Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mine will not be a lengthy speech. Mr. President, just weeks ago, our Armed Forces once again demonstrated--demonstrated--the overwhelming might of the United States military. Due to the sustained commitment of our country to invest a substantial proportion of our national wealth into our national defense, our military is faster, more agile, more lethal, better equipped, better protected, and better compensated than any other in the world. Make no doubt about it, the sums that we invest in defense are enormous. According to the most recent CIA World Factbook, the world spent about three-quarters of a trillion dollars on arms in 1999, the latest year for which statistics are available. That same year, the United States spent $292 billion on its military that is nearly 40 percent of all military spending on Earth. Our country spends more on defense than all the other 18 members of NATO, plus China, plus Russia, and plus the six remaining rogue states combined. Yet our defense budget continues to increase. This bill authorizes $400 billion for our national defense in the next year. In an age when we talk about smart bombs, smart missiles, and smart soldiers, any talk of smart budgets has gone out the window. It was not that long ago that Secretary Rumsfeld conducted an extensive series of top-to-bottom reviews of the Defense Department. I supported him in those exercises, and said so, as did many other Members of Congress. Those reviews were supposed to eliminate old weapons systems, field new ones, and cut the fat at the Pentagon, all for the purpose of getting more bang for our defense buck. I understand that a huge bureaucracy like the Defense Department cannot turn on a dime. But any hopes of containing military spending increases while preparing our forces for the 21st century seem to be a distant memory. Two years into what was supposed to be a major overhaul, the Pentagon's budget has grown by 24 percent, not counting any of the billions of dollars that we have spent on the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq. Our defense budget seems more the same than ever: not more bang for the buck, just more bucks. The administration has charted a course now to increase defense budgets to $502.7 billion within the next 5 years. At the same time, Congress has passed one tax cut of $1.35 trillion, and the Senate is headed at flank speed to pass another $350 billion in tax cuts before this week is over. Budget deficits are soaring--soaring--out of control, while our economy is in the doldrums. Instead of saving money by skipping a generation of military weapons, we are sending our country even deeper into debt a debt that will have to be borne by yet another generation of Americans who will be expected to pay for our defense largess. Let there be no doubt that we can and must provide first-rate fighting capability for our troops. But we can do so without committing to defense budgets that are set to spiral ever, ever higher. I know of no one who would seriously propose to give our troops second-rate equipment or to cut their pay and benefits. The size of our defense budget is not a good measure of our support for our troops. We have plenty of headroom in which to maintain our overwhelming military superiority without bowing to every request by the powerful defense industry for more and more and more money for more and more and more programs that are all too often over budget and behind schedule. Propping up unproven weapons systems through infusions of taxpayer cash is the surest means to short change our men and women in uniform. There remains much to be done regarding the business practices at the Pentagon. Secretary Rumsfeld has made a commitment toward improving DOD's financial management and accounting systems, and he appears to be making an earnest effort toward that end, but progress is painfully slow. Untangling the mess of unreliable accounting entries will take years to solve. The bottom line is that the Pentagon still has no way-- none--no way of knowing how much it spends, how much it owns, or what its real budgetary needs are. It makes little sense to keep piling more money on a Department that does not know how it spent last year's funds. The DOD proposed a transformation package that was said to be able to make the Department more efficient. ``Flexibilities''--and I use that word in quotation marks--``flexibilities'' are held up as the cure-all to what ails the Pentagon's management. The answer to problems like the Pentagon's accounting system clearly is not more flexibility--what is needed is more accountability. Accountability within the Department, accountability to Congress, which means accountability to the Constitution and accountability to the American people. It is a good sign that this bill does not include most of the ``flexibilities'' requested by the Department of Defense. Senator Warner and Senator Levin acted wisely in crafting a bill that upholds the prerogatives of Congress in this respect. Now, we owe a great debt of gratitude to both of these managers, Senator Warner and Senator Levin, because they went against the grain when they opposed those ``flexibilities'' and when they took them out. It is a good sign that this bill does not include most of the ``flexibilities'' requested by the Department of Defense. But we remain on the wrong track when it comes to defense spending. Instead of truth in budgeting, Congress cannot even get a straight answer about how much it will cost to occupy Iraq. Congress could not get a straight answer as to what it would cost to wage the war in Iraq. And Congress still cannot get a straight answer about the costs of reconstructing Iraq or how long we will be there. Instead of choosing priorities for our military and skipping a generation of weapons, defense spending is through the roof while our Government is swimming in red ink. Instead of holding the Pentagon accountable for what it spends, we are kept busy fighting off legislative proposals that would reduce oversight of the Department of Defense. Here again, I compliment Senator Warner and Senator Levin. They put the foot down and said no; this far but no further. They took out those various and sundry so-called flexibilities that the Department wanted. We are living in a time when the greatest threat to our national security is the threat of asymmetrical warfare. We learned that on September 11, 2001. We are in no danger of being outmatched militarily by any nation on Earth, but as the current orange alert status reminds us, we remain vulnerable to the very real threat of terrorists. Yet our Department of Defense is on a track to be the instrument--get this--to be the instrument of a doctrine of preemptive attacks: Ready and willing to invade and take over sovereign states that may not even pose a direct threat to our security. The name ``Department of Defense'' is increasingly a misnomer for a bureaucracy that is poised to undertake conquests at the drop of a hat. Senator Warner and Senator Levin have done an excellent job of managing this bill and of stripping some of the most egregious provisions from the President's request. I have been on the Armed Services Committee a good many years. I first came to the Armed Services Committee when the late Senator Richard Russell, who stood at this desk and who sat in this chair, was chairman of that great committee. I have been a supporter of our national defense. I supported the war in Vietnam until most everyone else had left the field. I held up President Nixon's hand when others on my side and the then majority leader--God rest his soul--were opposed to an amendment that I offered which said in essence that if the President sends our boys, our young men--young men for the most part at that time--to Vietnam, then the President has a responsibility to protect those men to the best of his ability and to enable them to return home safely. I lost on the amendment. I received a call from Camp David from the late President Nixon complimenting me on that amendment. I don't take a back seat to anyone when it comes to national defense, but I think we are going too far. I commend Senator Warner and I commend Senator Levin for their hard work, but I believe this bill is still too costly and steers our Nation in exactly the wrong course for the future. I hope they will not think that I in any way am criticizing them or the other members of my Armed Services Committee. I believe it is time to just say no to Pentagon excesses. I believe it is time to force the Defense Department to work smarter and waste less. I believe it is time to demand accountability for our enormous investment in defense. For these reasons I will vote against this bill. We will revisit this subject in the Defense Appropriations Committee and the Appropriations Committee as a whole, votes on Defense appropriations bill. But we will meet that challenge when it comes. I thank both the managers for their patience and for their good work.

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank both the very distinguished managers of the bill. May I say once again, to the distinguished Senator and to his comrade, the ranking manager, you have indeed properly upheld the role of the Senate and the principle of the separation of powers when you insisted that those various requests for ``flexibility'' be dropped. I hope you will be able to maintain that position in conference.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Michigan. Iraq Mr. President: Truth, crushed to earth, shall rise again, The eternal years of God are hers; But Error, wounded, writhes in pain, And dies among his worshippers.'' Truth has a way of asserting itself despite all attempts to obscure it. Distortion only serves to derail it for a time. No matter to what lengths we humans may go to obfuscate facts or delude our fellows, truth has a way of squeezing out through the cracks, eventually. But the danger is that at some point it may no longer matter. The danger is that damage is done before the truth is widely recognized and realized. The reality is that, sometimes, it is easier to ignore uncomfortable facts and go along with whatever distortion is currently in vogue. We see a lot of this today in politics. I see a lot of it-- more than I ever would have believed--right on this Senate floor. Regarding the situation in Iraq, it appears to this Senator that the American people may have been lured into accepting the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation, in violation of long-standing international law, under false premises. There is ample evidence that the horrific events of September 11 have been carefully manipulated to switch public focus from Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida who masterminded the September 11 attacks, to Saddam Hussein who did not. The run up to our invasion of Iraq featured the President and members of his Cabinet invoking every frightening image that they could conjure, from mushroom clouds, to buried caches of germ warfare, to drones poised to deliver germ laden death in our major cities. We were treated to a heavy dose of overstatement concerning Saddam Hussein's direct threat to our freedoms. The tactic was guaranteed to provoke a sure reaction from a nation still suffering from a combination of post traumatic stress and justifiable anger after the attacks of 9/11. It was the exploitation of fear. It was a placebo for the anger. Since the war's end, every subsequent revelation which has seemed to refute the previous dire claims of the Bush administration has been brushed aside. Instead of addressing the contradictory evidence, the White House deftly changes the subject. No weapons of mass destruction have yet turned up, but we are told that they will in time. And perhaps they yet will. But, our costly and destructive bunker busting attack on Iraq seems to have proven, in the main, precisely the opposite of what we were told was the urgent reason to go in. It seems also to have, for the present, verified the assertions of Hans Blix and the inspection team that he led, which President Bush and company so derided. As Blix always said, a lot of time will be needed to find such weapons, if they do, indeed, exist. Meanwhile bin Laden is still on the loose out there somewhere and Saddam Hussein has come up missing. The administration assured the U.S. public and the world, over and over and over again, that an attack was necessary to protect our people and the world from terrorism. It assiduously worked to alarm the public and to blur the faces of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden until they virtually became one. What has become painfully clear in the aftermath of war is that Iraq was no immediate threat to the United States, and many of us here said so before the war. Ravaged by years of sanctions, Iraq did not even lift an airplane against us. Saddam Hussein could not even get an airplane off the ground. Iraq's threatening death-dealing fleet of unmanned drones about which we heard so much morphed into one prototype made of plywood and string. Their missiles proved to be outdated and of limited range. Their army was quickly overwhelmed by our technology and our well trained troops. Presently our loyal military personnel continue their mission of diligently searching for weapons of mass destruction. They have so far turned up only fertilizer, vacuum cleaners, conventional weapons, and the occasional buried swimming pool. They are misused on such a mission and they continue to be at grave risk. I am talking about the sons and daughters of the American people. The Bush team's extensive hype of WMD in Iraq as justification for a preemptive invasion has become more than embarrassing. It has raised serious questions about prevarication and the reckless use of power. Were our troops needlessly put at risk? Were countless Iraqi civilians--women, children--killed and maimed when war was not really necessary? Was the American public deliberately misled? Was the world? What makes me cringe even more is the continued claim that we are ``liberators.'' Vice President Cheney, 3 days before the war, said we will be welcomed as liberators. The facts don't seem to support the label we have so euphemistically attached to ourselves. True, we have unseated a brutal, despicable despot, but ``liberation'' implies the followup of freedom, self-determination and a better life for the common people of the invaded country. In fact, if the situation in Iraq is the result of ``liberation,'' we may have set the cause of freedom back 200 years. Despite our high-blown claims of a better life for the Iraqi people, water is scarce, and often foul; electricity is a sometime thing; food is in short supply; hospitals are stacked with the wounded and maimed. Historic treasures of the region and of the Iraqi people have been looted, and nuclear material may have been disseminated to heaven knows where, while U.S. troops, on orders, looked on and guarded the oil supply. That is what they were told to do. Meanwhile, lucrative contracts to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure and refurbish its oil industry are awarded to administration cronies, without benefit of competitive bidding, and the United States steadfastly resists offers of U.N. assistance to participate. Is there any wonder that the real motives of the U.S. Government are the subject of worldwide speculation and mistrust? And in what may be the most damaging development, the U.S. appears to be pushing off Iraq's clamor for self-government. Jay Garner has been summarily replaced, and it is becoming all too clear that the smiling face of the U.S. as liberator is quickly assuming the scowl of an occupier. The image of the boot on the throat has replaced the beckoning hand of freedom. Chaos and rioting only exacerbate that image, as U.S. soldiers try to sustain order in a land ravaged by poverty and disease. ``Regime change'' in Iraq has so far meant anarchy, curbed only by an occupying military force and a U.S. administrative presence that is evasive about if and when it intends to depart. Democracy and freedom cannot be force fed at the point of an occupier's gun. To think otherwise is folly. One has to stop and ponder. How could we have been so impossibly naive? How could we expect to easily plant a clone of U.S. culture, values, and government in a country so riven with religious, territorial, and tribal rivalries, so suspicious of U.S. motives, and so at odds with the galloping materialism which drives the western-style economies? As so many warned this administration before it launched its misguided war on Iraq, there is evidence that our crackdown in Iraq is likely to convince 1,000 new bin Ladens to plan other horrors of the type we have seen in the past several days. Instead of damaging the terrorists, we have given them new fuel for their fury. We did not complete our mission in Afghanistan because we were so eager to attack Iraq. Now it appears that al-Qaida is back with a vengeance. We have returned to orange alert in the U.S., and we may well have destabilized the Mideast region, a region we have never fully understood. We have alienated friends around the globe with our dissembling and our haughty insistence on punishing former friends who may not see things quite our way. The path of diplomacy and reason have gone out the window to be replaced by force, unilateralism, and punishment for transgressions. I read most recently with amazement our harsh castigation of Turkey, our longtime friend and strategic ally. It is astonishing that our Government is berating the new Turkish government for conducting its affairs in accordance with its own Constitution and its democratic institutions. Indeed, we may have sparked a new international arms race as countries move ahead to develop WMD as a last ditch attempt to ward off a possible preemptive strike from a newly belligerent U.S. bully which claims the right to hit where and when it wants. In fact, there is little to constrain this President. This Congress, in what will go down in history as its most unfortunate and spineless and thoughtless act, gave away its power to declare war for the foreseeable future and empowered this President to wage war at will, and not only this President, but also future Presidents. The amendment that I offered to sunset this nefarious handover of power was rejected by the Senate and garnered only 31 votes. I was amazed, and I am still amazed, that this Senate would reject an amendment to sunset a thoughtless, nefarious, spineless act on the part of this same Senate to hand over this power to declare war to this President. I cannot believe that the Senate did that. Even now, I cannot believe it. It is abhorrent that the Senate would have rejected the sunset provision. So, as it is, there is no sunset. That power goes on after this President. The next President will have the same power, unless Congress steps in and changes the law. Of course, a President can veto a change in the law and that veto, as students of the Constitution will know, will require a two-thirds vote to override. It is hard to believe that grown, sensible men and women would reject that sunset provision--to say nothing of having voted to shift this power over to any President, whether he is a Democrat or Republican. As if that were not bad enough, members of Congress are reluctant to ask questions which are begging to be asked. How long will we occupy Iraq? We have already heard disputes on the numbers of troops that will be needed to retain order. What is the truth? How costly will the occupation and the reconstruction be? No one has given a straight answer. How will we afford this long-term, massive commitment, fight terrorism at home, address the serious crisis in domestic health care, afford behemoth military spending, and give away billions in tax cuts amidst a deficit which has climbed to over $340 billion for this year alone? If the President's tax cut passes, it will be $400 billion. We cower in the shadows while false statements proliferate. We accept soft answers and shaky explanations because to demand the truth is hard, or unpopular, or may be politically costly. But I contend that, through it all, the people know. The American people, unfortunately, are used to political shading, political spin, and the usual chicanery they hear from public officials. They patiently tolerate it up to a point. But there is a line. It may seem to be drawn in invisible ink for a time, but eventually it will appear in dark colors tinged with anger. When it comes to shedding American blood, and when it comes to wreaking havoc on civilians, on innocent women, men, and children, callous dissembling is not acceptable. Nothing is worth that kind of lie--not oil, not revenge, not reelection, not somebody's grand pipe dream of a democratic domino theory. Mark my words, the calculated intimidation which we see so often of late by the ``powers that be'' will only keep the loyal opposition quiet for just so long because, eventually, like it always does, the truth will emerge. And when it does, this house of cards, built of deceit, will fall! I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the two managers of the bill, Mr. Warner and Mr. Levin, for the very professional, highly dignified manner in which they have conducted their work on this bill. I thank them for the many hours they spend in the committee, which they so ably chair and act within as ranking member.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am deeply grateful for those unmerited and highly charitable remarks from the distinguished Senator from Virginia.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, for more than half a century, our world has lived under the specter of a nuclear Armageddon. The end of the cold war has reduced this threat, but both the United States and Russia continue to be armed to the teeth, each side possessing many thousands of nuclear weapons, any one of which could devastate an innocent city. During the cold war, both Democratic and Republican Presidents held out the chance that an end to the nuclear arms race could lead to the renunciation of nuclear weapons. I point to article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, signed by President Nixon in 1968, and ratified by the Senate in 1969: ``Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.'' But the United States is no longer striving for a world free of nuclear weapons. The administration now seeks to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons, from bunker-busting hydrogen bombs that could wipe out a buried cache of arms, and a whole city with it, to low-yield mini-nukes, which could even take the form of the suitcase nuclear weapons that are the worst case scenario for our homeland security planners. The alarm at the development of these new weapons is underscored by the Nuclear Posture Review, released in January 2002, and the National Security Strategy, released in September 2002. Taken together, these documents envisage a United States that could strike anywhere on the globe with overwhelming force. The Nuclear Posture Review, in particular, moves breathlessly from discussions of conventional weapons to strategizing on the use of nuclear weapons. The unavoidable conclusion is that the administration seeks to reduce, and perhaps eliminate, the difference between conventional and nuclear weapons. A new reliance on nuclear weapons for our national security can only lead us to greater dangers. CIA Director George Tenet warned the Armed Services Committee on February 12, 2003, that the ``domino theory of the 21st century may well be nuclear.'' We must heed this warning. One powerless country after another may seek to develop the most extreme weapon of mass destruction in order to assure its security, fearing an imminent, preemptive attack from the world's only superpower, which views itself as being unconstrained by international law, the U.N. Security Council, or the court of world opinion. Rather than attempt to head off this destabilizing trend, this administration has recast its preemptive war as a liberation of the oppressed, threatened to find ways to punish allies who opposed our belligerency, and proposed the development of new nuclear weapons. If we do not wish to be in a state of perpetual war, the United States must recapture its standing as a peacemaker. Let us step back from the brink of a nuclear arms race. Moving forward with new bunker- busting and low-yield nuclear weapons can only send us in the wrong direction. I urge my colleagues to reject the moves by this administration to initiate new nuclear arms programs.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. If the majority leader will yield, would the majority leader seek to ascertain how many amendments will indeed be called up yet?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the leadership try to determine how many amendments are really going to be called up? We have cast 30 or 31 rollcall votes already today. It is now 17 minutes until midnight. We used to ask for a show of hands as to which Senators were serious about calling up amendments, and I would hope the leaders would do that. I would like to stay around and finish action on the bill, but I am not bound to do so. If we are going to have several, I will ask unanimous consent for a leave of absence from the Senate for the rest of the evening and be on my way home. I would love to stay around and finish voting with other Senators. I do not want to presume to be the leader tonight, but I have been known to ask other Senators for a show of hands as to which Senators were serious about calling up amendments.

Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that I be granted a leave of absence for the remainder of the evening.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may I inquire of the leadership how much longer the leadership expects to keep us in session today? I inquire of the leadership as to how much longer the Senate will be in session today. It is now 22 minutes until the hour of midnight.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this coming Sunday is Mother's Day. For a few short hours, families will dust off a rarely used pedestal and attempt to pay homage to a woman who likely will hop right back off that pedestal in order to straighten her husband's tie, or apply a bandage to a skinned knee, or do one of the countless other small tasks that keep a mother's hands in perpetual motion. This Sunday, families may try to still those busy hands by serving mom a homemade breakfast in bed or taking her to a nice restaurant for brunch. They will shower her with cards, and flowers, and presents in an attempt to say ``thank you, Mother'' for all of the hours that she has labored over them. The cards that are smudged with small blurry fingerpainted handprints will be especially savored, as will the bouquets of short-stemmed, wilting flowers plucked forcibly from weeds and beds in the backyard by loving and determined children, and presented in lumpy homemade vases painted with the wild abandon of childhood joy. Each gift and each gesture, whether suggested to a youngster by a loving husband or father or proffered by an awkward teenager who otherwise prefers his connection to the family be kept secret, will bring smiles, even tears, of gratitude. On Sunday, mothers will revel in each moment, delight over each expression of caring, and give back tenfold, as they always do, the love offered from their most precious charge, their families. It does not matter whether she is a business executive, an hourly laborer, or an unpaid stay-at-home mom--the best mothers invest the best of themselves in their families. They are high stakes brokers and we, their families, are the stocks on their exchange. They may spend many hours at work, but they still manage to make their children feel loved. They still manage to make each house a home. They still manage to create and sustain the traditions and customs that make each family unique. They enforce discipline on homework and at bedtime. They ice the birthday cakes and pack the lunches. They cool fevered brows and beam at graduations. They set high standards and higher expectations. They glory in our successes and consol us in our defeats. Like ripples in a pond, their investment spreads across the generations. The memories deep within each of us that connect us to our families are often closely linked to our mothers. From the food dishes that make each holiday special, to customs that range from the right way to fold clothes to the way we choose to raise our own children, our mother lives on in us. It is up to us to live up to our mother's expectations, to be the kind of adults she always believed we could be and would be. And if we simply try our best, she will consider the return on her investment to be well met. I still remember, from growing up in a time when children memorized and recited poetry, particularly poetry that taught a lesson, the following poem by Margaret Johnston Grafflin: Like Mother, Like Son Do you know that your soul is of my soul such a part, That you seem to be fibre and core of my heart? None other can pain me as you, dear, can do, None other can please me or praise me as you. Remember the world will be quick with its blame, If shadow or stain ever darken your name. ``Like mother, like son'' is a saying so true, The world will judge largely the ``mother'' by you. Be yours then the task, if task it shall be, To force the proud world to do homage to me. Be sure it will say, when its verdict you've won, ``She reaped as she sowed. Lo! This is her son.'' An old adage avers that ``As the twig is bent, so grows the tree.'' Countless studies have demonstrated the essential role that mothers play in family life, and their role in shaping the personality of their children, for good or for ill. I know from personal experience that a mother's influence reaches even beyond the grave. My own sweet mother died when I was just a year old, leaving me to be raised by my aunt and uncle. But my mother's serene face shone, and still shines, from a photograph that I keep in my office. Ada Kirby Sale: I have always felt her gentle presence, her soft urging to do my best to make her proud, to live the lesson of that poem. She died of influenza in 1918, during the great pandemic that took many millions of lives worldwide, her final struggle that of ensuring her baby's fate, my fate. It was her wish that a particular aunt and uncle take me to raise. I had three older brothers and sister, but she wanted the Byrds, Titus Dalton and Vlurma Byrd, to have the baby, Robert. At that time my name was Cornelius Calvin Sale, Jr. As concerns of a SARS epidemic sweeping the globe make today's headlines, I fear that other children may also be similarly orphaned. If that is the sad case, I hope that these children may also be able to keep their mother's memory and influence with them throughout their lives, as I have been fortunate to do. You see, I do not remember ever having seen that mother. But it is as though she were there beside me often. I feel that I am here because of that mother's wish, and I feel that she is watching today. I hope that other members of their families will be so willing to take them in and raise them as their mothers would have wished, as my Aunt Vlurma and my Uncle Titus Dalton Byrd did for me. They took me in. They gave me a new name to share with them and to be proud of, and they brought me to the land of my heart, if not my birth, West Virginia. West Virginia is the birthplace of my wife, Erma Ora Byrd. As I have said before, and I am happy to say again and again, she is a wonderful mother, a wonderful grandmother and great-grandmother. The ripples of her influence have spread now to the third generation. Erma and I are proud parents, grandparents, and now great-grandparents of a brood of fine people, individuals that distinguish any group. Erma's investment in her family has paid off a hundredfold. Good mothers are so special--you know that; you know that; you know that--so essential to our families and our society that I am especially gratified that the U.S. national celebration of mothers has its own origins in the town of Grafton in Taylor County, WV. The only surprise is that it is such a recent holiday, first established in 1907, when Ms. Anna Jarvis of Philadelphia persuaded her mother's church, which was in Grafton, WV, to celebrate Mother's Day on the second anniversary of her mother's death on the second Sunday in May. By the next year, Mother's Day was also being celebrated in Philadelphia. By 1911, thanks to the efforts of Anna Jarvis and her supporters, Mother's Day was being celebrated in almost every State--there were only 46 of them in 1911. In 1914, President Woodrow Wilson made the official announcement proclaiming Mother's Day a national holiday, to be held on the second Sunday in May each year. It is a tribute to Anna Jarvis's mother that her daughter was so inspired and so persevering. It is an equal tribute to countless other wonderful mothers that Anna Jarvis's good idea spread so quickly. Today, Mother's Day is celebrated throughout the United States and in many other nations as well. Mother's Day sprang from a loving and loyal heart, not from the avarice of any executive of the greeting card industry, the floral delivery service, the chocolate candy manufacturers, or the restaurant business. And despite all of the advertising these days aimed at getting grateful families to spend money on ever-more extravagant gifts for Mother's Day, the warm and caring feelings that inspired the day remain central to the observance. I know economists would like to see more spending to boost the economy, but I am also sure that for most mothers, the best part of the day is the time spent with their families. The hugs and laughter of her children, the pride in them that she shares with her husband--these are the gems in the mother's crown and the gold in mother's vault. This Sunday, as each of us calls or visits our mother, or pauses to hold close her dear memory, we can savor the warmth and caring of her hugs and the special accolade that was her smile of pride. I close with another old poem, by Elizabeth Akers Allen, that for me is forever linked with Mother's Day: ``Rock Me to Sleep.'' I will offer it up to my own angel mother and to all other mothers who are angels as well. Rock Me to Sleep Backward, turn backward, O time, in your flight, Make me a child again just for to-night! Mother, come back from the echoless shore, Take me again in your heart as of yore; Kiss from my forehead the furrows of care, Smooth the few silver threads out of my hair; Over my slumbers your loving watch keep:-- Rock me to sleep, Mother--rock me to sleep! Backward, flow backward, oh, tide of the years! I am so weary of toil and of tears-- Toil without recompense, tears all in vain-- Take them, and give me my childhood again! I have grown weary of dust and decay-- Weary of flinging my soul-wealth away; Weary of sowing for others to reap;-- Rock me to sleep, Mother--rock me to sleep! Tired of the hollow, the base, the untrue, Mother, O Mother, my heart call for you! Many a summer the grass has grown green, Blossomed and faded, our faces between: Yet, with strong yearning and passionate pain, Long I to-night for your presence again. Come from the silence so long and so deep;-- Rock me to sleep, Mother--rock me to sleep! Over my heart, in the days that are flown, No love like mother-love ever has shone; No other worship abides and endures-- Faithful, unselfish, and patient like yours: None like a mother can charm away pain From the sick soul and the world-weary brain. Slumber's soft calms o'er my heavy lids creep;-- Rock me to sleep, Mother--rock me to sleep! Come, let your brown hair, just lighted with gold, Fall on your shoulders again as of old; Let it drop over my forehead to-night, Shading my faint eyes away from the light; For with its sunny-edged shadows once more Haply will throng the sweet visions of yore; Lovingly, softly, its bright billows sweep;-- Rock me to sleep, Mother--rock me to sleep! Mother, dear Mother, the years have been long Since I last listened your lullaby song: Sing, then, and unto my soul it shall seen Womanhood's years have been only a dream. Clasped to your heart in a loving embrace, With your light lashes just sweeping my face, Never hereafter to wake or to weep;-- Rock me to sleep, Mother--rock me to sleep! Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in my 50 years as a Member of Congress, I have had the privilege to witness the defining rhetorical moments of a number of American Presidents. I have listened spellbound to the soaring oratory of John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. I have listened grimly to the painful soul-searching of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. Presidential speeches are an important marker of any President's legacy. These are the tangible moments that history seizes upon and records for posterity. For this reason, I was deeply troubled by both the content and the context of President Bush's remarks to the American people last week marking the end of the combat phase of the war in Iraq. As I watched the President's fighter jet swoop down onto the deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, I could not help but contrast the reported simple dignity of President Lincoln at Gettysburg with the flamboyant showmanship of President Bush aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. President Bush's address to the American people announcing combat victory in Iraq deserved to be marked with solemnity, not extravagance; with gratitude to God, not self-congratulatory gestures. American blood has been shed on foreign soil in defense of the President's policies. This is not some made-for-TV backdrop for a campaign commercial. This is real life, and real lives have been lost. To me, it is an affront to the Americans killed or injured in Iraq for the President to exploit the trappings of war for the momentary spectacle of a speech. I do not begrudge his salute to America's warriors aboard the carrier Lincoln, for they have performed bravely and skillfully, as have their countrymen still in Iraq, but I do question the motives of a deskbound President who assumes the garb of a warrior for the purposes of a speech. As I watched the President's speech before the great banner proclaiming ``Mission Accomplished,'' I could not help but be reminded of the tobacco barns of my youth, which served as country road advertising backdrops for the slogans of chewing tobacco purveyors. I am loath to think of an aircraft carrier being used as an advertising backdrop for a Presidential political slogan, and yet that is what I saw. What I heard the President say also disturbed me. It may make for grand theater to describe Saddam Hussein as an ally of al-Qaida or to characterize the fall of Baghdad as a victory in the war on terror, but stirring rhetoric does not necessarily reflect sobering reality. Not one of the 19 September 11th hijackers was an Iraqi. In fact, there is not a shred of evidence to link the September 11 attack--at least as of this date--on the United States to Iraq. There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was an evil despot who brought great suffering to the Iraqi people, and there is no doubt in my mind that he encouraged and rewarded acts of terrorism against Israel. But his crimes are not those of Osama bin Laden, and bringing Saddam Hussein to justice will not bring justice to the victims of 9/11. The United States has made great progress in its efforts to disrupt and destroy the al-Qaida terror network. We can take solace and satisfaction in that fact. We should not risk tarnishing those very real accomplishments by trumpeting victory in Iraq as a victory over Osama bin Laden. We are reminded in the gospel of Saint Luke, ``For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required.'' Surely the same can be said of any American President. We expect--nay, demand--that our leaders be scrupulous in the truth and faithful to the facts. We do not seek theatrics or hyperbole. We do not require the stage management of our victories. The men and women of the United States military are to be saluted for their valor and sacrifice in Iraq. Their heroics and quiet resolve speak for themselves. The prowess and professionalism of America's military forces do not need to be embellished by the gaudy excesses of a political campaign. War is not theater, and victory is not a campaign slogan. I join with the President and all Americans in expressing heartfelt thanks and gratitude to our men and women in uniform for their service to our country, and for the sacrifices that they have made on our behalf. But on this point I differ with the President: I believe that our military forces deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, and not used as stage props to embellish a Presidential speech. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, before the distinguished Senator yields to the very distinguished Senator from New Jersey, will he allow me to thank him, the Senator from North Dakota, for the leadership he continues to provide to the Senate in these budget matters. I thank him for his kind words. Future generations will not rise up to call us blessed.

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, the former chairman of the Budget Committee in the Senate on which I serve. I thank him for the time. I may not use the 20 minutes. I will yield back to him whatever I do not use. I also thank the distinguished Democratic whip for his courtesies and his characteristic accommodating mood. With the final passage of the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution, I expect that many in Congress will congratulate themselves for a job well done. I expect a whole flurry of press releases to emanate from Washington about who is or is not a friend of the taxpayer, and who is or is not a friend of the President. Those characterizations underscore just how ridiculous this budget debate has become. The economy is floundering. Economists are warning that it could begin to contract in the months ahead, raising the risk of a disastrous double-dip recession. The airline, manufacturing, and tourism sectors are already in outright recession. More than 2 million jobs have been lost nationwide since January 2001, and 3.5 million workers are drawing unemployment benefits. During that same time frame, the Dow Jones Industrial Average--a symbol of the retirement holdings of millions of Americans--has declined by a disastrous 23 percent. Budget deficit projections are soaring, with some private-sector projections for the current fiscal year topping $400 billion. Yes, $400 billion. That is $400 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. The trade deficit remains disturbingly high, with the economy losing tens of billions of dollars every month in growth to other nations. We often hear the other distinguished Senator from North Dakota speaking on this subject, Mr. Dorgan, about the trade deficit. His pleas fall on deaf ears. The dreaded twin deficits plaguing the U.S. economy have raised alarms around the globe, with the world's economic leaders pleading with this Administration to reverse its policies and trim its deficits. Now the Senate is on the verge of passing a budget to authorize over $1 trillion in new tax cuts while we are in a war. It would be funny if it were not so serious; over $1 trillion in new tax cuts. How long would it take you to count to a trillion dollars at the rate of $1 per second--1, 2, 3, 4, 5, at the rate of $1 per second--how long would it take you to count to $1 trillion? Anybody want to guess? Thirty-two thousand years. So here we are on the verge of passing this budget to authorize over $1 trillion in new tax cuts before the American people can even begin to come to grips with just how badly our fiscal position has deteriorated. This budget deliberately obscures from the American public the mounting levels of deficits and debt we are accumulating. Have we no shame? This budget resolution is a sham. The spending and deficit numbers it contains are phony. I doubt there is a Member of this body who believes the assumptions that are included in this budget. We haven't even figured out yet how we are going to pay for the war. Ask Secretary Rumsfeld what the cost of the war is going to be? He will say that is not knowable; these things are not knowable. Well, we haven't even figured out yet how we are going to pay for the war, a war that began 3 weeks ago that this administration has been eyeing since it took office 2 years ago. The budget is in deficit. Under this so-called balanced plan, the national debt will almost double in just 10 years, reaching $12 trillion by 2013. That is trillion dollars, trillion with a capital ``T.'' We are borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars and exhausting the Social Security surpluses just to finance the current operations of Government. I pity those three little great-granddaughters I have, and other Senators should weep alike. If you don't have granddaughters or great- granddaughters now, if the Lord blesses you, you will have them. The Congress will soon pass a roughly $80 billion supplemental, but those funds are just a downpayment on the war--just a downpayment, a small one at that--on the war, and post-war reconstruction there is likely to cost hundreds of billions of dollars. This budget resolution includes only $75 billion for the war in Iraq and pretends that not budgeting for this effort will not have long-term consequences for our troops and humanitarian relief efforts. The economy is faltering, the budget is deteriorating, and all this administration says is tax cuts will save us. Well, I have been in Congress for over 50 years. I have been in politics almost 60 years. The easiest votes that I ever had to cast were votes to cut taxes. The administration says tax cuts will save us. They append their hopes to ideological rhetoric. Meanwhile, the poor, beleaguered, hard-pressed, downtrodden American taxpayer gets stuck with bigger and bigger debt and more and more interest costs. The Congress has struggled for weeks about whether to endorse the President's tax cut proposal. For a while, there appeared to be a glimmer of hope on the horizon. A number of Senators, despite immense pressures from the White House, despite immense pressures from their party leadership, voted their conscience. Tax cuts were trimmed so funds could be set aside to pay for the war, pay for the deficit reduction, and pay for the other priority needs of the Nation. What's more, the Senate sought to create parity between emergency designations for homeland security and defense spending. That was my amendment. This budget resolution effectively erases those decisions--wipes them out--and replaces them with a lot of nonsense that has already been rejected by this Senate. We haven't the funds to pay for a war, and the administration knows that. They didn't even budget one thin dime in the budget for the war. We haven't the funds to pay for a war, let alone a massive new tax cut. Our only option is to go deeper and deeper into debt. How deep we are going to go is anybody's guess, but one thing is sure: Mr. President, your children, my children, my grandchildren, my great grandchildren, your grandchildren, your great grandchildren, and theirs--those people looking at the Senate Chamber today through those electronic eyes--your grandchildren, their children, and their children's children will still be paying the tab many years hence. We hear the cry for stimulus through tax cuts. I say bunk. Economic stimulus is a code word for covering your political backside--if you know what the code word ``backside'' is for. Economic stimulus is the code word for covering your political backside. The economy of this Nation has been mismanaged by those who put protecting their political base ahead of enacting sound economic policy. If all we had to do was to pass massive tax cuts every time the economy began to stumble, if it were just that simple, we would have done away with recessions in the last century. President Ronald Reagan had the common sense to recognize the consequences of long-term deficits and the courage to repeal portions of his own 1981 tax cut. President George Herbert Walker Bush likewise recognized the dangers of long-term deficits and signed legislation to increase taxes in 1990. But this administration refuses to recognize how badly its economic policies are failing. This administration can only stubbornly argue for more of the same--more tax cuts. It was unwise, unfair tax cuts that helped to push the budget into deficit in the first place. The much touted stimulus to the economy did not happen. The only thing these tax cuts will stimulate is campaign contributions from fat cats. The budget process is supposed to provide this Congress with a roadmap that will guide us toward reasonable spending and tax policy. But under this budget resolution, the war and postwar reconstruction will not be paid for, deficits and debts will continue to pile up, and the American taxpayer won't even know that the Nation has veered off the cliff, off the road, until the economy is on its back--spinning its wheels deep inside the deficit ditch. In the New York Times on Wednesday, Sam Nunn, Warren Rudman, Bob Kerrey, Peter Peterson, Robert Rubin, Paul Volcker--Republicans and Democrats, moderates and conservatives, former Federal Reserve and Treasury officials, and former Members of the Senate--all joined together to warn us not to do exactly what we are about to do. They urged us not to rely on unrealistic budget assumptions, not to ignore the deteriorating long-term fiscal outlook, and not to enact these fiscally irresponsible proposals. This budget makes promises to the American people that we know we cannot keep. This budget piles years of interest and debt payments on the public and then tries to obscure them with the promise of economic stimulus. I oppose that kind of manipulation. I oppose not being forthright with the American people. I oppose this budget resolution. I yield back to the distinguished manager of the bill on this side of the aisle whatever time I did not use.

Mr. BYRD. Twenty minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the able Senator.

Mr. BYRD

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

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate will soon recess. Members will travel. Many will go home, meet with constituents, visit with friends, and attend Rotary Club lunches, Veterans of Foreign Wars rallies, and other important civic events. Some members will travel overseas, visiting U.S. troops and military facilities around the world in order to get a first-hand look at conditions and morale, or meeting with U.S. embassy personnel for detailed assessments of world events. After the contentious debates and harried schedules of past weeks on Capitol Hill, some Members may just relax and enjoy the beauty of spring. Spring, ah spring. Spring is such a gentle season. The air is soft, the earth is moist, the new leaves and blades of grass are tender, not like the superheated air of summer that parches the earth, toughening leaves and drying lawns into crispy, crunchy deserts. Even the colors of springtime are gentle, all soft purples, buttery yellows and pale pinks of lilac, daffodil, and hyacinth. Only later, in the summer sun, come the vibrant oranges, deep reds, and gaudy color mixes of sun- and heat-loving flowers like marigolds, zinnia, and geranium. In this most gentle of seasons, the contrast between the beauty outdoors and the images saturating the airwaves is difficult to reconcile. Images of war waged in distant cities in a distant land, of gunfire, bombs, of ambushes, of sudden death and the loss and anguish of families both here and there, do not seem to match the mood of springtime, with its message of birth and life and growth. But the holiday that Christians celebrate this season contains all of these paradoxes. Easter is tragedy and loss, capture and death, as well as rebirth and new life, life everlasting. The story of Easter is monumental. It is theater for the ages, unmatched by Sophocles, Euripides, or Shakespeare, because it is true. Easter is the history of one man, his life and death highlighted in the annals of history as few individuals are. Though full of miracles beyond wonder and betrayal beyond believing, the story of Jesus of Nazareth ends on a stirring note of hope. His death, the price of life everlasting for mankind, offers solace and hope to the families who have lost sons and daughters, husbands and wives, during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Indeed, the Easter story offers comfort to all of us. When you have lived as long as I have, and when you have been as blessed as I to have and have had many good friends over the years, you must also live with the loss of those friends and loved ones. Not a day passes but that the untimely loss of my grandson Michael does not make my heart ache. It was 21 years ago this coming Monday. Recently, my colleague and good friend, the former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, passed away at the age of 76. I miss him. There is where he sat--there. At that desk at the end of the back row. That is where he sat, I miss him. I miss my faithful and loving little dog Billy, who died last year. All things in this life must pass. But their memories warm my heart and their friendship is etched in the laugh lines on my face. My belief in the Creator and in his promise of life everlasting in his presence gives me support and comfort. Though nothing can bring back the hour Of splendour in the grass, of glory in the flower; We will grieve not, rather find Strength in what remains behind; In the primal sympathy Which having been must ever be; In the soothing thoughts that spring Out of human suffering; In the faith that looks through death, In years that bring the philosophic mind. The poet William Wordsworth wrote that, in his ode, ``Intimation of Immortality.'' This coming Sunday is Palm Sunday, marking the triumphal entry into Jerusalem by Jesus, our blessed Lord. It is a joyous day, but shadowed now by the foreknowledge of what is to come on Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Holy Saturday--dark, sad days relieved by the miracle of Easter Sunday. On Easter Sunday, our spirits are lifted by the wondrous news of the resurrection and the ascension. Those are uplifting words: resurrection and ascension, rebirth and, for Jesus, a homecoming to sit at the right hand of the Father, His Father. My Father. Your Father. On Easter Sunday, surrounded by fresh spring flowers, pretty Easter dresses and baskets of brightly colored Easter eggs, we again see Spring in its best light. We see it in the light of renewal and hope. We see it in the amazing story of Private Jessica Lynch of Palestine, WV. The State of West Virginia, and the entire nation, rejoices in her safe recovery. Her homecoming will be a day to remember forever. My thanks, and the Nation's thanks, go out to the brave and honorable Iraqi nationals who risked so much to bring her aid and the daring service personnel who rescued her. Mr. President, a poem that I memorized long, long years ago reminds us all of how we are touched by the presence of others: A Persian fable says: One day a wanderer found a piece of clay, So redolent of perfume Its odor scented all the room. ``What are thou?'' was the quick demand; ``Art thou some gem of Samarcand? Or spikenard rare in rich disguise, Or other costly merchandise?'' ``Nay, I am but a piece of clay,'' ``Then whence this wondrous sweetness, pray?'' ``Friend, if the secret I disclose, I have been dwelling with the rose.'' Sweet parable! And will not those Who love to dwell with Sharon's rose, Distill sweet odors all around, Though low and mean themselves be found? Dear Lord, abide with us, that we May draw our perfume fresh from thee. Mr. President, the rose that has perfumed this humble piece of clay is my wife Erma. In 49 more days, God willing, we will celebrate 66 years of marriage. It has not all been a level voyage. There have been ups and downs, as there will be in every marriage, but they have been good years, filled with many Easter mornings. And now, as I look forward to watching my great-grandchildren hunt for their Easter eggs in the green grass, I am grateful for the opportunity to see so many generations grow up. My sense of hope for the future is redoubled, as it is each Easter time. It must have been at Easter time when William Jennings Bryan penned those words from ``The Prince of Peace:'' If the Father deigns to touch with divine power the cold and pulseless heart of the buried acorn and to make it burst forth from its prison walls, will he leave neglected in the earth the soul of man, made in the image of his Creator? If he stoops to give to the rosebush, whose withered blossoms float upon the autumn breeze, the sweet assurance of another springtime, will He refuse the words of hope to the son of men when the frosts of winter come? If matter, mute and inanimate, tho changed by the forces of nature into a multitude of forms, can never die, will the imperial spirit of man suffer annihilation when it has paid a brief visit like a royal guest to his tenement of clay? No, I am sure that He who, notwithstanding his apparent prodigality, created nothing without a purpose, and wasted not a single atom in all his creation, has made provision for a future life in which man's universal longing for immortality will find its realization. I am as sure that we live again as I am sure that we live today. So my sense of hope for the future is redoubled, as it is each Easter time. That is the beauty of Easter, because that typifies the glorious promise which is ours and which the Saviour gave to us. That question, which was asked in the Book of Job: ``If a man die, shall he live again?'' is answered--answered--by Easter. I recall, in the Book of John, Jesus came to the grave of Lazarus and said: ``Lazarus, come forth.'' And Lazarus came forth, still wrapped in his grave clothes. And Jesus said: ``Loose him, and let him go.'' So in the midst of war there is life. In the midst of uncertainty there is faith. After each winter, there is spring. Mr. President, I wish you and all of our colleagues a glorious Easter. May we ponder upon its meaning, and upon its reason, and upon its promise for us. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, tonight the Senate will consider the supplemental appropriations conference report to begin to fund the war in Iraq. For many hours today, members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees worked to complete action on the legislation, and I am pleased to report that we are nearing a final package. Despite the progress today, however, I remain concerned about the path on which this conference report places the Congress. For decades, Presidential administrations have sought to wrap their fingers around the purse strings, push away the Congress, and ignore the Constitution--this Constitution which I hold in my hand. It does not matter what administration it is. It does not matter the political party of the President. What matters is nothing more than raw power. That executive branch is always out there seeking to expand its power. Twenty-four hours every day, the administration is somewhere on the globe reaching, seeking to grasp more power. When Congress is out on recess, when Congress is at home, when the men and women of the Congress are sleeping, the executive branch is there. At some point on the compass, on the high seas, in the tundra of the far north, in the tropics, it is always, always awake, always there. What matters is nothing more than raw power. Congress has it. The executive branch wants it. And the executive branch will use virtually any excuse to get it. It was not long ago that I joined with the late Senator from New York, Daniel Moynihan, the Republican Senator from Oregon, Mark Hatfield, the Democratic Senator from Michigan, Carl Levin, and two Members of the House of Representatives, Congressman David Skaggs of Colorado and Congressman Henry Waxman of California, to challenge the line-item veto. Every President in the 20th century, save for William H. Taft, sought some form of line-item veto. Foolishly, on March 23, 1995, the United States Senate passed by a vote of 69 to 29 the Line- Item Veto Act, giving the Office of the President--or seeking to give the Office of the President--the power to pick and choose which items in appropriations bills to fund and which to ignore. With the line-item veto, a President had the power to threaten and to intimidate Members of Congress, the people's directly elected representatives. It gave to one man the power to change unilaterally a bill that was the product of the give and take, the debate and compromise between and among 535 men and women who were directly elected by the people to represent them in Congress. Fortunately, 5 years ago this June, the United States Supreme Court had the wisdom to see the danger of this approach. The Justices on that High Court ruled 6 to 3 to overturn the Line-Item Veto Act. God save the United States. We do not say it in this body, ``God save the King.'' There is no monachist party in the Senate, or there should not be. We say, ``God save the United States.'' So the Justices, as I say, ruled that Congress did not have the authority to delegate away its constitutionally granted power of the purse. We just cannot do it. We might want to foolishly, but Congress cannot do that. It cannot delegate away its constitutional power over the purse. Thank God for the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court understood precisely what was at stake, even though some here did not. The absolute bedrock of the people's continued freedom from tyranny and excesses of all types of authority is the power of the purse. That is it. Cicero said: There is no fortress so strong that money cannot take it. James Madison summed up in a very few words the significance of this power in protecting the people's rights and the people's liberties. In Federalist No. 58, he wrote--now get this: This power over the purse, may in fact be regarded as the most compleat and effectual weapon with which any Constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure. Let me read that again, from the Federalist No. 58. Madison wrote: This power over the purse, may in fact be regarded as the most compleat and effectual weapon with which any Constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure. Every Senator should have to sleep with those words of Madison under his pillow at night. Not every Member would need to do that but some would. All too often Senators stand up at that desk and put their hand on the Holy Bible and swear before God and man that they will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and they turn right around and seek to give away the power over the purse which constitutionally vests in this branch-- seek to give it away to a President. Why, the President is just a hired hand. He will be around here for a little while and then he will have to go away, have to go back home. The same for Senators; we are hired hands. We will not be here forever. We have to have a new contract every 6 years to stay and continue to serve. It is this essential tool, the power of the purse, control of the purse by the people's representatives in Congress, and that tool lies at the very foundation of our Nation's liberties, our Nation's freedoms. Take away Congress's power over the purse and the people's liberties cannot be assured. It is that fundamental. The power over the purse, it is the fulcrum of the people's leverage. It is that power over the purse that caused Englishmen centuries ago to shed their blood, to wrest from tyrannical monarchs that power over the purse and place that power in the hands of the representatives of the people, in the House of Commons in England. Too many of us forget our roots. Too often we forget our roots. The roots of the Constitution go back not just to 1787 but a thousand years to the Magna Carta in 1215 and beyond. As enshrined in the Constitution, the power over the purse is one of the chief protectors of all of our cherished freedoms: The freedom of the press, the freedom to assemble, freedom of religion, all of these are freedoms. And that power over the purse vested in this body and the other body of the Congress is a precious power. This control of the purse is one of the most effective bulwarks ever constructed to repel a despot, control a tyrant, shackle the hands of an overreaching chief executive. Chip away at this fundamental barrier and one chips away at the very cornerstone of the people's liberties. Incredibly, Members of Congress in this day seem to be intent all too much on doing just exactly that, steadily chipping away at the power of the purse and at the other constitutional powers and prerogatives of the people's representatives in Congress. Since that June day nearly 5 years ago when the High Court struck down the Line Item Veto Act, administrations have sought ways around the High Court ruling. So I say that executive branch is always there, always reaching, always probing, always seeking to get around that constitutional power of the purse. They have sought to chip away at this Constitution. They have sought to control the crucial power of appropriating. That concerted executive branch effort has continued right to this hour in this supplemental request. I am always amazed, seemingly more so than ever in recent times, that the judicial branch will always stand for the judicial branch. It will always act to protect itself. The executive branch will always act to protect itself and it seeks, as I say, for more and more power. But it is the legislative branch--the branch that is closest to the people, the branch that is first mentioned in the Constitution, the first article of the Constitution, the very first sentence of the Constitution--that more and more so in recent years is willing to give away its prerogatives, to yield to the executive branch. Ours is a government of three equal branches. We have no king in this country. Our forebears fought a war to break away from the king, King George, III. Those signers of the Declaration of Independence put in jeopardy their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor, to be independent of the king. They could have been arrested, hauled away, put on ships, sent across the Atlantic to England and hanged for what they did in signing that Declaration of Independence. They put their lives on the line when they did that. I have to wonder, when Members of the legislative branch will be so obsequious to a President. We see it when we have a Democratic President, many Members on my side of the aisle will be obsequious. They are willing to hand over to that President the line item veto. I see it when a Republican President is in the White House so many on that side of the aisle are so obsequious to the President, as though he brought them here, as though they were elected by a President. The President is a hired hand, just as I am. Why should we be so obsequious to a President? He is no king. Our forefathers fought a war, as I say. Nathan Hale gave his life for his country. I often talk to these pages. I get a new lease on life just talking with these young people and breathing the fresh air of their vigor, their vision, and their enthusiasm. I say to them: Who is Nathan Hale? I tell them the story of Nathan Hale, if they have not heard it. We do not have history books today like we had when I went to school. I studied Muzzy. It was not a book filled with pictures. There were very few pictures, but it was crammed with text. And there for Muzzy did I get my hero from the patriots of the Revolutionary period, from those who wrote the Constitution, who wrote the Bill of Rights, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, and Nathan Hale. Nathan Hale answered the call of George Washington to go behind the enemy lines and bring back drawings of the British gun emplacements. And on the night before he was to return to the American lines, Nathan Hale was arrested as a spy. The next morning, he stood before a crude gallows, a wood coffin within sight, knowing that his body would soon lie and grow cold in that wood coffin. He was asked by the British commander, a Commander Cunningham, if he had anything to say. There with his hands clasped behind him, he said: I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country. What a lesson we can all draw from that man who gave his only life. Did he die to give a President the power of the purse? We did not have a constitution at that point. But I cannot believe that he would have died to give a President the power of the purse. He died because he was fighting for independence, to make this Nation a separate nation from that nation which was ruled by a king. Just a few weeks ago, after months of stiff-arming Congress's request for information regarding the cost of military action in Iraq, the President finally provided the details of the first installment payment totaling $74.7 billion. Of that amount for the Department of Defense, the President sought $62 billion. But the President wanted the Secretary of Defense to pick and choose how to spend more than $59.8 billion of that money. Congress was asked to provide this funding in an account labeled the Defense Emergency Response Fund. Around here, this fund is nicknamed DERF. I can think of another explanation for DERF: The Dangerous Erosion of the Right to Fund. No, it was not flexibility that the President sought; it was control; it was power. The President's supplemental sought another $1.4 billion for the Department of Defense to allow the Secretary of Defense to allocate funds to pay nations that have provided support for the global role on terrorism. And again, the Secretary of Defense would decide where, how, when to invest those dollars--not the Congress. Nowhere in the Constitution is the Secretary of Defense given the power of the purse. Nowhere is the Secretary of Defense even mentioned--because there was not any Secretary of Defense when that Constitution was written. Again, however, it was not flexibility that the President sought; it was power. Time after time in line after line, this administration sought unprecedented authority to spend the people's money--your money--you, the people out there looking at this Chamber through those electronic eyes; your money. How it wanted, where it wanted, when it wanted, why it wanted. The cry went out: Give us flexibility. That was the cry of the administration when it sent up this supplemental appropriations bill. Give us flexibility. But it was not really flexibility that the administration wanted; it was power--power, power over the purse, power over the Congress. Wisely, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees limited this power grab in this supplemental request. Despite the best efforts of the administration, the conference report holds to almost all of the committee's limitations and presentations. But it took a vote of the conference this morning to give protection to the prerogatives of this Congress. With that vote--and the prerogatives of the Congress, I say, are the prerogatives of the people; that is what we are really talking about, the people--with that vote, the House and Senate conferees approved a 5-day notification on how the Secretary of Defense and the President may choose to spend $15 billion in the Defense Emergency Response Fund. Five days' notification is not too great a burden for the administration to meet, and you would not have thought the administration would have resisted that with every ounce of its strength. I read in the newspaper something to the effect that the President was on the floor, the Vice President visited offices around this Hill, and the Secretary of Defense was on the phone urging Members to stand by the administration. The administration resisted this bipartisan effort to require this short notification, but the conferees acted to protect the people against a would-be power grab by the administration. If there is an imminent danger facing the Nation today, the Commander in Chief does not need to wait to respond. He will not have to say that he cannot stop an attack against America simply because he has to tell Congress first. He has the inherent constitutional right to counter any imminent direct threat facing the United States. A 5-day notification requirement on the DERF does not tie the President's hands at all, but it does help to protect the people's liberties against an overreaching executive. Despite the good work by the conferees to limit the so-called flexibility, I fear that this conference report is nothing more than a first step down a slow road to oblivion for Congress. Because of this President's insatiable desire--and especially this administration, I say, after having watched for 50 years one administration after another, Republican and Democrat--because of this administration's insatiable desire to control the power of the purse, what we are witnessing in this DERF is a unique and creative strategy to circumvent the people's directly elected representatives. What will be next? Which department will seek its own emergency response fund with no strings, no questions, no examination? Why not just hand each department in this administration a huge check at the start of each fiscal year and say: Here you go, boys. Have a good time. Send us a postcard. Put a sign on the Capitol dome: Going out of business. I hope this will be the last time Congress feels the need to accommodate an emergency response fund that contains so few strings, so few protections for the people. After all, it is their money. I have heard that many times, ``It's their money.'' Well, now I say it, yes, it is their money. Since this war began I have stated my strong support for the men and women engaged in military action and for their families. I have pledged every resource necessary to speed their victory and their safe return home. I will keep that pledge and vote for this conference report. But I have also sworn an oath to protect and defend this Constitution. I will not stand by quietly while we demolish this document that has served us well for more than 200 years as the foundation of this Republic. The bill that we are talking about is only the downpayment on this war. Remember that--only the downpayment on this war. We have asked the administration time and again, and the administration's representatives who came to the Hill: What will be the cost? What will be the cost? Secretary Rumsfeld said the cost is not knowable. So in the President's budget that he sent to the Hill there was not one thin dime for the war. This bill is only the downpayment on this war and on the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. This conference report is only a fraction of the cost. As this body writes the checks for the rest of the war and the reconstruction, the Senate should defend vigorously the power of the purse and ensure that the system of checks and balances is preserved. Madam President, I personally want to thank the Senator who presides over the Senate at this late hour, the hour of 9 o'clock p.m. lacking 1 minute. Here she presides, the junior Senator from Alaska, Lisa Murkowski. I apologize to her for keeping her waiting. I apologize to all the staff, the floor staff, Republicans and Democrats, tonight. And I certainly want to express every good wish for them, to wish them happiness and safety--safety in a dangerous world and at a dangerous time. I hope that we will all keep in mind the true meaning of Easter as we depart for the holidays. Let us depart, as we shall, hoping that we have served our country to the best of our ability, knowing as we do that even that is not good enough for this country, this land. I would like to depart this evening in the spirit of the poet Henry Van Dyke, who wrote that marvelous poem ``America For Me.'' 'Tis fine to see the Old World, and travel up and down Among the famous palaces and cities of renown, To admire the crumbly castles and the statues of the kings, But now I think I've had enough of antiquated things. So it's home again, and home again, America for me! My heart is turning home again, and there I long to be In the land of youth and freedom beyond the ocean bars, Where the air is full of sunlight and the flag is full of stars. Oh, London is a man's town, there's power in the air; And Paris is a woman's town, with flowers in her hair; And it's sweet to dream in Venice, and it's great to study Rome, But when it comes to living, there is no place like home. I like the German fir-woods, in green battalions drilled; I like the gardens of Versailles with flashing fountains filled; But, oh, to take your hand, my dear, and ramble for a day In the friendly West Virginia woodland where Nature has her way. I know that Europe's wonderful, yet something seems to lack! The Past is too much with her, and the people looking back. But the glory of the Present is to make the Future free, We love our land for what she is and what she is to be. Oh, it's home again, and home again, America for me! I want a ship that's westward bound to plough the rolling sea, To the blessed Land of Room beyond the ocean bars, Where the air is full of sunlight and the flag is full of stars. Madam President, I thank you and I thank all Senators. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

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