Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Very well, yes.

Mr. BYRD. Yes, it would. Amendment No. 1542

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have already spoken on behalf of the amendment. I do not ask for recognition at this point.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator from Vermont.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the remarks I am about to make can very well be written under the title ``Gathering Storm Clouds Over North Korea.'' Weather forecasters have a name for one of their worst nightmares of violent atmospheric disturbance, triggered by an unusual convergence of weather systems. They call it the ``perfect storm.'' As the United States continues to be preoccupied with quelling the postwar chaos in Iraq, I worry that the elements of a perfect storm, capable of wreaking devastating damage to international stability, are brewing elsewhere in the world. The forces at play are centered on the escalating nuclear threat from North Korea, but they also include the emergence of Iran as a nuclear contender, the violence and desperate humanitarian situation in Liberia, the near forgotten but continuing war in Afghanistan, and the unrelenting threat of international terrorism. Just a few days ago, the Department of Homeland Security issued a chilling alert that al-Qaida operatives may be plotting suicide missions to hijack commercial aircraft in the coming weeks, possibly in the United States--a very sobering thought indeed. Weather forecasters can do little more than watch a storm unfold. They cannot quiet the winds, as Jesus did on the Sea of Galilee, or calm the seas. We require more from the President of the United States when it comes to international crises. The President cannot afford merely to plot the course of the gathering storms over North Korea, Iran, Liberia, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. The President needs to turn his attention to these countries and work with the international community to defuse the emerging crises. The challenge is formidable and there are no easy answers. But the price of inaction could be ruinous. Of all the looming international threats, North Korea is clearly the most worrisome. As recently as July 14, former Defense Secretary and Korean specialist, Willian Perry, warned that the United States and North Korea are drifting toward war, possibly as early as this year. In an interview published in the Washington Post, Dr. Perry said: The nuclear program now underway in North Korea poses an imminent danger of nuclear weapons being detonated in American cities. Surely, such a stark warning from an official so deeply steeped in the political culture of North Korea should be a wake-up call to the President. Yet, to date, the administration has steadfastly refused to engage in direct talks with North Korea, or even to characterize the threat of North Korea's nuclear weapons program as a crisis. Instead, the President and his advisers have continued to hurl invectives at Kim Jong Il, while shrugging off increasingly alarming reports that North Korea is stepping up its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Since last October, when North Korea revealed that it planned to reprocess plutonium fuel rods into fissile material that could be used in nuclear weapons, the President and his advisers have consistently downplayed the nuclear threat from North Korea, while hyping the nuclear threat from Iraq. Yet while we have strong evidence that North Korea is working feverishly to accelerate its nuclear program, we still have not found a shread--not a shread--of evidence that Saddam Hussein's efforts to reconstitute Iraq's nuclear weapons program were anything more than bluster and hyperbole. It is time--if it is not already too late--to drop the false bravado of indifference to the threat from North Korea and engage in face-to- face negotiations with the North Koreans. Multilateral negotiations are fine--preferable even--but they are unlikely to be productive unless the United States takes the lead. We cannot wait for the Chinese or the Japanese or the South Koreans to pave the way. We cannot brush off the nuclear threat posed by North Korea as just an annoying irritant. There is a real threat. Now there is a real threat to the United States, and the United States must act fast to naturalize it. The news on Thursday, July 31, that North Korea has expressed a willingness to engage in six-sided talks, with the participation of Russia in addition to the other players, offers a glimmer of opportunity that the United States should seize before North Korea changes its mind. As difficult as it is to predict or understand the motivations of Kim Jong Il, one thing is certain: No progress can be made in unraveling the nuclear tangle on the Korean peninsula until the parties involved start talking to each other. Not only must the President come to terms with the gravity of the situation in North Korea but the President must also understand that this is not a one-man show, and that this is not the type of discussion that can be sealed with a simple handshake. You don't look into the eyes here and determine what is in the depth of the soul. Under the Constitution, the Senate has a unique and important role to play in helping to frame the contours and the content of international treaties. Any agreement negotiated between the United States and Korea will have far-reaching implications for the national security of the United States and, as such, should be subject to the treaty advice and consent provision of article II, section 2, of the Constitution. On a collision course with the nuclear threat from North Korea is the question of how to deal with Iran's increasingly aggressive nuclear posture. A month ago the President hinted darkly that he would not tolerate the construction of a nuclear weapon in Iran; but he has been largely silent on the issue in the ensuing weeks. When asked during a rare press conference earlier this week about the potential for war with Iran, the President placed the burden for seeking a peaceful solution squarely on the shoulders of the international community, without suggesting any role for the United States beyond ``convincing others'' to speak to the Iranian Government. When it comes to dealing with the threat from Iran's weapons of mass destruction, it appears that the White House is deferring to some of the same countries and institutions, including the International Atomic Energy Agency, that it dismissed as inconsequential during the runup to war with Iraq. Like North Korea, the options for dealing with Iran are limited, but dodging engagement in favor of sporadic saber rattling is scarcely the wisest course of action. Equally unhelpful are ominous hints that the United States is contemplating covert action to precipitate regime change in Iran. Unlike North Korea, Iran has not demanded direct negotiations with the United States. Before it comes to that point, and the United States is faced with the perception of being blackmailed into negotiations, the administration should seize the initiative and not abdicate its responsibility to other nations and other institutions. Here again, the administration cannot afford to ignore the storm warnings and hope the crisis will simply blow over. The situation in Liberia raises a different, but no less volatile, set of issues. Rent by violence and reeling from the effects of a three-way conflict between an illegitimate government and the warring rebels who want to unseat it, Liberia is desperately seeking help from the United States. The President raised expectations for U.S. intervention during his highly publicized visit to Africa earlier this month, but it has been several weeks now since his return, and still no clear policy with regard to Liberia has emerged from the White House. The question of whether the United States should intervene in the Liberian crisis is fraught with unknowns and uncertainties. The humanitarian crisis calls out for relief. And yet the solution is elusive, and the danger of ensnaring U.S. military troops in an intractable civil war is not to be underestimated. Can the Economic Community of West African States, known as ECOWAS, raise a force sufficient to stabilize the unrest in Liberia? Could the United States help without sending in ground troops? Is the United Nations prepared to take over peacekeeping operations once the situation is stabilized? Can the United States afford to assist Liberia? Can the United States afford to ignore Liberia? The questions are tough, but procrastination is not an acceptable response. Hundreds of innocent civilians are suffering and dying as a result of the conflict in Liberia. Monrovia is in shambles. Last week, July 25, the President took the tentative step of ordering several thousand U.S. Marines to be positioned off the coast of Liberia, but how or whether any of those troops will be deployed remains unknown. Indecisive, half-hearted gestures serve no purpose. As long as there is an expectation that the United States will intervene, African states are unlikely to take independent action to deal with the situation in Liberia. The President needs to determine a course of action, he needs to consult with Congress and the United Nations on pursuing that course, and he needs to explain his reasoning and his strategy to the American people. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week on July 24, GEN Peter Pace, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, termed Liberia ``potentially a very dangerous situation'' that poses ``great personal risk'' to American troops. Any decision to send American troops into that war-torn country is a decision that must be carefully thought through and be made in concert with Congress and the international community, not simply presented to the American people as an after-the-fact notification. The situation in Liberia, and the other crises brewing around the world, require more attention and more explanation from the President than the usual off-the-cuff comments tossed to reporters at the end of photo ops. This is not a summer for the President to spend riding around the ranch in his pick up truck. This is not a time to play to the television cameras with the ``bring 'em on'' school of rhetoric. The problems confronting the United States require the President's serious and undivided attention. The American people deserve a full accounting from the President of where he stands on critical international issues, and how he intends to deal with them. Against the backdrop of the war in Iraq and the emerging crises in North Korea, Iran, and Liberia, the largely forgotten war in Afghanistan--the largely forgotten war in Afghanistan--continues to grind on and on and on more than a year and a half after the United States rousted the Taliban from power and obliterated al Qaeda's terrorist training camps. Nearly 10,000 American troops remain in Afghanistan, with no end--no end--to their mission in sight--and no clear mission to accomplish--hunting the remnants of the Taliban and al-Qaida organizations. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein's sons have been killed, and one can only hope that we are closing in on Saddam Hussein himself, but in the wider war on terrorism, Osama bin Laden remains at large, and his organization continues to spread its venom throughout the Middle East and perhaps the world. The alert issued earlier this week by the Homeland Security Department is only the latest reminder that the al-Qaida terrorist network remains a potent threat to America and its allies. The warning included specific details--such as the fact that targets might include the East Coast of the United States, the United Kingdom, Italy, or Australia and it raised the possibility that at least one of the planned highjackings or bombings could be executed before the end of the summer. In the face of such a frightening specter, it is somewhat unsettling that on the subject of terrorism, the President is talking tough to Iran and Syria, but he seldom mentions Osama bin Laden anymore. Is this another example of the President's efforts to change his message to divert the attention of the American people, the people who are watching through those electronic eyes above the Chair's desk? The imminent and direct threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was used to hoodwink the public into accepting the rush to war, but now that no weapons have been found, the President barely mentions them anymore. Instead, he is now talking about how regime change in Iraq was really the catalyst required to stabilize the Middle East. New day, new message. At the center of America's imperiled relations with its friends and foes alike is the Bush doctrine of preemption, which was first articulated in the September 2002 National Security Strategy. This unprecedented declaration that the United States has the right to launch preemptive military attacks against hostile nations in the absence of direct provocation sent shockwaves throughout the international community. The doctrine of preemption was the justification for attacking Iraq without provocation, but the ramifications of the policy go far beyond that nation. All so-called ``rogue regimes'' were put on notice that the United States was prepared to act to deter the development of weapons of mass destruction that could be used against America. Suddenly, the elite club of nations that formed the President's ``axis of evil'' found itself caught in the cross hairs of the U.S. military. And just as quickly, the hollowness of the doctrine was exposed. Iraq could be attacked at will because it did not have nuclear capability. North Korea called for restraint because it plausibly did have nuclear capability. Iran was a question mark. Predictably, both North Korea and Iran, seeing the writing on the wall, began to scramble to accelerate their nuclear programs. In retrospect, the doctrine of preemption is beginning to look more and more like a doctrine of provocation. Against this background, the storm clouds of international instability are massing. America's military forces are stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our military leadership is absorbed with Iraq. Our military resources, both financial and personnel, are strained to the breaking point. With the exception of Britain, our allies are reluctant to commit significant resources or manpower to an operation in Iraq in which the United States has a stranglehold on authority and decision-making. The executive branch is preoccupied with the occupation of Iraq and seems paralyzed when it comes to meaningful action to deal with North Korea or Iran or Liberia. Afghanistan and the global war on terror have seemingly been relegated to the status of afterthoughts. America's foreign policy appears to be adrift in an increasingly tumultuous sea of international turmoil. Meanwhile, the national terror threat continues to hover uneasily in the ``elevated range'' amid new warnings of terrorist attacks being plotted against commercial aircraft. In this moment of great potential peril, the President is preparing to retire for a month to his ranch in Texas. The question needs to be asked: Who's minding the White House? In a short time, the Senate will recess for the month of August. I do not think we should go very far. I hope that the international situation will remain stable, and that no new crises will erupt. But I do not pretend to be sanguine. I do not pretend to assume that all will be well. A rare combination of volatile and dangerous international events are poised to converge in the coming months. In large part, it is a storm of this administration's own making, fueled by the fear, confusion, and instability caused by the unprecedented and ill-advised doctrine of preemption. I only hope that the President and his advisers can summon the skill, the wit, and the leadership to engage and attempt to tame the elements of international turmoil before it is too late and we are swept up into the vortex of the storm. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank the distinguished Senator from New Mexico. Mr. President, I have been asked by the distinguished Senator from South Carolina to ask unanimous consent that he be recognized following me.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, an apocryphal tale is often told by professors of economics in classrooms across the country. It is a tale about a king who asks his advisers to teach him the laws of economics. The king's advisers return with a book on the subject. But the king tells his advisers that his time is precious, and he asks them to summarize the book. The king's advisers return with a single piece of paper. But the king again tells his advisers that his time is precious and he sends them away to summarize the lesson even further. The king's advisers finally return with a single line, summarizing all of the known laws of economics. The king reads: ``There is no such thing as a free lunch.'' For most people, this is a universally accepted truism--just plain common sense--that nothing is free. There are tradeoffs and opportunity costs to every decision we make. Even a child can understand this most basic economic principle. But for the Bush administration, you can beat them over the head with their own budget and still they will not acknowledge the tradeoffs and opportunity costs of the budgetary decisions they have made. On July 15, the administration released its mid-year budget and economic forecast, the so-called ``Mid-Session Review.'' The Office of Management and Budget revealed to the American people that the Government would run an incredible, record-breaking $455 billion deficit in the fiscal year 2003. Worse, the deficit will increase to $475 billion in the fiscal year 2004. I daresay that is a low figure. The administration estimates that if the Congress enacts the President's policies, we will increase the public debt by $2 trillion over the next 6 years. The OMB Director assured the public that these deficits were ``manageable . . . sustainable . . . not a problem.'' In other words, a free lunch. When the Bush administration promises almost $3 trillion in tax cuts, a prescription drug benefit, a record increase in defense spending, more money for education and health care, claims that it will protect Social Security and Medicare for future retirees, and asks for nothing in return--that is more than a free lunch; it is a cost-free invitation to a White House banquet. The American people may recall the last free lunch this administration tried to peddle. Prior to the war in Iraq, the Bush administration promoted a vision of Saddam's removal from power as a quick, easy, and bloodless exercise. Indeed, most of the support for this war was based on the rationale that America's tremendous military superiority over Iraq would confine the costs of this war to a relatively painless contest between the United States' awesome military might and the relatively weak, conventional military of Saddam Hussein. But now the true costs of the war are becoming more apparent. The number of U.S. casualties in Iraq has risen to 248 soldiers--and rising by 1 soldier per day or more--more than double the 123 deaths at the time the President declared victory in Iraq on May 1. Families of reservists and national guardsmen, who thought that their sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives would return after major combat had ended, are now realizing that their family members will be in Iraq indefinitely. Administration officials who were counting on U.S. allies to assist in peacekeeping efforts in Iraq are now realizing that our strong arm tactics have alienated many of our closest allies. The United States is now committed to a long-term endeavor to rebuild Iraq, which is costing the American taxpayer $4 billion per month. The administration hid the potential costs in the buildup to the war. Now, the American people are realizing that free lunch will be paid for with our Nation's treasure, prestige, and blood. So I take little comfort when this administration promises another free lunch, when it describes its budget deficits as ``manageable'' and ``not a problem.'' With $475 billion in budget deficits projected for the upcoming fiscal year, this Nation is experiencing budget deficits never before seen. They amount to roughly one-fifth of the entire Federal budget. This forces the Federal Government to borrow $1 out of every $5 it spends. And much of that money will have to be borrowed from our allies overseas--that is, those allies that we have not already alienated. With a $475 billion budget deficit, next year, the Federal Government will have to borrow more than the entire defense budget. For every military operation underway right now--in Iraq, Afghanistan, Liberia, the Balkans--and to maintain our current military defenses, the administration will have to borrow the money to pay the equivalent of those costs. With a $475 billion budget deficit, the recently enacted tax cuts are not free. Ultimately, the American people will have to repay every dollar to balance the budget. When the President is pinned down about the mounting deficits, he has two replies. First, they are small and not a threat. But the deficits assumed in his budget are the highest ever recorded, and, as long as we are running deficits, we are not saving to ensure the solvency of the Social Security and Medicare programs. There is no escaping that budgetary fact--none. Without more savings, we are endangering the Social Security and Medicare programs. The President tells us that we can grow out of deficits. Well that sounds nice, but it won't happen. The Congressional Budget Office, which is now headed by a former White House economist, formulated nine different economic models to predict how the recently enacted tax cut would affect the economy, and the CBO concluded that the President's proposal would have only a negligible effect. Even with strong economic growth, the White House budget office is still projecting that the Nation will accumulate $2 trillion in new debt under this administration's proposals, and that doesn't include the $5 billion per month the administration is spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, Mr. President, we are drowning in a sea of red ink. We are gasping for air. And all this administration can do is promise more cost-free White House banquet dinners as they claim it is ``not a problem.'' But it is a problem! We are already seeing these deficits eat into our budget. Just look at the amendments that were opposed by the administration on the recently passed appropriations bill for the Homeland Security Department. Under pressure from the administration, Senators voted down amendment after amendment after amendment designed to enhance the security and the safety of the American people. Spending for vital homeland security functions is being denied each time with the same excuse--that our budget doesn't allow for it. We are spending nearly $4 billion per month in Iraq, but we could not afford a $1.75 billion amendment that I offered to secure our ports, to equip and train our first responders, and to secure our borders. It is incredible! The budget that calls for astronomical tax cuts does not allow for the safety and security of the American people within their own borders. Al-Qaida has not yet been destroyed. It is very much alive and kicking. It is still alive and well, and planning attacks now, attacks against U.S. citizens. Al-Qaida are patient, persistent killers. And, yet, this administration continues to oppose, right here on this floor, essential homeland security funding. Just this week, the Department of Homeland Security issued a new advisory about the potential hijacking of planes, and yet the administration opposed my amendment to secure cargo on passenger aircraft. Our ports, our borders, our airlines, our chemical facilities, our nuclear powerplants are still perilously vulnerable. Have we not learned anything, Mr. President? The war on terrorism can only be won with both a strong defense and a strong offense. And, yet, the ratio of defense to homeland security spending is 12 to 1. That is $1 of spending to build up our homeland defenses for every $12 spent on our military. We are seeing only a halfhearted effort by this administration to address the vulnerabilities in our infrastructure. We talk about the infrastructure in Iraq. What about our own infrastructure? The administration says they are going to do something, but not enough to thwart terrorist attacks. It should frighten us all. It certainly frightens me. When I stop to think, I say to Senator Hollings, that you and I and these people around us who are sitting at the desks--the President at the desk, the desk of the workers here--when I stop to think that we are alive today, in all likelihood, because there were a few courageous men on that airplane that went down in Pennsylvania who had heard about the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. And because their own plane was a little late in taking off, they heard these other things. They knew what was happening. They knew what was happening to that plane and they decided that plane would not reach its objective. And from all indications that I have heard, its objective was this Capitol. So we owe our lives to them. We would not be here today. That is the way I see it. Now, we also hear that these terrorists don't forget, that they are persistent, they are patient. They take their time and they come back. What they fail to do in the first instance, they will try again. We better take these things seriously. The President has established a track record for being strong on rhetoric and short on resources. In his State of the Union, he said: We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other Presidents and other generations. Yet, according to the White House's latest deficit estimates, the President's policy is to have a deficit of $455 billion this year, $475 billion in fiscal year 2004, and an increase in the public debt of $2 trillion over 6 years. That is rhetoric without resources. In May of this year, the President signed the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS Act, which authorized $15 billion over 5 years to attack global AIDS and authorized $3 billion for fiscal year 2004. He traveled to Africa and pressed for the Congress to support the $15 billion commitment. Yet, the President requested only $1.9 billion for global AIDS programs for fiscal year 2004. That is rhetoric without resources. In January of 2002, the President signed the No Child Left Behind Act with great fanfare. He said: Today, begins a new era, a new time in public education in our country. As of this hour, America's schools will be on a new path of reform, and a new path of results . . . And our schools will have greater resources to meet these goals. And, yet, President Bush's budget for fiscal year 2004 proposes to cut funding for No Child Left Behind Act programs by $1.2 billion below the levels that Congress approved for the current fiscal year, to a level that is $6.1 billion below the level authorized in the law that he, the President, signed 18 months ago. More rhetoric without resources. The President has called for the National Service AmeriCorps program to have 75,000 volunteers to tutor, mentor, and teach our children, provide services for our elderly, and clean up our communities. This month, the Senate approved a $100 million supplemental that would have prevented the elimination of 20,000 volunteers, reducing the program to 30,000 volunteers. The President did not lift a finger--he did not lift a finger--in support of the program when the House stripped those funds from a supplemental bill last week. The President and members of his party have passed three tax cuts, taking $2.25 trillion out of the phoney surpluses that the President projected in 2001. Each time the President proposed these tax cuts, he promised that the tax cuts would create jobs. But the facts are different. Instead, we have seen 3.1 million jobs disappear from the private sector since the beginning of this administration, including more than 300,000 jobs lost within the past 5 months. So, once again, we hear rhetoric, but we see no results. More false promises. We are seeing the same halfhearted effort when it comes to preserving the Social Security and Medicare programs. The Bush administration often refers to the long-term problems facing the Social Security and Medicare programs, but the Bush administration has not set aside any money to make them financially solvent. In the coming decade, as the baby boomers begin to retire, the American people are going to realize yet another cost from these budget deficits--namely that there will not be enough money saved to pay the benefits promised to our Nation's seniors. Our Nation's seniors ought to take note of that, and the children of our Nation's seniors ought likewise take note of that. The administration's budget deficits are a problem for State governments, as well. Federal budget deficits have contributed to a $30 billion gap in State budgets because of a lack of Federal payments to States. This is to say nothing of the $68 billion shortfall in State budgets that we read about in recent weeks. Without Federal support, States are forced to cut Medicaid and health care-related programs. For the first time ever, K through 12 education programs are being cut by States to make up for a lack of Federal funds. This year, Oregon school districts were forced to close some schools a month early because of these budget deficits. The administration vehemently opposes any increase in Federal taxes to cover its budget deficits. But what the White House doesn't admit is that State governments across the country are already raising taxes to fill this budget gap. Governors in 29 States have proposed tax or fee increases in their latest budgets. President Bush likes to justify his tax cuts for the rich by asserting that it's the people's money. ``It's your money,'' he says. Well, thanks to Mr. Bush's tax cuts, we are facing a public debt of $5.5 trillion by 2008. Do you know how long it takes to count $1 trillion at the rate of $1 per second? Thirty-two thousand years. That is $1 trillion at the rate of $1 per second. So we are facing a public debt of $5.5 trillion by 2008. That is $18,890 of debt for every man, woman and child in this country. By 2008, we will be spending $260 billion on interest on that debt. In 2017, when the Social Security Trust Fund is in the red, the 65 million Americans who expect to receive their social security benefits, will ask, Where is our money? They were told ``it is your money.'' They will be saying: Where is our money? Everything costs something. There is no free lunch. Yet the administration continues to play the role of the savvy salesman, handing out tax cuts and telling the American people that it will cost them nothing in return. The administration will be forced to reconcile the budgetary quagmire they have created. Nothing is free. There is no such thing as a free lunch. That much, even an apocryphal king could learn. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate now takes up a fiscal year 2003 supplemental appropriations bill in the amount of $983.6 million to replenish the Federal emergency disaster relief fund in the Department of Homeland Security. These funds are urgently needed. In April of this year, Senator Cochran, chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, and I, as the ranking member, urged the administration to release funds that the President was holding up and also urged the administration to request necessary funds to shore up a looming shortfall. Now we are told that the disaster relief fund has a balance of $89 million and is expected to be completely exhausted by August 8. The President finally sent up an emergency supplemental request on July 7 for $1.55 billion to assist recovery efforts in West Virginia and over 300 other areas in every State of the Nation that had been hard hit by severe rains, floods, and tornadoes. It took the Senate Appropriations Committee, under the leadership of Senator Ted Stevens, only 2 days to report out the necessary $1.55 billion in supplemental funds for disaster relief. That legislation also included $253 million for fighting 42 major wildfires which have consumed over 400,000 acres in 12 Western States, as well as $50 million for unanticipated costs associated with the recovery and investigation of the Space Shuttle Columbia accident--all requested by the President. That legislation also included $100 million for the AmeriCorps program in order to avoid deep cuts in the number of volunteers at a time when the President has proposed to increase the number of volunteers by 50 percent. Only 2 days later, on July 11, this legislation cleared the Senate floor by a vote of 85 to 7, and conferees on behalf of the Senate were appointed. During Senate debate, the $100 million for AmeriCorps was voted on separately and was sustained by an overwhelming 71-to-21 vote. Now here we are almost 3 weeks later. The House Members have gone home for an August recess. Just before they left, they sent over to the Senate a $983.6 million stand-alone supplemental for disaster relief only without the necessary funds for fighting the wildfires in 12 Western States, nor the funds for the Columbia Shuttle investigation, nor the necessary funds for AmeriCorps. According to the latest Department estimates, this funding level for disaster relief isn't even enough to make it to September 30. The House sent to the Senate this stripped-down, stand-alone supplemental for disaster relief on a take- it-or-leave-it basis. This is no way to legislate. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee knows that I am not blaming him. He has been trying energetically to engage the House to accept the necessary funds for fighting wildfires, for the NASA shuttle investigation, and for the AmeriCorps shortfall. However, the House leadership and its allies in the White House have turned a deaf ear to needs of the firefighters in the Western States, the requirements of the NASA investigation, and the 20,000 AmeriCorps volunteers who are expecting to embark on a program of working in schools teaching our children reading and math, providing care to our senior citizens, cleaning up our parks, and other valuable volunteer services to our communities. All of these funds are urgently needed, and none are more urgently needed than the funding for disaster relief. I am advised that, because of the lateness of the administration's request, FEMA has already stopped making payments to States for $400 million of infrastructure repairs in the 300 communities with outstanding natural disasters. Communities have already been forced to put projects for repairing damage from past disasters on hold. In my State of West Virginia, for example, I am told that payments for projects have not been made since February of this year almost 6 months ago. West Virginia is owed over $10 million in disaster relief fund payments. Of this amount, $7 million is owed for payments for repairs to dams, sewers, and public buildings, and $3 million is owed to reimburse the State of West Virginia for hazard mitigation, including acquisition and demolition of properties in floodplains and for relocating structures. In McDowell County, WV, for example, FEMA owes $1.1 million to help McDowell County to acquire 64 structures that were substantially damaged or demolished in the June 2002 flood. In the town of Welch, WV, FEMA owes $250,000 for a sewer project already completed by the contractor. The town is unable to pay the contractor for the work, which could result in a lawsuit. A similar situation obtains in the city of Bradshaw, where the work has been completed to prevent raw sewage from being dumped into a river. In this case, an amount of $50,000 is owed to the contractor. The West Virginia Conservation Agency, a State agency responsible for cleaning blockages forming in streams, dams, and reservoirs to avoid further flooding and damage, is owed $200,000 by FEMA. The State agency has an annual budget of $500,000 and FEMA's delay has caused the agency's balances to drop to near zero. As a consequence, should there be another flood in West Virginia, the State conservation agency would not be able to perform its work. These problems exist all across the country. We cannot wait any longer. We must approve this urgent legislation. However, because of the intransigence of the other body, we will be acting, regrettably, without providing the necessary funds for fighting wildfires, for investigating the Space Shuttle Columbia accident, or for the shortfall in the AmeriCorps program. Once again, the President has failed to follow through on his promises. This legislation is $566 million below the administration's budget request for disaster relief. It is $50 million less than the administration budget request for NASA. It is $289 million less than the administration's budget request for fighting wildfires. It includes no funds for the shortfall in AmeriCorps--a program the administration claims it supports. By its failure to engage the House leadership in support of these funds, the President's silence speaks volumes. It is the same old administration theme of rhetoric without resources.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New Mexico. I thank him for the knowledge he brings to the Senate on many matters. For these several years I have worked with him on the Appropriations Committee, he has shown himself to be one of the most knowledgeable persons on that committee and, with respect to energy, he has shown time and again that he is well equipped to enter into debate and to help to form good legislation, better legislation, or the best legislation. I have always found him to be one who is easy to work with. I enjoy working with him and I compliment him for the time he has put in on this matter that is before the Senate. He arrives at his conclusions after due and deliberate examination, and he is a first-class legislator.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator. He has distinguished himself in many fields.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, on pleasant summer days, such as these, I doubt that the average person worries too much about the intricacies of energy policy. However, energy is the life's blood of our economy. Obviously, a comprehensive energy policy is a critical underpinning for a viable, strong nation. And, there are real and growing concerns about the Nation's energy security--about our teetering economy and about our growing dependence on foreign oil. Coupled with these is an increasing need to protect the environment and address global climate change. But instead of looking for balanced and comprehensive solutions to our critical energy problems, this administration drags its feet and deals with our energy challenges by meeting behind closed doors with select corporate contributors. As is often the case, this White House offers shortsighted, silver bullet solutions. But, in fact, there are just no silver bullet solutions to a sound and comprehensive energy policy for the future. There is no Lone Ranger approach to energy. There is no John Wayne approach to energy. We have to consider the worldwide energy supply and demand. We must be ready to invest in a range of policies, technologies, resources, and institutional structures that can prepare us for the future. During the 2000 election cycle, the Bush campaign claimed that the creation of a national energy strategy was one of its most important priorities. But what they meant by that may not be what many people thought they meant. Even as candidate Bush traveled the Presidential campaign trail, the issue of energy often shared the stage with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, in part because both candidates were formerly business executives with ties to the energy industry. My own home State of West Virginia, where energy issues are very important, played a critical role in pushing the Bush-Cheney team over the top in the electoral college and handing the current administration the White House. But, after his election, the President seemed more interested in seeking the advice of his corporate friends than developing a balanced, comprehensive, far-reaching energy policy. It may be illustrative here to review the background of some Bush administration officials. Vice President Cheney served as the CEO of Halliburton. Secretary Norton has lobbied for the oil, gas, and auto industries. The President's Chief of Staff has served as the president and CEO of the American Automobile Manufacturers Association. The U.S. Trade Representative, Robert Zoellick, has served on Enron's Advisory Council. Even National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, was honored by Chevron with a supertanker named after her. With such close connections to big corporate donors, one has to wonder about who really influences the energy agenda of this administration. Upon taking office, the Vice President led a task force that hammered out the new administration's energy strategy for the Nation. After months of work, the National Energy Policy Development Group issued its report in May 2001. It was praised in some camps, criticized in others. The criticism arose because executives from Enron and other big corporate contributors played a major role in the recommendations of that task force. To many, the task force recommendations for a national energy policy appeared to be little more than an industry wish list. When the General Accounting Office and outside groups requested basic information about the Vice President's task force, the White House claimed executive privilege. Throughout the court battle which ensued, the Bush Administration repeatedly claimed that the separation of powers and executive privilege prevented them from releasing pertinent documents. As a result, the credibility of the White House energy strategy development is certainly strained, to say the least, especially with regard to the oil industry. I have been particularly concerned about our continued reliance on foreign oil and our lack of commitment to developing domestic fuel diversity. Tackling that growing problem requires a serious and multi- faceted commitment, involving cooperation and coordination among many players. But what the President seems to be proposing can be pretty much boiled down to drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and exploiting the oil reserves under the hot sands near the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, in the Fertile Crescent--modern day Iraq. U.S. domestic oil production peaked in the early 1970's, and, since that time, our oil demands have far outstripped our supplies. But instead of figuring out how to disentangle ourselves from foreign oil dependence, the Bush administration seems to be intent on sinking our energy fortunes deeper and deeper into the hot sands of old Mesopotania--the hot sands of the Middle East. What is this administration's total energy agenda? Is oil the only card in the energy deck which the administration will play? It certainly appears so. And one has to wonder just how that card is being played. As the world witnessed in the war in Iraq, the administration was much more interested in protecting, defending, and developing Iraq's oil resources than it was in protecting Iraq's cultural or social resources. Early on in the war, coalition forces were ordered to make it a priority to protect the oil fields. Upon their entry into Baghdad U.S. troops were ordered to surround and protect Iraq's oil ministry. Despite clear warnings, coalition forces left Iraq's priceless museums and other government institutions defenseless. On top of that, U.S. forces failed to protect nuclear test facilities. This is especially puzzling in light of the administration's often stated concerns about dirty bombs and the pilfering of nuclear material by terrorists. So where are our priorities? What is the United States really up to in Iraq? If the United States were really intent on developing a smart, commonsense oil policy, we would be taking additional measures to better balance our supplies from other nations; we would be carefully using our strategic reserves to hedge against future foreign manipulation; we would be promoting industrial energy efficiency, and we would be nurturing all forms of alternative sources for our energy and transportation needs, including coal, renewable, and biomass-based sources. I have proposed my own commonsense proposal to help mitigate the growing global dependence on oil supplies from volatile regions. The United States encourage the transfer of our own clean energy technologies to other nations, especially developing countries who will increasingly be buying into the same finite oil markets that we are purchasing from. Such efforts are critical in order to satisfy our energy security needs as well as to address related economic, job creation, trade, and environmental objectives. The demand for oil from other countries will be increasingly fierce, and we have only a narrow window of opportunity ahead. Last year, the administration, at my urging, released a plan for just such an initiative intended to help open international markets and export U.S. clean energy technologies. However, little, if anything, has been done to implement it. Where have we seen this strategy before? The answer is, we have seen it virtually everywhere with this administration--from homeland security to No Child Left Behind. Furthermore, the administration's Fiscal Year 2004 budget confirms some of my worst fears. When it comes to domestic issues, the plan of administration officials these days is about outsourcing, downsizing, reorganizing, reducing, cutting, slashing, slicing, dicing, and carving up the Federal Government. It is a tailor-made infomercial for the benefit of all-too-receptive corporate donors. The administration's energy budget is a sham, and its energy program requests are no different. The Department of Energy cut $20 million for the Clean Coal Power Initiative. The Department of Energy's oil and gas research program was cut by more than 50 percent. In order to squeeze enough dollars out of the budget for the President's new hydrogen initiative, other critical energy programs were severely cut. Yet the administration's hydrogen program is years away and cannot serve as a substitute for conservation, energy diversification, or other key energy programs. Moreover, a proliferation of ``new'' initiatives have been announced by this administration that are purported to solve our energy needs, especially for fossil fuels. We have the hydrogen initiative, a carbon sequester program, FutureGen, a national climate change technology initiative, and more. My question is: Can anyone explain how these ``new'' initiatives will work together? Where is the money to provide for all of this without compromising other important efforts? The fact remains that there is no major increase in real funding or commitment for energy programs, just a proliferation of empty words from this administration. I do not believe we can treat our energy illnesses with the administration's current budget prescription. In the 107th Congress, both the House and Senate actually passed comprehensive energy policy bills. After lengthy debate in conference, important progress was made. A number of compromises were struck, but in the end the conferees could not reach a final agreement. This should come as no surprise. In fact, this administration made no real effort to help get a comprehensive, national energy strategy passed. President Bush suggested that energy was a cornerstone of his administration's agenda, but what did he do during the energy conference in the 107th Congress? Nothing. Oh, his rhetoric may have sounded good on the campaign trail. He tried to talk a good game, but when it counted, the administration took a decidedly hands off approach. This new Senate Energy bill, S. 14, the House Energy bill, H.R. 6, and the White House's interest overall are intended to cater to the administration's friends in industry. That is it. That is all. In its present form, these energy bills are no victory for our country. They are a victory for special interests and a text-book example of our inability to set a long-term energy policy course. Now, we are on the brink of another important opportunity squandered. While there are some solid trees planted in the bill, this legislation will not produce the diverse energy orchard we must have to meet our needs down the road. The President and the Republican-controlled Congress are simply not prepared to make the tough choices that the Nation needs for a viable, long-term energy policy. How long will we wait? The President would love a one-day Rose Garden ceremony and a 2004 campaign press release. But, given this administration's track record, an energy bill would simply be another empty soapbox for this President to stand on, as he has already demonstrated with the education soapbox, the farm legislation soapbox, Afghanistan soapbox, and the Homeland Security soapbox, and other soapboxes. The Congress has passed bills and supported the administration's rhetoric, but then the necessary resources to carry them out never materialize. This is the same fate that awaits an energy bill this session. It takes leadership and it takes hard work to move forward in a responsible, balanced, and intelligent way on energy policy. Yet this administration makes do with a cheap knockoff. It looks like the real thing, but it is a fraud and a fake. It is much like cotton candy. At first glance, it may look good, but there is just no nutrition. In reality, it is just puffed air. In the last 5 years, I have worked hard to help develop a balanced and bipartisan package of provisions to advance our national energy policy goals--provisions that could go a long way toward addressing both the near- and long-term energy needs of our Nation, while also providing numerous benefits both at home and abroad. These provisions garnered bipartisan support in the Senate Energy bill in the 107th Congress, including clean coal, climate change, international technology transfer, and other important provisions. Together, these initiatives represent a bold new enterprise--stepping stones along a 21st century energy pathway. Yet the administration seems intent on just blocking many of these bipartisan ideas. For example, in a May 8, 2003, statement on the Senate Energy bill, the White House stated, in part: The Administration is not convinced of the need for additional legislation that would attempt to limit or direct U.S. global climate change, and will oppose any climate change amendments that are inconsistent with the President's climate change strategy . . . we urge the Senate to allow . . . the President's strategy to go forward unimpeded. Well, I continue to ask, just what is the President's strategy-- cotton candy? Last session I introduced legislation with Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska that would allow the United States to deal more easily with the complex issues involved in climate change. The amendment to be offered by Senator Bingaman is based on last year's Senate-passed provisions. It would create a comprehensive strategy based on credible science and economics to guide American efforts to address climate change issues in our own backyard and around the world. This amendment also would establish a major research effort to invent the advanced technologies that we will need to effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming. We must develop a commonsense package of technology, science, policy and other market-based measures to address this growing global problem. And it is growing. The question is what are we waiting for? Specifically, the Bingaman amendment includes provisions that would commit more than $4 billion during the next decade to vastly expand U.S. research into technology that could help to address the problem of global climate change. The amendment provides for the creation of a more focused administrative structure within the Federal Government, including an office in the White House to coordinate and implement a national climate change strategy. We cannot continue to just ignore this problem. This amendment does not mandate a reduction of emissions by American companies. Instead, this package places the Nation on a commonsense glidepath that is both achievable and sustainable. It provides the framework to address the long-term goal of stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations by working with other nations, while leaving the actual technology and policy decisions to energy experts and the marketplace. China, Brazil, and India, among other states, will soon surpass the industrialized world in emissions of greenhouse gases. It is important that we work in coordination with these nations to reduce their emissions at an early stage. American know-how, technology, and ideas can help to lead to the implementation of a range of marketable clean energy technologies, not just in the United States, but also around the world. It is time for real action. 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 future at risk. We cannot continue energy programs and budgets if we ever hope to meet our long-term needs. We cannot continue forestalling the development of a long-term energy strategy with a phantom plan. The Nation is at a turning point. Our energy policy needs must stop being dominated by a crisis management policy. We must work to enact appropriate energy legislation so that we avoid the consequences of our long failure to respond. We cannot wait for the next energy crisis or the next spike in natural gas prices--or the next California electricity debacle. We cannot just go out and seize another oil rich country in order to solve our energy problems. We must enact bipartisan energy legislation that will deliver a thoughtful and reasoned energy package. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I speak today on the subject: A fast track, a fast way around the Constitution. Last Friday, I listened with great interest to the concerns that were raised in opposition to the free-trade agreements negotiated by the administration with Chile and Singapore. Senators cited an abuse of Executive authority and the undermining of Congress' plenary powers. I was perplexed, to put it mildly--not at the arguments against such abuses by the Executive but at the fact that some Senators were only now waking up to the potential for such a power grab. To those who now express concerns that the plenary powers of the Congress are under attack by this administration, I say that we have no one to blame but ourselves. The Congress inflicted this wound upon itself. We have plunged the knife into our own throats. It is our hands on the hilt of that knife. I refer to the Congress' massively destabilizing decision to disrupt the balance of powers between the executive and legislative branches by granting fast-track trade negotiating authority to the President. So many of the objections expressed last week in opposition to these free trade agreements have been raised before, time and time again on this Senate floor. Just last summer, they were raised by me, by our colleague Senator Hollings, by our colleague Senator Dorgan; by our colleague Senator Dayton, and others, warning of the abuse of Executive power we were inviting by handing over to the President the authority to regulate trade and international commerce. We stood on this very floor and spoke to our colleagues, to the people in the galleries here and to the public across the land about what could be expected from the use of fast-track authority should such legislation be passed. We also spoke of the Constitutional ramifications of fast track. At the time, our expressions of concern apparently fell upon deaf ears. Sixty-seven Senators, some of whom are now so urgently speaking in opposition to these free trade agreements pending before the Senate, voted to grant fast-track authority to the President. I can pound my fist on my desk. I can shout with brass lungs. But, ultimately, it's not until it's too late, not until the Senate has been relegated to the sidelines, not until this Trojan horse has entered this sacred chamber that Senators begin to realize just what we have given away. Shame on us! This month, the administration submitted the free trade agreements it negotiated with the nations of Chile and Singapore. Included in those agreements are proposed changes to U.S. immigration and naturalization laws that would create what is effectively a permanent visa worker program for Chile and Singapore. The trade agreements negotiated by the administration would unfairly lower the threshold for up to 1,400 Chileans and 5,400 Singaporeans to obtain American jobs. These foreign nationals could renew their worker visas indefinitely, year after year, with no limitation, while additional foreign workers enter the country to fill the annual numerical limitations for new visas. Chilean and Singaporean nationals who enter the United States under these agreements would effectively be exempted from prevailing wage laws. Even though employers must attest that foreign workers will be paid the prevailing industry wage and not displace U.S. workers, the Labor Department would be prohibited from investigating and certifying these attestations prior to the worker entering the country. Further, the Congress would have no recourse to remedy any injustice, either by setting numerical caps or requiring a Labor Department certification, without violating the trade accord. With 9.4 million Americans out of work, and an economy that has stalled for America's workers, the administration's immigration proposals are perhaps the most egregious that I have seen in some time. They are a direct threat to American workers who have already been hit hard by the Bush administration's economic policies. And now, what jobs the administration has not yet destroyed are being given away to foreign labor. It is not even clear under what authority the administration is proposing to make these immigration changes. The Trade Promotion Act provides no specific authority to the United States Trade Representative to negotiate new visa categories or other changes to our immigration laws. The Congress has not granted the administration any such authority. To the contrary, since the September 11 attacks, the Congress has passed legislation requiring the administration to tighten our border security and visa entry system--to plug the holes that were exploited by the September 11 hijackers. And now the administration is trying to open the system all over again. I doubt that these immigration provisions could survive outside of the expedited procedures of fast track, subjected to thorough debate and amendment by the House and Senate. But that may explain why they are in these trade agreements in the first place. After all, a free trade agreement is not subject to amendment. It is not subject to a thorough debate. Any committee action is token, at best. The Congress must approve or reject the trade agreement in 90 legislative days. These trade agreements and their immigration provisions may only be a first step in setting a precedent where the administration can use free-trade agreements not only to propose changes to immigration laws but to isolate all kinds of controversial legislation from the Congress. Perhaps next time the trade agreement submitted will include changes involving our military defenses or our international tax laws or our foreign aid budget. The possibilities are frightening to imagine. The late-Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan was fond of saying that the U.S. Constitution does not assume virtue in its rulers. It assumes self-interest. And it carefully balances the power by which one interest will offset another interest in order to protect against what James Madison called ``the defect of better motives.'' I am sure that many Senators who supported granting fast track authority to the President did so because of their support for this administration's free trade policies. But in pursuit of free trade, the Senate has given away its power to regulate trade and international commerce, and has flung itself into the abyss in which it now finds itself. If the Senate approves these treaties, the President, who is not the repository of all human wisdom, and is as vulnerable to ``the defect of better motives'' as any other mortal being, will have a free hand, without debate and without review, to dictate not only trade policy, but immigration policy as well. The Framers of our Constitution would, I am certain, be appalled at how, time and time again, the modern-day Congress, under pressure from the White House political machine, yields its plenary powers to the executive. We did it with fast track. We did it with the creation of the Homeland Security Department. We did it with respect to the war in Iraq. The Senate has a duty to reject these trade agreements. Even those Senators who support the administration's trade policies must take a stand in support of something more important. The executive is, again, overreaching and the Senate must not, this time, acquiesce. The Senate desperately needs to come to a better understanding and appreciation of our Constitution and the powers granted the Congress. It needs a better understanding of what exactly is at stake when we carelessly meddle with our system of checks and balances and the separation of powers. If we disregard the lessons learned from the colossal blunder of granting fast track authority to the President, we might just as well strike a match and hold that invaluable document to the flame. We are entrusted with the safeguarding of the people's liberties. It is their Constitution. It is their Republic. It is their liberties that we have sworn to secure. If we continue to be careless or callous or complacent, it is their cherished freedoms that will go up in smoke.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed out of order for not to exceed 12 minutes before the order to go into executive session.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this not delay the rollcall vote.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may vitiate the second request that was granted.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, for his courtesy in arranging for me to speak briefly before the Senate goes out for the weekend.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, for more than a century now, national commentators of one type or another have stereotyped, mocked, and ridiculed the people of Appalachia. They continued to do so even as the region and its people were savaged by Northeast industrialists, and as economic forces beyond their control resulted in massive gaps of poverty in the region. When I say ``their control,'' I refer to its being beyond the control of the people of Appalachia. The stereotyping of the Appalachian people as dim-witted, barefooted hillbillies who thrive on incest and moonshine allowed the Nation to laugh at and turn its back on the plight of a people who were being robbed of their land and its resources. It prompted the Nation to perceive and to dismiss Appalachians as the instigators rather the victims of their plight. Television has certainly been a part of this Appalachian bashing. ``Green Acres'' featured farming mountain folks conversing with a talking pig. The ``Dukes of Hazzard'' featured stereotypical mountain folk jumping into and out of cars, without bothering to open doors, and a car horn that played Dixie. Even ``The Waltons,''--remember the Waltons?--a series with numerous morally uplifting episodes and storylines that promoted hard work, love of family, honesty, patriotism, and spirituality, can be faulted for its beautifully romanticized version of poverty. It portrayed poverty as a way of life that nurtures, rather than inhibits, that builds character rather than denies opportunity. I have seen poverty. I am one of poverty's children. I have known poverty, and poverty has known me. I can tell you that poverty is beautiful only if you are not poor. In this day and age of political correctness, Appalachians may be the last remaining ethnic group that it is still socially acceptable to scorn, demean, stereotype, and joke about. If Jay Leno told such cruel, bigoted, and slanderous ethnic humor about any number of minority groups that he does Appalachians, he would have more than the ratings of David Letterman about which to be concerned. Incredibly, the Columbia Broadcasting System, CBS, is planning to air a new program, ``The Real Beverly Hillbillies.'' For this program, the brainchild of the CEO Leslie Moonves, CBS plans to pluck a poor, rural family from the hills of Appalachia and plop them down in a mansion in Beverly Hills so the Nation can laugh at them as they try to adjust to big city life. I have read that CBS is already conducting so-called ``hick-hunts'' in which they are searching for the perfect stereotype Appalachian family to amuse a national audience. The insensitivity and mean spiritedness of this plan has already aroused protests and criticisms from many segments of American society including Appalachian social action groups, labor unions, and various State and national legislators. The United Mine Workers of America, the Steel Workers Union, and Communication Workers have all protested the network's intent to ridicule good people and make fun of their lifestyles. Forty-three Members of the House of Representatives objected to the proposed program, saying it would be ``an insult to the millions of people living in Appalachia.'' While I am outraged, I am even more curious about just what kind of brain power went into proposing this show. I cannot help but chuckle when I picture these highly paid, supposedly educated television corporate executives sitting around in a plush, ornate boardroom and thinking of such a stupid program. I am sure most of these fellows earn at least a six-figure income. Some of them probably went to Ivy League schools. And this is what they come up with? It is not even original. It is a plagiarization of an old program, only going a step further and using real people rather than actors. Highly paid, highly educated television executives sitting around in an ornate boardroom and thinking of low-grade garbage such as this. If this were my staff, I can tell you that I would be looking for some new staffers. But these CBS executives think it will be funny for city folk to sit back and watch country bumpkins try to blend into the culture of the ``beautiful people'' of Rodeo Drive. Their anticipation is that Americans will tune in and watch and just howl and howl as they watch a poor family from Appalachia adjust to the glitz and glamour of Beverly Hills, to modern appliances, Gucci shoes, and Rolex watches. Boy, I can hardly hold back my laughter, being one of those people from Appalachia, being one of those country bumpkins. One CBS executive remarked: ``Imagine the episode where they have to interview maids.'' Boy, I am sure that episode will be a real knee slapper. I have to ask, Is this the best they can do? Is this the best television has to offer? Unfortunately, it is. Just when you think the television standards can get no lower, they do. Just when you start thinking these bottom feeders have cleansed the bottom and might try to move up the food chain, they find more garbage at the bottom to keep them there. This is an Appalachian speaking to an Appalachian who sits in the chair today and presides over this great body with such dignity and aplomb. Television has become more than the ``vast wasteland'' FCC chairman Newton Minnow labeled it 42 years ago, it has become a waste. This is the industry that brings us ``Buffy the Vampire Slayer,'' ``Fear Factor,'' and ``Jerry Springer.'' Fox Network has featured those unforgettable, morally uplifting hits, ``Temptation Island,'' ``Joe Millionaire,'' and now the latest, ``Mr. Personality,'' which features the show's hostess, the talented Monica Lewinsky. (Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.) The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warner.) If the distinguished leader would indulge the Presiding Officer to give the usual admonishment to those privileged to sit in the gallery of the Senate, they are not to enter into vocal expressions or disaffections.

Mr. BYRD. I congratulate the Chair on upholding the rules of the Senate. Let them laugh. I am laughing, too. If these executives are looking for new ideas for television reality shows, may I suggest a few. We could take highly paid, well-groomed television network executives and relocate them to the sticks, where they'd have to try to find a job with health care and pension benefits and enough pay to support a family, and adjust to everyday life in rural America. Now that would be funny! And, as the president of the UMWA, Cecil Roberts, has suggested, we could put them to work digging coal from a 30-inch seam in a non-union coal mine. That too would be funny! I could suggest a program where Americans could watch television anchormen trying to get to work on time each day while driving on hilly, winding two-lane roads behind huge coal trucks going 5 miles an hour up steep hills. We would watch their frustration build and build and could take bets on when they would blow their tempers. We could watch them get their $2,500 made-to-measure suits dirty as they are forced to change tires flattened by huge potholes created by those coal trucks. We could watch them pull their cars into garages and get the estimates for repairs to the damage those potholes have done. Then we could laugh hysterically as they present ``fleecing of America'' awards to Senators who try to get those highways improved. Or we could watch nightly news programs featuring episodes of journalists embedded with a Marine battalion comprised of the sons and daughters of Bush administration officials as they are being shot at in Iraq and Afghanistan. That, of course, would not be funny, but it would make an important point that war is a lot more glamorous and macho when it is someone else's kid you are sending into combat. Television could be such a positive tool in our society and culture. It could be doing so much good. It could be a powerful instrument to bring out the best in us, rather than appeal to our meanest and darker sides. It could be a creative instrument in elevating the standards and values of the American people rather than lowering them. I strongly urge the executives at CBS to reconsider their plans for the ``Real Beverly Hillbillies'' in favor a program that is enlightening, educational, and beneficial. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I should not take advantage of my two friends because I have been included in the order. I was given 20 minutes. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Alabama and I thank also the distinguished Senator from Arizona.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in April of this year, Senator Cochran, as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, and I, as ranking member, recognized a looming shortfall in the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, disaster relief accounts. We urged the President to release monies that he was holding up and also that he request funds to shore up the looming shortfall. Following severe floods in 19 West Virginia counties, I wrote to the administration again, this time pointing out that the Disaster Relief account would likely be empty by the end of July. At the time that I wrote that letter, the disaster relief fund has a balance of $181 million. The balance now, four weeks later, is a mere $89 million, and is expected to be completely exhausted by August 8th. On July 7th, the President finally sent up an emergency supplemental request. After months of delay, the administration requested the additional funds to assist recovery efforts in West Virginia and over 300 other areas in every State of the Nation that have been hit hard by severe rains, floods, and tornadoes. These funds will help citizens to get back on their feet. The communication from the White House requested fiscal year 2003 emergency supplemental appropriations in the amount of $1.9 billion for the Department of Homeland Security, Agriculture, Interior, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA. The principal item in this request was $1.55 billion requested for the Department of Homeland Security for FEMA to provide support for ``ongoing disaster efforts and to ensure the capacity to respond to future disasters and emergencies.'' In a communication from Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, dated July 24, 2003, the Department now estimates that it will exhaust existing funds by August 8th and that it has no authority to provide assistance in the absence of appropriations. The supplemental request also included an amount of $253 million for fighting wildfires. As some of my colleagues may recall, 42 major fires, which have consumed over 400,000 acres, are raging in 12 western States. Officials at the Forest Service have told the Appropriations Committee that their fire suppression budget is already $420 million short of what they anticipate needing between now and the end of the fiscal year. Also included in the Administration's request is $50 million for unanticipated costs associated with the recovery and investigation of the Space Shuttle Columbia accident. In order to expedite the processing of this supplemental, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Ted Stevens, and I, as ranking member, worked together to assure the earliest availability of this emergency supplemental request by incorporating it into the fiscal year 2004 Legislative Branch appropriations bill. On July 9th, only 2 days after receiving the President's supplemental request, the Appropriations Committee ordered reported the Legislative Branch appropriations bill, which included the full amount for disaster relief, emergency firefighting, and emergency NASA needs sought by the President in his July 7th communication, as well as $100 million for a shortfall in AmeriCorps, a program which we were told the administration supports. The AmeriCorps amendment was voted on separately on the Senate floor and the funding was sustained by an overwhelming 71 to 21 vote. Susequently, the Legislative Branch appropriations bill, including the supplemental, was approved on July 11th by the full Senate by a vote of 85 to 7, and conferees were appointed. So what is the situation? The administration was slow in sending up the emergency supplemental budget request. The Senate Appropriations Committee, under the leadership of Senator Ted Stevens, responded quickly, acting within 2 days of receiving the request. And, within 2 additional days, on July 11th, the measure was approved by the full Senate. We have been waiting for the other body ever since. It has been 2 weeks since we acted on this bill in the Senate. We are advised that the other body plans to depart for the August recess tonight. What are we to do to cover the costs of recovering from disasters and fire emergencies for the remainder of the current fiscal year? FEMA has already stopped making payments to States for $400 million of infrastructure repairs in the 300 communities with outstanding natural disasters. Communities have already been forced to put projects for repairing damage from past disasters on hold. In addition, if the Disaster Relief Fund is depleted by the end of July, which is just around the corner, that leaves 2 full months with no means of providing assistance to communities that may be hit hard by hurricanes, tornadoes, and other disasters or emergencies occurring in August and September. The Forest Service budget request of $253 million for fighting 42 major fires in 12 western States is needed now. Furthermore, twenty thousand AmeriCorps volunteers will lose their positions if supplemental funding is not approved. AmeriCorps volunteers work in our schools teaching our children reading and math. They provide care to our senior citizens, they help clean up our parks, they teach the Nation's children and adults to read, and they provide other valuable volunteer services to our communities. If we fail to provide the necessary funds for AmeriCorps, we will unnecessarily be punishing the volunteers, the communities that they serve and the children, elderly and the poor who benefit from the skills and energy of the volunteers. Some 2 weeks ago, the Senate responded positively and in a timely manner to address these emergency requests. Now, the House is about to pass a stripped-down supplemental appropriations bill in the amount of $983 million just for FEMA disaster relief, thus ignoring the Senate's supplemental legislation enacted 2 weeks ago for wildfire fighting, NASA emergency funds, and AmercCorps funding. I am distressed by the situation in which we find ourselves. It is not the fault of the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Stevens. He has been trying to find a solution to this problem. The Senate has done its part to solve this problem. Citizens who find themselves victimized by natural disasters and wildfires, and those individuals and communities who would have benefited from the AmeriCorps program, do not appreciate the game-playing now taking place in the Congress. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I again thank the distinguished Senator from Alabama.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this week the Senate has considered a number of amendments to increase homeland security funding to address known vulnerabilities in our Nation. These are vulnerabilities we know are there. We have offered amendments to add funding for expanded homeland security missions that have been authorized by Congress and signed into law by the President since 9/11. I believe these amendments have been defeated not on the merits but because their adoption would have resulted in the bill exceeding limits established in the budget resolution. These are meritorious amendments, and I am confident some of the Senators who voted against them voted against them because the bill would then exceed limits established in the budget resolution. That is a compelling reason for many to consider. Therefore, today I offer an amendment that addresses these known vulnerabilities to the extent possible within the limits of our 302(b) allocation. I do so because the vulnerabilities are documented and the needs are clear. This bill includes $823 million, consistent with the President's request for information, analysis, and infrastructure protection. Since February, we have asked--now listen--the Department of Homeland Security to identify for us what specific infrastructure in this country is most vulnerable. To whom should we go to find out the answers, if not the Department of Homeland Security? That is the Department which should be able to pinpoint, should be able to give to the Congress, a list of the most vulnerable infrastructure and give us the priorities: Which is more vulnerable, A or B or C? That is the agency that ought to be able to answer the questions. Have we gotten any answer to our questions? No, no answer. This is the Department that should be held accountable and will be held accountable, and the Department has not responded. We have asked these questions more than once. So I shall offer an amendment that addresses these known vulnerabilities, to the extent possible, within the limits of our 302(b) allocation, and I do so because the vulnerabilities are documented and the needs are clear. This bill includes $823 million, consistent with the President's request for information, analysis, and infrastructure protection. Since February--let me say that again--since February, we have asked the Department of Homeland Security to identify for us in the Congress, in the Senate, what specific critical infrastructure in this country is most vulnerable. To date, the Department has provided no detail about how these funds would be spent--no detail, none. We requested it, as I say, as early as February and since February. The President is asking us to buy a pig in a poke. The administration wants us to give them $823 million of the taxpayers' money and they have not told Congress how the funds will be spent or whether these funds can be used effectively. Now why wouldn't they tell us? Why wouldn't they tell us? What we do know is that the Coast Guard has over $1.7 billion of pending applications for port security grants in order to secure our most vulnerable ports. We know that. What we do know is that the Coast Guard has estimated the cost of the ports implementing the Maritime Transportation Security Act security standards is $5.4 billion over 10 years and $1.1 billion in the first year. So when you add the funds in this bill to previously appropriated funds, the Department would have only $518 million to help the ports improve their security. What we do know is that the Department of Homeland Security received applications from over 20,000 of the Nation's local fire departments, totaling $2.5 billion out of their desire to equip and to train themselves to deal with weapons of mass destruction and to improve their capacity to respond to other emergencies in their communities. What we do know is that only 10 percent of our fire departments have the capacity to deal with a major building collapse. What we do know is that only 13 percent have the equipment and training to deal with biological or chemical terrorist attacks. What we do know is that the Coast Guard commandant has testified that there is no funding in the budget for the Coast Guard to enforce the new port security standards that are mandated by the Maritime Transportation Security Act and that the Coast Guard imposed on the port industry on July 1. What we do know is that the General Accounting Office has concluded that 123 chemical facilities across the country--some of them in the great Kanawha Valley in West Virginia--has concluded that 123 chemical facilities across the country, if attacked, could inflict serious damage and expose millions of people to toxic chemicals and gasses. There are 3,000 chemical facilities in 49 States that if attacked could affect more than 10,000 people each. This is serious business. The General Accounting Office found that the Federal Government has not comprehensively assessed the chemical industry's vulnerabilities to terrorist attack. This amendment would address those issues by providing $100 million for port security grants, $100 million for grants to fire departments, $42 million for the Coast Guard to implement the port security requirements of the Maritime Transportation Security Act, and $50 million for chemical security vulnerability assessment. This amendment is fully offset for both budget authority and outlays by reducing amounts in the infrastructure account by $292 million. I say again that the amendment has fully offset both the budget authority and outlays by reducing amounts in the infrastructure account by $292 million. Even after this reduction, the infrastructure account will have a funding level which is three times the level from fiscal year 2003. I urge the Senate adopt the amendment. The Senate should address these known vulnerabilities now. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.