Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. In the request that will be propounded with respect to the appointment of conferees, how many conferees on the part of the Senate is the chairman expecting?

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. I yield.

Mr. BYRD. Well, that is quite all right, but I would at least like to know in advance that it is being done, that is No. 1. No. 2, this is an open-ended increase in the debt ceiling.

Mr. BYRD. When did we discuss it; I ask where did we discuss it?

Mr. BYRD. I don't have that memory.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, ours has been a long friendship. It is going to continue. But I expect to be a partner in this fight. I expect to be told at least by the chairman that he anticipates calling up an amendment of this nature. A point of order would lie against this amendment. That would have been the very reaction I would have had if he had mentioned such an amendment to me. I would say a point of order might lie against it.

Mr. BYRD. I yield.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I must state my surprise at the distinguished chairman having offered an amendment that would provide for an open-ended increase in the national debt. I didn't even know this was going to happen. No one spoke to me about this. Yet this is open ended. I had hoped to finish this bill tomorrow night, by tomorrow night. I don't think that I would ever offer an amendment of this nature without consulting with my colleague.

Mr. BYRD. That constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill.

Mr. BYRD. Well, I know. I hope in the future I will not be taken by this kind of surprise.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the amendment before the Senate addresses what many experts view as the largest vulnerability in the Nation's defenses here at home. This amendment would direct critical funds to the Nation's seaports. During the Senate Appropriations Committee's homeland security hearings last year, one witness, Stephen Flynn, noted that the Nation's seaports ``are the only part of an international boundary that the Federal Government invests no money in terms of security. . . . Most ports, the best you get is a chain link fence with maybe some barbed wire.'' Is that comforting? Consider that U.S. ports receive 16,000 cargo containers per day and 6 million containers per year that U.S. ports are home to oil refineries and chemical plants that process noxious, volatile chemicals; that there are 68 nuclear power plants located along U.S. waterways; that the average shipping container measures 8 feet by 40 feet and can hold 60,000 pounds; and that a ship or tanker transporting cargo can hold more explosives and dangerous materials than could ever be smuggled in an airplane or a truck crossing a land border. Yet, despite the clear danger, the best port protection the American people have is a chain link fence? It is unfathomable why we have not insisted that this amendment be signed into law months ago. Last November, the President signed the Maritime Transportation Safety Act. This amendment provides $1 billion to begin addressing these Federal requirements. Specifically, this amendment provides $600 million in port security grants to begin to assist our seaports in hardening their physical security to comply with the Federal law. Additionally, the authorizing legislation requires that all vessels operating in U.S. waters carry equipment which will allow the Coast Guard to actively track and monitor their movements. This amendment provides $57 million so the Coast Guard can establish a system to track these vessels. The amendment also addresses other critical port security needs such as providing additional cargo screening equipment for our seaports and funds to expedite the port security assessment program. Funds are also included to establish three additional Coast Guard Maritime Safety and Security Teams for domestic port security needs. Funding is providing to improve secure systems of cargo transport from the port of departure overseas to the port of arrival in the United States. The Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach, each in California, account for 35 percent of the international trade moving into and out of the United States. Port officials estimate that they need $10 million to build a container inspection facility where suspicious packages and freight can be opened and inspected. Similar realities face ports up and down the Atlantic and Pacific seaboards. Last December, the U.S. Coast Guard issued a report stating that the first year cost to implement port security authorizing legislation that the President signed in November would total $1.3 billion and that total costs for the next decade would be $6 billion. But despite the clear danger, and despite the overwhelming vote of approval by Congress to authorize security improvements at our seaports, the dollars have not been forthcoming. International authorities have linked 20 merchant vessels to Osama bin Laden. Some of the vessels are thought to be owned outright by bin Laden business interests, while others are on long-term charter. The Times of London reported in October 2001 that bin Laden used his ships to import into Kenya the explosives used to destroy the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. This amendment would make sure that more than a chain link fence is protecting the nation's ports. Children learn to hop a fence at an early age. How hard would it be for a terrorist? I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I consider it an honor, I consider it a great honor to be able to work with the very distinguished Senator from Alaska, the senior Senator, the President pro tempore of the Senate, in bringing this bill to its present status. I laud the distinguished chairman of the committee for his extraordinary knowledge of the subject matter here that we are going to discuss. He has been on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense for a long time, where he has worked arm in arm and hand in hand with our very distinguished senior Senator from Hawaii, Danny Inouye, who is my hero. Together, these men have brought their wisdom, their dedication, their knowledge to great usefulness, and I thank Senator Stevens for his work. He also is a hero of mine. I am proud to serve with him. The Senator has stated that we are fighting three wars: the war in Afghanistan, the war on terrorism here at home, and the war in Iraq. I support the appropriations that we are going to recommend for all three wars. I do not support the policy that brought us where we are today in Iraq. I have no hesitancy in saying that. I can defend that position any time, anywhere. I am sure not everybody will agree with me, but I have reasons for my position. So, although I do not support the policy that puts our men and women in Iraq, I do support the appropriations for those, for the support of and the safety of those men and women in Iraq, and I do so wholeheartedly. In a short time I will speak of one young West Virginian by the name of Jessica Lynch. I will have more to say about her shortly. The Senate Appropriations Committee, under the very able leadership of the chairman, the distinguished President pro tempore of the Senate, Mr. Stevens, has unanimously reported the fiscal year 2003 supplemental appropriations bill. The Senate committee-reported bill totals $78,736,600,000 in benefits and appropriations; $4,011,600,000 more than the President's request. In that proposal, the President sought an unprecedented level of flexibility in the use of these funds. I was astounded at the request that the President put forth with respect to these ``flexibilities.'' While I understand the unique circumstance in which the Nation finds itself, the situation is not unprecedented--not unprecedented. We have been at war before many times. I served in this Senate and in the House in several of these wars, so we have been at war before. This isn't something new, the matter of being at war. But these ``flexibilities,'' so-called, have startled me, in a way. But I am not so startled either, keeping in mind the whole of our experience with this administration. Yes, we have been at war before, but the Nation never wandered--never sought to wander away from the Constitution, never sought to impinge upon the congressional power of the purse as we have seen in this instance. In World War II, for example, Congress passed eight supplemental bills to respond to the needs of our Armed Forces. This is what I said the other day during the appropriations hearing, the Appropriations Committee hearing on this bill, when Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was before the committee. I said: Why all these flexibilities? I called them ``flexibilities'' because the Secretary of Defense, in his opening statement, used the word ``flexibility'' seven times. I said: We fought previous wars. Why do we need these ``flexibilities'' now? I said: Congress can pass additional supplementals. That has been done before. In World War II, for example, Congress passed eight supplemental bills to respond to the needs of our Armed Forces and there is little reason, in my view, why this war in Iraq should require more flexibility for the administration than was granted during World War II to administrations. This Republic rests on a system of checks and balances: three branches, two legislative Houses, and separate powers--shared powers, mixed powers. Our system reflects the hundreds of years of history behind it. I said hundreds--yes. Yes, Mr. President, you didn't hear me wrongly. Our system reflects the hundreds of years behind it, going back to the Revolutionary War; going back to colonial days; going back to the history of the Englishmen who fought and bled and gave their lives in the struggle against tyranny, in the struggle against a monarchy that sought to gather all power unto itself. The roots of our Constitution go back even to the Magna Carta, 1215. This is not a Constitution that came about just in 1787. Its roots go back 1000 years--and the blood of Englishmen is on it, as is the blood of our forefathers here in this, our country. In our Madisonian system, divided power may not be as expedient as some would like. That is stating it well: not as expedient as some would like. I say it again. I will state it more loudly: In our Madisonian system, divided power may not be as expedient--hear me now down at the White House--may not be as expedient as some would like, but it guarantees the American people's liberties. Quite simply, our representative form of democracy depends upon power divided and power shared. The Constitution grants to the Congress the authority to appropriate funds and the solemn responsibility to exercise that authority wisely. And for us to agree to the many sweeping grants of new, so-called ``flexible'' authority sought by this administration would be to abdicate--to abdicate--that heavy constitutional responsibility. We have a duty to the American people to exercise the authorities granted to Congress in our Constitution, and we have a duty to those Framers, those men who wrote the Constitution, to keep faith with them and to honor and respect and uphold and support and defend that Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. In the case of this bill, and for the many years ahead, it will take maximum effort to preserve the prerogatives of the legislative branch. I hope my colleagues will understand that. I hope they will hear that. And the Record will be there for those of our future colleagues to read. Let me say that again. I say it to my colleagues. I hope my colleagues will remember: In the case of this bill, and for the many years ahead, it will take maximum effort on the part of our colleagues today, and those who will serve in this Chamber in the future, to preserve the prerogatives of the legislative branch. Now, when it comes to the executive branch, we will always find those in the executive branch who will uphold, who will extol, and who will seek to add to the powers of the executive branch. The same can be said for the judicial branch. The judicial branch will always speak out for the protection of the constitutional authorities given to it. But what about the legislative branch? This is the one branch in the three in which we will find increasingly--I might say, based on my 50 years in Congress--we will find increasingly those in the legislative branch who are always ready to stand up for the executive branch for whatever power grabs it may have in mind, and they will seek to defend that executive branch and to push its desires. I am sorry to say, it is usually about half of the legislative branch that is willing to do that, depending on what party is in power and what party controls the two Houses of the legislative branch. And I regret this. As I look back over my 50 years here, I have seen great, great changes in the way the Members of the legislative branch view their role under the Constitution. Sometimes I wonder if they have read the Constitution lately. I am sorry to say I don't think our Constitution means a great deal to some of those who have served in this branch. They seem to think this is a monarchy and that we have a king. I look at the future with grave concerns, as I think about the changes I have seen sweep over this branch of Government. Twenty-four hours a day, 365 days every 3 years, 366 days the 4th year, out there always is the executive branch. And it is awake. It seeks power. It seeks to aggrandize the authorities to itself. It is always awake. It is never sleeping. Members of the legislative branch are here, they recess, they go to the four points of the compass. They are not always here. They are not always alert to the protection of the authorities of this branch of Government. And at this time, and under this administration, I have to say, I have seen more of that than ever before. Members must understand their institutional role. Citizens must understand their Constitution and value the congressional role in protecting their freedoms. This is another thing that gives me concern--sorrow in many ways. All too few citizens think about the role they play and the responsibilities that are theirs under the Constitution. Leaders in the Congress itself must guard its prerogatives. I have been a leader in this body. I have been majority leader. I have been minority leader. I have been President pro tempore and chairman of the Appropriations Committee. And I have never lost sight of the fact I must help to guard the prerogatives, the authorities, the powers that are enumerated in the Constitution, the powers that devolve upon this body, its duties, its responsibilities. So leaders in the Congress itself must guard its prerogatives and resist succumbing to expediency, to political expediency, and to partisanship. While I fully support the funding in this legislation for the men and the women engaged in battle in Iraq, I do not support additional grants of authority to this administration, or to any other administration, that would infringe upon the congressional power of the purse. That is the greatest power. The power of the purse is the greatest power in existence under this constitutional system. As Cicero, that great Roman Senator, said: ``There is no fortress so strong that money cannot take it.'' ``There is no fortress so strong that money cannot take it''--the power of the purse. Senator Stevens and I, together with the subcommittee chairmen and ranking members, have worked, in most cases, to improve the President's supplemental budget request. We have eliminated or significantly reduced most of the sweeping grants of new authority requested by this administration while still providing very limited flexibility where appropriate. More specifically, for defense the bill includes $62.6 billion, the full amount of the budget request, to cover the costs related to military operations against Iraq and to sustain the continuing global war on terrorism. The budget request proposes that $59,863,200,000 of the amount for national defense would be included in the unallocated Defense Emergency Response Fund. The Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, the full Appropriations Committee, and the Congress rejected this type of transfer account in the fiscal year 2002 supplemental, rejected it in the fiscal year 2003 Defense appropriations bill, and rejected it in the defense chapter of the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill. In this supplemental, the amount allocated to the Defense Emergency Response Fund has been reduced from the request of approximately $59.9 billion to $11,019,000,000. The remainder of the funds, some $49 billion, have been allocated to the specific appropriations accounts. This is an improvement over the budget request, but I call the attention of my colleagues to the fact that on an annualized basis, it amounts to a blank check for more than $20 billion--on an annual basis. Because the taxpayer has a right to know how this $11 billion will be used, this so-called flexibility gives me great concern. I hope we will get away from these DERFs. I am concerned about them. The administration's supplemental request sought $1.4 billion for the Department of Defense to allow the Secretary of Defense to allocate funds to reimburse and otherwise pay nations that have provided support primarily for the global war on terrorism. Most of the funding is anticipated to be for Pakistan. In the past, the Senate Appropriations Committee has taken a position that such reimbursement could take place only in response to vouchers presented to the Department of Defense for reimbursement for activities conducted on behalf of the global war on terrorism. This supplemental bill again includes this provision. In addition, we require 15-day advance notification prior to obligation. The President sought $150 million to be paid at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense to indigenous forces abroad. We have one Secretary of State; we don't need two. A similar proposal was rejected by Congress last year. It has been rejected again in this legislation. The administration wanted to increase the Department of Defense reprogramming authority from an annual amount of $2 billion to 2.5 percent of its total budget, a staggering sum which would exceed $9 billion. I expressed opposition to this large new grant of authority to the Department of Defense. I expressed my appreciation and compliments to the chairman, Senator Stevens, for the fact that he has brought us a bill that reins in the administration, tightens up the limitation so that rather than provide an unprecedented $9 billion transfer authority, the legislation before us includes a $3.5 billion transfer authority. The administration also sought authority to expend any funds from the defense cooperation account that may be received from other countries for the prosecution of the war against Iraq or the reconstruction of Iraq without first having these funds appropriated by Congress. The administration wanted to get away from that. They wanted a free hand with no strings attached. During the first gulf war, Congress appropriated those funds after they were received. Let me repeat that. During the first gulf war, Congress appropriated those funds after they were received. The legislation before us takes the same approach and preserves the prerogatives of the Congress and of the people. No new authority is granted. Any funds collected from foreign countries for reconstruction of Iraq or for any other purposes will remain in the Treasury under this bill, unless appropriated by law. That is the way it should be. The administration requested similar extraordinary grants of authority for the Secretary of Homeland Security, for the Attorney General, and for the Office of the President. More specifically, the Secretary of Homeland Security would receive $1.5 billion for a new counterterrorism fund for transfer to any Department of Homeland Security agency. The Attorney General would receive $500 million for transfer to any Justice Department organization for terrorism-related activities. The President would receive $2,443,300,000 for Iraq reconstruction and relief, without even as much as a reporting requirement. So they not only want no strings attached, they don't want to have to make any report--an absolutely free hand in expending the taxpayers' money. We must all remember, we are having to borrow all this money. The taxpayers are going to have to pay interest on all this money. When our soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines get home, they are going to be paying interest on the money that has been borrowed to send them across the ocean. Each proposal, if the administration had its way, would leave the Congress out of the decisionmaking process in the allocation of the funds--no details, no explanation. In the case of the Iraq reconstruction funds, the President proposes to spend the money ``notwithstanding any other provision of law.'' With regard to the funds to be provided to the President for the reconstruction of Iraq, the supplemental before the Senate stipulates that funds may not be transferred to the Department of Defense, and that all funds available under this appropriation shall be subject to the regular prior notification procedures of at least 5 days in advance of the obligation of the funds. The funds will be used for feeding and food distribution, water and sanitation infrastructure, electricity, transportation, telecommunications, and other such humanitarian activities. With regard to the $500 million for the Attorney General, the legislation has been improved to require that these funds be subject to the regular reprogramming process. Likewise, the funds provided to the Secretary of Homeland Security also require prior approval notification of the committee under the usual reprogramming procedures, which are long-established and long-respected by the Congress and the executive branch. Overall, the President requested over $9 billion for aid to foreign countries and for the State Department. Yet his request for homeland security programs is only $3.8 billion, $3.8 billion for homeland security he requested; while, on the other hand, he requested over $9 billion for aid to foreign countries and for the State Department. The Secretary of Homeland Security has said that another terrorist attack in America is inevitable. He has said attacks, such as the attacks of September 11, are long-term threats that will not go away. If there is one lesson we should learn from 9/11, it is that terrorist attacks on our Nation can no longer be viewed as distant threats from across the oceans. The enemy may attack our troops or citizens overseas or it may attack civilians here at home. So we must provide all of the necessary resources to support our troops overseas. But we must also provide significant homeland security resources now to meet the real needs that have been overwhelmingly authorized by Congress and signed into law by the President for port security, airport security, border security, and nuclear security. When it comes to funding homeland security initiatives, partisan politics has no place. Protecting a vulnerable nation is a duty that we all must shoulder together. Congress knows the needs at the local level, and Congress has tried time and time again to address those needs. The administration's request takes a step in the right direction, but at this time, when the Nation is acutely aware of the increased threat of terror attacks at home, one step is not enough. We must do more to address the critical vulnerabilities all across the country. We live under an orange alert, a heightened concern for terrorist attack. The American people are nervous about safety at home. I know I am nervous about safety here at home. That apprehension ripples through our economy. We read about it every day in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post. We should all have an interest in doing what we can to secure obvious vulnerabilities and allay citizen concerns. To that end, I hope to work on a bipartisan effort, as this bill moves forward, to responsibly invest in first responders, in protections at our airports and seaports, and in other areas to better ensure the safety of Americans at home. Let me again congratulate the chairman of the committee, the distinguished President pro tempore, and let me thank all the members of the Appropriations Committee, especially the ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee, Mr. Inouye, for their cooperation in bringing this bipartisan legislation to the floor of the Senate. I expect its speedy passage, and I hope for its speedy passage. I join with the chairman in hoping to complete this bill in the Senate by tomorrow evening, or sometime tomorrow. I congratulate the excellent staff we have for their hard work, especially Jim Morhard, the newly appointed staff director for the majority. Let me also thank my own two excellent staff persons, Terry Sauvain, and Charles Kieffer, for their dedication, hard work, and the long hours. For certain, this legislation is not perfect and it is susceptible to improvement. I expect and hope to assist in such improvement over the next few days as the Senate proceeds to work its will on this important legislation, as it goes to and returns from conference. I thank all Senators.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about the miraculous rescue of a young West Virginian. Today, a community in West Virginia is celebrating amazing news. For many days, the people of the small town of Palestine--very appropriate--in Wirt County, WV, have been gripped with concern for PFC Jessica Lynch. She is part of the Army's 507th Maintenance Company convoy that was ambushed near the southern Iraqi town of Nasiriyah on March 23. Since that day, no word had been heard from PFC Jessica Lynch. The Army did not know where she was. The Defense Department did not know where she was. Her family did not know where she was. Her family could only be told that she was missing. For each painstaking hour, over each nerve-racking day, the family and friends of Jessica Lynch awaited word. They held on to each other, they prayed together, they grasped for hope, and they held on to faith. Then last night, in the afternoon late, the telephone rang. Good news. Amazing news. A miracle had happened: PFC Jessica Lynch has been found in a hospital in Iraq. She was rescued in a daring effort by the brave Army Rangers and Navy SEALS. Today, she is safe--safe once again. Her State of West Virginia is relieved. Her community is exuberant. Her family is overjoyed. I spoke with Jessica Lynch's father last evening and shared with him our thoughts. The news of Jessica's rescue spread through the county and throughout the State like wildfire. Wirt County has fewer than 6,000 residents, and it appeared as though every one of those people were out honking horns and hugging neighbors last night. Jessica Lynch's parents and siblings were not alone. Jessica has become a part of everyone's family. As a nation, while we celebrate this rescue, we remain steadfast in our concern for the other members of the armed services who are listed as missing or captured. We look forward to one day celebrating their safe rescue and return. We also pray for those families whose loved ones will not be coming home. When we say we pray for them, that is what we mean. Jessica Lynch was found and is safe today. She was preserved. She lived because of the prayers that went up to Heaven from the people of the community and from people all over the Nation. Hundreds of people gathered yesterday for the funeral service of West Hamlim, WV, native Therrel Shane Childers, a U.S. marine who became the first American combat casualty in the war in Iraq. The Chaplain at the service yesterday noted that First Lieutenant Childers ``emanated a courageous sense about him, that nothing scared him.'' We must continue to wrap our arms around the hundreds of thousands of families of those men and women engaged in military action. Each day, each hour they struggle with worry and concern. They do not struggle alone. To those families, know that the Nation is with you at each step and at every turn. May God have mercy on your loved ones and may He bring them safely home. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, time after time, coal has been there for this country. Coal has been and will continue to be an important part of America--its history, its economy, and its people. During World War I, when coal supplied the Nation's heat and powered our battleships and industries, President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed that the Nation's war effort ``rested on the shoulders of [the American coal] miner.'' During World War II, when enemy conquests in Asia and Africa threatened to stop the worldwide flow of oil, the American government responded by initiating a federally sponsored synthetic fuels program based on coal. Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes acknowledged, ``We should not have waited until war was upon us to begin the development of synthetic fuels.'' After the war, that program was dismantled. Far-sighted men warned of the dangers of this decision. John L. Lewis, President of the United Mine Workers, predicted a growing reliance upon foreign oil in the post-war era would one day result in outrageous prices at the gas pump and cars lined up for blocks to purchase gasoline. Those of us old enough to remember the oil embargoes and energy crises of the 1970s know how accurate that prediction was. Those oil embargoes and energy crises prompted the Carter Administration to establish a national synthetic fuels program largely based on coal as the United States was labeled ``the Saudi Arabia of coal.'' However, the Reagan Administration all but eliminated the Department of Energy's fossil fuels and renewable energy programs, and withdrew support for the development of alternative energy technologies. How short-sighted that was. I correct myself. It wasn't just short- sighted, it was blind, and I said so at the time. In a speech on this Senate floor, I warned that the Reagan administration's cutbacks in our energy programs were ``leaving us dangerously vulnerable to foreign transgressions.'' Historians like to point out that those who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it. Why must we continue to relive yesterday's mistakes? Can we not learn from the past? Once again, concerns about our Nation's current and future energy needs are on the minds of citizens across the country. Worrisome gas prices, erratic fuel costs, electricity supply needs, energy efficiency improvements, and U.S. dependence on foreign oil are major challenges that we must tackle. To develop a bipartisan, national energy plan, Congress must establish balanced energy policies that recognize the need for both economic growth, energy security, and environmental protection. Coal will play a key role in that strategy. It is paramount that we develop a comprehensive plan built on a balanced portfolio of resources, technologies, and ideas. Such a plan must look broadly across all sectors of the economy and set objectives to meet these needs both today and down the road. And, as we look at the needs of our economy and our future, we need to better understand where to put critical and precious research and development resources and how to best stimulate these technologies in the marketplace. Undoubtedly, fossil fuels will continue to be a primary source for meeting our energy needs into the coming decades. Coal, used in cleaner and more efficient ways, will be a key component of that energy strategy. Coal is this country's most abundant natural resource, providing over half of the Nation's electricity and accounting for one third of our Nation's total energy production. Today, a bipartisan group of Members join me in introducing the National Coal Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 2003. I very much appreciate the support of Senators Rockefeller, Thomas, Burns, Dorgan, Allard, Durbin, Voinovich, Bayh, Enzi, Campbell, and Conrad. We believe that this legislation will help to maintain our Nation's fuel diversity by ensuring a key role for coal in our Nation's energy future. This initiative provides a roadmap to the future by authorizing $2 billion over that next ten years for a clean coal technology demonstration program to help speed these technologies from the laboratory to the marketplace. Our legislation aims to improve air quality as well as the efficiency of the current fleet of coal-fired power plants by providing targeted tax incentives for the installation of these technologies at existing coal-fired facilities. Additionally, this legislation will help meet the need for new infrastructure by providing incentives to deploy a targeted number of advanced clean coal technologies to prove their viability in the marketplace now and in the future. Finally, it ensures that all generators of coal can compete for these targeted tax incentives on an equal basis. This initiative is an important component of a strategy to achieve energy diversity and independence. I have been around Congress for a very long time--more than 50 years. Recently, I became the third longest serving Member of Congress. My association with coal started early in my life and has continued throughout my many years of service in Congress. Coal has always been with me, it has been there fore us. Coal is abundant. Coal is affordable. Coal is ours! Clean coal research and development funding and tax incentive legislation gained significant bipartisan and bicameral support during the energy bill debates in the 107th Congress. This success was built on the framework outlined, developed, and refined with my support in past Congress. There is a little verse that goes: God and soldier all men adore, in time of trouble and no more, for when war is over, and all things righted, God is neglected and the old soldier slighted. In times of national struggle and adversity, in times of war, coal has been there. But in times of calm, when the urgency subsides, so does our national determination to establish and implement a comprehensive energy strategy. To fail to incorporate a comprehensive energy plan into our vision for the Nation's future would ultimately be to America's detriment. The development of clean coal technologies is essential to the betterment of our Nation's economic, energy, environmental, and security future. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President: There is a Catskill eagle in some souls that can alike dive down into the blackest gorges and soar out of them again and become invisible in the sunny spaces. And even if he forever flies within the gorge, that gorge is in the mountains; so that even in his lowest swoop, the mountain eagle is still higher than other birds upon the plain, even though they soar. I was saddened to learn last night of the death of one of the most educated, most versatile, and most gifted persons ever to bless this Chamber, and one of my favorites, our former colleague, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. With doctorate and law degrees from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, he was a Fulbright scholar and the author of a number of sometimes controversial, but important, books. He held academic positions at several of our country's most prestigious universities, including Syracuse, Harvard, and MIT. Unable to settle into an academic life, Pat Moynihan went on to serve in high positions in the administrations of Presidents John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford--making him the first and only person to serve in the Cabinet or subcabinets of four successive administrations. His Government work included serving as the American Ambassador to India and as the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Even with this background, and these accomplishments, Daniel Patrick Moynihan still refused to rest. In fact, his greatest work, I might even go so far as to say his destiny, was still ahead. In 1976, he was elected to the first of four terms in the United States Senate. I was then the Democratic whip. I knew I was going to be the next Senate majority leader, so I welcomed Pat Moynihan to the Senate and assured him I would do my best to see that he got appointed to the Senate Finance Committee. That is where he wanted to go. So it was in this chamber that the talents, the skills, and the powerful intellect of this philosopher-statesman shined the brightest. It was more than his outstanding work as a Senator from a large and powerful State. It was more than his outstanding work as chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. It was that he was a visionary with the strongest sense of the pragmatic, an idealist with the most profound grasp of what was practical, an internationalist who always put our country first. With his keen and profound historical perspective and his incredible breadth of knowledge ranging from taxes to international law, he had the uncanny ability to make us confront issues that needed to be confronted, and to cut to the core of a problem and then help us to solve it. A person and a Senator not only of high intellectual quality, but also high intellectual honesty, Senator Moynihan took on the complicated and politically sensitive issues, like Social Security, health care, and welfare reform, with passion and compassion; he took on these mighty subjects with determination and foresight and with unflinching integrity. I have never forgotten, and will never forget, our valiant fight together to challenge and defeat the line-item veto. I wish he were here now. This was one of his many struggles to preserve and to protect our constitutional system. We need more Pat Moynihans who would take an unflinching stand for the Constitution and this institution. He truly believed in our Constitution just as he truly believed in the mission as well as the traditions, the rules, and the folkways of the United States Senate. He knew that the American Government is not the monster that demagogues fear and like to portray but a positive, creative force in American life that has helped all Americans to enjoy better, safer, and more productive lives. Senator Moynihan retired from the Senate in the year 2000. But he was one of those Senators who was so much a part of this institution that he has never really left it. I still look over at his seat and sit in my own and turn it in that direction and listen to him. I can hear him; I can still see him. Yes, just like I still see Richard B. Russell who sat at this seat and who departed this life on January 21, 1971; like I can still see Everett Dirksen, that flamboyant Republican orator and leader; as I can see Lister Hill of Alabama, and the other great lawmakers with whom I have had the privilege and the honor of serving. I look over there and see his unruly hair, his crooked bow tie, his glasses that always seemed about to fall off his face, and that unforgettable Irish twinkle in his eyes. But I have missed his incredible grasp of the issues. I have missed his intellectual vigor, and his incisive wit and wisdom. In these difficult and trying times, I, and the Senate, have sorely missed his innate sense of fairness, and his unbounded and unqualified determination to do the right thing regardless of political party or political consequences. As I said when he retired from the Senate, ``His conscience is his compass. . . . Senator Moynihan states facts, the cold, hard truths that many others in high places refuse to face and that some are unable to see.'' Senator Moynihan lived the lifetime of ten mortals. An author, ambassador, a college professor, an outstanding public servant, and a great United States Senator, he accomplished so much. He leaves an indelible mark on this country. His legacy is intact. His was a creative and successful life. And, he was blessed with a wonderful and gracious wife, Elizabeth. My wife, Erma, and I extend our deepest and heartfelt condolences to Pat's entire family. I close my remarks by reciting the immortal words of Josiah Gilbert Holland: God give us men! A time like this demands strong minds, great hearts, true faith, and ready hands. Men whom the lust of office does 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 a 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 of us who knew Daniel Patrick Moynihan, especially those of us who served with him here in the Senate, will remember his ``strong mind,'' his ``great heart,'' his ``true faith,'' and his ``ready hands.'' We will remember him as a man of ``dependable character'' and ``sterling worth.'' Thank you, God, for giving us Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, time after time, coal has been there for this country. Coal has been and will continue to be an important part of America--its history, its economy, and its people. During World War I, when coal supplied the Nation's heat and powered our battleships and industries, President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed that the Nation's war effort ``rested on the shoulders of [the American coal] miner.'' During World War II, when enemy conquests in Asia and Africa threatened to stop the worldwide flow of oil, the American government responded by initiating a federally sponsored synthetic fuels program based on coal. Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes acknowledged, ``We should not have waited until war was upon us to begin the development of synthetic fuels.'' After the war, that program was dismantled. Far-sighted men warned of the dangers of this decision. John L. Lewis, President of the United Mine Workers, predicted a growing reliance upon foreign oil in the post-war era would one day result in outrageous prices at the gas pump and cars lined up for blocks to purchase gasoline. Those of us old enough to remember the oil embargoes and energy crises of the 1970s know how accurate that prediction was. Those oil embargoes and energy crises prompted the Carter Administration to establish a national synthetic fuels program largely based on coal as the United States was labeled ``the Saudi Arabia of coal.'' However, the Reagan Administration all but eliminated the Department of Energy's fossil fuels and renewable energy programs, and withdrew support for the development of alternative energy technologies. How short-sighted that was. I correct myself. It wasn't just short- sighted, it was blind, and I said so at the time. In a speech on this Senate floor, I warned that the Reagan administration's cutbacks in our energy programs were ``leaving us dangerously vulnerable to foreign transgressions.'' Historians like to point out that those who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it. Why must we continue to relive yesterday's mistakes? Can we not learn from the past? Once again, concerns about our Nation's current and future energy needs are on the minds of citizens across the country. Worrisome gas prices, erratic fuel costs, electricity supply needs, energy efficiency improvements, and U.S. dependence on foreign oil are major challenges that we must tackle. To develop a bipartisan, national energy plan, Congress must establish balanced energy policies that recognize the need for both economic growth, energy security, and environmental protection. Coal will play a key role in that strategy. It is paramount that we develop a comprehensive plan built on a balanced portfolio of resources, technologies, and ideas. Such a plan must look broadly across all sectors of the economy and set objectives to meet these needs both today and down the road. And, as we look at the needs of our economy and our future, we need to better understand where to put critical and precious research and development resources and how to best stimulate these technologies in the marketplace. Undoubtedly, fossil fuels will continue to be a primary source for meeting our energy needs into the coming decades. Coal, used in cleaner and more efficient ways, will be a key component of that energy strategy. Coal is this country's most abundant natural resource, providing over half of the Nation's electricity and accounting for one third of our Nation's total energy production. Today, a bipartisan group of Members join me in introducing the National Coal Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 2003. I very much appreciate the support of Senators Rockefeller, Thomas, Burns, Dorgan, Allard, Durbin, Voinovich, Bayh, Enzi, Campbell, and Conrad. We believe that this legislation will help to maintain our Nation's fuel diversity by ensuring a key role for coal in our Nation's energy future. This initiative provides a roadmap to the future by authorizing $2 billion over that next ten years for a clean coal technology demonstration program to help speed these technologies from the laboratory to the marketplace. Our legislation aims to improve air quality as well as the efficiency of the current fleet of coal-fired power plants by providing targeted tax incentives for the installation of these technologies at existing coal-fired facilities. Additionally, this legislation will help meet the need for new infrastructure by providing incentives to deploy a targeted number of advanced clean coal technologies to prove their viability in the marketplace now and in the future. Finally, it ensures that all generators of coal can compete for these targeted tax incentives on an equal basis. This initiative is an important component of a strategy to achieve energy diversity and independence. I have been around Congress for a very long time--more than 50 years. Recently, I became the third longest serving Member of Congress. My association with coal started early in my life and has continued throughout my many years of service in Congress. Coal has always been with me, it has been there fore us. Coal is abundant. Coal is affordable. Coal is ours! Clean coal research and development funding and tax incentive legislation gained significant bipartisan and bicameral support during the energy bill debates in the 107th Congress. This success was built on the framework outlined, developed, and refined with my support in past Congress. There is a little verse that goes: God and soldier all men adore, in time of trouble and no more, for when war is over, and all things righted, God is neglected and the old soldier slighted. In times of national struggle and adversity, in times of war, coal has been there. But in times of calm, when the urgency subsides, so does our national determination to establish and implement a comprehensive energy strategy. To fail to incorporate a comprehensive energy plan into our vision for the Nation's future would ultimately be to America's detriment. The development of clean coal technologies is essential to the betterment of our Nation's economic, energy, environmental, and security future. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, last week, the Senate passed a resolution, by unanimous vote, that expressed the sense of the Senate in commending our troops who are now fighting the war against Iraq. At that time, I expressed my reservations about extraneous clauses in the resolution that implied that Congress acted properly in authorizing the President to begin this war. Soon the Senate will vote on a resolution to commend those nations that are in support of U.S.-led efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein and end his regime. Now that war has begun, the United States needs to act with the greatest amount of international support. The countries that are supporting our efforts deserve our gratitude, even though I believe more could have been done to build a more robust coalition which would more equally share the burdens of war in Iraq. But this resolution, like its predecessor, not only refers to the thanks that we wish to send to our friends and allies. The resolution also contains eight whereas clauses, some of which speak to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. After reading these clauses, it seems to me that the resolution, intentionally or not, implies that the President of the United States acted properly in initiating a war against Iraq based upon the authority of Resolution 1441. I disagree with that conclusion. The resolution contains two whereas clauses that describe joint statements issued by several nations on January 30, 2003, and February 5, 2003. A reading of these joint statements can be interpreted to argue that Resolution 1441 was a sufficient basis from which to launch a war on Iraq. I do not agree that the United Nations authorized the use of force against Iraq. The U.N. Secretary General seems to share my view on this point. The Senate should give its thanks to those countries that give their support to our troops in the field. I hope that the United States will work with these countries to address the long-term reconstruction needs of Iraq. I hope that the administration will begin to repair our ties with our other allies that did not share our view of the need to use force in Iraq. But I do not believe that it is proper to give a one- sided view of the diplomacy that brought us to this point in the context of thanking our friends.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, my amendment will strike the reconciliation instructions to the Finance Committee that would shield the President's $726 billion tax cut from a thorough debate in the Senate. To use reconciliation to increase the deficit is an abuse of the budget process. The Budget Act framers did not contemplate that reconciliation would ever be used to produce $726 billion in tax cuts that would be financed through Social Security surpluses and an increasing debt. The Budget Act includes explicit and implicit language underscoring that the purpose of reconciliation is for deficit reduction. If the reconciliation instructions were removed from the pending budget resolution, the Senate could still pass any economic stimulus plan it chose. To limit debate on such legislation is irresponsible, particularly when the administration has not even explained how it intends to pay for the cost of the war.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 minutes on each side on this amendment.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my name be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. BYRD. I ask for an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if this budget resolution passes with these reconciliation instructions included, the American people, through their elected representatives in Congress, will be denied their right to have a full debate upon the budgetary priorities of the Nation. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and a vote to strike the reconciliation instructions to the Finance Committee from this budget resolution.