless in the not too distant future. For many years, the Middle East has been a hotbed for a number of reasons, especially because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the continuing U.S. military presence in the region, but an underlying reason for our continued presence in the region is for the protection of our oil lifeline. We likely would not have such close ties to the Middle East if it were not so important to our economic base. Because of this tethering, we are being pressured into passing an energy bill. Unfortunately, even if this Congress passes the administration's prescribed energy bill, that will do little, if anything, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Instead of striving to disentangle ourselves from this foreign oil dependency, the Bush administration seems intent on sinking our military and energy fortunes deeper and deeper into the hot sands of the Middle East. I have spoken on this floor before regarding my concern for this Nation's energy future. I have also addressed the Bush administration's lipservice and corporate coddling, which is the sum total virtually of its energy policy. As a recent report from the General Accounting Office concludes, the Vice President's national energy policy development group did not solicit a broad range of views. That group never sought to project future energy demand or engage future sources of supply. There was no plan with specific goals and objectives designed to ensure energy diversity. But the Bush administration insists it has an energy policy. A lot of energy went into producing it, and it has expended much energy to get its bill passed. In fact, just before the lights went out in Manhattan, Cleveland, and Detroit, Vice President Cheney was quietly working with the Republican leadership to void key electricity provisions that this body was about to pass. I say to my colleagues, all is not lost. Help is on the way. While this Nation's citizens were stranded and sweltering in darkened subway tunnels in New York and without drinking water in Cleveland and Detroit, more rewards were being handed out. Yes, while the citizens of those cities suffered, the administration was very busy. While our electricity system was in a shambles, the Bush administration was eagerly handing out hundreds of millions of dollars in sole-source contracts to Halliburton--have my colleagues heard of that name before?--and Bechtel to rebuild Iraq's water and electricity infrastructure. Oh, the irony. Even more telling, in its statement of administration policy, the White House told energy conferees to trim the estimated $50 billion- plus cost of the energy bill because the pricetag was excessive. Let the American people hear this: We can cut taxes for the rich, we can spend $21 billion just this year to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, but the energy pricetag in the next decade at home is too expensive. The truth is, regardless of its costs, the Bush administration will never fully fund the programs in an energy bill as the White House is too distracted by other so-called priorities. The Center for Responsive Politics reports that the energy industry gave more than $2.65 million to the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2000. The oil and gas industry gave 68 percent of that total. Not surprisingly, media accounts are ripe--ripe, I say--with stories of the administration's contributors who have been tripping over themselves to curry favors for their particular energy interests. What about other groups? Were the interests of the State and tribal interests, labor unions, consumer groups, and environmental organizations at the table? A lack of consensus on energy legislation has rightfully raised concerns that the final product will be but a patchwork of compromises that do not truly solve our urgent problems. The Republican majority and the White House have put together what amounts to a ``pig in a poke'' energy bill that includes a number of items that remain enormously controversial and that have little to do with building the bipartisan consensus essential for the development of a national energy strategy. The legislation passed by this Senate last year and this year has been largely ignored. Now the majority is preparing to ram this hodgepodge through the conference, and we are being forced to swallow it, hook, line, and sinker. This is no way to legislate and it certainly is no way to develop such an important national policy. We cannot continue to conduct the Nation's business in this way. The stakes are too high. Partisanship alone is threatening enough to our ability to develop comprehensive solutions to our energy problems, but it is not just partisanship that is reason for worry. It is the utter contempt with which this Bush administration apparently views the role of the legislative branch. As the General Accounting Office has learned, this administration simply will not tolerate legislative inquiry. This administration will not tolerate fact-finding. Requests for information are often simply denied. There is no room for debate, just dictums. We are not expected to stand on this floor and offer amendments. We are urged to sit quietly, we are expected to sit quietly, and wield the rubberstamp. The people of West Virginia did not send me here to be a rubberstamp. I am certainly not a rubberstamp. Energy policy, in my estimation, drives so much of our economy and defines so much of our national prosperity and security that backroom bargaining can threaten our Nation's future. The administration used numerous promises and assumptions to sell the Iraqi war to the American people. We were assured that the postwar construction would largely be paid for with Iraq oil revenues and the cooperation of other nations--nations that got the back of our hand. But the President now tells us we cannot count on that money in the short term and the American taxpayers will have to foot the bill. We are hearing the same type of rhetoric now. We heard claims that the administration's energy bill would fix all of our energy problems. I hope the American people are smarter than that because this energy bill is no panacea, and it could very well turn out to be a Pandora's box. We need a comprehensive approach to our energy policy. What do I mean by comprehensive? A comprehensive approach fully integrates four fundamental principles: energy security to encourage fuel diversity; fiscal soundness to increase economic growth and the efficiency of production; consumer protections to guard against fraud, market manipulation, and abuse; and environmental sensitivity to minimize the impacts from wastes and emissions. These are essential elements for any comprehensive energy policy. These elements must be fully integrated through a policy that is designed to maximize fuel diversity and efficiency of production while minimizing consumer abuse and environmental degradation. These elements could provide a complementary path forward, but this Energy bill is a significant detour. With these guiding principles in mind, we must then begin to make the hard choices. We must develop a truly strategic plan. Planning requires that we decide how much, to what extent, and when actions must be taken. It requires the development of criteria so the progress can be measured. For the past three decades, the United States has struggled to find and secure its energy future. Administrations since Richard Nixon have been trying to craft a sensible energy policy, with some small successes, but mostly with little significant progress to show. All too often, America's energy agenda has shifted--lurching first in one direction, then in another. The net effect has been that the Nation has grown more and more dependent on foreign oil, making America's energy security increasingly vulnerable to manipulation and terrorist attack. This Nation has not had a serious, thoughtful energy strategy or a comprehensive set of energy policies for a long while. Too often, the Government has, instead, reacted to shortages, dislocations, and various energy crises. For example, the Government has tried to control oil and natural gas prices, which only served to exacerbate supply shortages. For a period of time, one administration tried to prohibit the use of natural gas and forced the use of coal for power generation. Two decades later, another administration discouraged the use of coal and Federal priorities shifted to the increased use of natural gas. Today, the Nation finds itself caught in what Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan calls ``the gas trap.'' The energy bill soon to be before this Congress is primarily another reactionary effort. While there may be some strong trees planted, it is by no means a healthy forest. From past energy efforts, only a few actions, such as creating the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the Clean Coal Technology Program, have proven to be truly farsighted. I fear that most of this energy bill will continue a business-as-usual approach. Furthermore, we must, once and for all, realize that our energy and climate change policies are two sides of the same coin. Yet we are doing little, if anything, to address seriously these critical links. This energy bill includes nothing substantial to address either global climate change or advanced clean energy technology exports. If these and other key provisions are not included, why should I support such a flawed, misguided energy conference bill? Furthermore, the administration has been seeking my support for its so-called FutureGen project, claiming this purported $1 billion, 10- year proposal would build one large powerplant as an experiment to address climate change. My support for this project is largely contingent on identifying the long-term resources for FutureGen and knowing that it will not erode other critical energy programs. So I have to say that, if the administration is expecting my support for FutureGen, then, in coming years I expect that the administration will support my climate change and international technology transfer provisions as well. If the administration is still around. Global warming is an Achilles' heel for this White House--one among other Achilles' heels. The President has shown no desire to address this problem in an energy bill or anywhere else. In the end, the President would dearly love a showy Rose Garden ceremony in which to sign an energy bill and thus have a 2004 campaign press release to tout its so-called success. But, given this administration's track record, an energy bill would simply be another empty soapbox for the President to stand on to announce a bankrupt deal. I say, where have we seen that before? While the Congress has passed bills and supported the Bush administration's rhetoric, the necessary resources to carry all this out never materialize. The American people deserve much better than this. As the blackout of August 14 vividly demonstrated, this Nation's energy system--which is the lifeline of our economy and national security--is on life support. As we struggle to define and implement a national energy policy needed to address these issues, we again find ourselves on a collision course. We need a new framework based on a consistent and cohesive set of policies. But we must recognize that we must get to that critical juncture. This new framework must be designed to strengthen the law, not gut it. Most importantly, as we approach this crossroads, we must seek to fully integrate our energy and environmental policy goals and objectives in a complementary way. We were told we had to rush into Iraq to contain Saddam's WMD programs. Now we are being told this energy bill will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, counteract increasing fuel prices, and do so many other things. Americans should not be fooled. They will not. There are few, if any, benchmarks or yardsticks from which we can truly chart our progress. Sadly, such milestones are anathema to this administration. At the same time, we have squandered a huge opportunity. The bipartisan cooperation in the development of this energy bill was purely superficial. Soon this Senate could be asked to vote on this legislation. There is pressure to cajole Members to swallow hard and pass it. Despite some solid provisions, why should I be a party to this boondoggle? A cherry-picked energy plan based on soliciting big industry campaign contributions is a bankrupt policy. It takes this Nation nowhere, and it puts our Nation's future at risk. It is time that the dots were connected. The same pattern by this White House continues to repeat itself. That pattern is statements of policy that build on infinite mirages and boundless facades. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate so we can understand what the Senator is saying.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate is now considering the fiscal year 2004 Agriculture, rural development, and related agencies appropriations bill, and I would like to speak on the issue of increased funding provisions related to the treatment of animals. Two agencies in the Department of Agriculture are charged with the responsibility of carrying out regulatory programs to protect animals from mistreatment, called for under the Animal Welfare Act and the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. The Animal Welfare Act is enforced by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act enforced by the Food Safety and Inspection Service. The need for this increase in funding and commitment is due, in part, to media reports above livestock being raised in unspeakable conditions where they did not even have room to lie down, and about animal slaughter operations where animals are not properly stunned before beginning the process of dismemberment. While the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and certain state authorities, did initiate investigations regarding some of the more egregious reports, I understand that those charges were dismissed due to evidentiary problems, leaving unanswered the actual degree of severity to which humane slaughter regulations were violated in the reported cases, or the degree to which similar violations occur throughout the Nation. During consideration of the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill, the Senate included, at my request, $5 million for the hiring of at least 50 additional humane slaughter inspectors. Report language accompanying that bill instructed these new inspectors to work solely on the enforcement of the Humane Slaughter Act. Prior to the $1.25 million allocation in the fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations bill for the hiring of 17 district veterinary medical specialists at the Food Safety Inspection Service to work solely on the enforcement of the Humane Slaughter Act, there were no inspectors employed exclusively for this purpose. On May 7, 2003, the Secretary of Agriculture testified before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture regarding the administration's fiscal year 2004 budget request. At that hearing, I asked the Secretary about the hiring of additional Food Safety Inspection Service inspectors for which funding had been appropriated in the previously enacted appropriations bill; however, it became apparent that the Department had yet to hire any new inspectors. As a result of continued interest in this matter, the Senate Appropriations Committee included additional report language clarifying the funding provided in fiscal year 2003 regarding the Department's goal for hiring 38 new inspectors by the end of fiscal year 2003. As of October 28, 2003, this goal was met, and I understand that the remaining 12 inspectors will be hired by the end of this calender year. The fiscal year 2004 Senate Agriculture appropriations bill provides statutory language to continue funding for the 50 humane slaughter inspectors and the 17 district veterinary medical specialists, and outlines the Committee's expectation that this funding will be included in the Department's fiscal year 2005 budget request. I strongly believe that much work remains to be done. I believe that continued attention should be placed on enforcement on both the Animal Welfare Act and the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act to put a stop to the mistreatment of animals. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee for their support in this every important effort.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as Members are aware, all 13 appropriations bills have cleared the Senate Appropriations Committee. Four bills have been sent to the President for signature, of which three have been signed into law. The Defense, Homeland Security, and Legislative Branch appropriations bills have been signed, and the Interior appropriations bill is awaiting signature. Five appropriations bills are in conference. These are the Military Construction, Energy and Water Development, Labor-HHS-Education, Foreign Operations, and Transportation and Treasury appropriations bills. The Military Construction appropriations bill completed conference yesterday, and the Energy and Water Development conference met today. Four appropriations bills are awaiting completion of Senate action-- Agriculture, VA-HUD, Commerce-Justice-State, and the District of Columbia. The Agriculture appropriations bill is being considered on the floor today. Mr. President, the Senate should proceed to process these four final bills on the floor and to send them to conference with the House. This will protect our rights as Senators to offer amendments. The Senate should process 13 individual appropriations bills, and avoid an omnibus appropriations bill. Omnibus appropriations bills have the effect of shoehorning large segments of the Federal Government into one monstrous bill. Members' rights to amend legislation are severely limited, and they will not be able to know what they are voting for or against. Omnibus appropriations legislation also has the result of bringing the White House to the table, which has the effect of blurring the distinction between the responsibilities of the executive branch and the constitutional responsibilities of the legislative branch to develop legislation under the separation of powers. This is no way to legislate. I thank and commend the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Stevens, for his steadfast pursuit of the goal of processing 13 individual appropriations bills. The Senate would not be at this stage of processing the appropriations bills, if my friend, the Senator from Alaska, had not pursued this matter with such vigor on his side. Again, I thank my distinguished and able colleague, Mr. Stevens, for his efforts.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I do not think it should be adopted by unanimous consent. That was not meant to happen. I understood there would be a voice vote. I hope the Chair will propound the question for the voices to vote.

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

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I yield to the distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, who has been yielded time by the distinguished minority leader. I yield the floor to her, if the Chair so recognizes her.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes of my time to the Senator from California.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished Senator from California, Senator Boxer, for her kind references to me, and for her courage, for her foresight and vision, and for the strength she has shown, not only on this matter but also on many others, over the years I have served with her. I thank her for her friendship. I express only the highest of regard for her in the difficult situation she finds her State in at this time, and also, Mr. President, for the position she has so valiantly held on this particular bill that is before us, and the subject matter of this bill, throughout the time it has come before the Senate. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Iraq supplemental conference report before the Senate today has been widely described as a victory for President Bush. If hardball politics and lockstep partisanship are the stuff of which victory is made, then I suppose the assessments are accurate. But if reasoned discourse, integrity, and accountability are the measures of true victory, then this package falls far short of the mark. In the end, the President wrung virtually every important concession he sought from the House-Senate conference committee. Key provisions the Senate had debated extensively, voted on, and included in its version of the bill--such as providing half of the Iraq reconstruction funding in the form of loans instead of grants--were thrown overboard in the conference agreement. Senators who had made compelling arguments on the Senate floor only days earlier to limit American taxpayers' liability by providing some of the Iraq reconstruction aid in the form of loans suddenly reversed their position in conference and bowed to the power of the Presidency. Before us today is a massive $87 billion supplemental appropriations package that commits this Nation to a long and costly occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. Yet the collective wisdom of the House and Senate appropriations conference that produced it was little more than a shadow play, choreographed to stifle dissent and rubberstamp the President's request. Perhaps this ``take no prisoners'' approach is how the President and his advisers define victory. But I fear they are fixated on the muscle of the politics instead of on the wisdom of the policy. The fact of the matter is, when it comes to policy, the Iraq supplemental is a monument to failure. Consider, for example, that before the war the President's policy advisers assured the American people Iraq would largely be able to finance its own reconstruction through oil revenues, seized assets, and increased economic productivity. The $18 billion in this supplemental earmarked for the reconstruction of Iraq is testament to the fallacy of that prediction. It is the American taxpayer, not the Iraqi oil industry, that is being called upon to shoulder the financial burden of rebuilding Iraq. The international community on which the administration pinned such hope for helping in the reconstruction of Iraq has collectively ponied up only $13 billion, and the bulk of those pledges--$9 billion--is in the form of loans or credits, not grants. But still the White House claims victory for arm-twisting Congress into reversing itself on the question of loans and providing the entire $18 billion in U.S. tax dollars in the form of outright grants to Iraq. I readily admit that how this convoluted logic can be construed as a victory for the President is beyond me. But reconstruction is only part of the story. On May 1, the President stood on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln--strategically postured beneath a banner that declared ``Mission Accomplished''--and pronounced the end of major combat operations in Iraq. Since that day, however, more American military personnel have been killed in Iraq than were killed during the major combat phase of the war. According to the Defense Department, 376 American troops have been killed to date in Iraq and nearly two-thirds of those deaths, 238, have occurred since May 1, when the President declared that the major combat had ended. When President Bush uttered the unwise challenge, ``Bring 'em on,'' on July 2, the enemy did, indeed, ``bring them on,'' and with a vengeance. Since the President made that comment, more than 165 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. As the death toll mounts, it has become clear that the enemy intends to keep on ``bringing 'em on.'' The $66 billion in this supplemental required to continue the United States military occupation of Iraq over the next year and the steadily rising death toll are testament to the utter hollowness of the President's declaration aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln and the careless bravado of his challenge to ``bring 'em on.'' It has been said many times on the floor of this Senate that a vote for this supplemental is a vote for our troops in Iraq. The implication of that statement is that a vote against the supplemental is a vote against our troops. I find that twisted logic to be both irrational and offensive. To my mind, backing a flawed policy with a flawed appropriations bill hurts our troops in Iraq more than it helps them. Endorsing and funding a policy that does nothing to relieve American troops in Iraq is not, in my opinion, a support-the-troops measure. Our troops in Iraq and elsewhere in the world have no stronger advocate than Robert C. Byrd, senior Senator from the great State of West Virginia, where mountaineers are always free. I support our troops. I have been supporting our troops for more than 50 years as a Member of the Congress of the United States. I pray for the safety of our troops. I will continue to fight for a coherent policy that brings real help-- not just longer deployments and empty sloganeering--to American forces in Iraq. The supplemental package before the Senate does nothing to internationalize the occupation of Iraq, and therefore it is not a vote for our troops in Iraq. We had a chance in the beginning to win international consensus on dealing with Iraq, but the administration was in too big a hurry, the White House was in too big a hurry. The administration squandered that opportunity when the President gave the back of his hand to the United Nations and preemptively invaded Iraq. Under this administration's Iraq policy, endorsed in the President's so-called victory on this supplemental, it is American troops who are walking the mean streets of Baghdad; it is American troops who are succumbing in growing numbers to a common and all too deadly cocktail of anti-American bombs and bullets in Iraq. The terrible violence in Iraq on Sunday--the deaths of 16 soldiers and the downing of an American helicopter, the killing of another soldier, and a bomb attack and the deaths of 2 American civilian contractors in a mine explosion--is only the latest evidence that the administration's lack of postwar planning for Iraq is producing an erratic, chaotic situation on the ground with little hope for a quick turnaround. We appear to be lurching from one assault on our troops to the next while making little, if any, headway in stabilizing our improving security in that unfortunate country. The failure to secure the vast stockpiles of deadly conventional weapons in Iraq, including shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles such as the one that may have brought down the United States helicopter on Sunday, is one of many mistakes the administration made that is coming back to haunt us today. Perhaps the biggest mistake, the costliest mistake, following the colossal mistake of launching a preemptive attack on Iraq, is the administration's failure to have a clearly defined mission and exit strategy for Iraq. The President continues to insist that the United States will persevere in its mission in Iraq and that our resolve is unshakable. But it is time, past time, for the President to tell the American people exactly what that mission is, how he intends to accomplish it, and what his exit strategy is for the American troops in Iraq. It is the American people out there--it is the American people--who will ultimately decide how long we will stay in Iraq. It is not enough for the President to maintain that the United States will not be driven out of Iraq by the increasing violence against American soldiers. He must also demonstrate leadership by presenting the American people with a plan to stem the freewheeling violence in Iraq, return the government of that country to the Iraqi people, and pave the way for the orderly withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. We do not now have such a plan, and the supplemental conference report before the Senate does not provide such a plan. The $87 billion in this appropriations bill provides the wherewithal for the United States to stay in Iraq when what we badly need is a course correction. The President owes the American people an exit strategy for Iraq. It is time for the President to deliver. I have great respect and affection for my fellow Senators and my colleagues on the Senate Appropriations Committee. No one could ask for a finer committee chairman than Senator Ted Stevens. I have even greater respect and greater affection and greater dedication to the institution of the Senate and the Constitution of the United States by which this Senate was established. Every Senator upon taking office swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. It is the Constitution of the United States--not the President of the United States, not a political party, but the Constitution--to which all Senators swear an oath of loyalty before God and man. I am here to tell you that neither the Constitution nor the American people are well served by a process and a product that are based on blind adherence to the will of the White House and to the will of the President at the expense of congressional checks and balances. It is as if, in a rush to support the President's policy, this White House is prepared to put blinders on the Congress. This supplemental spending bill is a case in point. One of the earliest amendments that was defeated on the Senate floor was the one I offered to hold back a portion of the reconstruction money and give the Senate a second chance--give the Senate a second vote--on whether to release that money. Apparently, the President and his supporters did not want to give the Senate an opportunity to review the progress--or lack of progress--in Iraq and have a second chance to debate the wisdom of spending billions of taxpayers' dollars on the reconstruction effort. Time after time the House-Senate conference committee was given the opportunity to restore or impose accountability on the administration for the money being appropriated in the Iraq supplemental, and time after time the House-Senate conference committee majority beat back those measures. The conferees, for example, defeated on a party-line vote an amendment I offered which would have required that the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq be confirmed by the Senate. Senate confirmation of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq would have ensured that the person who is managing tens of billions of dollars in Iraq for the American taxpayers would be accountable to the public--to the people out there who are watching through those electronic lenses. The current appointee, L. Paul Bremer III, is not. He answers to the Secretary of Defense and the President--not to Congress and not to the American people. The conferees approved a provision creating an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority, but I am dismayed to say that this individual is not subject to Senate confirmation. I am dismayed that the conferees defeated my amendment that would have required the inspector general to testify before Congress when invited. I am dismayed that the President can refuse to send Congress the results of the inspector general's work. Could it be that the President's supporters are afraid to hear what the inspector general might tell them? Could it be that the President's supporters in Congress would rather blindly follow the President instead of risking reality by opening their eyes to what could be uncomfortable facts? The conference also stripped out my amendment to the Senate bill that would have required the General Accounting Office to conduct ongoing audits of the expenditure of taxpayer dollars for the reconstruction of Iraq. On the Senate floor my amendment required such audits, and it was adopted by a vote of 97 to zero--97 to nothing. But in the House-Senate conference, it was blown away. It was defeated in the House-Senate conference by the Senate conferees on a 15-to-14 straight-line party vote. Sprinkled throughout the Iraq supplemental conference report, provisions euphemistically described as ``flexibilities'' give the President broad authority to take the money--your money--appropriated by Congress in this bill and spend it however he wishes. I tried to eliminate or limit these flexibilities--and in a few cases succeeded-- but there remain billions of dollars in this measure that can be spent at the discretion of the President or the Secretary of Defense. Although the money is appropriated by Congress, as it is required to be appropriated by Congress in section 9 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, these so-called ``flexibilities'' effectively transfer the power of the purse from the legislative branch to the executive branch. The dictionary definition of ``victory'' is simple and straightforward: success, conquest, triumph. Within the constraints of that simplistic definition, I suppose one could construe this package to be a victory for the President. But I believe there is a moral undercurrent to the notion of victory that is not reflected in the dictionary definition. I believe most Americans equate victory more closely with what is right than with simply winning. It is one thing to win, and the tactics be damned; it is quite another to be victorious. Victory implies doing what is right; doing what is right implies morality; morality implies standards of conduct. I do not include arm twisting and intimidation in my definition of exemplary standards of conduct. Moreover, we should not forget that not all victories are created equal. In 280 B.C., Pyrrhus, the ruler of Epirus in northern Greece, took his formidable armies to Italy and defeated the Romans at Heraclea, and again at Asculum in 279 B.C., but suffered unbearably heavy losses. ``One more such victory and I am lost,'' he said. It is to Pyrrhus that we owe the term ``pyrrhic victory,'' to describe a victory so costly as to be ruinous. This supplemental and the policy which it supports, unfortunately, may prove to be a pyrrhic victory for the Bush administration. The conference report before the Senate today is a flawed agreement that was produced by political imperative, not by reasoned policy considerations. This is not a good bill for our troops in Iraq. This is not a good bill for American taxpayers. This is not a good bill for the mothers and fathers and sisters and brothers and husbands and wives of the troops in Iraq. This is not good policy for the United States of America. Victory is not always about winning. Sometimes victory is simply about being right. This conference report does not reflect the right policy for Iraq or the right policy for America. I oppose it, and I will vote ``no'' on final passage. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Before doing so, may I ask how much time I have remaining.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

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