Floor Statements

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, I am strongly opposed to the amendment offered by the junior Senator from South Carolina, which would prohibit congressional earmarks of funds appropriated, pursuant to authorizations in this bill, for the America Competes Act. The effect of the amendment proposed by the Senator from South Carolina could be waived or suspended in the Senate only by a 60-vote supermajority.

If this amendment were agreed to, it would set up two criteria for all appropriations legislation, pursuant to authorizations in the America Competes Act--one criterion requiring a simple majority vote for Presidential budget recommendations and another criterion requiring a supermajority of 60 votes for congressional earmarks, which, according to this legislative provision, is virtually anything that Congress changes from the President's budget request.

Under the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has the power of the purse. The Senate should jealously guard that prerogative. Our system of government includes checks and balances that have served us well through over 200 years as a Republic. And the power of the purse is a check on the ambitions of the executive branch.

Earlier this year, the Senate considered comprehensive ethics reform. It passed with an overwhelming majority of 96-2. In addition, the Senate Appropriations Committee has announced a new policy of increased transparency and accountability in regard to earmarks, which uses the same definition of earmarks contained in the ethics bill that was adopted overwhelmingly on the floor of the U.S. Senate. These changes in the appropriations process are intended to help restore confidence in the Congress. It ends ``business as usual'' in Washington. It restores integrity to the appropriations process. It will increase accountability and openness. Moreover, Senators will be required to certify that neither they nor their spouses have a financial interest in any earmark. I have asked Senators to submit a letter to Senator Cochran and me certifying they have no financial interest in a project being proposed for an earmark. Those letters will be available for public inspection.

Earmark disclosure, as important as it is, is only one part of a much broader package of ethics reforms that has already passed the Senate. This includes strengthened gift and travel rules for Members of the Senate, strengthened lobbying disclosure, and outlawing some of the notorious lobbying abuses in which Mr. Abramoff and others were involved. We should not cherry pick this legislation. It needs to be enacted as a whole.

In the meantime, I would like to remind my colleagues that when we considered the joint funding resolution earlier this year, which included all of the pending appropriations bills from the previous Republican-controlled Congress that had yet to be enacted, the House Appropriations Chairman, Mr. Obey, and I made a bold move and eliminated 9,300 earmarks that were in bills authored when the Senator from South Carolina was in the majority. We eliminated every single one of them--all 9,300 earmarks. The joint funding resolution, which was signed into law on February 15, 2007, contained no new earmarks.

In summary, the process of earmarking funds has gotten out of control. The status quo is not satisfactory. That is why I have taken the initiative to establish new standards for transparency and accountability. That is why I joined with House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey to eliminate earmarks from the fiscal 2007 funding resolution.

I strongly oppose the amendment from the Senator from South Carolina. The Senate has already voted on an ethics reform package that revises the method by which earmarks will be considered. The Senate Appropriations Committee has already put in place rules that will increase the transparency and accountability for earmarks in the fiscal 2008 process. But most of all, I oppose the amendment by the Senator from South Carolina because it would establish two criteria for earmarks--those proposed by the President would require only a simple majority, while those proposed by the Congress, in which the power of the purse resides, would require a 60-vote supermajority.

The Framers of our Constitution chose to give the power of the purse to the Congress for a reason. They did not want an overbearing, unaccountable executive branch.

I hope my colleagues will reject the proposal by the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. President, I wish to propound a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry further.

Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation--I may not have the floor. May I ask the Chair, please tell me what the parliamentary situation is.

Mr. President, if that were not the case, what would be the case?

Very well. Mr. President, I am not going to speak just now. I want to respect the wishes of another Senator who is on the floor at the moment. In a few minutes, I will want to speak a bit. As of now, I am going to take my seat. I will ask the Senator, does he wish to speak at this time?

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I am going to sit down and listen. May I ask the Senator this question: How long will he likely speak?

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. After he yields the floor, I will seek recognition. I understand the rules of the Senate. I am just stating at this point what I intend to do.

Mr. President, I wish to thank the distinguished Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, for his courtesy, and I also want to say that he is one of the immortal 23 Senators who said, in kind words and respectful words and in senatorial terms, we won't go--meaning, we were going to be Senators. We know what the Constitution says about Members of the Senate and the House, we were going to be Senators, we were going to be respectful, but we were going to vote our way. We were respectful of the President, but we knew we were Senators and that there were three branches of Government, and we know and knew then that this is the legislative branch--the first branch of Government that is mentioned under the Constitution, and it is sometimes called ``the people's branch.'' That is for good reason.

Now, what is the floor situation?

Further parliamentary question: Is time controlled at this moment?

I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak as in morning business--in other words, out of order-- for not to exceed 20 minutes. I don't expect to take that much time.

I thank the Chair.

Veto Threats

Mr. President, the 110th Congress will consider legislation this session that raises passions and excites partisan fervor. It is likely that much of what the Congress considers this year and next will be subject to Presidential veto threats because the President's political party no longer controls the Congress.

I was quite surprised recently to hear some Senators take the position that this body is wasting its time in drafting and passing legislation which the President threatens to veto.

Let me respectfully remind all who listen that the Congress legislates for the people and has a constitutional obligation--in other words, duty--to act independently from--I say this again, I say it respectfully--from the White House. There are three branches, as everybody knows, of Government. This is a separate but equal branch. I want Senators to listen. This is a separate branch, but it is equal.

I will repeat myself. As Senators already know, there are three separate but equal branches of Government. The Constitution's Framers never considered a President to be the final arbiter of the public good. Whether the question relates to military, foreign, or domestic affairs, a Presidential veto threat is not the last word in what should become the law of our land. Those decisions are left to the representatives of the people, along with the power over the purse-- along with the power over the purse--and other constitutionally enumerated congressional powers.

We hear almost daily a Presidential scolding of the Congress concerning the supplemental appropriations bill, which is shortly headed for a House-Senate conference. Continued Presidential veto threats on the funding for the Iraq war represent a stubborn unwillingness to concede that the American people have over time and with considerable debate come to see that the Iraq war was a mistake.

In the case of Iraq, it is likely that the people of the United States would have come to these opinions much earlier had they not had information withheld from them or, in some instances, presented to them falsely. Of course, I knew this.

Of course, also, it remains the constitutional prerogative of the President to exercise the veto. I respect that. But it also remains the prerogative of the Congress--the other body across the way and this body--it also remains the prerogative of the Congress to challenge that veto and to assert and defend the will of the people.

A President's power to veto is not and should not be absolute. Let me repeat that. A President's power to veto is not and should not be absolute. If the President vetoes a measure under our Constitution, the Congress can override that veto with a two-thirds vote of both Houses. All Senators know that. I am not telling Senators anything they don't know.

A Presidential veto does not necessarily end the legislative process. When the President vetoes legislation under article I, section 7 of the Constitution, the President's objections are submitted to the House of Congress--Congress being of two bodies--submitted to the House of Congress in which the measure originated so that the measure and the President's objections can be reconsidered. All Senators know that. Any schoolboy who has studied the Constitution knows that. But I am stating for the record, again, for all who run to read.

A new vote can be scheduled on the same piece of legislation and a veto can be overturned if the people's representatives--if the people's elected representatives--in Congress demand it.

There is nothing earthshaking about overturning a Presidential veto. Since 1969, the Congress has overridden almost 20 percent of the Presidential vetoes. President Franklin Roosevelt had nine vetoes overridden by Democratic Congresses. I repeat: President Franklin Roosevelt had nine vetoes overridden by Democratic Congresses. President Ronald Reagan had six vetoes overridden by a Democratic House and a Republican Senate.

The veto override provision in the Constitution is a protection for the people whom the Congress represents. Members of Congress are elected by the people to make laws based on sound public policy, not to capitulate or surrender to any--Republican or Democrat--to any Presidential threats. The Senate must never--hear me now, the Senate must never--become a rubberstamp for any President, Republican or Democrat or Independent or otherwise.

Certainly, the Congress should carefully consider the announced reasons for a Presidential veto, but the Congress has a duty, if the President's reasons are not credible or do not reflect the will of the people, to overturn Presidential vetoes, if the Congress wishes to do so.

The veto on the override is a healthy public opportunity for Members of Congress--both Houses--to consider the reasons offered by the President for his veto. Just as the President is held accountable for his veto, we Senators are held accountable for our votes on bills that are sent to the President and, if applicable, a subsequent veto override vote.

Members of the Senate and the people understand that when the President submits a bill to Congress and then asks that it be passed without any amendments or conditions--the President has a right to do that, but we all know that the President is treating the Congress like a subordinate branch capable of only saying yes or no and never expected to alter a Presidential proposal in any way.

The President knows what the Constitution says, and he knows that the Congress has a right to listen, to study, and then to act as it seeks to act. So this is an argument that contradicts the most basic constitutional principles on which our Republic is founded.

The Congress was envisioned as a check on an overzealous or unwise President, and that is no reflection on either party--that the President can be a Democrat, a Republican, or otherwise--and we do our duty to the Constitution when we vigorously utilize our enumerated powers.

So let us hear no more about measures that the President has threatened to veto being not worthy of the Senate's consideration. Let the President issue his veto threats as he wishes, but also let the Congress dutifully represent the will of the people.

On the matter of Iraq--and I say this most respectfully--I have been chagrined of late to hear the falsehoods and scare tactics emanating from the Oval Office. President Bush has repeatedly intimated that there is a connection between the attacks of 9/11 and the Iraq war when no such link exists. President Bush has suggested--he is my President and yours, Senators--that the supplemental appropriations bill as now written would cause death and destruction in America, which is patently false. I speak now as the chairman--of course, everybody knows it--I speak as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. President, I make a parliamentary inquiry: Are we under limited time, I ask the Chair?

Mr. President, I am not going to belabor Senators. I have seven more pages to read. I know what is in here, and so I ask unanimous consent that I may use whatever time I consume, and I assure Senators I will not consume more than 10 minutes, if that much.

President Bush has said the bill does not fund the troops, which is false. The Senate bill provides $2 billion more than the President requested for the troops and provides $1.8 billion more for veterans health care. I regret this continual barrage of misinformation coming from the White House just as I regret the intransigence--the intransigence--of a President who will not cool off--and I say this respectfully--of a President who will not cool off and stop fearmongering long enough to negotiate a resolution to the differences in the bill's language. He--the President--has been invited to do so in good faith and yet still the almost daily castigation from the White House continues.

I wonder about the effect on the morale of our brave fighting men and women when the President--any President--repeats inaccuracies like the Congress has failed to fully fund the troops. It seems to me that it is not a prudent thing to say. Congress and the American people support our troops, and the supplemental bill that we shall shortly take to conference robustly funds their needs in the field and cares for their needs after they return home.

For the President to assert otherwise is a disservice--and I say this with the utmost respect. I will say it again. For the President to assert otherwise is a disservice. Honorable men and women may disagree, but Members of Congress and officials of the executive branch have a duty to try to find common ground, especially when the issue is a violent and controversial war, with our troops in harm's way every day. I shall hope for a more reasonable and more realistic tone from our President--and I say it with the utmost respect, but this is an equal branch with the executive branch and the judicial branch--in the coming days. May I say further that more light and less heat on this matter would truly be in the best interests of our troops and of our sorely divided country.

Now, Mr. President, I have been here a long time. I know how to speak, when to speak, and when not to speak, but I am a U.S. Senator, and I am asserting this Senate's constitutional duty. My Republican friends and my Democratic friends know this, and I know they have a right to do the same, but that is my speech for today, God willing.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair, I thank all Senators, and I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, Senator Ted Stevens is not on the floor at the moment. I am going to wait, if I may. I have the floor, do I not, Madam President?

I am going to wait. I understand that Senator Stevens is on his way. He will be here in a couple of minutes. I will await the arrival, if the Chair will allow me, of Senator Ted Stevens. I understand he is on his way, and I want him to be present to hear what I am going to say.

Madam President, tomorrow, April 13, the very distinguished senior Senator from Alaska, my dear friend, Senator Ted Stevens, will become, if it is the good Lord's will, the longest serving Republican Senator in the history of these United States. It will mark his, Senator Ted Stevens's, 13,990th day as a Senator. Senator Stevens, on tomorrow, if the Lord let's him live, will surpass the late Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, who served 13,989 days as a Republican Senator. Tomorrow, Senator Stevens will serve, the good Lord willing, 13,990 days.

This is a great honor and an important milestone in the Senate career of our esteemed colleague, my friend, Ted Stevens. I congratulate Senator Ted Stevens for this monumental, historic achievement. As the longest serving Democratic Senator in the history of the Senate, I, Robert C. Byrd, welcome my friend, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, into this most exclusive club. In fact, it is probably the most exclusive club I know. There are only two of us, one Democrat and one Republican, in it.

I have served in this Chamber with Senator Ted Stevens for nearly four decades. He came here in 1968. Senator Stevens and I have served together on the Senate Appropriations Committee since 1972. I was on the committee a long time before that, but we, Senator Stevens and I, have served together on the Senate Appropriations Committee

since 1972. During these years of service together, we have developed a profound respect and admiration for each other. We now share many memories, both on and off the Senate floor.

One of my favorite memories is a very special personal one. I recall how Senator Stevens would bring his baby daughter Lily with him to the Senate and carry her around the Capitol in a basket. Over the years, I have become very close to Lily as well as her father. Lily is all grown up now. As a matter of fact, she will finish law school this year. But Senator Stevens remains the proud, loving father he always has been.

A couple of years ago, when the Senate was working into the late hours of the night and tensions were running high, as they occasionally do around here, Senator Ted Stevens took me by the arm and pulled me aside because he had something he wanted to show me. It was an article that Lily had written about the U.S. Capitol that had just been published by the U.S. Historical Society, and he, Senator Stevens, wanted to share it with me. I remarked at the time how touched I was by this. It was a father's pride in his child's accomplishment. I recall it now as a loving reminder that the Senate is a family--the Senate is a family.

Senator Ted Stevens is a Republican. I am a Democrat. Of course, we have had a few differences in our lives. We have been here for a long time on this floor--right here on this floor. But, actually, some of them became quite heated. Senator Stevens, as you know, says what he thinks. He is a man. He is a gentleman. He is a Senator. He says what he thinks. Oh, here he is, right here on the floor. I had to look around now to remind me he was there.

Now, some of these things have become quite heated. We both tend-- Senator Stevens and I--to be strong-willed persons, U.S. Senators, with different political philosophies. And each of us is determined to represent the best interests of his and my home State and the people-- the people--who send us here. So, naturally, at times, we are going to disagree.

But I feel I can say before God and man and Senators--I feel I can say without fear of contradiction--that not once--not once--have we allowed our political differences to become personal ones.

I have come to admire Senator Ted Stevens as a man of immense integrity, high personal principles, and unqualified honesty.

I admire Senator Ted Stevens as a great American. He is a patriot. He is a patriot whose devotion for our country--this country, yours and mine--led him to join the Army Air Corps during World War II, where he, Senator Stevens, flew support missions for the Flying Tigers of the 14th Air Force. For his service, Senator Stevens--he was not a Senator then--but Senator Stevens, for his service at that time, was awarded numerous medals, including the Distinguished Flying Cross. Let me say that again. For his service, he was awarded numerous medals, including--including--the Distinguished Flying Cross.

In the 1950s, after graduating from Harvard Law School, Senator Stevens began his long and remarkable career in public service by serving in various positions in the Eisenhower administration.

Senator Stevens is also a great legislator. In our nearly four decades in the Senate, Senator Stevens and I have also worked together on numerous bills. We have even cosponsored some together. This includes S. 880, the Senate Family Leave Act, which is currently under consideration in the Senate.

I especially admire Senator Stevens for his work on the Senate Appropriations Committee. During his years as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, he was bipartisan, cooperative, and respectful of everyone, just the way the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, or any Senate committee, ought to be.

While noting that Senator Stevens has served as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, allow me to point out that I have always been impressed by the similarity of our careers.

As I have already mentioned, I am the longest serving Democratic Senator ever. Tomorrow, Senator Ted Stevens will become the longest serving Republican Senator.

Both of us have served as President pro tempore of the Senate and President pro tempore emeritus.

Both of us--Senator Stevens and I--have served as our party's whip in the Senate. The ``whip'' is an old term. When the fox hunters went out, and they brought the hounds in, they used whips, and they knew how to use them. So both of us--Senator Stevens and I--have served as our individual party's--his is the Republican Party; mine is the Democratic Party--each of us has served as his party's whip in the Senate. The term ``whip'' goes back a long way. It goes back to England and the House of Commons.

Both of us--Senator Stevens and I--have chaired the Senate Appropriations Committee, and each has served as ranking member on the committee.

Both of us have been honored with recognition as the ``King of Pork''--the ``King of Pork''--while I am sure the organization that gave us that title intended it to be something less than a compliment.

Madam President, I again congratulate this great Senator, this fine legislator, this outstanding American for his historic achievement. Senator Stevens is truly the kind of man whom our country and this Chamber need.

I close with a poem. I know it by memory. I am going to read it into the Record:

Not gold, but only men can make a Nation great and strong;

men who for truth and honor's sake, stand fast and

labor long.

Real men who work while others sleep, who dare while others

fly. They build a Nation's pillars deep and lift them

to the sky.

Madam President, for the record, I will yield the floor soon, but for right now, I see on the other side of the aisle three very distinguished Senators. I see Senator Ted Stevens, I see Senator Cochran, Thad Cochran of Mississippi. Now, we are not supposed to say these things such as this--and I see the great Senator from Georgia, Senator Isakson. By the way, let me tell my colleagues, Senator Isakson comes over to my desk here every day I am here and he takes the time to shake my hand. He does. He takes the time to speak with me and to talk with me. One day I may make a little speech on the Senate floor, God willing, and I am going to talk about Senator Isakson. But today, I salute my friend Senator Ted Stevens.

I do.

Madam President, will the very able and distinguished Senator from Alaska yield so I might say a few words?

I thank the Senator, my friend, for what he has said. I salute him, my friend. I wish Erma, my darling wife, were here, sitting up in the gallery. We have rules that we don't speak to the gallery, but I wish she were here. She knew Senator Stevens. She knew Mrs. Stevens. She knew us, my wife, and Mrs. Stevens, who is not here today, but my wife knew us, Senator Stevens and me, her childhood sweetheart, Robert C. Byrd, she knew we were friends, Senator Stevens and I, the closest of friends. Now, when I say the closest of friends, Senators know what that means. That doesn't mean Senator Stevens and I go out together at night and drink booze together or anything such as that. We are the closest of friends. I don't have anything against Senators or anybody else who wants to go out and drink booze. I don't. I won't say what I have done in my lifetime, but I know a little bit about what booze is. I know what we are talking about.

Senators Stevens and I are the dearest of friends. I happen to be, through the good Lord's will, in my ninetieth year. I will be 90 in November, if it is the good Lord's will and I live to see the 20th day of November. I don't mind talking out loud, because as Popeye the Sailor Man used to say: I yam what I yam, and that is all I yam.

Now, Senator Stevens--I am not supposed to address him, a colleague, like this, but I am going to do that with the Senate's permission. This is not in accordance with the rules. Senator Stevens, I want to say to you--I want to say to you in the presence of Senator Cochran, who is a Senator on the Appropriations Committee, along with Senator Stevens and me--I know the right grammar, you see--along with the Senator from Mississippi, and me. Some might think I should say the Senator from Mississippi and I.

I am supposed to say it, because I am talking in a different vein, but Senator Cochran serves on the Senate Appropriations Committee with me. And he and I--in other words, he, Senator Thad Cochran and I--serve on the Senate Appropriations Committee together, and Senator Stevens has at times been the chairman of that Appropriations Committee. I was the ranking member. What I am going to say, Senator Stevens and I--I am not supposed to talk in the first person. We usually in the Senate talk to the distinguished Senator from Alaska. I want to say to Senator Stevens, though, in the Senate, he is my friend. He knows that. Senator Stevens, I admire you. I respect you. You are a great Senator from a great State. Under the Constitution, he and I, as Senators, belong to the greatest deliberative body in the world. I respect the history of England and the House of Commons. That is a great body. The House of Lords, that is a great body. But the U.S. Senate is the upper House, the so-called upper House, and it is the upper House. There are two Houses, and the Senate is the upper House, because it used to be up there in the old days, and so the Members referred to the Senate as the upper House.

Senator Stevens--I am going to speak to him as I shouldn't--I know what the rules are, but I am going to say to Senator Stevens directly this may be the last time--who knows; it may not be--that I will ever speak to him on the floor like this. Senator Stevens, I love you, I respect you, and I admire you. I hope God will always bless you and hold you in the hollow of his hand. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, I pray and ask for the forgiveness of my own shortcomings. Senator Stevens, you are my friend, and we will let it go at that.

Madam President, I am going to yield the floor.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Cochran, I thank Senator Stevens, and I thank the great Senator from Georgia, Senator Isakson, for their kind words.

I thank the Chair and I thank God we were here today. I thank our Heavenly Father, especially, for this man, this Senator, Ted Stevens, and for his service to our country and to the Senate. I salute him as one of the great Senators of my time--and I have been here a long time.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, early next week, Members of the House and Senate will meet to work on the final version of the emergency supplemental appropriations bill. The Senate's version of this legislation provides $123 billion primarily for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for improving the health care for returning soldiers and veterans, for continued Hurricane Katrina recovery for the gulf coast, to fill major gaps in homeland security, and to provide emergency drought relief for farmers. The President has asserted that Congress is holding funding for the troops hostage for what he calls ``porkbarrel'' spending. What nonsense. Facts matter. Once again, the President does not seem to know the facts. This is legislation that meets some of the most critical needs of our troops and our Nation.

In the days since the Senate approved this legislation, the White House has taken on the regular practice of demonizing the Congress and attacking the bipartisan bill. On Tuesday, for instance, President Bush repeated his hollow claims that the Army will run out of money if Congress doesn't finish this legislation by the weekend. What nonsense.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has reported that the Army can use the dollars that Congress has already appropriated--some $52 billion--to help the Pentagon reach the end of May. Fifty-two billion dollars. Unless the administration has a new military adventure up its sleeve that the country doesn't know about, that $52 billion will easily pay for continued operations in Iraq.

The White House is spinning an imaginary tale of doom and gloom to try to scare the Congress and the country. But the facts just don't support the administration claims.

To underscore this factfinding effort, the Army provided financial updates to the House of Representatives this week and told House officials that its current Army funding could last until the summer. Yet, to listen to the White House, one would think that our soldiers will be out of bullets by Sunday.

Another example of facts mattering. In remarks this week, before announcing that the troops would see their tours of duty extended for at least 3 months and that his escalation would take many months longer than he first planned, President Bush spoke of a reprogramming request for $1.6 billion from personnel accounts. That is Washington-speak for shifting funds around to pay the bills. Basically, the Pentagon is considering a shift of dollars from September's payroll budget to fund the President's surge plan. Yet, to hear the dire claims coming from the White House, this shift would wreak havoc on the Pentagon. The truth is that no havoc will ensue. This shift is one that the Pentagon has adopted on many occasions in years past, during times of war and peace. This is a simply accounting move, not a major blow to the Pentagon's war machine.

It is time for the White House to drop this trumped-up crisis talk and get down to the truth.

Let's take a look at what the House and Senate have actually approved. The House and the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, have each approved nearly $100 billion for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. The House and the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, approved funding to improve the health care of our troops and our veterans. The House and Senate, on a bipartisan basis, approved funding to speed long-delayed Hurricane Katrina reconstruction. The House and Senate, on a bipartisan basis, approved funding to close the major gaps in our homeland security that could be exploited at any moment.

These priorities, the White House claims, are extraneous and wasteful. On top of the $38 billion already approved by Congress for the reconstruction of Iraq, now the White House has requested $3.7 billion more to rebuild Iraq. I cannot understand how the White House can champion another $3.7 billion to rebuild Baghdad but object to $3.3 billion to rebuild the hurricane-ravaged gulf coast of America. I cannot understand how the White House can press Congress to build new hospitals in Iraq but object to $1.7 billion to provide first-class health care for our veterans and another $1.3 billion for our troops returning home from war.

When this legislation is finished, we will have a responsible plan that provides key resources for our troops, takes care of our veterans returning home from war, and rebuilds the communities laid to waste by Hurricane Katrina. And Congress will listen to the American people and craft a responsible framework for the Iraqis to

take control of their own nation. This is not legislation that should be vetoed by this President; this is legislation that he should sign into law.

We will announce a conference schedule soon and move forward quickly. Our goal is to have the final legislation to President Bush by the end of the month.

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

Mr. President, the fiscal year 2007 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill, just approved by the Senate, includes over $96 billion for the troops. It includes increases above the President's request for the Department of Defense, including increases of $1.3 billion for defense health, $1 billion for equipping the National Guard and Reserve, and $1.1 billion for military housing.

The bill includes $6.7 billion for rebuilding the gulf coast region following Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. It includes $4.2 billion for agricultural disaster relief. It includes nearly $1.8 billion for the VA to make sure that we meet our moral obligation to provide first- class health care to our wounded veterans.

Most importantly, with passage of this bill, the Senate sends a clear message to the President that we must take the war in Iraq in a new direction. Setting a goal for getting most of our troops out of Iraq is not cutting and running. The new direction provides incentives to the Iraqi people to settle their differences, to end their civil war, and to pursue reconciliation. One fact is plainly clear: The President wants to run his war his way, without anyone asking any questions or requiring any standards of progress.

That is the kind of attitude that has resulted in the chaos we see in Iraq each day. President Bush does not want anyone to hold him accountable for the failures in Iraq. He does not want anyone to hold him responsible for our troops remaining caught in the escalating Iraqi civil war. The President has his eyes closed to the truth in Iraq.

Let me read excerpts from a letter I recently received from soldiers serving in and around Baghdad:

We write you this letter. . . , Senator Byrd, because of

your prominent role as Chairman of the Appropriations

Committee, and because of your documented observation of the

alarming lack of debate within the Senate over the Iraq War.

So much of the controversy surrounding the proposed surge

strategy has hinged on ``support for our troops.'' Yet, the

voice of the individual trooper is not heard. As volunteer

members of the military, we waive certain civil rights. We

cannot quit. We have a legal and moral responsibility to

carry out

the orders given. We offer our bodies and minds, but

sacrifice our voices. Our voice is in our vote. Last

November, we voted for a Congress that would halt the

disastrous Iraq War. . . .

Some of us are on our first tour, some our second or third,

and for one of us, fifth. We have done our duty, and will

continue to do so until our obligation is complete. Upon

completion of our obligation, we hope to close this unhappy

chapter in our lives and move forward. . . .

Listening to the ongoing debate in the news, and the

conflicting views of our lawmakers, we hear again and again

accusations by one side of the other side's desire to

undercut the troops. We see these accusations as moral

blackmail. For it is overwhelmingly clear from all of our

experiences that despite the unpopularity of this war, the

American people have provided unfaltering moral support to

the men and women of the military. We implore lawmakers

to abandon these hollow accusations, and to focus on the

national interest as a whole. We earnestly hope for the

enactment of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group,

particularly those concerning the de-escalation of the war

and direct diplomatic engagement of Syria and Iran. We

encourage Congress to obstruct the escalation of this war

by any means possible.

Continuing to read from the letter, these solders said:

Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, we have

become painfully aware of our own vulnerability. We have

spent vast resources preparing for unknown disaster, fighting

an enemy that is ubiquitous, but not clearly defined. We are

fighting the specter of fear. This is an internal struggle

that we must reconcile. Our vision of the future has grown

clouded and ominous. We face a situation in Iraq that leaves

us with little hope for a satisfying outcome. As a nation, we

must recover from the trauma of 9/11 and abandon the

misguided policies we have pursued in its wake. Using the

military as our primary foreign policy tool has isolated us

and fueled worldwide resentment of us, and has not increased

our sense of security. Halting the Iraq war is America's

opportunity to change direction, to reengage the world, and

discourage terrorism and extremism by showing the world the

ingenuity of our people and our commitment to freedom and

democracy.

These are the written words of soldiers now serving in Iraq.

The American people want our troops out of Iraq. The Congress has said very clearly that we want our military to refocus on Osama bin Laden and his terrorist bases in Afghanistan. The President has said he will veto this bill. His administration has asserted that adding funds for caring for our wounded veterans, for rebuilding the gulf coast, for securing the homeland, and for agricultural disaster assistance is playing politics. What nonsense. With approval of this bill, Congress will have appropriated $448 billion for the war in Iraq, including $38 billion for rebuilding Iraq. Certainly if we can spend $38 billion on rebuilding Baghdad, we can spend money on rebuilding the gulf coast, taking care of our veterans and protecting our agricultural economy.

I hope that the President will drop his rhetoric and instead work with Congress to craft a responsible plan to transition our forces from Iraq and refocus on bin Laden and his base of operations.

Instead of demonizing the Congress and engaging in rhetorical finger- pointing, the President ought to work with Congress on legislation that is in the best interests of the country. I want to thank Senator Cochran, Senator Murray, Senator Reid, and Senator McConnell for their efforts this week in moving this bill through the Senate. I also want to thank the Appropriations Committee staff, including Terry Sauvain, Charles Kieffer, Peter Rogoff, B.G. Wright, Kate Fitzpatrick, Bruce Evans, Blake Thompson, and all of the Subcommittee staffs for their hard work on this bill.

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

Mr. President, the poet Alfred Edward Housman, 1859-1936, wrote in his poem, ``A Shropshire Lad,'' the following verse:

Loveliest of trees, the cherry now

Is hung with bloom along the bough,

And stands about the woodland ride

Wearing white for Eastertide.

The trees are in bloom. In Washington, the annual cherry blossom festival begins this Saturday, March 31, and runs through April 15. It is always a beautiful sight, whether viewed under warm and sunny skies or as the blossoms fall like rain on a misty morning. It is a lovely celebration of Spring and a welcome complement to Easter.

This year Easter falls on April 8, when the Senate will not be in session. Each year, of course, Easter falls on a different day, sometimes with many weeks' difference from year to year. Easter is a very moveable feast and has been throughout its long history. The calculation of when to celebrate Easter has varied through the centuries, being settled for just over 1,427 years by the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. But even today, Easter remains a moveable feast.

The Roman Emperor Constantine convoked the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. to resolve a number of important differences between the religious practices across his empire. The council decided that the Easter festival should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the full moon following the vernal equinox, thus eternally linking the return of spring with the resurrection of Christ. If the full moon occurred on a

Sunday and thereby coincided with the Passover festival, council further decided that Easter would be commemorated on the following Sunday. The council also declared that the calendar date of Easter would be calculated at Alexandria, in Egypt, which was the leading astronomical center of the fourth century world.

This attempt to reconcile Easter celebrations proved difficult, however, as fourth century astronomy lacked the knowledge to resolve a discrepancy between the solar and lunar years. As a result, the differences between the true astronomical year and the Julian calendar then in use continued to grow. By 387 A.D., churches in France and Egypt were celebrating Easter on dates 35 days apart. In 465 A.D., the church adopted a reformed calendar that fixed the date of Easter, but churches in what is now the United Kingdom refused to adopt the changes.

In 1582, Pope Gregory XIII reformed the Julian calendar yet again, resulting in the calendar in use in much of the West today--the Gregorian calendar. This new calendar corrected many of the difficulties in fixing the date of Easter and other important ecclesiastical dates. When Great Britain and Ireland adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752, Easter was celebrated on the same day in the Western part of the Christian world. However, the Eastern churches did not adopt the Gregorian calendar, and celebrate Easter on different dates. Occasionally, the two churches' calculations coincide, and Easter is celebrated on the same date throughout the world. The last time that happened was in 1963.

All of these details are fascinating, at least to a longtime fan of the study of history. I find it thought-provoking to consider how the study of astronomy and the development of calendars has affected our daily lives today, as they have the daily life of so many who have come before us. But does it matter, Mr. President, when we celebrate Easter? In the long run, I think, the celebration of that momentous moment in history is far more important than precision on the day of the week. Few events in history have had a more profound impact on our lives. You do not have to be a Christian or an adherent of any particular church or faith, to recognize the impact of Christ's life upon world history, regardless of which day of the week or week of the year it took place.

Christ's message, brought home by His sacrifice at Easter time and His subsequent resurrection, changed the lives of billions of people over the years. In Matthew 28:5-6, we are told, ``The angel said to the women, `Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; He has risen, just as He said.' '' That much change is bound to have an effect on everyone else.

The rise of a new religion and the power and passion of its churches has changed empires, international boundaries, customs, and lifestyles. The Christian religion has grown and spread across the globe, sweeping old religions away.

On this Sunday, Christians observe Palm Sunday, recalling Christ's triumphant entry into Jerusalem with crosses made of palm leaves like those that were laid across Christ's path to welcome Him. Next Friday, Christians will commemorate Christ's sacrifice on Good Friday, when He took up His crown of thorns and carried His own cross on that long, sad, walk to be crucified. Then on April 8, church bells will ring, and sunrise services will celebrate His resurrection from the dead and His ascension into heaven with the rising sun. It is a deeply moving and uplifting period, Mr. President, and it does not matter when it happens--only that it did happen. Beautiful, blessed Easter, giving hope to us all.

Mr. President, I wish you and yours all the blessings of Easter, with all of its promise of everlasting life spent in the love of the Lord. I close with a poem by Louise Lewin Matthews, called ``Easter Morn.''

Easter Morn

(By Louise Lewin Matthews)

Easter morn with lilies fair

Fills the church with perfumes rare,

As their clouds of incense rise,

Sweetest offerings to the skies.

Stately lilies pure and white

Flooding darkness with their light,

Bloom and sorrow drifts away,

On this holy hallow'd day.

Easter lilies bending low

In the golden afterglow,

Bear a message from the sod

To the heavenly towers of God.

Mr. President, West Virginians have always been a deeply spiritual people. Historically, we have stood fast in our devotion to the Creator, even when--or especially when--faced with adversity, deprivation, or misfortune. Just as we recognize that joyful events are best celebrated with prayers of gratitude, we also believe that hardship can be endured and, in fact, diminished through the infinite power of the healing word.

As we leave for Easter recess to celebrate the resurrection, we lift our heads from the darkness to the light. We ask for God's blessings. The Gospel at John 14:13 tells us that God answers prayer, meaning that he hears us whenever we ask for anything according to his will.

The importance of prayer is recognized by people of faith in nearly every denomination. Yet, in America, too many of our citizens belittle, ignore, or denigrate the power of prayer. They believe that the doctrine of separation of powers means that we can pray only within the four walls of a house of worship, and nowhere else. But that viewpoint does not reflect the intent of the Creator.

Prayer, no matter where undertaken, by design, provides both inspiration and solace. It is comforting, particularly during a time of war. No wonder, then, that prayer has always had a place in the lives of our military. In December 1944, General George S. Patton, Jr., ordered Colonel James H. O'Neill, the chaplain of the Third Army, to produce a prayer to the heavens, which requested clear weather. The prayer, written by Chaplain O'Neill, reads as follows:

Almighty and most merciful Father, we humbly beseech Thee,

of Thy great goodness . . . Grant us fair weather for Battle.

Graciously hearken to us as soldiers who call upon Thee,

that, armed with Thy power, we may advance from victory to

victory . . . and establish Thy justice among men and

nations. Amen.

Chaplain O'Neill's prayer was provided on behalf of all soldiers, regardless of denomination, when or where they prayed, and with whom. It was a prayer in addition to the silent or outspoken, individual and voluntary prayers of each of the enlisted men and women of the Army.

Although I cannot be sure of it, I would imagine that soldiers in the field responded favorably to the prayer of Chaplain O'Neill. They assuredly did not object to his expression of faith--one in which they were free to participate or not. Undoubtedly, the soldiers drew inspiration from the Chaplain's words.

Now, while our children do not normally face the mortal peril that U.S. troops inevitably face in a time of war, all Americans--whether young or old--in school or in battle, surely from time to time need to draw upon the blessings of a higher power to face whatever tests fate may throw their way on any given day.

Yet, one wonders what would happen if a student in an American classroom today decided, of his or her own volition, to recite a prayer like the one by Chaplain O'Neill. In some jurisdictions, it is probable that the student would be disciplined and his/her teachers punished for potentially violating the First Amendment.

Is today's state of affairs consistent with the intent of the Framers? No. The Founding Fathers believed in a Supreme Being, and they were proud of their faith. On February 22, 1756, John Adams wrote:

Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the

Bible for their only law book and every member should

regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every

member would be obliged in conscience to temperance,

frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity

towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence

toward Almighty God . . . what a Utopia, what a paradise

would this region be.

As his words reflect, John Adams knew and recognized that we were and are a religious people.

The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution state: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . .''

In my opinion, too many have not given equal weight to both of these clauses. Instead, they have focused only on the first clause, which prohibits the establishment of religion, at the expense of the second clause, which protects the right of Americans to worship as they please. This country was founded by men and women of strong faith, whose intent was not to suppress religion, but to ensure that the government favored no single religion over another.

In particular, the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment states that Congress cannot make laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. Consequently, I believe that any prohibition of voluntary prayer in school, either spoken aloud or recounted in silence, violates the right of our schoolchildren to practice freely their religion. And that's not right. Any child should be free to pray to God, of his or her own volition, whether at home, in church, or at school. Period.

I am not a proponent of repeatedly amending the U.S. Constitution. I believe that such amendments should be done only rarely and with great care. However, because I feel as strongly about this today as I have for over four decades, I am going to take this opportunity, once again, as I have at least eight times over the past 45 years, to introduce today a joint resolution to amend the Constitution to clarify the intent of the Framers with respect to voluntary prayer in school.

The language of the resolution that I am introducing today to amend the Constitution simply states: ``Nothing in this Constitution, including any amendment to this Constitution, shall be construed to prohibit voluntary prayer or require prayer in a public school, or to prohibit voluntary prayer or require prayer at a public school extracurricular activity.''

This resolution is similar to legislation that I introduced or cosponsored starting in 1962, but more recently in 1973, 1979, 1982, 1993, 1995, 1997, and 2006. This resolution is not a radical departure. It simply reiterates what should already be permissible under a correct interpretation of the First Amendment. It does not change the language of the First Amendment, and it would not permit any school to advocate a particular religious message endorsed by the government. The resolution seeks neither to advance nor to inhibit religion. It does not signify government approval of any particular religious sect or creed. It does not compel a ``non-believer'' to pray. In fact, it does not require an atheist to embrace or adopt any religious action, belief, or expression. It does not coerce or compel anyone to do anything, and it does not foster excessive government entanglement with religion.

This Constitutional Amendment simply allows children to pray, voluntarily, if they wish to do so. The Supreme Court has held that the Establishment Clause is not violated so long

as the government treats religious speech and other speech equally. The resolution has a preeminently secular purpose, which is to ensure that religious and non-religious speech are treated equally.

The First Amendment is to secure religious liberty. Justice Stevens has written that, ``nothing in the Constitution as interpreted by this Court prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during or after the school day.''

Similarly, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has written that the Religion Clauses of our Constitution have ``kept religion a matter for the individual conscience, not for the prosecutor or bureaucrat.''

And we should make certain that religion is a matter for the individual conscience. But keeping religion a matter for the individual conscience should not mean that a schoolchild must stand silent, unable to turn to God for comfort or guidance in times of need. Not every reference to God represents the impermissible establishment of religion. Instead, let us make certain that every individual, including every schoolchild, can be assured of his/her right to pray voluntarily to God, as he/she pleases, consistent with the intent of the Framers, who wrote the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 29, 2007, AT 9:30 a.m., to receive testimony on the posture of the Department of the Navy in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2008 and the future years defense program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 29, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The hearing is on the nomination of David James Gribbin IV to be the General Counsel for the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet for a business meeting on Thursday, March 29, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in S-211. The Business Meeting will consider the following agenda:

Nominations

Nomination of Bradley Udall to be a member of the Board of Trustees of the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy Foundation, reappointment.

Nomination of Roger Romulus Martella, Jr. to be an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, General Counsel.

Legislation

S. 801, a bill to designate a United States courthouse in Fresno, CA, as the Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse.

S. 521, a bill to designate the Federal building and courthouse in Duluth, MN, as the Gerald W. Heaney Federal Building and United States Courthouse and Customhouse.

S. 992, The Public Buildings Cost Reduction Act of 2007.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the Session of the Senate on Thursday, March 29, 2007, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``Clean Energy: From the Margins to the Mainstream.''

President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 29, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on Iran.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, March 29, 2007, at 9:15 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on Indian trust fund litigation.

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Preserving Prosecutorial Independence: Is the Department of Justice Politicizing the Hiring and Firing of U.S. Attorneys?--Part III'' on Thursday, March 29, 2007 at 10 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Witness:

D. Kyle Sampson, Former Chief of Staff to the Attorney General of the United States.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, March 29, 2007, at 2 p.m. in Dirksen Room 226.

Agenda

I. Committee Authorization: Authorization of Subpoenas in Connection with Investigation into Replacement of U.S. Attorneys.

II. Bills: S. 236. Federal Agency Data Mining Reporting Act of 2007, Feingold, Sununu, Leahy, Kennedy, Cardin; S. 376. Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2007, Leahy, Specter, Grassley, Kyl, Sessions, Cornyn; S. 849. OPEN Government Act, Leahy, Cornyn, Specter, Feingold; S. 119. War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007, Leahy, Feinstein, Feingold, Schumer, Durbin; S. 621. Wartime Treatment Study Act of 2007, Feingold, Grassley, Kennedy.

III. Resolutions: S. Res. 108. Designating the first week of April 2007 as ``National Asbestos Awareness Week,'' Baucus, Leahy, Kennedy, Feinstein, Durbin.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for a markup entitled, ``Small Business Disaster Response and Loan Improvements Act of 2007''on Thursday, March 29, 2007, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 29, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. in room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office

Building, to hear the legislative presentation of the AMVETS, American Ex-Prisoners of War, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Gold Star Wives of America, Fleet Reserve Association, The Retired Enlisted Association, Military Officers Association of America, and the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 29, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services and International Security be authorized to meet on Thursday, March 29, 2007 at 10 a.m. for a hearing entitled, Eliminating and Recovering Improper Payments.

Yes, I would be pleased to enter into a colloquy.

Yes, that is my understanding.

I thank the Senators and want to assure them that I understand their concern. Although I cannot commit to any particular outcome, I will work with them during the conference committee to address their concerns, and those of the American Samoa and the CNMI leadership, regarding their desire for Special Industry Committees under the FLSA to assure a smooth transition from the current local minimum wage to the national minimum wage.

Mr. President, today Senator Warner and I have introduced an important and potentially landmark bipartisan resolution. My good friend and colleague from Virginia has correctly highlighted what is one of the most critical issues before us as we debate our continued occupation of Iraq: the capacity of the Iraqi Government to take responsibility for the security of its own country. The President said in November 2005 that ``as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.'' But are the Iraqis standing up? If, in the President's formulation, our continued military occupation of Iraq is dependent on the readiness of the Iraqi security forces, is it not crucial that we know what kind of progress those Iraqi forces are making? The Warner-Byrd resolution will hopefully provide the Congress with the unvarnished truth about this issue, instead of more of the same rhetoric and obfuscation doled out to the Congress since the war began. Under Warner-Byrd, within 120 days of passage of this Act, a designated independent private sector entity will report to Congress on the readiness of the ISF to assume responsibility for maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq, denying terrorists a safe haven, and bringing an end to sectarian violence. The report will also address whether continued support by U.S. troops is likely to contribute to the ISF's readiness to take on those missions in the coming months.

We have had 4 years now of rosy reports coming from the Pentagon and the White House about the steady progress being made in Iraq, but events on the ground regularly belie those sunny assessments. Our soldiers have been training and equipping Iraqi troops and police for several years, and the White House continues to tout the ``real progress'' made by the Iraqi security forces. However, an article in the February 5 edition of the New York Times noted that the Iraqi units arriving in Baghdad are showing up at 55 to 60 percent of their full strength. Even more problematic, the Iraqi police force is itself seen by many in Iraq as simply an extension of the sectarian militias, terrorizing the population with rape, extortion, and murder.

Considering the record to date of the Iraqi troops, will any amount of training produce a reliable and capable national army? If this is what we are waiting for--if we are truly planning to ``stand down'' once the ISF ``stands up''--I, for one, want to know when we can expect that to happen. And if it is not going to happen, we should know that as well. How long will we continue to spend American lives and treasure training Iraqi troops that can't be counted on? Six months? A year? Five years? If this is an ultimately hopeless endeavor, we should find out now, and change our strategy accordingly.

The situation in Iraq has devolved into a full-blown civil war, as sects which have been battling for centuries continue to attack each other--and us--in an ever-widening bloodbath. In the words of the President's own National Intelligence Estimate, the term `` `civil war' accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict,'' which has become a ``self-sustaining inter-sectarian struggle between Shia and Sunnis.'' U.S. troops have no constructive role to play in fighting another country's civil war. Increasingly in Iraq, there is no clearly defined ``enemy'' for our soldiers to engage, only various indigenous groups that hate us almost as much as they hate each other. The President's plan calls for the Iraqi troops to assume responsibility for halting this death spiral, but the NIE again casts doubt on this strategy. It states that ``the Iraqi security forces--particularly the Iraqi police--will be hard-pressed in the next 12-18 months to execute significantly increased security responsibilities.''

I suspect that further training is not really the answer. We can train a soldier how to fire a weapon; we can give him communications equipment; we can teach him how to conduct a raid or defend a post. But we cannot give him a sense of national identity. We cannot provide him with allegiance to government and country that transcends ethnic or sectarian hatreds. The bottom line is that the violence in Iraq requires a political solution. Everyone--everyone--now acknowledges that. Only when the Iraqi people, through their government, are able to overcome the sectarian divisions that are splitting the country apart, will stability and peace be achieved. U.S. Central Command Commander Gen. John Abizaid said it himself in testimony before Congress on November 15, 2006: ``I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.''

The Warner-Byrd resolution seeks to address that issue head-on, with an unbiased, nonpartisan report on the likelihood that continued U.S. involvement will contribute to the capacity for the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. This report will provide us with a clear-eyed view of what is going on in Iraq, and whether the President's plan has any realistic hope of success.

amendment no. 740

Mr. President, today the Senate Rules Committee reported S. 223, the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act. I am a cosponsor of this legislation, and I voted in favor of reporting the measure.

This bill would require Senate candidates to file election-related designations, statements, and reports in electronic form with the Secretary of the Senate. It also would require that the Secretary of the Senate forward a copy of those filings to the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours so that they can be made available to the public.

I note for the Record that the bill as introduced and reported would require that Senate candidates file directly with the Secretary of the Senate, and not the Federal Election Commission. I support continuing this policy, and ensuring that the Senate as an institution retains custody of these campaign-related filings. According to testimony before the Rules Committee last month, the office of the Secretary of the Senate is fully capable of implementing this requirement and ensuring that these documents are made available to the public expeditiously.

I support the efforts of the Rules Committee on this matter

Mr. President, I thank the able Senator from Washington.

While I oppose the amendment by the Senator from Mississippi, I thank him for his courtesy in bringing this bill to

the floor. In order to facilitate Senate action on this critical supplemental bill, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported a bill by voice vote on Thursday, March 22. Again, I thank the able Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, for his support.

In this 2007 supplemental, the Congress is providing nearly $100 billion to support our military and diplomatic efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. This brings total appropriations for the wars to nearly $170 billion for this year alone. When Congress approves this supplemental, it will have appropriated $448 billion for the war in Iraq.

As the conflict in Iraq enters its fifth year, more than 3,220 members of the uniformed services have sacrificed their lives, with over 24,000 more wounded, many grievously wounded. The Iraq conflict most certainly has become a civil war. The American people need to know what we are accomplishing by remaining in Iraq. How much longer will Congress continue to blindly write checks for this failed strategy in Iraq? Supporting the troops means doing all we can to remove them from this violent internal sectarian conflict in Iraq.

The American people have made it very clear where they stand on this matter. A large majority of Americans, according to any number of polls, wants the troops home, and the sooner the better. I, for one, am not so stubborn that I will keep marching on toward some intangible success in Iraq, no matter how many may die, no matter how many may be wounded, and no matter how many families are torn apart by grief. A continued U.S. presence is a catalyst for violence in Iraq and in the region. It is time to remove that spark from this volatile situation and pursue a diplomatic track which may lead to a national reconciliation for the people of Iraq.

The language in this bill encourages a decrease in Iraqi reliance on U.S. troops to keep the peace in Iraq and pave the way for the Iraqi people to take steps toward national reconciliation. The language in the bill is not Draconian, nor is it precipitous. It is simply a recognition of the reality of the situation in Iraq. It calls for a gradual redeployment of U.S. troops in conjunction with concerted efforts to train and equip Iraqi security forces while building regional and international support for the Iraqi Government. The language permits continued counterterrorism operations by U.S. forces and allows a limited number of U.S. forces to remain in order to protect U.S. and coalition personnel and infrastructure. That is not a precipitous withdrawal. It is not cutting and running. Rather, it is a commonsense compromise between those who want all the troops home now and those who advocate a continued massive American presence in Iraq.

It is time--yes, time--to change course in Iraq before 3,000 more Americans and thousands more Iraqis are killed.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment to strike section 1315(a) and (b) of the bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I do have an amendment, and I will speak to that amendment.

Very well.

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

Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, today we take up a supplemental bill to fund our troops in the field, to send a strong message about the direction of the war in Iraq, to improve the veterans and defense health care system, to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina rebuild, to secure the homeland, and to provide emergency relief to farmers impacted by major drought and freezes. We are now in the fifth year-- the fifth year--of the war, this terrible war.

I was against it. I voted against it. We are there. We are now in the fifth year of the war in Iraq. The debate about the war has deteriorated into a series of buzz words--preemptive war, mission accomplished, exaggerated intelligence, inadequate body armor, and surges--and on and on. Our job in the Senate is not to look backward but to look forward.

The Constitution clearly gives the Congress the power--yes, it does; it clearly gives the Congress, us, the power--to decide when this Nation should go to war, and it gives Congress the power of the purse, money. Money talks. Funding such conflicts is the responsibility of the Senate Appropriations Committee, the Senate Appropriations Committee. The buck stops here, and don't you ever forget it, the

Senate Appropriations Committee. Because of that power over the purse, it is certainly our duty to debate the future of the war in Iraq.

The bill before the Senate includes a provision that would give the war a new direction, and it points the way out--out, out--of the civil war in Iraq. There is no restriction on funding for the troops--no restriction on funding for the troops. We fully fund the needs of the troops. We do that, yes. In fact, the bill provides more funds than the President requested for the Department of Defense, with an increase of $1.3 billion for the defense health care system, $1 billion for equipping the Guard and Reserve, and $1.1 billion for military housing.

The language in the bill narrows the mission of our troops in Iraq, keeps pressure on the Iraqi Government to meet benchmarks on national reconciliation, requires the President--yes, hear me now; requires the President--to send Congress a phased redeployment plan. It sets a goal for the redeployment of most of the U.S. troops from Iraq by March 31, 2008.

This country was not attacked by Iraq on 9/11. There was not a single Iraqi, not one, involved in the devastation in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania on that fateful day. According to our own Government, the perpetrators of 9/11, Osama bin Laden and his organization, are alive today and rebuilding in Afghanistan and Pakistan at this moment, as I speak, so help me God. Language in this bill would allow the President to refocus our military and our intelligence on the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11.

During the debate on this bill, assertions will be made, yes, that it is inappropriate to add to this bill funding to meet domestic needs. In fact, the White House has claimed that efforts to add funding for our veterans, for Katrina victims, and for homeland security will hold hostage the funds for the troops. What nonsense--hear me--nonsense. Just more buzzwords.

In fact, funding for the war is not the only critical need worthy of supplemental funding this year. The war must not obliterate every other concern. Last week, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Rob Portman, said the President would veto the bill if the Iraq language and additional spending remain in the bill. He said:

We're disappointed the Senate is allowing politics--

humbug--

to interfere with getting needed resources to our troops.

Politics? Politics? I ask the Senate, is it politics to ensure that the VA has a health care system that can provide first-rate care for the wounded? Is it? No. It is a moral imperative--yes, a moral imperative.

Is it politics to provide critical resources to help the gulf region rebuild after Hurricane Katrina? Is it? Is it politics? No, it is not politics. It is compassion--compassion.

Is it politics to help rural America recover from drought and freeze? Is it? No. It is common sense, do you hear me, common sense and good economics.

This bill meets some of the most urgent needs of our country. It includes $1.7 billion to ensure that the VA has the resources it needs to help the brave men and women wounded in the war. The VA needs resources in order to provide first-rate care to profoundly wounded, terribly wounded, horribly wounded soldiers. We are morally bound--hear me; yes, we are morally bound, aren't we, to care for our wounded troops. This is not politics. No. Shame. This is not politics; it is common decency.

This bill also includes $3.3 billion above the administration's request for the victims of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. The President proposes to pay for the increased costs of repairing the existing levees in Louisiana by cutting the funding that Congress provided to improve the capacity of the levees to protect New Orleans from future hurricanes. Shame. That makes no sense.

The bill provides new resources to repair the levees. We will not follow a nonsensical strategy of repairing the existing levee system that failed during Katrina by cutting funding already appropriated for actual improvements to the levee system. We will not. We also include funding for health and education, for law enforcement, and for transit systems in the gulf region to help rebuild, to bring people back to work, and to bring the region back to life. Not politics, just plain old common sense.

The bill includes $4.2 billion for agricultural disaster relief. The agricultural economy has been hit with drought and freezes. In 2006, 69 percent of all counties in the United States were declared primary or contiguous disaster areas. Fourteen States had 100 percent of their counties declared disaster areas by the Department of Agriculture.

I commend Senator Dorgan and Senator Feinstein and Senator Bond for their hard work on this disaster package.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger requesting agricultural disaster assistance be printed in the Record.

Providing agricultural disaster relief is not politics, no. It is good policy.

The bill that is before the Senate also includes $2 billion for securing the homeland. In the State of the Union, the President said:

The evil that inspired and rejoiced in 9/11 is still at

work in the world. And so long as that's the case, America is

still a nation at war.

Despite hundreds of innocent people being killed in train bombings in London, Madrid, Moscow, Tokyo, and Mombai, India, and despite the aviation sector remaining at a high terrorist threat level since August, the President did not request one extra dime--not one thin dime--in the supplemental for securing the homeland. This bill includes funding for purchasing explosive detection systems for our airports, for grants to help secure our rail and transit systems, and for securing our ports and borders. The money is needed now.

For 5\1/2\ years, since the attack on 9/11, this administration has raised fears of another terrorist attack. The administration has announced a high, or orange, threat level for possible terrorist attacks on eight different occasions. In every State of the Union Address, the President has stoked the fires of fear. Periodically, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the FBI Director helped to fan those flames. Yet the President consistently sends to Congress budgets for homeland security that do not reflect this perceived threat. Rather than spreading fear, the administration should be reducing vulnerabilities by doing everything it can to deter another attack. Providing funding to secure the homeland is not politics; it is an essential duty.

The President's ``rob Peter to pay Paul'' approach to funding domestic agencies has real and demonstrably severe consequences. The failed response to Hurricane Katrina proved that. The inability to provide first-class health care to our wounded veterans proved that. But we never learn.

Another important aspect of this bill is in the oversight and accountability that it mandates. For far too long--far too long-- oversight has been a lost cause, yes, around this Congress. Tough questions are ditched in favor of softballs. Honest answers are buried in political spin. This legislation says ``no more.'' Real oversight is back, and it will not be denied. This legislation makes major investments in inspectors general, from the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction to inspectors general for the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Justice. Let's hope we can begin to get the waste, fraud, and abuse in Government under control. The legislation presses forward with GAO audits of the use of these dollars as we try to put an end to the contractors' bonanza of big dollars free from the prying eyes of Congress or the public. Insisting that U.S. tax dollars are wisely spent is not politics. What is it? It is our duty. Hear me. It is our duty.

The Appropriations Committee has made careful choices. The White House assertion that spending in this bill is excessive or extraneous or political--humbug. It simply has no foundation. The committee has chosen to provide first-rate care to the war wounded, to provide resources to help the gulf region rebuild after Katrina, to improve homeland security, and to provide agricultural disaster assistance. This is a good bill. I urge prompt action on this legislation.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I expect that a number of Senators will want to debate the Iraq amendment tomorrow. I look forward to a good debate on this matter.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Adam Morrison and Tad Gallion be granted floor privileges during the debate on this measure.