Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Will the leader yield?

Mr. BYRD. On the preceding rollcall vote, 28 minutes were required. On this rollcall vote, 22 or 23 minutes were required. So we have over 50 minutes on two rollcall votes. Now, time is worth a little something around here to many of us who don't have much time left. I wonder if we can't do better than that. I think the Senate ought to treat itself better than that. Senators owe to it other Senators to not just lag and cause rollcall votes to last so long. Twenty-eight minutes on a rollcall vote? Why can't we go over to tomorrow? We are going to be here anyhow. Why can't we go over? Here it is 15 minutes after 10. Do I have the floor, Mr. President?

Mr. BYRD. Very well.

Mr. BYRD. I have a wife at home and she needs me there. I ought to be there. I have stopped early on two occasions lately just to go be with her and let the Senate run its course. There is going to come a time when this Senator is going to keep the Senate in session a while. He can still do it. I say this in the very best of spirit to the leader--and he is doing the best he can--there comes a time when some of us have duties elsewhere and we would like to keep our rollcall records clean. Soon I will have cast 17,000 rollcall votes. So I have been here for my share of the votes. I am getting a little bit fed up staying around here. This last rollcall vote was 23 minutes and the one before that was 28 minutes. There is a lot of hooping and hollering. What do the American people think of us? It is time we went home if we don't work. I hope, Mr. Leader, that those of you who are so good at working out these things can get people to have voice votes or maybe cut down the time on their amendments.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Democratic whip for his thoughtfulness and courtesies. Mr. President, just last month we celebrated Older Americans Month, a time of reflect on the contribution of older Americans to our society-- to their families, their communities, and their Nation. For many seniors, these ``golden years'' are the most valuable time in their lives, a time when they may no longer have the day-to-day aggravations of work, and can concentrate their time and efforts on something else-- grandchildren, lifelong passions, learning new skills, acquiring knowledge, or participating in creative endeavors. But that is not the case for many seniors. In too many instances, seniors who have worked and saved a lifetime find that today's cost of living far exceeds the level they can afford. Despite planning and frugality, today's costs simply have exceeded the means of many older Americans, and they find that the visions of the secure life they had expected post-retirement are now more a nightmare than a dream. A big part of the problem is the value that our society places on the elderly--it is much too low! Age discrimination is all too prevalent in the workplace. Long-held stereotypes--that seniors are slow, forgetful, less competent than their younger counterparts--limit opportunities for older workers and prevent businesses from benefiting from well-honed talents. Those stereotypical images are just plain wrong. To be 65 today is not like it was to be 65 when I was a young man. The idea of pushing senior citizens out of the door to make room for younger workers is, itself, antiquated. I grew up during the Great Depression when one had to work hard just to get a job and then work even harder to keep it. People of my generation, the generation Tom Brokaw has referred to as ``The Greatest Generation''--I kind of like that term, ``The Greatest Generation,'' although I don't quite agree with it. Seniors in the workforce can be a positive and inspiring force. The reason I don't agree with it is that I think the greatest generation was that generation that produced the Constitution of the United States and produced this constitutional system of government that we have today. We will talk more about that on a later day. I grew up during the Great Depression when one had to work hard, as I say, just to get a job and then work harder to keep it. People of my generation, coming from that experience, developed a work ethic which can inspire young people today. Seniors in the workforce can be a positive, inspiring force. Moreover, better health care and healthier lifestyles have extended lifespans and led to a senior population with vigor and vitality. But when the health of seniors does decline, this Nation does an embarrassingly poor job of dealing with their needs. Child care has become a booming business in this Nation. Millions are spent on bigger, brighter, better child care centers--lively places, filled with happy activities and stimulation. That is as it should be. But when the elderly need daily care, too often they are relegated to dim, overcrowded centers, places that serve as little more than warehouses that provide busy work for the hands, and little to fill the heart and soul. Inestimable numbers of scam artists focus on the elderly. The offices of Attorney Generals across the nation are besieged with complaints from seniors who were prey for some con artists and ended up losing their life savings. Newspapers carry stories about CEOs of big, once- profitable companies who are awarded big bonuses, while the pensions of loyal retirees are squeezed. When this is how we treat our seniors, something is wrong with America. Older citizens should rejoice in their long lives, in their collected experiences, and in their accomplishments. But in America today, magazines showcase images of young, vibrant models. Movies and television shows feature youthful actors and actresses. No one wants to be ``old'' anymore. It has become a tarnished word. Older citizens today are generally not appreciated as either experienced ``elders'' or possessors of special wisdom. Older people are respected only to the extent that they remain capable of working, exercising, and taking care of themselves. In American culture, increasing age seems to portend decreasing value as a human being. It should be just the opposite. How did the American culture develop such blatant disregard and disrespect for the elderly? Well, however we got to such a point, we are definitely here. Senior citizens need to rise up and make their voices heard or else they will be forgotten, especially when it comes to policy formation that directly affects them, such as Medicare legislation before us today. The Senate is in the midst of an important debate on a major restructuring of Medicare--a debate that will shape the health care choices of millions of our Nation's senior citizen for years to come. The Medicare program is in desperate need of renovation to meet the needs of today'a older citizens living in a new era with dramatic advancements in the delivery of health care. Medicare was designed to provide health care benefits to the most vulnerable segments of the population, the elderly and the disabled. When I voted, way back in 1965, to establish the Medicare program, pharmaceutical treatments, then more of footnote in health care, were not nearly as commonly available as they are now. Today, they are a primary form of medical care and often substitute for more costly treatments like hospitalization and surgery. Today, 40 million Americans rely on Medicare to help provide for their medical needs. With more than one-third of all Medicare beneficiaries lacking insurance coverage for the cost of needed medications, finding affordable prescription drug coverage is a critical issue for our Nation's seniors. Prescription drugs are an essential tool for treating and preventing many acute and chronic conditions, but Medicare fails to cover them on an outpatient basis. Too many seniors and disabled persons in this country, especially those living on fixed incomes, are forced to choose each month between paying for food and paying for shelter, or buying the essential medicines that their doctors have prescribed. Our Nation's senior citizens are losing their patience. They are losing their dignity. And they are fed up with fast-rising drug costs that they cannot afford. Older citizens should not have to travel in bus loads to Canada and Mexico just to obtain the medications their doctors prescribe. What does it say about this country and its values when we fail to take care of our elderly citizens whose lifetime of work and sacrifice and dedication and industry helped to endow this country with the greatness it now enjoys? Mr. President, I fear that the legislation before us today is a glaring example of how this Nation shortchanges our senior citizens. We are not taking care of our elderly citizens as they wrestle with the most serious issue in their lives. We are offering a partial fix to assuage senior anger. This bill fails to go far enough to meet the needs of our Nation's senior citizens. I am concerned that this measure would force Medicare beneficiaries to rely on a private, untried, untested, drug-only insurance market for their prescription drug coverage, rather than the traditional Medicare program that they know and trust. We split drug benefit off from Medicare? I am concerned that this administration and some Members of Congress plan to phase out the traditional Medicare program as an option for new beneficiaries in the future. Some people have asserted that this legislation is merely a Trojan horse designed to get rid of Medicare. I sincerely hope that this is not the case, but there is something very suspicious about this particular horse. I am worried that we may be endorsing the slow suicide of one of the most popular and effective Government programs in history. I have been down this tortured road before during my 50-year tenure in Congress. My constituents and others around the Nation are reeling from public programs that have been turned over to the so-called free market. Utility rates, cable rates, airline rates, you name it, the free market has ensured exorbitant prices with diminished service, especially for rural areas such as West Virginia. Pensions and retirement security have taken a similar beating. The Medicare program, for which I voted in 1965, was originally created because the private sector did not offer affordable and reliable health insurance to the elderly and the disabled. Health care has certainly changed in the past 38 years, but what has not changed is the fact that the private market does not want to insure people who are old or disabled or likely to need care. Mr. President, what is the rationale for inventing some new hocus-pocus type of plan that exposes senior citizens to the whims of private insurance companies which may be more interested in profits than in providing comprehensive drug benefits? Mr. President, this legislation, as currently designed, does not even provide sufficient prescription drug coverage. It would cover less than a quarter of Medicare beneficiaries' estimated drug costs over the next 10 years, and the complicated coverage formula has a large donut hole providing zero coverage just when seniors might need it most. This legislation also includes copayments, premiums, and deductibles that may be unaffordable for man low- and middle-income seniors. The $35-per-month premium, the 50-percent copay, the $275 annual deductible, and the $5,800 stop-loss amount that we have heard so much about are only suggested amounts and certainly not a guarantee. A closer look at the fine print of this legislation reveals that private insurers could choose to charge senior citizens double or even triple these amounts. Let's fact it, the kind of prescription drug benefit that we have repeatedly promised our Nation's elderly citizens, and that they now rightly expect, would cost at least $800 billion over the next decade. Yet the administration and congressional Republicans have only allocated $400 billion for the next 10 years for a Medicare prescription drug benefit. And during this same period, drug costs for senior citizens alone, according to the Congressional Budget Office, are expected to total almost $2 trillion. One of the primary reasons this legislation contains such glaring deficiencies in the drug benefits being offered to seniors is not difficult to understand--this administration and Congress have chosen to make tax cuts a higher priority than prescription drugs for senior citizens. Since the Federal Treasury has already been raided, there is not enough money to adequately cover prescription drugs. Senior citizens ought to be outraged--outraged. Senior citizens ought to be outraged. I am a senior citizen, and I represent a State with a lot of senior citizens, and I am outraged! I am outraged! What is the rationale for waiting until 2006--conveniently right after the next election cycle--to implement this legislation? Why wait? What are we so afraid of? We had Medicare up and running less than 12 months after creating it from scratch in 1965. So why can't we do it now? Mr. President, it seems that this Congress is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of our Nation's senior citizens--hoping to claim victory and keep senior citizens in the dark until they become painfully aware of the fine print--the fine print--of this legislation upon a visit to their local pharmacist in 2006. Mr. President, this legislation, as it stands, does not provide the real, guaranteed, defined benefit that our senior citizens desperately need and does little to address the high cost of prescription drugs. I had hoped we could improve this legislation through the amendment process, but that does not appear to be the will of this Senate in the mad dash--the mad dash--to reach final passage before the recess. We should do better for our older citizens. We owe them so much. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, we are falling into this way of doing things. Three-day work weeks. I will tell you, Mr. Leader, one night I am going to get the floor and Senators will be planning on finishing and going home the next day. They won't get to do that. I have seen this happening over and over and over more recently. Three-day work weeks, and we don't come in on Friday and work and vote. If the Senator will continue to yield, just briefly?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I don't want to overtax the leader at this point or overtax other Senators. Just suffice it to say, we had better get out of this habit of just having 3-day workweeks, staying here until 10, 11, 12 on Thursday night so that people can go out on Friday. I started this thing of having a week at home every 4 weeks, but we worked the 5 days. We worked 5 days in each of the 3 weeks in between, and we started voting early on Mondays and we voted a full day on Friday. I know things have changed. I am not majority leader. I don't mean to be a problem to the majority leader. But this is getting to be a problem with some of us.

Mr. BYRD. I understand that.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, the Senate is poised to adjourn, but before we adjourn, I want to call us away from the onrushing press of Senate business and impending airline schedules to pay tribute to Independence Day. Next Friday is the glorious Fourth of July, that most patriotic and star-spangled of holidays. With the Fourth of July holiday, summer is at its Halcyon best, with temperatures still enjoyable, skies richly blue, and trees and lawns still lush and green, and gardens coming into bewildering abundance. In fields and along the roadsides, wildflowers bloom in profusion, and wild blackberries earn our forgiveness for their thorns by offering the tender treasures of their glossy berries. It is a golden period of enjoyment for students on summer holiday, the respite still feels luxuriously long, full of golden days of enjoyment. The Fourth of July this year falls on a Friday, easily making a long weekend for summer pleasure. With luck, the Fourth will be clear and cooler, comfortable for marching bands and hometown parades, bathed in glorious sunshine for family picnics and perfect for evening symphonies and fireworks to compete with the glittering stars above. If the weather is sweltering, however, then we might be better able to empathize with the Delegates to the Second Continental Congress, who met in Philadelphia in the spring and summer of 1776. In hot and muggy summer weather, clad in heavy styles that were designed for a cooler European summer, the Delegates debated and amended, reportedly fending off flies from a nearby stable that swarmed the Hall and bit the Delegates through the silk hose on their lower legs. But they persevered in their momentous task. On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia offered a motion to declare independence from England. His resolution declared: These United Colonies are and of right ought to be free and independent States. His resolution passed on July 2 by a 12-0 vote, with New York temporarily abstaining. The next day, on July 3, John Adams wrote to his wife, Abigail, rejoicing over the decision to secede. To Abigail, he wrote: The 2nd of July will be a memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the Great Anniversary Festival. He further suggested that it ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. This is John Adams speaking. This is not some rustic boob like I was when I came to the House more than half a century ago. Listen to him again: It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp, shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, illuminations, from one end of this Continent to the other, from this time forward, forever. How remarkably prescient. Adams was off on the date, as we celebrate the approval of the Declaration of Independence rather than of the adoption of the motion, but he certainly knew how Americans like to celebrate. As well, he accurately predicted the explosive growth of an embryonic nation into a continent-spanning colossus. That vision took great courage, coming as it did on the eve of putting his signature to a document that could easily become his death warrant. Every signer of that Declaration of Independence committed treason against England, against the King of England, against the crown. Every signer could have been arrested, put in chains and sent by boat to England; tried, convicted, and hanged. The delegates to the Continental Congress had, with this act, committed treason against the crown and set their nascent nation-state on the road to war. After the failed Jacobite uprising against England in 1745 under Bonnie Prince Charles, only 31 years before the delegate met in Philadelphia, the Scottish leaders had been beheaded in public ceremonies. One Delegate to the Congress, John Witherspoon, put it thus: There is a tide in the affairs of men, a nick of time. We perceive it now before us. To hesitate is to consent to our own slavery. That noble instrument upon your table, that insures immortality to its author, should be subscribed this very morning by every pen in this house. He that will not respond to its accents, and strain every nerve to carry into effect its provisions, is unworthy of the name of free man. For my own part, of property, I have some; of reputation, more. That reputation is staked, that property is pledged on the issue of this contest; and although these grey hairs must soon descend into the sepulcher, I would infinitely rather that they descend thither by the hand of the executioner than desert at this crisis the sacred cause of my country. What beautiful words. The signers knew full well what risks they were running. The first anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence took place in a nation at war, with our battle fortunes at low ebb. But Americans still celebrated in Philadelphia, U.S. ships of war were decked in red, white, and blue. At 1 o'clock, each ship fired a salvo of 13 cannons to honor the 13 States. Members of Congress dined in state with other civil and military dignitaries and made toasts to liberty and to fallen patriots. After dinner, the Members and officers of the Army reviewed the troops, followed by a ringing of bells and a show of fireworks. In 1788, Philadelphia was serving as the U.S. Capital. On that year, not only was the Declaration of Independence celebrated, but also the U.S. Constitution, which had recently been ratified by 10 States. This July Fourth celebration included another new feature--a parade with horse-drawn floats. One float, that of an enormous eagle, carried the Justices of the Supreme Court in lieu of today's beauty pageant queens. In 1826, the Nation achieved a milestone when the 50th Independence Day celebration was being planned. The mayor of Washington wrote to invite the surviving ex-Presidents and Signers of the Declaration to attend the festivities. The five men, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, and Charles Carroll, were unable to attend. Why? Because of age or infirmity, or other reasons. Indeed, at 10 minutes before 1 o'clock on July 4, 1826, Thomas Jefferson, principal drafter of the Declaration, passed away. John Adams, too, breathed his last on the same day. In his 90s and gravely ill, he had determined to hold on until the 50th anniversary of independence. That morning, he roused long enough to confirm to a servant that he knew that ``it is the glorious Fourth of July. God bless it. God bless you all,'' before fading into unconsciousness. Rousing later that afternoon, he confided unknowingly as he passed on to that other shore that ``Thomas Jefferson still survives.'' He did not know that Jefferson had died earlier that day. James Monroe, who fought in the Revolutionary War and became the fifth President of the United States, also died on July 4, in 1831. James Madison, the fourth President, died a week short of the 60th anniversary of Independence Day, on June 28, 1836. The last living Signer of the Declaration of Independence, Charles Carroll, performed one of his last public acts on July 2, 1828. He participated in a ground breaking ceremony initiating construction of the Baltimore and Ohio Railway, the first important railroad in the Nation. He died in 1832, at the age of 95. Also in 1828, President John Quincy Adams led an unusual 4th of July parade, up the Potomac River and the old Washington Canal to the site where construction was to start on the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal. These two acts underscore the vital link between the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution which followed it, and the vibrant economy which has made and kept the United States economy vibrant and strong for so many years. Our Nation is a union of disparate States, each of which has considerable power within its boundaries. But across those boundaries, linking the Union into a seamless web of bustling commerce and economic might, is the national infrastructure. Just as the Constitution provides for the common defense, so it promotes the common good by linking markets and people across States. Over the Years, Federal support for great infrastructure projects, from the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal to the National Highway System, have woven the Nation into a unified economic structure. Federal support for rural electrification and rural telephone and Internet access have spread opportunity and progress from border to border and coast to coast, just as John Adams foretold in 1776. This 4th of July, as we all visit national parks, tour Federal monuments, drive on interstate highways, call friends and family around the country, and buy picnic goods grown all over the United States--as we celebrate a national Federal holiday under the protective watch of the U.S. military and Federal law enforcement agencies--we unconsciously enjoy the benefits of the Federal Government and of belonging to a union that is the United States. Each star on the flag, the flag beside the Presiding Officer's desk, we salute so proudly represents a single state, but only when they are aligned together in the constellation of 50 do we feel the strength and the glory that were won for us, beginning on July 4, 1776. This Independence Day, we would all do well to read and cherish the Declaration of Independence. Even more, we would do well as a Nation to study and cherish our Constitution, by which our freedom, so dearly won and so costly held, lives on. Too often in recent years and months have I seen unwise attempts to erode the checks and balances of the Constitution, unknowing or unthinking efforts to dissolve the institutions and practices established to make our Nation the free and representative government by our Founding Fathers. Attacks on the United States from without are met with instant, unhesitating defense by all Americans, but we are not so knowledgeable vigilant against the insidious weakening from within, even within this Chamber. We are all of us, with our voices and our votes, the last, best guardians of American freedom and independence. We lack only the weapons of knowledge and awareness. I 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! Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak out of order.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. BYRD are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'') Amendment No. 1095

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my dear friend, the distinguished Senator from Nevada, who is also the Democratic whip here in the Senate. Tennyson in Ulysses says: I am a part of all that I have met. Mr. President, I don't know how long the great God of the universe will spare me. But however long it may be, the distinguished Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, will always be a part of me.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the great State of West Virginia has produced numerous individuals who have dedicated their lives to the service of the Nation. These sons and daughters of West Virginia have contributed to the betterment of their communities, their State and their country. One such public servant is Paul L. Galis, who for 35 years has served admirably in the Federal Aviation Administration, and has contributed to the development of an aviation system unsurpassed in the world. Mr. Galis retires in July as the Deputy Associate Administrator for Airports in FAA. In this position as well as his previous position of Director of the Office of Airport Planning and Program, Mr. Galis has overseen the planning and development of over 3,000 airports in the national plan for airports. This has been no small task and Mr. Galis has served with distinction. All of us in the State of West Virginia salute Mr. Galis for his career and wish him the best in his future endeavors. Our country is better for the work he has done and the example of public service he has provided. His able leadership and steady hand will be missed.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, before we pat ourselves on the back, pop the champagne bottles, and fan out across America to tell seniors that their prescription drug worries are now an issue of the past, let's take a closer look at the Medicare proposal before us. The more I read through this Medicare bill, the more I become convinced that history is once more repeating itself. I can recall a painful experience during my majority leadership when an outraged citizenry, composed mostly of seniors, forced Congress to repeal the ill-fated Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act back in 1989. The year before, Congress was engaged in a Medicare debate eerily similar to the one we are having at this time. A bipartisan compromise was reached to make the most sweeping change in Medicare's then 23 years of existence. Congress agreed to two key changes to the Medicare program--a prescription drug benefit and a ``stop-loss'' protection from catastrophic medical bills. Facing deficits as we do today, Congress, in its infinite wisdom, decided that beneficiaries should pay for the new benefits themselves, with the wealthiest paying the most. The new law included a complicated benefit that was too difficult to explain and a lengthy delay in the benefit's taking effect. In the end, seniors saw the bill, were confused as to what they are were getting in exchange, and wanted no part of it. Hence, it was repealed in the next session. We are poised to make the same mistake again. I foresee a great deal of confusion and dismay occurring around kitchen tables and in corporate boardrooms across America when people actually start to read beyond the newspaper headlines and see the fine print of this plan 3 years from now. Seniors may not know whether to laugh or weep. And if no one signs up for this new Medicare plan, it will fail and fail miserably. What incentive do seniors have to sign up for a plan that is full of coverage holes, up-front costs, and confusing paperwork? What incentive do insurance companies have to enter an untried, untested, drug-only insurance market? How can an insurance company make a plan work when almost every single participating insuree makes a claim? Many of the 335,000 Medicare beneficiaries in West Virginia are struggling just to make ends meet and pay for the prescription medicines that sustain them. In West Virginia, the average annual income of a Medicare beneficiary is a mere $10,800. I have to wonder, what does this prescription drug proposal mean to a 75-year-old widow from West Virginia who lives off her late husband's pension of $21,000 a year, but has $5,700 per year out-of-pocket drug costs to treat her diabetes, high blood pressure, osteoporosis, and elevated cholesterol levels? To take advantage of this new, so-called drug benefit, she would have to spend at least $420 in yearly premiums, a $275 deductible, and then she and Medicare would each pay 50 percent of her drug costs until the costs reach $4,500, after which she would pay the remainder of her $5,700 medical bill--about another $1,000 in other words. And she could very well have to spend more given that the deductible, premiums, and copay amount are not defined in this legislation. Does this sound confusing? I am confused just trying to describe it. Ultimately, Medicare would pay about a mere $2,000 of this poor West Virginia widow's $5,700 drug costs, a benefit of only about 35 percent. What a flimsy benefit. It doesn't even come close to the approximately 70 percent prescription drug subsidy Members of Congress receive under the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program. We wouldn't dare design health benefits for ourselves in this way. Under this legislation, seniors in similar situations in West Virginia and across the Nation would still be forced to resort to pill splitting and desperately foregoing the medicines their doctors have prescribed. Let's slow down and take a better look at this legislation. President Bush says he wants the Senate to pass a bill before the July recess, and so we're now engaged in a headlong rush to do just that. Members have been sitting around for days just waiting for Congressional Budget Office staff, who have been working nonstop around the clock to produce, and in some cases, reproduce cost estimates that fall within the too small budget parameters that we have required for passage. This is no way to legislate on a program of such great importance to the citizens of this country. We need more time to explain this plan to our elderly citizens. Don't we need their feedback? I doubt that our Nation's seniors will be excited about accepting a mere half-loaf benefit. Seniors will probably want no part of it. Just like they did almost 15 years ago, when I was majority leader they may revolt, and Members of Congress could be back here scratching their heads and scrambling to find a solution and save their seats. Senator Durbin and I and other Senators have offered a substitute Medicare amendment that actually makes sense, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of it. The Medicare benefit under the Durbin amendment has no deductible, a guaranteed $420 yearly premium, no gaps in coverage, and a catastrophic cap on drug spending at $5,000. The Durbin amendment would also allow seniors to receive their prescription drug benefit through the traditional Medicare program or through an available private plan if they desire. Seniors would receive their prescription drug benefit as soon as possible, rather than having to wait until 2006, after the next elections. Finally, the Durbin amendment would allow the Federal Government to use the leveraging power of millions of seniors to negotiate lower prices for prescription medications. The same widow in West Virginia with $5,700 in drug costs, would only have to spend about $2,000 under the Durbin amendment plan versus the almost $4,000 she would have to pay under the Grassley-Baucus Medicare bill before us today. I think it is quite obvious which Medicare plan the elderly citizens from West Virginia would choose. This legislation, as it stands, also does nothing to address the high cost of prescription drugs. We should do better for our seniors. And we can do better. I believe that we can improve this legislation through the adoption of the Durbin amendment. Let's not shortchange our seniors. They deserve our very best efforts. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I do not have a question except as to what the status of the legislation is at this point.

Mr. BYRD. I would.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the news is just on the wires that six British troops have been killed near Basra in Iraq. Every day--every day--brings us sad tidings of American and/or Allied troops being killed in Iraq. How much longer--how much longer, Mr. President--are our American fighting men and women going to have to remain in harm's way in a foreign land? How much longer are our National guardsmen and women and reservists going to have to be away from home? The President announced not too long ago that major hostilities had ended. Were we told by this administration how long our military forces will be required to run these terrible risks that daily confront them in this biblical land of Mesopotamia, land between the two great rivers? I often asked the question, before the war began, What is going to be the cost? What is the plan? What is the administration's plan? What about the morning after the war ends? No announcement has been made at this point that the war has ended, only that major hostilities no longer exist. And then there were public disagreements as to how many Americans would be needed in Iraq to bring about a safe and secure society. I try to put myself in the place of a father or a husband of one of our military personnel in Iraq. I try to imagine the pain and the suffering on the part of those who wait--who wait--at home for the return of their loved ones. Last fall, the White House released a national security strategy that called for an end to the doctrines of deterrence and containment that have been a hallmark of American foreign policy for more than half a century. This new national security strategy is based upon preemptive war-- something unheard of in the past experiences, practices, and policies of our Nation--preemptive war against those who might threaten our security. Such a strategy of striking first against possible dangers is heavily reliant upon interpretation of accurate and timely intelligence. If we are going to hit first, based on perceived dangers, the perceptions had better be accurate. If our intelligence is faulty, we may launch preemptive wars against countries that do not pose a real threat against us or we may overlook countries that do pose real threats to our security, allowing us no chance to pursue diplomatic solutions to stop a crisis before it escalates to war. In either case, lives could be needlessly lost. In other words, we had better be certain that we can discern the imminent threats from the false alarms. Just 96 days ago, as of June 24, President Bush announced that he had initiated a war to ``disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.'' The President told the world: Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly--yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass [destruction]. The President has since announced that major combat operations concluded on May 1. He said: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. Since then, Mr. President, the United States has been recognized by the international community as the occupying power in Iraq. And yet we have not found any evidence that would confirm the officially stated reason that our country was sent to war; namely, that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction constituted a grave threat to the United States--a grave threat to the United States. We have heard a lot about revisionist history from the White House of late in answer to those who question whether there was ever a real threat from Iraq. But it is the President who appears to me to be intent on revising history. There is an abundance of clear and unmistakable evidence that the administration sought to portray Iraq as a direct, deadly, and imminent threat to the American people. But there is a great difference between the handpicked intelligence that was presented by the administration to Congress and the American people when compared against what we have actually discovered in Iraq. This Congress and the American people, who sent us here, are entitled to an explanation from this administration. On January 28, 2003, President Bush said in his State of the Union Address: The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Yet, according to news reports, the CIA knew this claim was false as early as March 2002. In addition, the International Atomic Energy Agency has since discredited this allegation. On February 5, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations Security Council: Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agents. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets. But, the truth is, to date we have not found any of this material, nor those thousands of rockets loaded with chemical weapons. On February 8, President Bush told the Nation: We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons-- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have. Well, I say to my fellow Senators, we are all relieved that such weapons were not used, but it has not yet been explained why the Iraqi Army did not use them. Did the Iraqi Army flee their positions before chemical weapons could be used? If so, why were the weapons not left behind? Or is it that the army was never issued chemical weapons? We need answers. We need answers to these and other such questions. On March 16, the Sunday before the war began, in an interview with Tim Russert, Vice President Cheney said the Iraqis want ``to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.'' Vice President Cheney said the Iraqis want ``to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.'' He added: . . . the vast majority of them would turn Saddam Hussein in in a minute if, in fact, they thought they could do so safely. But, today Iraqi cities remain in disorder. Our troops are under attack as well as our allies. Our occupation government lives and works in fortified compounds, and we are still trying to determine the fate of the ousted murderous dictator. On March 30, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, during the height of the war, said of the search for weapons of mass destruction: We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat. Well, Mr. President, Baghdad fell to our troops on April 9 and Tikrit on April 14, and the intelligence about which Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld spoke has not led us to any weapons of mass destruction. Whether or not intelligence reports were bent, stretched, or massaged to make Iraq look like an imminent threat to the United States, it is clear that the administration's rhetoric played upon the well-founded fears of the American public about future acts of terrorism. But upon close examination, many of these statements have nothing to do with intelligence because they are, at root, just sound bites based on conjecture. They are designed to prey upon public fear. The face of Osama bin Laden morphed into that of Saddam Hussein. President Bush carefully blurred these images in his State of the Union Address. Listen to this quote from the President's State of the Union Address: Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans--this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. Judging by this speech, not only is the President confusing al-Qaida and Iraq, but he also appears to give a vote of no confidence to our homeland security efforts. Isn't the White House the brains behind the Department of Homeland Security? Isn't the administration supposed to be stopping those vials, canisters, and crates from entering our country rather than trying to scare our fellow citizens half to death about them? Not only did the administration warn about more hijackers carrying deadly chemicals, the White House even went so far as to suggest that the time it would take for U.N. inspectors to find solid smoking gun evidence of Saddam's illegal weapons would put the United States at greater risk of nuclear attack from Iraq. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was quoted as saying on September 9, 2002, by the Los Angeles Times: We don't want the ``smoking gun'' to be a mushroom cloud. ``Threat by Iraq Grows,'' this is the headline that was in the Los Angeles Times. Well, talk about hype. Mushroom clouds? Where is the evidence for this? Where is the evidence for that hype? There isn't any. On September 26, 2002, just 2 weeks before Congress voted on the resolution to allow the President to invade Iraq and 6 weeks before the midterm elections, President Bush himself built the case that Iraq was plotting to attack the United States. After meeting with members of Congress on that date, the President said: The danger to our country is grave. The danger to our country is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. . . . The regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material, could build one within a year. Well, these are the President's words. He said that Saddam Hussein is seeking a nuclear bomb. Have we found any evidence to date of this chilling allegation? No. But President Bush continued on that autumn day: The dangers we face will only worsen from month to month and from year to year. To ignore these threats is to encourage them. And when they have fully materialized, it may be too late to protect ourselves and our friends and our allies. By then, the Iraqi dictator would have the means to terrorize and dominate the region. Each passing day could be the one on which the Iraqi regime gives anthrax or VX--nerve gas--or some day a nuclear weapon to a terrorist ally. Yet, 7 weeks after declaring victory in the war against Iraq, we have seen nary a shred of evidence to support the President's claims of grave, dangerous chemical weapons, links to al-Qaida, or nuclear weapons. Just days before a vote on a resolution that handed the President unprecedented war powers, President Bush stepped up the scare tactics. On October 7, just 4 days before the October vote in the Senate on the war resolution, the President had this to say: We know that Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network share a common enemy--the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al-Qaida have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. He continued: We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaida members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. . . . Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints. President Bush also elaborated on claims of Iraq's nuclear program when he said: The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his ``nuclear mujahideen''--his nuclear holy warriors. . . . If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, he could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. Wasn't that enough to keep you awake, Senators? This is the kind of pumped-up intelligence and outrageous rhetoric that was given to the American people to justify a war with Iraq. This is the same kind of hyped evidence that was given to Congress to sway its vote for war on October 11, 2002. We hear some voices saying, well, why should we care? After all, the United States won the war, didn't it? Saddam Hussein is no more. Iraq is no longer a threat. He is either dead or on the run, so what does it matter if reality does not reveal the same grim picture that was so carefully painted before the war. So what. So what if the menacing characterizations that conjured up visions of mushroom clouds and American cities threatened with deadly germs and chemicals were overdone. So what. Our sons and daughters who serve in uniform answered the call to duty. They were sent to the hot sands of the Middle East to fight in a war that has already cost the lives of 194 Americans to this moment, thousands of innocent civilians, and unknown numbers of Iraqi soldiers. Our troops are still at risk. Hardly a day goes by that there is not another attack on the troops who are trying to restore order to a country teetering on the brink of anarchy. When are they coming home? The President told the American people we were compelled to go to war to secure our country from a grave threat. Are we any safer today than we were on March 18, 2003? Our Nation has been committed to rebuilding a country ravaged by war and tyranny, and the cost of that task is being paid for in blood and in treasure every day. It is in the compelling national interest to examine what we were told about the threat from Iraq. This is not revisionist history. These words are plain English words that I have quoted. It is in the compelling national interest to know if the intelligence was faulty. It is in the compelling national interest to know if the intelligence was distorted. It is in the national interest to know if the intelligence was manipulated. Mr. President, Congress must face this issue squarely. Congress should begin immediately an investigation into the intelligence that was presented to the American people about the prewar estimates of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and the way in which that intelligence might have been misused. This is no time for a timid, tippy-toe Congress. Congress has a responsibility to act in the national interest and to protect the American people, and we must get to the bottom of this matter. Although some timorous steps have been taken in the past few days to begin a review of this intelligence--I must watch my words carefully, for I may be tempted to use the word ``investigation'' or ``inquiry'' to describe this review, and those are terms which I am told are not supposed to be used--the proposed measures appear to fall short of what the situation requires. We are already shading our terms about how to describe the proposed review of intelligence: cherry-picking words to give the American people the impression that the Government is fully in control of the situation, and that there is no reason to ask tough questions. This is the same problem that got us into this controversy about slanted intelligence reports. Word games, lots and lots of word games. This is no game. For the first time in our history, the United States has gone to war because of intelligence reports claiming that a country posed a threat to our Nation. Congress should not be content to use standard operating procedures to look into this extraordinary matter. We should accept no substitute for a full, bipartisan investigation by Congress into the issue of our prewar intelligence on the threat from Iraq and the use of that intelligence. The purpose of such an investigation is not to play preelection year politics, nor is it to engage in what some might call ``revisionist history.'' Rather, it is to get at the truth. The longer questions are allowed to fester about what our intelligence knew about Iraq, and when our intelligence knew it, the greater the risk that American people, whom we are elected to serve, will lose confidence in our Government. This looming crisis of trust is not limited to the public. Many of my colleagues were willing to trust the administration and vote to authorize war against Iraq. Many Members of this body trusted so much that they gave the President sweeping authority to commence war. As President Reagan famously said, ``Trust, but verify.'' Despite my opposition, the Senate voted to blindly trust the President with unprecedented--unprecedented, unprecedented--power to declare war. Shame. While the reconstruction continues, so do the questions, and it is time to verify. I have served the people of West Virginia in Congress for half a century. I have witnessed deceit and scandal, coverup and aftermath. I have seen from both parties Presidents who once enjoyed great popularity among the people leave office in disgrace because they misled the American people. I say to this administration: Do not circle the wagons. Do not discourage the seeking of truth in these matters. The American people have questions that need to be answered about why we went to war with Iraq. To attempt to deny the relevance of these questions is to trivialize the people's trust and confidence. The business of intelligence is secretive by necessity, but our Government is open by design. We must be straight with the American people. Congress has the obligation to investigate the use of intelligence information by the administration in the open so that the American people can see that those who exercise power, especially the awesome power of preemptive war, must be held accountable. We must not go down the road of coverup. That is the road to ruin. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader for his courtesy in arranging for me to speak briefly. When I say ``briefly,'' that means perhaps an hour.

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the majority leader.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Cicero was asked which of Demosthenes' speeches he most admired. Cicero's answer was: The longest. By the way, Demosthenes committed suicide. He carried some poison in a bracelet and he committed suicide. While I admire Demosthenes, I do not hope to follow his course in that regard. The greatest oration that was ever delivered was the Oration on the Crown by Demosthenes. In that oration, he asked the question: Who deceives the State? He answered his own question. He who does not speak what he thinks. God, give us men! A time like this demands strong minds, great hearts, true faith, and ready hands. Men whom the lusts of office do not kill; Men whom the spoils of office cannot buy; Men who possess opinions and a will; Men who have honor; men who will not lie. Men who can stand before the demagogue And brave his treacherous flatteries without winking. Tall men, sun-crowned; Who live above the fog, In public duty and in private thinking. For while the rabble with its thumbworn creeds, It's large professions and its little deeds, mingles in selfish strife, Lo! Freedom weeps! Wrong rules the land and waiting justice sleeps. God, give us men. Men who serve not for selfish booty; But real men, courageous, who flinch not at duty. Men of dependable character; Men of sterling worth; Then wrongs will be redressed, and right will rule the earth. God, give us Men! Mr. President, those lines by J. G. Holland call my reflections to a man who served in the Senate with me a good many years ago. For 38 years, Russell B. Long was a giant among the giants of the U.S. Senate. Although not a large man, his mere presence on the Senate floor was overpowering. His accomplishments were enormous, and I am confident in saying that his legacy will prove to be long lasting. He was a Senator's Senator. He sat here in this row of seats where I now stand. Mr. Mansfield sat in the chair at the desk just in front of me. The greatest Senator of all, in my public career, was another Southerner whose name was Richard Brevard Russell, and he sat at the seat which I now have the honor to fill. At the desk behind me was Russell B. Long. He was a man of powerful intellect. He was a walking history blessed with common sense and a sharp, clear mind. He could keep one entertained for hours with his down-home stories, his folksy humor, and memories of his remarkable and controversial family. His father, Huey P. Long, was called the Kingfish in Louisiana. His father was the legendary populist Governor and Senator from Louisiana, Huey Long. Russell's self-effacing mother, Rose, who Russell Long said was the ``nearest thing I knew to an angel''--now that is putting it right. ``The nearest thing I knew to an angel.'' That was Russell Long's way of referring to his mother. His mother served briefly in the U.S. Senate following the assassination of her husband. So here you have the husband, the wife, and the son all serving in the U.S. Senate at different times, of course. Born in Shreveport, LA, in 1918, Russell B. Long received his undergraduate and law degrees from Louisiana State University. He served as a naval officer during World War II and practiced law after the war. On November 2, 1948, he was elected to the U.S. Senate. I was in the West Virginia House of Delegates at that time. So Russell Long was elected to the U.S. Senate 1 day before his 30th birthday, making him the sixth person to be elected to the Senate under the age of 30. When he retired from the Senate in 1986, he had served longer than all but three other Senators in history at that time. His love for this institution and his respect for this institution's traditions were always evident. He opposed television coverage in the U.S. Senate. He and I were both together in feeling that way about it at that particular time. We both opposed television coverage in the Senate at that point. He opposed the efforts to limit Senate filibusters. I opposed them with him. I joined in filibusters with him. And I today oppose efforts to eliminate the filibuster in the U.S. Senate, and I always will oppose those efforts. He did so, meaning he opposed the elimination of the filibuster and any efforts to eliminate it, because he cared so much about preserving the unique role of the U.S. Senate in American Government and American society. During his tenure in the Senate, Russell Long served on a number of important committees, including the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, the Banking and Currency Committee, and the Armed Services Committee. In 1965, his Democratic colleagues elected him--and I was here at that time to cast my vote for him--to serve as the Senate Democratic whip, the post he held until 1969. I was the secretary of the Democratic conference at that particular time, and I believe I sat on the back row over here. It was on January 10, 1966, that another legend was born, and that was the day that Senator Long became chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, a position he held for 15 years, the longest continuous service in the history of that committee. As chairman of this powerful Senate committee, Senator Long displayed such a command of the subject matter and demonstrated such skillful management abilities that during floor debates Senators would line up at his desk seeking his encyclopedic memory and knowledge about complicated tax provisions. In fact, on most of the landmark tax and trade legislation during that time one can see the imprint of this remarkable Senator, Russell Long. His was a powerful voice on health care finance and Social Security. His genius fathered ESOP, the employee stock ownership plan concept, which enabled the workers and management at Weirton Steel in Weirton, WV, to keep the plant from closing in 1982. Russell Long went with me, and with the late Senator Jennings Randolph, my colleague at the time, to Weirton Steel and talked with the employers and employees, the people, the citizens, about the ESOP plan. That plan was applied and it preserved the jobs of 8,500 employees. Russell Long's legislative achievements included the 1972 and 1976 Federal revenue sharing laws and the 1969 and 1976 tax reform laws. I wish he were here today. Indeed, his work on the Nation's tax laws continued throughout his years in the Senate. In 1986, his last year in this Chamber, he helped to write a major simplification of income tax law. President Jimmy Carter liked to say that he was elected President and came to Washington to run the country but that when he got here, he discovered that Russell Long was already running it. Senator Long's colleague from Louisiana at that time, Senator Bennett Johnson, used to point out that President Carter was probably exaggerating but not by much. Russell Long's success as a Senator is largely attributable to his skills as a debater and speaker, and his skills as a technician and craftsman in the writing of tax laws. These are skills which he likely inherited from his dynamic father. Those skills included his formidable ability as one of the Senate's best negotiators. President John F. Kennedy once told him: You traded me a biscuit for a barrel of flour and I didn't even get a biscuit. Following the Republican landslide of 1980 in which Ronald Reagan was elected President and the Republican Party gained the majority in the Senate, Senator Howard Baker, who had become the new Senate majority leader, telephoned Senator Robert Dole to congratulate Senator Dole on his new role as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. The story goes that Senator Dole responded: Howard, that is great, but who is going to tell Russell Long? I enjoy that story. It demonstrates both the power and the respect that Senator Russell Long commanded as a U.S. Senator and as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. No wonder the Wall Street Journal once referred to Russell Long as the fourth branch of Government. Journalists, as well as Presidents and Senators, revered and enjoyed this colorful man, and brilliant Senator. During his 38 years in the Senate, Russell B. Long truly became an institution within this institution. I missed Russell Long when he left the Senate. Erma and I missed his lovely wife Carolyn. I called Carolyn a few minutes ago to speak with her about her late husband Russell Long. I told her I was going to have a few words to say about Russell, and I asked her to listen in if she liked. I close this short statement about Russell Long with a poem by Thomas Moore, that great Irishman. The title of the poem is ``The Light of Other Days.'' I dedicate these words by Thomas Moore to Carolyn, and in so doing, of course, I think about my own service in this Chamber with Russell Long. Oft, in the stilly night, Ere slumber's chain as bound me, Fond memory brings the light Of other days around me; The smiles, the tears, Of boyhood's years, The words of love then spoken; The ayes that shone, Now dimm'd and gone, The cheerful hearts now broken. Thus, in the stilly night, Ere slumber's chain has bound me, Sad memory brings the light Of other days around me. When I remember all The friends, so link'd together, I've seen around me fall Like leaves in wintry weather. I feel like one Who treads alone Some banquet-hall deserted, Whose lights are fled, Whose garland's dead, And all but he departed. Thus, in the stilly night, Ere slumber's chain has bound me, Sad Memory brings the light Of other days around me.