Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it seems to be the ill fortune--the ill fortune--of the present occupant of the chair to have to find himself in the chair when I make speeches. It seems that every time I make a speech, the Senator from Texas is in the chair. Well, I am glad to see him there. He is a good Presiding Officer. He is alert to what is going on on the floor. He listens, and he is always very pleasant, congenial, and I congratulate him, because sitting in the chair while I speak makes it very difficult for any Senator to carry on his other necessary activities--the work in his office and meeting with constituents and so on. So I not only congratulate him, I also thank him. Mr. President, this afternoon, the Senate finds itself with the first Homeland Security appropriations conference report before it. I thank Senate Chairman Thad Cochran, House Chairman Harold Rogers, and the ranking member on the House Homeland Security Subcommittee, Representative Martin Sabo, and all of the House and Senate conferees for their hard work on this important legislation. We all share the goal of ensuring that the new Homeland Security Department has the resources it needs to secure the homeland. The conference report that is before the Senate provides $29.4 billion for discretionary programs for fiscal year 2004 for the new Department. With the limited resources that were made available under the budget resolution, the conference agreement is fair and balanced. And so much of that is due to the fair and balanced approach that the distinguished chairman here, Senator Thad Cochran, always displays. It comes as a habit to him. It is just second nature. This bill provides a $1 billion increase over the President's request, and it makes a number of significant improvements in the organization of the Department. In particular, I am pleased that the conference agreement includes language that will ensure that the new airline passenger screening system, known as CAPS II, will not be deployed before February 15, 2004, until the General Accounting Office has had the ability to review and report on the personal privacy protections, including an appeal process for individuals who are prevented from flying because the system has identified them as a security risk. Funds are included, consistent with the Senate bill, to enhance border security--none of which were requested by the President-- including funds for an additional 570 Border Patrol agents and funds to establish a northern border air wing. Mr. President, $60 million is included to begin the development of an antimissile device for commercial aircraft. The conference agreement restates both House and Senate language regarding full funding of antidumping enforcement provisions as well as calling on the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to rigorously enforce trade laws pertaining to steel imports. The conference agreement is good for disaster-prone States. The bill contains $200 million for flood map modernization, which is the largest amount ever appropriated for this account. Further, the bill strikes a balance between premitigation and postmitigation grants. The bill contains $150 million for predisaster mitigation grants, so that States have access to funds that help them to plan for and prevent damage from disasters. The bill also continues to fund postdisaster mitigation, which is made available to States as a percentage of disaster relief money received from FEMA. The President had proposed to eliminate funding for postdisaster mitigation. The conference agreement provides $180 million for emergency management performance grants. These grants allow States and localities to develop basic emergency preparedness and response capabilities. This program is the only Department of Homeland Security grant program that is focused on all hazards, such as terrorist attacks, floods, and building collapses. The administration had recommended rolling this program into the ODP State grants program. As Hurricane Isabel confirmed, we must make sure that this new Department of Homeland Security maintains its ability to respond to natural disasters, while preventing and responding to terrorist attacks. These are all significant improvements over the program proposed by the President. Regrettably, even with these improvements, the conference agreement leaves significant gaps in the security of our homeland. After 9/11, Congress passed the PATRIOT Act, the Maritime Transportation Security Act, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, and the Enhanced Border Security Act. The President signed these measures with great fanfare, but the President has done little to fulfill the promise of those laws. The inadequate allocation given to the subcommittee has forced the conferees to underfund a number of these critical new authorities. Last Wednesday, I offered an amendment in conference to add $1.25 billion of emergency funding to the bill to secure the homeland by funding some of the authorities that the President had signed into law after 9/11 but failed to fund. The amendment included funding for port security, aviation security, chemical security, first responder grants, and for the Coast Guard Deepwater Program. The White House opposed and the Republicans rejected the amendment. On the same day, last Wednesday, the President sent to Congress a supplemental request for his war in Iraq that totals $87 billion. No funding was requested to help secure our homeland. Yet included in his request was $20.3 billion for the reconstruction of Iraq, of which $5.1 billion is for homeland security in Iraq. If my amendment had been approved, the conference report that is before the Senate would have included $125 million more to hire 1,300 more Customs inspectors on our U.S. borders, $200 million more for first responder grants to equip and train police and firefighters here at home, and $100 million for the U.S. Coast Guard to secure our ports. Instead, next week, the Senate will be considering the President's request for reconstructing Iraq, including $290 million for Iraqi fire departments; $150 million for Iraqi border enforcement, including 2,500 customs inspectors; $150 million for an Iraqi ``911'' emergency system; $499 million for Iraqi prisons; and $82 million for an Iraqi coast guard. I continue to maintain that the Senate should take some time to review the President's supplemental request for the cost of the war in Iraq. We should hold further hearings in the Senate Appropriations Committee. We should hear from outside witnesses, not just administration witnesses. The Senate should not act as a rubberstamp for any President. I find it more than ironic that the Bush administration would oppose homeland security protections for American citizens but ask Congress to express dollars to Iraq for security efforts there. With regard to the Homeland Security conference report that is before us, I again thank Chairman Cochran and his staff for their hard work in producing the first Homeland Security appropriations conference report. I also thank my own staff in this regard, and I thank all of the subcommittee members on both sides of the aisle and their staffs as well. While this conference report does not include sufficient resources to fund many of the new homeland security programs that this Congress authorized in response to the attacks of 9/11, it is a significant improvement over the President's request. I support its adoption. The chairman would have done more if he had had more funds with which to do it. I again thank him for his many courtesies. I thank the floor staff and the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I rise today to voice my concern about the disastrous turn which the fortunes of this Nation have taken. The Bush administration, in a scant 2\1/2\ years, has imperiled our country in the gravest of ways, and set us up for a possible crisis of mammoth proportions. The crisis may not occur tomorrow in these proportions, or the next day, but it is coming. Instead of linking arms with a world which offered its heart in sympathy after the brutality of the terrorist attacks in September of 2001, this White House, the Bush White House, through hubris and false bravado, has slapped away the hand of assistance. This administration has insulted our allies and our friends with its bullying and go-it- alone frenzy to attack the nation of Iraq. In order to justify such an attack, it was decided somewhere in the White House to blur the images of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Blurred images notwithstanding, what is becoming increasingly clear to many Americans is that they are going to be asked to carry a heavy, heavy load for a long, long time. Let me be clear. We are presently engaged in not one war but two wars: The war begun by Osama bin Laden, who attacked this Nation on the September 11, 2001, and then there is the war begun by President George W. Bush when he directed U.S. forces to attack Iraq on March 19, 2003. The first war was thrust upon us. The bombing of Afghanistan was a just retaliation against that attack. The second war, on the other hand, was a war of our choosing. We chose it. It was an unnecessary attack upon a sovereign nation. This President and this administration have tried mightily to convince the people of America that attacking Iraq was critical to protecting them, the people of this country, from terrorism. The case that the administration makes is false, it is flimsy, and the war, I believe, was unwise and was unnecessary and was without ample justification. The war against Iraq has crippled the global effort to counter terrorism. The war in Iraq has made a peace agreement between Israel and its adversaries harder to obtain. The obsession with Iraq has served to downplay the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The focus on Saddam Hussein has diverted attention from bin Laden, who is apparently still on the loose and threatening to attack again. The war in Iraq has alienated our traditional allies and fractured the cohesive alliance against terrorism which existed after 9/11. It has made the United States appear to the world to be a bellicose invader of another country. It has called our motives into question. It has galvanized the worldwide terrorism movement against us. The war in Iraq has cost us lives and treasure. Yet this President will shortly request $87 billion more for his ill-fated adventure. He says we will spend whatever it takes. So he says your money--it is your money. We have heard that many times. It is your money, and he says your money we will spend, whatever it takes. Prudence dictates that we consider the risks. This Nation has suffered massive job losses amounting to 93,000 in August alone and approximately 600,000 since January of this year. Job losses of this magnitude mean less money coming into the Treasury and more money going out. U.S. manufacturing jobs continue to disappear overseas as companies relocate operations on other shores. There seems to be no end, thus far--there seems to be no end to the job hemorrhage. The manufacturing sector has lost jobs for 37 months in a row. The weak job market threatens to sap our strength from our domestic economy. Should inflation begin to creep up, as some worry that it will, higher energy costs and lower consumer confidence may slow the economy further. Suppose another massive al-Qaida attack were to occur here at home, killing hundreds or thousands and delivering another devastating blow to the U.S. economy? Could we still afford to continue to send billions of taxpayer dollars to Iraq? At best, our future economic growth is uncertain. There are too many unknowns. Our deficit is growing. When the $87 billion 2004 Iraq Supplemental is included, as it probably will be, the deficit for 2004 alone is expected to total $535 billion. That is $530 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. That number will only grow, if we continue to experience massive job losses and the economy takes a turn for the worse. We can ill afford to finance the rebuilding of Iraq alone. Yet President Bush steadfastly resists doing what it takes to involve the international community. It should be obvious that we need assistance. The United States cannot even continue to supply the troops to secure Iraq without more help. A recent Congressional Budget Office study, which I requested, makes it clear that maintaining the level of troops we now have in Iraq will stretch us very thin should something happen in Korea or elsewhere on this troubled globe. Our National Guard is being asked to stay longer and longer in Iraq to help backfill the shortage in regular troops. These are men and women with jobs and families and key roles to play in their own communities. We cannot continue to utilize their skills in Iraq without suffering the consequences at home. Even now, as a hurricane lurks off our shores, there are worries about shortages of emergency personnel because so many National Guard men and women are serving in Iraq. But the Bush administration continues to spend our treasure and our troop strength in a single-focusd obsession with the fiasco in Iraq. Are we to mortgage the future of our Nation to years of financing this unwise adventure? Surely we cannot ask American families for sacrifice indefinitely, especially when their sacrifices are made to advance a war we do not need to fight, that we ought not to have gone overseas to fight. We chose to attack another country. We must come to grips with our limits. We must acknowledge risks and reality. Yet on last Sunday, Vice President Cheney dug his heels in at the suggestion of rethinking our policy in Iraq. In a television interview, Vice President Cheney said he saw no reason to ``think that the strategy is flawed or needs to be changed.'' He went on to try to convince the American public that Iraq was ``the geographic base'' for the perpetrators of 9/11. Think of that--a claim that this humble Senator has never heard before, and that flies in the face of U.S. intelligence agencies which repeatedly have said they have found no links--none--between the 9/11 attacks and Saddam Hussein or Iraq. We may come to rue the day when we took our eyes off bin Laden and sapped our energies and our credibility in this quagmire in Iraq. We chose to attack that country. Yet there seems to be no soul searching in this White House about the consequences of this war. While Bush's aides talk of ``generational commitment'' and the President talks of ``sacrifice,'' I wonder if the American people fully comprehend what they are being urged to forego. They have already sacrificed loved ones with 158 troops killed and 856 wounded just since President Bush declared the end of major combat on May 1. How many more families must sacrifice? How many more families must sacrifice while we occupy Iraq? The President says we will do whatever it takes. Mr. Rumsfeld says we will do whatever it takes. How many more families must sacrifice while we occupy Iraq? A generation of ``sacrifice'' may also mean a slow sapping of key national priorities, including repairing the infrastructure which fuels our economic engine and funding the institutions and programs which benefit all Americans. Compare the latest request for the Iraq supplemental with the commitment in dollars to other vital programs, and the picture becomes more clear. President Bush is asking for $87 billion for Iraq but only $34.6 billion for Homeland Security--$29-plus billion--which will come to the Senate soon in a bill which was marked up today. The President wants $87 billion for Iraq but only $66.2 billion for the discretionary programs for the Department of Health and Human Services. The President seeks $87 billion to secure Iraq but only $52.1 billion for the U.S. Department of Education. The President wants $87 billion to shore up Iraq but only $29.3 billion for America's highways and road construction. For the State Department and foreign aid for the entire world, President Bush sees a need for only $27.4 billion. Yet Iraq is worth over three times that much to this White House. Remember that $87 billion is just for 2004 alone. Does anyone really believe it will be the last request we will receive for Iraq? No. This is just the tip of the iceberg, in all likelihood. The President asked America for a generation of ``sacrifice,'' but that noble-sounding word does not reveal the true nature of what the President demands from the American people. He asks them to supply the fighting men and women to prosecute his war. Yes, he asked them, the American people, to supply the fighting men and women to prosecute his war. I am not talking about the war that began on September 11, 2001. That was an attack upon us by al-Qaida. I am talking about his war, the President's war in Iraq, which began in March of this year in which he, the Commander in Chief, ordered the attack on Iraq, a sovereign country that had not attacked us and which did not represent an imminent threat to the security of our country. He implores our people to sacrifice adequate health care. He asks our people to settle for less than the best education for their children. Think about it. He asks our people, the American people, to sacrifice medical research that could prolong and save lives. He asks the American people to put up with unsafe highways and dangerous bridges. He asks them to live with substandard housing and foul water. He asks the American people to forego better public transportation and not just for now but for generations. And all of it for his folly in Iraq. Most puzzling to this Senator is this President's stubborn refusal to guard against the terror threat at home by adequately funding Homeland Security. Is he asking us all to risk the safety of our homeland, too? And to further insult the hard-working people of this Nation, George Walker Bush proposes to lay this sacrifice not only on the adult population of this great country but on their children and their grandchildren by increasing the deficit with nary a thought to the consequences. Yet not a peep can be heard from this White House about paying for some of this sacrifice of which the President speaks by foregoing a portion of future tax cuts, tax cuts that mainly benefit those citizens who do not need so many of the services the Government has to provide. Our reputation around the globe, America's reputation around the globe, has already been seriously damaged by this administration. Are the dreams and hopes of millions of Americans to be ``sacrificed'' as well on the altar, on the bloody altar, of Iraq? I urge my colleagues to think long and hard about the growing quagmire in Iraq. I urge members of the President's own party to warn him about the quicksand he asks America to wade in. We need a long and thorough debate about the future of our country. We need a serious discussion about the kind of America we will leave to our children and grandchildren. We need to renew our efforts to negotiate a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Are we fighting a war in Iraq when pushing the peace might better serve our cause? We must think again about world-wide terrorism--and it comes in many forms and shapes--and the best way to combat it. Let us not continue to simply wage the wrong war, Mr. Bush's war in Iraq.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, September 17 is a day of history in American calendar. On this day in 1630, the city of Boston was founded. On September 17, 1947, James V. Forrestal was sworn in as this Nation's first Secretary of Defense. On September 17, 1920, the National Football league was formed in Canton, OH. On September 17, 1954, Ernie Banks became the first Black baseball player to wear a Chicago Cubs uniform. He was voted ``best player ever'' by Chicago fans when he retired in 1971. On September 17, 1984, Reggie Jackson hit his 500th career homer, seventeen years to the day after he hit his first major league home run. On this day in 1911, the first transcontinental airplane flight took place between New York City and Pasadena, CA. It took pilot C.P. Rogers 82 hours to cover that distance. Just 65 years later, on September 17, 1976, the Space Shuttle was revealed to the public for the first time, ready to take men into the heavens. Such a lot of change in such a short period of time. Last week, in another airplane related piece of history, the nation sadly observed the second anniversary of the tragic events of September 11, 2001. It was a terrible, terrible day, marked by the awful, abrupt end of too many innocent lives. September 17, 1862, was another terrible, terrible day. On that beautiful September day, over 23,000 men were killed, wounded, or missing in action after the Battle of Antietam, outside Sharpsburg, MD--just over the line from the eastern panhandle of West Virginia. That battle was a turning point in the Civil War. But by far, one of the most important events in this Nation's history happened on the 17th of September, 1787. On that memorable day, the members of the Constitutional Convention signed the document that has led this Nation safely through the shoals of history for the past 216 years, surviving even the devastation of the Civil War. It was this document that I hold in my hand: the Constitution of the United States of America. That Constitution was not our first attempt at self-governance. It followed on the heels of the Articles of Confederation, which was the first Constitution, correcting the failures of that weak Government by establishing a stronger central Government to manage the differences between the States and to provide for the common good. And then, to assuage the concerns of those citizens who feared that a strong central Government would trample on the rights of the individual, the Constitution was amended after ratification with the first 10 constitutional amendments, guaranteeing individual freedoms in what has become known as the American Bill of Rights. The Constitution of the United States has, sadly, been overlooked by many in the public over the years. It is not a lofty piece of rhetoric like the better known Declaration of Independence. But the Constitution is the strongest piece of armor protecting the rights and the freedoms of each and every citizen--your rights, your rights, your rights, yes, your rights, and yours, and yours, and mine. It deserves to be better known. It is, after all, our manual for governance, our handbook of Government, the tech manual for our national operating system. And unlike many technical manuals, it is easy to read and to understand, even 216 years later. This short document is blunt and straightforward. It starts with only a preamble and then gets right to the heart. In Article I, it sets forth the domain of the legislative branch and the qualifying requirements for us legislators. It does the same for the executive branch in Article II, laying out the procedure for selecting a President and stating what his domain and powers shall be. Then the judicial branch gets the same treatment, short and sweet, in Article III. Article IV sets out the States' rights and duties to the central Government and provides for the addition of new States. Article V, in a single paragraph, lays out the procedure for amending the Constitution. Article VI provides for the transfer of power from the Articles of Confederation to the new Constitution and makes the Constitution and the Federal laws the supreme law--together with treaties--the supreme law of the land. Article VII provides the procedure for ratifying the Constitution. There it is. There it is--a new Government in only seven articles. It takes more verbiage than that just to buy a house in these days. The Constitution is an amazing product of compromise and balance, created by just a handful of delegates--55--in under 4 months. Many of the delegates' names should be familiar to most Americans, names such as George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention, and James Madison, George Mason, Benjamin Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton. Other famous names were not present, such as Thomas Jefferson. He was not there. He was serving at the time as the Ambassador to France. Then there was John Adams, who was in London as the U.S. Ambassador. The details of the Convention of 1787 make fascinating reading. The Convention met in closed session, but James Madison obtained permission to take notes on the debates. His notes, supplemented by the outlines or drafts of other delegates, were not published until 1840--4 years after his death. They outline the evolution of the document, showing competing alternatives and the compromises that allowed the large and small States, and all of the other conflicting interests, to reach agreement on a final document that all agreed could be ratified by the States. The body in which I speak, and to which I have been elected time and time again by the people of West Virginia, the Senate, is the result of one such contentious debate that almost caused the Convention to adjourn. I was talking with the pages just the other day, and we talked about the Great Compromise. I talk with these pages, the Republican pages and the Democratic pages. They change from time to time. They will be here perhaps for half a semester or a full semester or a few days. When we are out for a break, there will be a different group of pages. And we talk about history. These fine pages and I were just commenting the other day about the Great Compromise. I said, What do we mean by the phrase the ``Great Compromise''? Well, that is what I am referring to now. At one point during the Convention, the Virginia plan called for the creation of a bicameral legislature, with each House's representation apportioned by population. This suited Virginia and other large States well but was opposed by small States that feared joining a Union so dominated by the larger States. The delegations from the small States argued that their citizens would never ratify a Constitution that did not recognize some form of State equality. After 3 weeks of increasingly bitter debate, the delegates agreed to what has come to be known as the Great Compromise. The result of that compromise is the Congress that we know today--a lower House, chosen according to population, and with the sole authority to originate revenue bills; and an upper House, the Senate, in which each State has an equal vote. Other compromises were necessary for the Convention to reach agreement, some less successful than that which led to the composition of the Congress, some positively inspired. The delegates deliberated over the power of the executive; they deliberated over interstate commerce; they deliberated over the subject of slavery--these among other topics. A small but inspired compromise is contained in the Preamble. The Preamble to the Articles of Confederation named the States in geographic order from north to south. Without knowing which States would ratify the Constitution, and in what order, the delegates in Philadelphia were uncertain how to list the participating States. So the answer was a graceful new opening: ``We the people of the United States . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution . . .'' without ever mentioning the States by name. Every citizen should be familiar with the Constitution. We should each have a little radar system, an intuitive raising of the hairs along the back of one's neck, when attempts are made to flout the Constitution, either by design or out of misguided good intentions. I fear that this radar system is not functioning as well as it should be. When it fails, the checks and balances contained in our Constitution begin to rust and then begin to grind to a halt. When the Congress does not jealously guard its prerogatives against an overreaching executive, the executive branch gains strength from power that it should not have. The Founders of this Nation worried about creating too strong an executive. They worried about creating a tyrant such as the one, George III, against whom they had fought a war for freedom. So they created a system where the people's direct representatives called the shots the Congress writes the laws, controls the funds, and approves the nominees for key executive posts. If all of those restraints failed, the President was subject to impeachment and trial by Congress. But today, in our fears about national security and our national political system dominated by political party considerations, we face a situation in which Congress is being pressured to act as a rubber stamp for a strong-willed Executive. We have seen this happen with respect to various and sundry executives some Democratic, some Republican. But in this instance, in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, there was a stampede to do something, anything, to avenge this vile attack on our citizens. The Congress did not seriously debate or consider the long term consequences of the call to action, and apparently, neither did the White House. We rushed into war without a real declaration of war. Instead, Congress passed a resolution giving the President sweeping powers to take such action as he saw fit, including military action, in that region. As a result, our military is over-extended and committed to long-term nation-building efforts in Iraq and, to a degree, in Afghanistan. Members of Congress are labeled ``unpatriotic'' if Members question--even question--any request for additional funds for those efforts. At the same time, political party pressures were applied to pass expensive ``temporary'' tax cuts theoretically aimed at restarting a sluggish economy. The long-term impact on the deficit will hamstring the Nation for years to come. Congress should know better. This Senate should know better. Those of us who have been around for a while can recall the tremendous effort--and compromise--needed to achieve deficit control in the late 1980s and early 1990s. We can recall all of the hard, hard decisions that had to be made to bring the deficit under control. Did we really forget all of that in those few short years of surplus? Well, if we did forget that lesson from history, I fear we are doomed to repeat it, and we struggle to bring these even larger deficits under control. The time is long past for Members of Congress to reassert the authorities granted to them in the Constitution. A citizenry familiar with their Constitution should demand it. We are, after all, ``. . . bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution . . .'' in Article VI, if we take the time to read it that far. In his Farewell Address, delivered to his cabinet on, fortuitously enough, September 17, 1796, George Washington made this observation: . . . [Y]ou have improved upon your first essay by the adoption of a Constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of your own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence with its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. Our Constitution is the foundation of our liberties, and we must be its guardians. I would like to close with a poem by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, entitled ``O Ship of State.'' Thou, too, sail on, O Ship of State! Sail on, O Union, strong and great! Humanity with all its fears, With all the hopes of future years, Is hanging breathless on thy fate! We know what Master laid thy keel, What Workmen wrought thy ribs of steel, Who made each mast, and sail, and rope, What anvils rang, what hammers beat, In what a forge and what a heat Were shaped the anchors of thy hope! Fear not each sudden sound and shock, 'Tis of the wave and not the rock; 'Tis but the flapping of the sail, And not a rent made by the gale! In spite of rock and tempest's roar, In spite of false lights on the shore, Sail on, nor fear to breast the sea! Our hearts, our hopes, are all with thee. Our hearts, our hopes, our prayers, our tears, Our faith triumphant o'er our fears, Are all with thee, -are all with thee! I yield the floor and suggest absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have strongly supported efforts to advance opportunities to open markets abroad to an array of clean energy technologies. At my urging, the Bush administration, in October 2002, released the Clean Energy Technology Exports, CETE, strategy. This action plan outlined a 5-year, nine-agency initiative that is intended to ``increase U.S. clean energy technology exports to international markets through increased coordination among Federal agency programs and between these programs and the private sector.'' The CETE directive is geared at helping to address three major challenges in global energy policy: increased U.S. competition in developing country markets; environmental sustainability, including climate change; and energy security. Even though the participating Federal agency partners released this strategic plan last year, no funding has been identified by any of the agencies to implement the CETE strategy. All too often, this is the case with multi-agency initiatives that do not have the explicit support of the administration, and I fear that, once again, this is the case. At this point, little, if anything new, is being done by this administration to promote clean energy technologies overseas. My amendment is a small step that is intended to get the ball rolling by establishing an administrative center. A truly effective program of this magnitude deserves significantly more attention and funding, and the U.S. is missing a huge opportunity to capture a greater share of global clean energy technology markets. However, we must start somewhere, and my amendment is a practical one. If the CETE strategic plan is going to be successful, then such an initiative requires a focal point--a one-stop-shop, so to speak--to allow industries and organizations with interests to more effectively access the services of the Federal Government. Thus, my amendment provides $400,000 in funding for the Office of International Market Development within the Department of Energy to help carry out the task. While this center is to be physically housed at the Department of Energy, DOE, the center's mission is to help carry out the multi-agency CETE strategy. I also strongly urge all participating agencies such as the Department of Commerce, U.S. Agency for International Development, and others to contribute staff and other appropriate resources to get this center up and running. This is just a start on a long overdue Federal initiative. But, if we are serious about addressing the immense global energy and environmental challenges that we commonly share with other nations, this initiative must get much greater attention and far more support from this administration. Amendment No. 1715

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have often spoken of the grandeur of West Virginia's mountains and the abundance of tranquil mountain streams that gurgle quietly throughout the State. However, these same majestic mountains and streams are also conduits for disaster and devastation. When the heavy rains hit, waters from the mountaintops surge to the valleys and turn once peaceful meandering mountain streams into angry, raging, muddy torrents of horror, rising up over their banks and destroying anything in the way. In West Virginia, such torrential flooding seems to be an annual event--since 1993, the State has had eleven federally declared disasters. In this year alone, the State has had two federally declared disasters. In the latest round of devastating flooding in the state earlier this summer, twenty counties were declared Federal disaster areas. Homes were damaged or destroyed, and the severe impact on the infrastructure in the southern part of the State--from roads, bridges, water and sewer, to power sources--brought a normal way of life to a screeching halt once again. I know that West Virginia is not alone in attempting to recoup from such disasters. This year, many States have been impacted by floods, tornados, ice storms, and other severe conditions of nature that have crippled individuals and communities alike. That is why I am co- sponsoring an amendment with Senator Reid in the amount of $65 million that would provide funding assistance through the Army Corps of Engineers to aid impacted States in recovering and rebuilding from recent natural disasters. This funding, coupled with the $983 million Federal Emergency Management Agency recently received through the FY 2003 Supplemental, should go a long way in helping States get back on their feet. This amendment provides $65 million for the Corps under the operations and maintenance account to help repair damages to public facilities, such as obstructive deposits in flood control streams, bank erosion threatening public facilities, damages to other public infrastructure such as water and sewer facilities. Additionally, funds provided will allow the Army Corps to repair weather related damages that have occurred to Federal infrastructure. Weather-related damages have occurred to public infrastructure across the country that is beyond the ability of local governments to repair. As I mentioned, West Virginia has recently suffered devastating floods. Numerous other States such as Michigan, Louisiana, Missouri and Illinois are still suffering from damages that occurred in previous storm events. In May of this year, unusually heavy rainfall occurred in four counties of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan causing rivers and streams throughout the area to swell out of their banks, inflicting severe and widespread damages. The greatest damages occurred in Marquette County where an earthen dike at Silver Lake Basin failed, sending an estimated eight billion gallons of water cascading downstream through the city of Marquette toward Lake Superior. The floodwaters destroyed or damaged numerous public and private structures and caused unprecedented environmental and ecological damage within the Dead River Basin and into Lake Superior in Marquette County. Two power generation facilities were damaged. One of the power generation facilities, the Presque Isle plant in the city of Marquette, resulted in shutdown for more than 30 days. Without power, two iron ore mines, which produce about 20 percent of our nation's annual iron ore output, were shut down, idling 1,200 workers. Dozens of other area businesses, institutions and private homeowners were also seriously impacted. Three of the four counties affected are impoverished, with a majority of the population over 65 years of age. Local governments simply do not have the capital to pay for the public damages. Without an infusion of Federal aid, Marquette and the other three counties will have a difficult, if not impossible, task of recovering from this disaster. This amendment fills a significant funding void to provide States expedited recovery from natural disasters that have occurred throughout the United States. These funds are vitally needed, as any flood, tornado, or storm victim can tell you, and I urge the Senate to approve their inclusion in this bill. I thank my colleagues for their consideration of this important amendment.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. How long will it require to do so?

Mr. BYRD. Five thirty. Very well.

Mr. BYRD. I made a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair. It has nothing to do with what you are saying, your argument or hers.

Mr. BYRD. I want to speak on another subject. That is what I want to do.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have the floor, do I not?

Mr. BYRD. May I inquire of the distinguished Senator from California if she wishes to respond in any way to the Senator from New Mexico?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am going to speak on another subject, and I do not want to interfere with the discussions on this amendment. Does the Senator from Massachusetts wish to speak on this same subject?

Mr. BYRD. All right. Does the Senator from Arizona wish to speak on this subject also? All right. Mr. President, inasmuch as I have the floor, I would like to propound a unanimous consent request.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the four Senators on the floor at the moment, other than I, finish their discussions on this amendment, I be recognized. I make that request. Now, what I am saying is, when Senator Domenici, when Senator Kyl of Arizona, when the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, and the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, have finished their colloquies, their discussions, or their statements, that I then be recognized to speak on another subject.

Mr. BYRD. I would suspect that my speech would require an hour.

Mr. BYRD. Yes, sir.

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

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, in recent weeks, there has been a great deal of discussion about a June 2 vote by the Federal Communications Commission to lift the lid on media ownership rules. Under the new regulations, a broadcast network can own and operate local television stations that reach as much as 45 percent of the Nation. What does that mean? According to the Consumer Federation of America, television and newspaper mergers will be allowed in about 200 markets where approximately 98 percent of the American people live. TV duopolies, where one owner owns two television stations in the same market, and perhaps even triopolies, where one owner controls three stations in one market, will be allowed in more than 160 markets, covering better than 95 percent of the population. This is a dangerous vote by the FCC. I fear that it will strangle voices that disagree with corporate interests at virtually every level of news and commentary. Local news media represent a community's window on the school board, the city council, the county commission. The local media, more than any other resource, educates people about the issues that directly affect their lives. But these new rules, as approved by the FCC, threaten that role by allowing one person or one corporate interest to control such a significant level of discourse and debate. News and information may be forced to fit into a corporate plan or personal agenda. I have been in Congress for more than 50 years. If there is one lesson that I have learned, it is that the media and politicians share at least one common bond: both rely on public trust for credibility. To earn that trust, the public must know that it can rely on the honesty and integrity of the people in critical decisionmaking positions. Credibility is jeopardized when questions about the veracity of reports are raised or when a news organization is seen more as a biased promoter of opinion rather than as a fair arbiter of fact. In October 1958, a pioneer of the broadcast industry took the podium at the Mayfair Hotel in Chicago to address his colleagues at the annual convention of the Radio-Television News Directors Association. On that night, when reporters, news directors, sponsors, and network executives gathered together to honor excellence in their industry, Edward R. Murrow called it his duty to speak about what was happening in the radio and television industry. Mr. Murrow, one of the most honored and respected journalists in our Nation's history, criticized his colleagues for failing in their obligation to the people of this country. ``Our history will be what we make it,'' Murrow said. ``If there are any historians about fifty or a hundred years from now, and there should be preserved the kinescopes for one week of all three networks, they will find there evidence of decadence, escapism, and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live.'' He continued: ``One of the basic troubles with radio and television news is that both instruments have grown up as an incompatible combination of show business, advertising, and news. . . . The top management of the networks, with a few notable exceptions, has been trained in advertising, research, or show business. By the nature of the corporate structure, they also make the final and crucial decisions having to do with news and public affairs. Frequently, they have neither the time nor the competence to do this.'' Here we are, almost 45 years later. What would Mr. Murrow think of today's media? Would he consider the FCC vote a threat to a strong, independent media? The news and broadcast industry has had time to mature, to evolve into what Mr. Murrow hoped would be a responsible venture that exalts the importance of ideas, and not simply panders to the lowest virtues in the human race. Alas, I believe Mr. Murrow would be disappointed in what he would see today. Instead of exalting ideas, mass media today seem more often than not to worship at the altar of sex, blood, and scandal. Instead of pursuing a higher cause and taking the time to educate the public about the issues and events affecting our everyday lives, we read and hear about things that serve to titillate or divide us. There are a few voices in the media that attempt to educate, to inform, rather than to incite. But too often these men and women are sent packing because their corporate bosses fear low ratings and a commercial backlash. This spring, for example, the General Electric-owned cable network MSNBC, fired Phil Donahue from his evening talk show. Mr. Donahue was one of the few voices in the news-talk genre that did not worship at the altar of the salacious story. He did not titillate. He spoke frankly, sharing his beliefs and welcoming those who saw otherwise. And when confronted with a person offering differing opinion, Phil Donahue did not insult or bully that person. Instead, he debated calmly and fairly, and treated his guests with courtesy and respect. Mr. Donahue was opposed to war in Iraq. He made his views known. He debated, he argued, and he persuaded. But at least one insider at the MSNBC network said that Phil Donahue was fired because the corporate heads at the network worried about having a critic of President Bush in its programming schedule. They worried: What would sponsors think? How would they react? Instead of defending constitutional freedom of the press, MSNBC, it appears, caved in to the business bottom line. Instead of a critical voice, the network has filled the time with yet another carbon copy of the typical current day talk show hosts: slanted, biased, and arrogant. Is that what the future holds for news outlets? MSNBC seems to be following the examples set by News Corporation, the corporate umbrella of Fox News channel. Rupert Murdoch, the chairman and CEO of News Corporation, has used his influence and his money to buy significant influence over the country's politics and priorities. Coincidence? Not likely. In fact, one former News Corporation executive stated in a profile on Mr. Murdoch earlier this year that: He hungered for the kind of influence in the United States that he had in England and Australia. Part of our political strategy here was the New York Post and the creation of Fox News and The Weekly Standard. Political strategy? What happened to journalistic strategy? Are we doomed to more politics than journalism as a result of the June 2 FCC vote? In fact, the complete list of holdings of News Corporation gives one pause. News Corporation is quickly growing into a media empire. Its main holdings are the Fox broadcast networks and the cable networks Fox News Channel, Fox Sports, FX, and others, 20th Century Fox studios, 35 local American television stations, the New York Post, plus the Times and the Sun of London, the conservative magazine the Weekly Standard, the publishing house HarperCollins, the Sky satellite system in England, and the Star satellite system in Asia, and various publications in Mr. Murdoch's native Australia. In addition, News Corporation is seeking Federal approval to buy a one-third share in DirecTV, the leading satellite broadcast system in North America. Should that purchase be approved, News Corporation would then control a worldwide satellite system beyond any other company's reach. Yet the Federal Communications Commission, the people's watchdog on broadcast fairness and responsibility, would rubberstamp such mergers and monopolies rather than examine them with a skeptical eye. The FCC is supposed to be a watchdog, not a lap dog. The media enjoy a rare position in our society. Reporters and editors are supposed to responsibly detail events and activities, explain ideas and innovations to a public who might not, on first hearing, completely understand the issue. But complex ideas, such as peace in the Middle East or even the doctrine of preemptive strikes on which the war in Iraq was based, are pared down into short broadcast packages lasting 2 minutes, perhaps. The focus is on sound bites rather than on sound information. Instead of an intelligent discussion, we hear a constant barrage of commentary that is supposed to pass for news judgment. We listen to television show hosts call Members of Congress the ``lie choir'' because they question administration policy. Without foundation, in fact, allegations of dishonesty by Senators are tossed around and, although baseless, they have the air of fact because they are repeated time and time again by pseudo news hosts. This so-called unbiased media is nothing more than partisan opinion covered in a thin veneer of news and information. I do not question the media's right to report on stories and to have talk shows which express opinion. That right is clearly laid out in the first amendment of the Bill of Rights: Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. This amendment, ratified in December 1791, gives broad power to the press. Our constitutional Framers understood that the Republic would not function properly if the press were not allowed to operate freely and without intervention from Government. However, the media industry also must recognize the responsibility that it has to the public which relies so heavily on the information provided in daily reports. The free press must be a fair press. Through the first amendment, our Framers guaranteed a free press. We, the people, demand a fair press, one that meets its responsibilities and our expectations. A free press cannot exist without the trust of the public it serves. To win and maintain that trust, the press must be unbiased in its work. Unfortunately, expectations may be too high. News organizations often rely solely on the word of those speaking from podiums of power. They take information as gospel truth without, many times, checking the facts or verifying the information. At a time when standards should be strong, the news industry seems very happy to follow the day's latest scandal. It does not hesitate to bring to bear the full light of public scorn when there is the slightest suggestion of a misstep by a person in the public light. However, when that same light is turned squarely on the media, there is little enthusiasm for the intensity. Edward R. Murrow experienced this firsthand. While those in attendance at the dinner in Chicago in 1958 applauded Mr. Murrow after he finished his speech, the response away from the podium, away from Mr. Murrow, was quite different. He was castigated by network executives who accused him of biting the hand that fed him. No less than William Paley, the president of CBS and a good friend of Murrow's, was said to be furious after Murrow criticized the broadcast industry. He saw it as a breach of loyalty. But Edward Murrow believed he carried a greater burden of loyalty to his audience. He saw his Chicago remarks as his faithful duty to the people who listened to him every night, who relied on him to give them the information they needed to know. I think Edward Murrow would be ashamed of much of the news programming on television today. Like so much of the American public, he would not believe that the media, on the whole, are fulfilling the responsibility to educate and inform. According to a USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll from this past May, only 36 percent of the American people believe that news organizations get the facts straight. What can improve the public confidence in the media? Perhaps the media in Minnesota have a good start. In 1970, University of Minnesota Professor Ed Gerald helped to set up the Minnesota News Council, believing then that: To the common man, it seems that journalists, at will, can make heroes or scoundrels out of any of us. Professor Gerald recognized the sheer power and influence of the media. He also knew that, as much as a free press is crucial to the Republic, a fair press is needed to ensure the public trust. The Minnesota News Council provides an avenue for the public to hold media outlets accountable for the reports they air or print. Outside of a courtroom and free of charge to either party, the News Council, made up of reasonable, qualified people from within the media and outside of it, comes together to decide whether a report or story is fairly produced or whether it is distorted, untrue, or dishonest. The State of Washington has a similar news council. Many nations, including the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada, have news councils. At least one noted journalist has long supported the concept of a news council, if not on a national level then on State or regional levels. For many years, Mike Wallace, CBS News Correspondent and co- editor of 60 Minutes, has believed that the concept of a news council could be an important tool in building the public trust in the media. Mr. Wallace, in a 1996 lecture at the Freedom Forum's Media Studies Center, said, he is ``convinced that more state news councils, regional news councils, and/or a renewed national news council could strike a blow for a better public understanding in a time of skepticism about us, of who we are and what it is we do.'' Since those remarks, Mr. Wallace has continued to urge his colleagues to support the news council idea, but the resistance, especially from national media organizations, is profound. What is wrong with this approach? A news council is not a court of law; rather it is a forum where the public and the news media can engage each other in examining standards of fairness. It is not a radical idea, but a commonsense approach. As the Minnesota News Council describes the concept, in their various forms, news councils are designed to promote fairness in the news media by giving members of the public who feel damaged by a news story an opportunity to hold the news organization accountable. What is wrong with allowing the public, which has such a poor view of the media, to take part in such an endeavor? This type of public dialogue can lead to a better understanding of the media industry and its role in society by that society, as well as a stronger foundation for more accurate, more responsible dissemination of news. Solid journalism is also a way to improve the public's view of the media. It restores that sense of credibility that is threatened when we read about reporters who have published stories without any factual background. It would help to reaffirm independent voices, even if those voices run counter to the opinions of the corporate management. On television and in print, large media conglomerates already control the vast majority of what Americans see, read, and hear. A grand total of five--five--media companies today control 75 percent of prime time programming. Outlets such as cable and the Internet, which could have served to check corporate media conglomeration power, have instead followed the old adage, ``if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.'' Thus, today these same 5 companies control 90 percent of the top 50 channels on cable. Similarly on the Internet, existing newspapers and TV networks dominate the most popular sites for news and information. Technology may have increased the number of media outlets, but it has not stopped big media from further extending its reach. Former Washington Post assistant managing editor Ben Bagdikian has sketched out the growing concentration of media ownership. In 1983, when his book, ``The Media Monopoly,'' was first published, Mr. Bagdikian reported that ``50 corporations dominated most of every mass medium.'' But, with each new edition of the book, that number shrinks and shrinks and shrinks: 29 media corporations in 1987, 23 in 1990, 14 in 1992, and 10 in 1997. The sixth edition, published in 2000, documented that just six--six--corporations supply most of America's media content. Bagdikian wrote: It is the overwhelming collective power of these firms, with their corporate interlocks and unified cultural and political values, that raises troubling questions about the individual's role in the American democracy. The June 2 vote by the Federal Communications Commission threatens to expand the influence of these few corporations even further, stretching their hands around a larger number of local television and radio stations, scarfing up newspapers and Internet news outlets. This is an opinion shared by consumer advocates, media watchdog groups, and various organizations representing the spectrum of political and societal views in the United States, from the National Rifle Association to the National Organization for Women, from the Catholic Conference of Bishops to the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. The Parents Television Council, Common Cause, the National Association of Black-Owned Broadcasters, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, the Writers Guild, and the Association of Christian Schools, all of these groups questioned the wisdom of even greater media consolidation. Tens of thousands of Americans have expressed their opposition to the FCC rule. In fact, three-quarters of a million people contacted the FCC about this new consolidation, and, according to FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, 99.9 percent of them opposed further media consolidation. In testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Commissioner Adelstein was blunt. [T]he FCC approved the most sweeping and destructive rollback of consumer protection rules in the history of American broadcasting. I'm afraid democracy was not well served by Monday's decision. Allowing fewer media outlets to control what Americans see, hear and read can only give Americans less information to use in making up their own minds about the key issues they face. The decision will diminish the diversity of voices heard over the public airwaves, which can only diminish the civil discourse and the quality of our society's intellectual, cultural and political life. It will diminish the coverage of local voices and local issues as media giants gobble up local outlets and nationalize the stories they broadcast. In the end, our new rules will simply make it easier for existing media giants to acquire more outlets and fortify their already massive market power. As media conglomerates go on buying sprees, they will accumulate enormous debt that will force them to chase the bottom dollar ahead of all else. This is likely to result in more sensationalism, more crassness, more violence, and even less serious coverage of the news and local events. Recently, there have been obstacles thrown in the way of the FCC's Mack truck of a rule. The Senate Appropriations Committee has blocked the implementation of the new policy. The unanimous committee approval of the fiscal year 2004 Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary Appropriations bill was a strong endorsement of media diversity. The committee's action follows the House of Representatives vote on July 23, 400-21, to pass the fiscal year 2004 Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bill. As part of that legislation, the House also would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from implementing this policy allowing for media consolidation. But the Congress is not the only branch of Government involved in this issue. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a surprise order on September 3, blocking the Federal Communications Commission from imposing its new rules just one day before those rules were slated to take effect. Given the magnitude of this matter and the public's interest in reaching the proper resolution, a stay is warranted pending thorough and efficient judicial review, The court concluded in the case. Indeed, it is my hope that, with such growing opposition, the administration and the Federal Communications Commission will abandon such an ill-advised policy. I have often said that as long as there is a forum in which questions can be asked by men and women who do not stand in awe of a chief executive and one can speak as long as one's feet will allow one to stand, the liberties of the American people will be secure. That forum is this Senate. But the same can be said of the news media--the newspapers, radio stations, television stations, and other outlets that provide information that is important to the lives of all Americans. That freedom, that unbiased coverage, is a key, a foundation stone of this Republic. For, without it, the American people can be led to disaster without so much as a whisper. Their freedoms can be trampled; their rights can be subverted. In his speech in Chicago in 1958, Mr. Murrow offered a challenge to his colleagues. Just once in a while, let us exalt the importance of ideas. Let us dream to the extent of saying that, on a given Sunday night, the time . . . occupied by Ed Sullivan is given over to a . . . survey of the state of American education [or] the time normally used by Steve Allen is devoted to a thoroughgoing study of American policy in the Middle East. While Ed Sullivan and Steve Allen are not with us anymore, the need for responsibility that Mr. Murrow called for among his colleagues in the news industry clearly still remains with us today. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator add my name as a cosponsor?

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