Floor Statements

Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield for a question?

May I inquire as to how much longer the distinguished Senator will be speaking?

I thank the Senator. If the Senator will yield further momentarily, I ask the Chair, what is the parliamentary situation?

I thank the Chair and the distinguished Senator for yielding.

Mr. President, for how long am I recognized?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, today marks the 136th day of the fiscal year. The fiscal year is over one-third complete. We will be debating House Joint Resolution 20, a joint funding resolution for the nine remaining appropriations bills that were not completed during the 109th Congress. The Republican leadership during the 109th Congress left us with a great deal of unfinished appropriations business. Only 2 of the 11 appropriations bills were enacted into law; 13 of the 15 Federal Departments are struggling to cope with a very restrictive continuing resolution which expires at midnight this coming Thursday.

As I noted last week, this was not the fault of the Appropriations Committee. Under the able leadership of Chairman Thad Cochran, all of the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bills were reported from the committee by July 20. All--a-l-l--all of the bills were bipartisan bills approved by unanimous votes. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership of the 109th Congress chose not to bring domestic appropriations bills to the floor before the election and then chose not to finish those bills after the election. Instead, Congress passed a series of restrictive continuing resolutions.

If Congress were to simply extend the existing continuing resolutions, we would leave huge problems for veterans and military medical care, for education programs, law enforcement programs, funding for global AIDS, funding for energy independence, and funding for agencies that provide key services to the elderly, such as the Social Security Administration and the 1-800-Medicare call center.

In December, the new House of Representatives appropriations chairman, David Obey, and I plotted a bipartisan and bicameral course for dealing with this problem. Based on that plan, there were intense negotiations--intense negotiations--in January which included the majority and the minority in the House and the Senate.

I, as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, consulted with several Senators, and especially with Senator Thad Cochran, several times during that process, and his ranking members and their staffs were included throughout the process.

The resolution that is now before the Senate is the product of these efforts. The resolution, which totals $463.5 billion, meets several goals. Let me repeat the figure: $463.5 billion. That would be $463.50 for every minute that has passed since our Lord, Jesus Christ, was born.

Get this. These are the goals: First, funding stays within the $873.8 billion statutory cap on spending, the cap which was set during the 109th Congress and which equals the President's request.

Second, the legislation does not--does not--include earmarks. We eliminated over 9,300 earmarks. Hopefully, the ethics reform bill will establish greater transparency and accountability in the earmarking process. Once the ethics reform bill is in place, we will establish a more open, disciplined,

and accountable process for congressional directives in the fiscal year 2008 bill.

Third, there is no--there is no--emergency spending in this resolution.

Finally--finally--essential national priorities receive a boost in the legislation. To help pay for these priorities, we cut over $11 billion from 125 different accounts and we froze spending at the 2006 level for 450 accounts. These national priorities have broad bipartisan support, as noted in the White House Statement of Administration Policy. Many of these increases reflect administration priorities.

For veterans care, we include $32.3 billion, an increase of $3.6 billion over the fiscal year 2006 level. For defense health initiatives, we include $21.2 billion, an increase of $1.4 billion over fiscal year 2006. To provide care for military members and their families, including treating servicemembers wounded in action in Iraq and Afghanistan, for the Labor, HHS, and Education bill, funding is increased by $2.3 billion.

Title I grants for our schools are funded at $12.8 billion, an increase of $125 million over fiscal year 2006, which will provide approximately 38,000 additional low-income children with intensive reading and math instruction. The legislation also funds the title I school improvement fund at $125 million to target assistance to the 6,700 schools that failed to meet No Child Left Behind requirements in the 2005-2006 school year. For the first time in 4 years, we will have an increase in the maximum Pell higher education grant from $260 to $431.

The National Institutes of Health are funded at $28.9 billion, an increase of $620 million over fiscal year 2006.

Three hundred million dollars is included for the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration. Let me say that again. Three hundred million dollars is included for the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration, an increase of $23 million over fiscal year 2006, to allow the agency to continue its national efforts to hire and train new mine safety inspectors for safety in the Nation's 2,000 coal mines.

The legislation increases funding for Federal, State, and local law enforcement by $1.6 billion. According to the FBI, last year violent crime rose--went up--in America for the first time in 15 years.

Under the continuing resolution now in law, highway funding is frozen--frozen--at the 2006 level. Under this joint funding resolution, the Federal-Aid Highway Program is fully funded at the level guaranteed in the highway law.

The joint resolution includes $4.8 billion for global AIDS and malaria programs, an increase of $1.4 billion over fiscal year 2006.

Last week there was debate concerning the level of funding for the 2005 base closure and realignment program. The resolution that is before the Senate provides $2.5 billion for the base closure and realignment 2005 program. This level is $1 billion--I say again--this level is $1 billion higher than the level available in the current continuing resolution the President signed on December 9. However, this level is $3.1 billion below the level requested by the President. I assure all Senators that the Appropriations Committee, of which I have the honor of being chairman, intends to address the $3.1 billion increase when the Senate takes up the $100 billion supplemental the President sent to the Congress last week. Last week. I have every expectation that the supplemental will be before the Senate next month. This being February, I have every expectation that the supplemental will be before the Senate next month.

Now, let me take a moment to review how we came to be where we are on funding the base closure account. Last year, under the very able and competent leadership of Chairman Thad Cochran, Senator Hutchison, and Senator Feinstein, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported out the Military Construction bill on July 20, which was over 6 months ago, and the bill included $5.2 billion for the base closure account. Unfortunately--I say unfortunately--that bill was never sent to the President. The President triggered the problem when he vowed to veto the fiscal year 2007 Defense bill unless the Senate added $5 billion-- $5 billion; that is $5 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born--$5 billion to the Senate version of the Defense bill. This is the same $5 billion the Senate Appropriations Committee had put toward addressing needs, such as funding the base closure account and funding veterans medical care.

The Republican leadership of the 109th Congress followed the President's lead, appropriated the $5 billion to the Defense bill, and did not send to the President the Military Construction-Veterans bill or eight of the other appropriations bills. Funding for BRAC was among the many victims of that decision. Thus, and therefore, it was left to the 110th Congress to solve the budgetary mess left by that decision.

While the extra $1 billion added to BRAC in this resolution does not bring the program up to the level of the President's budget request, it is sufficient--it is sufficient--to address one of the Defense Department's most urgent BRAC priorities; namely, the construction of facilities needed to bring U.S. troops back from Europe. The remaining $3.1 billion for the base closure effort can and will be addressed through the supplemental next month.

This is not a perfect resolution, but it is a thoughtful resolution. By complying with the statutory cap on spending, it is a fiscally disciplined resolution. By eliminating earmarks, it provides Congress with time to pass ethics reform legislation to increase transparency and accountability. By targeting resources toward national priorities, such as veterans and military medical care, we--the pronoun ``we''-- solve the most distressing of the problems created by the existing continuing resolution.

Now, looking ahead to the fiscal year 2008 bill, I am committed to working with my friend and colleague, Senator Thad Cochran, the ranking member from Mississippi, to bring--hear me--to bring 12 individual bipartisan and fiscally responsible fiscal year 2008 appropriation bills to the floor. When? When? This year.

However, on this, the 136th day of fiscal year 2007, adoption of House Joint Resolution 20 will ensure that we answer some of our Nation's most pressing needs and avoid an unnecessary Government shutdown. It is time to act. I urge swift--not Tom Swift, but swift adoption of the resolution.

I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum and I ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally against both sides.

Mr. President, I can do this, I think in 5 or 6 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Am I recognized?

Mr. President, today is the 136th day of fiscal year 2007. It is

past time to complete the remaining nine fiscal year 2007 appropriations bills. Agencies have limped along through October, November, December, January, and half of February based on a very restrictive continuing resolution. Thirteen of the fifteen departments do not know how much money they will have for a fiscal year that is now one-third gone, one-third over.

This is a deplorable way to run a government, any government, specifically the Federal Government--this Government.

Under the existing continuing resolution, our veterans hospitals are confronting the need to deny health care to 500,000 veterans and to force 850,000 veterans to wait longer for their care. H.J. Res. 20 includes an increase of $3.6 billion to solve the problem. On this, the 136th day of fiscal year 2007, it is time to act.

Under the existing continuing resolution, the Social Security Administration is facing longer lines for approving benefits, and furloughs of employees. The 1-800 Medicare call centers, which have received over 35 million calls from the elderly with questions about their coverage, will have to shut down for the final months of the fiscal year. H.J. Res. 20 solves those problems. It is time to act.

Under the existing continuing resolution, the Department of Defense will have to delay elective surgeries, nonemergency care, and increase the cost of some pharmaceuticals for Active-Duty members, their families, and retirees. H.J. Res. 20 includes an increase of $1.4 billion to solve the problem. It is time to act.

Under the existing continuing resolution, funding for highways and transit is frozen at fiscal year 2006 levels, putting 160,000 jobs at risk. H.J. Res. 20 fully funds the highway and transit guarantees. It is time to act.

Under the existing continuing resolution, no funds are provided to the Department of Defense to build the facilities needed to bring our troops back home from Europe. H.J. Res. 20 includes $1 billion to solve that problem. It is time, again I say, to act.

According to the White House Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator, under the existing continuing resolution 110,000 to 175,000 people will likely die of HIV-related causes. H.J. Res. 20 includes a $1.4 billion increase to help HIV victims. It is time to act.

H.J. Res. 20 complies with the $872.8 billion statutory cap on spending. It contains no earmarks and, I should say, eliminates 9,300 prior earmarks.

Hallelujah. It eliminates 9,300 prior earmarks.

H.J. Res. 20 cuts 125 accounts below fiscal year 2006 levels and freezes 450 accounts at the 2006 level. H.J. Res. 20 is tough, it is disciplined, and it addresses critical needs. It is time to act.

I urge Members to vote aye on the cloture motion and on the resolution.

Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?

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

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

Mr. President, few would argue that these are challenging times for U.S. foreign policy. Faced with threats from a growing radical Islamic ideology, tense situations in North Korea and Iran, an escalating civil war in Iraq, humanitarian crises of biblical proportions in Africa and elsewhere, and countless other challenges, it is clear that we need as perhaps never before the hand of experience guiding our foreign policy.

It is no secret that I have disagreed--deeply disagreed--with many of the foreign policy decisions made by this administration. I said in 2002 that it was a mistake to invade Iraq, and my judgement has never wavered: the President was wrong to start this war, he was wrong to continue this war, and he is wrong to escalate this war.

However, we are in Iraq now. American men and women are caught in the cross-fire of sectarian warfare that has been brewing for centuries. And I believe that the way out is primarily political and diplomatic, not solely through the use of military force. The recommendations of the Iraq Study Group are just the latest reminder that we must engage diplomatically with other nations--not only with our friends and allies, but also with our competitors and even our enemies--to seek new solutions.

That is why the leadership at the State Department is so important, and why I am pleased that last night the Senate voted to confirm the nomination of Ambassador John Negroponte to become Deputy Secretary of State. I had an opportunity to meet with Ambassador Negroponte recently, and I am encouraged by his long track record of service to his country, as a foreign service officer and ambassador in many different regions of the world. In his most recent assignments, he has proven himself capable of performing in the most challenging of roles, as U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and as the Director of National Intelligence. Prior to that, he served as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, where he earned this high praise from another diplomat, former Secretary General Kofi Annan:

He's an outstanding professional, a great diplomat and a

wonderful ambassador.

When I met with Ambassador Negroponte, I conveyed to him my strong belief that we must rely on diplomacy and peaceful negotiation to reach lasting stability in the Middle East. I also emphasized that pursuing some sort of Sunni vs. Shi'a alignment in the Middle East as the balance of power in the region shifts is not in the best interests of the United States or the world. I am encouraged that Ambassador Negroponte seems to agree with me, and I look forward to working with him and other administration officials as we seek a path toward peace.

Ambassador Negroponte has demonstrated the savvy and expertise of a world-class diplomat. Our Nation needs experienced professionals who can rise above the fray of partisan politics guiding our foreign policy, particularly in such turbulent times as these. I look forward to working with Ambassador Negroponte in his new role as Deputy Secretary of State.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 13, 2007, at 9:45 a.m. in 328A, Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of this committee hearing will be to consider ``Rural Development-- Challenges and Opportunities.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a business meeting during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 13, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this meeting will be to consider and approve the following legislation following bills: S. 184, S. 509, S. 385, S. 93, S. 84, S. 39, and to make nominations for promotion in the United States Coast Guard.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 13, 2007, at 10 a.m. in room SD-106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change, examining the economic impacts of climate change and stabilizing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet for a hearing on Tuesday, February 12, 2007, at 10 a.m. in SD-106. The purpose of the hearing is to review the report and recommendations of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 13, 2007, at 10 a.m. in SD-430.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, February 13, 2007, at 10 a.m. for a hearing titled ``The Homeland Security Department's Budget Submission for Fiscal Year 2008.''

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 hearing entitled ``Alternatives for Easing the Small Business Health Care Burden,'' on Tuesday, February 13, 2007, beginning at 10 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 Tuesday, February 13, 2007, to hold a hearing on Veterans Programs for Fiscal Year 2008.

The hearing will take place in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building beginning at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 13, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I think the Senator from Vermont has to go to a meeting quickly. How much time do you need?

I yield to the Senator for that purpose.

Mr. President, Senators know of my good nature, and so some of them want me to yield, which I will do. I am the President pro tempore. I wouldn't ask another President pro tempore to do that. But may I yield to my seatmate, Mr. Dodd.

Of course. I yield to my friend from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy.

Mr. President, last week my friend--my friend--Senator Thad Cochran, the very distinguished member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, achieved a milestone in his career of public service to the people of Mississippi and the United States. Senator Cochran cast his 10,000th vote, his 10,000th rollcall vote, a record only 27 other Senators have achieved since the founding of this great Republic.

A Senator's vote is so much more than a number on the final tally. Each and every vote represents an investment of time, research, and analysis on the part of himself and, in many cases, on the part of the staff, also on a given issue. Each vote is an evaluation of what best serves one's constituents, one's State, and one's country.

Over these many years, I have personally noted that Senator Cochran approaches his responsibility with diligence. I have many reasons to know that. He approaches his votes with diligence, with a fine and keen intelligence, with sterling courage--he is from Mississippi--with courage and compassion.

This son of public-spirited and politically aware schoolteachers demonstrated all these qualities at an early age as an Eagle Scout--I was never an Eagle Scout; I was a Tenderfoot--as a valedictorian--I know what that means--class valedictorian, as a varsity athlete--I don't know what that means--as a varsity athlete in four sports. Man, that is something, a varsity athlete in four sports. He is a hard worker--I know what that means--at whatever task to which he applies himself. I can't say much more than that.

Senator Cochran achieved a scintillating academic record at the University of Mississippi School of Law and went on to serve as a naval officer in the Armed Forces of the United States. The discipline and the critical thinking he learned in those venues has served him well during his tenure in the Congress.

The senior Senator from Mississippi has been a Member of the Senate since 1978, and 1978 was when I was serving as the Senate majority leader. He served three terms in the House of Representatives prior to that--and so did I, three terms in the House of Representatives.

Throughout this time, Senator Cochran has paid particularly close attention to the needs of his constituents in Mississippi. That was his duty. Most

recently, after his home State was hit by the worst natural disaster in the history of the United States, the distinguished Senator--a colleague of his has already spoken of that but I mention it here-- Senator Cochran used his role as the chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations to advance legislation that provided over $87 billion--that is ``billion;'' a billion is one dollar for every minute since Jesus Christ was born--Mr. Cochran provided over $87 billion in supplemental Federal assistance to the States affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

A country western artist once asked in song ``where would we be without the love of a woman?'' ``Where would we be without the love of a woman?'' Undoubtedly, the love and the support of his wife of over 42 years, Rose--I remember Rose--helped Senator Cochran achieve this great milestone. As I have risen to recognize the Senator, I also wish to salute Rose. She was a beautiful lady, very warm smile, Rose.

Again, I congratulate my colleague whose record in this Senate has been that of a true Christian gentleman and a man of genuine political humility.

I yield the floor.

Hear, hear.

Madam President, I want to assure all Senators that the Appropriations Committee intends to address the $3.1 billion increase proposed in the Senator's amendment when the Senate takes up the $100 billion supplemental that the President sent to the Congress this week. I have every expectation that the supplemental will be before the Senate next month.

Today marks the 131st day of fiscal year 2007. We are debating H.J. Res. 20, a joint funding resolution for the nine remaining appropriations bills that were not completed during the 109th Congress. The Republican leadership, during the 109th Congress, left us with a great deal of unfinished business in the appropriations process. Only 2 of the 11 appropriations bills were enacted into law. Thirteen of the fifteen Federal departments--all but Defense and Homeland Security--are limping along through February 15 under a very restrictive continuing resolution.

This is not the fault of the Appropriations Committee. Under the very able leadership of Chairman Thad Cochran, all of the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bills were reported from the committee by July 20. All of the bills were bipartisan bills, with all but one of the bills approved, 28 to nothing, in committee. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership chose not to bring domestic appropriations bills to the floor before the election and then chose not to finish those bills after the election. Instead, Congress passed three very restrictive continuing resolutions.

These resolutions, if simply extended, would leave huge problems for veterans and military medical care, education programs, law enforcement programs, funding for global AIDS, for energy independence, and for agencies that provide key services to the elderly, such as the Social Security Administration and the 1-800-MEDICARE call centers.

In December, I sat down with my friend, Senator Reid, and the new House Appropriations chairman, Dave Obey, to plot a course for dealing with this problem. We charted a course for developing a bipartisan and bicameral funding resolution that the House and Senate could pass quickly. During January, there were intense negotiations, which included the majority and the minority in the House and Senate. I consulted with Senator Thad Cochran several times during that process, and his ranking members and their staffs were included throughout the process.

The resolution that passed the House last week and is now before the Senate is the product of those efforts.

The resolution, which totals $463.5 billion and provides funding for the nine appropriations bills that were not completed during the 109th Congress, meets several goals. Namely, first, funding stays within the $872.8 billion statutory cap on spending, the cap which was set during the 109th Congress and which equals the President's request. Second, the legislation does not include earmarks--hear me--the legislation does not include earmarks. The Appropriations Committee took the lead in confronting the earmarks issue. We eliminated over 9,300 earmarks. We will have a temporary moratorium on earmarks until Congress passes the ethics reform bill. Hopefully, that bill will establish greater transparency and accountability in the earmarking process. Once the ethics reform bill is in place with its added transparency, we will establish a more open, more disciplined, and more accountable process for congressional directives in the fiscal year 2008 bills.

Third, there is no emergency spending in this resolution.

Fourth, for most agencies, funding is set at the fiscal year 2006 level. This formula replaces the current restrictive formula which was based on the lower of the fiscal year 2006 or the unsustainable House- passed level.

Finally, the essential national priorities receive a boost in the legislation. To help pay for these essential national priorities, we cut over $11 billion from 125 different accounts and we froze spending at the 2006 level for 450 accounts.

While we decided to include a continuing resolution formula for funding most agencies, it was essential that we, on a bipartisan basis, make choices to deal with the many problems that would result from simply extending the current continuing resolution.

As noted in the White House Statement of Administration Policy, many of these increases also reflect administration priorities. For example, for veterans medical care, we included $32.3 billion, an increase of $3.6 billion over the fiscal year 2006 level, so that the VA can continue to meet the growing demand for health care for our veterans. For defense health initiatives, we included $21.2 billion, an increase of $1.2 billion over fiscal year 2006, to provide care for military members and their families, including treating servicemembers wounded in action in Iraq and Afghanistan. Consistent with the fiscal year 2007 Defense Authorization Act, the President's proposal to charge members of the military $735 million for their health care is rejected.

For the Labor, HHS, and Education bill, funding is increased by $2.3 billion, $7 billion above the President's request. Title I grants for our schools are funded at $12.8 billion, an increase of $125 million over fiscal year 2006, which will provide approximately 38,000 additional low-income children with intensive reading and math instruction. In addition, the legislation funds the title I school improvement fund at $125 million to target assistance to the 6,700 schools that failed to meet the No Child Left Behind requirements in the 2005-2006 school year.

For the first time in 4 years, Pell grants will expand thanks to the $13.6 billion included in this legislation, an increase of $615.4 million over fiscal year 2006 that will increase the maximum Pell grant by $260 to $4,310.

The National Institutes of Health are funded at $28.9 billion, an increase of $620 million over fiscal year 2006, for research to cure debilitating and often deadly diseases. Community health centers would receive $1.9 billion, an increase of $207 million, to finance more than 300 new or expanded health centers.

Three hundred million is included for the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration, MSHA, an increase of $23 million over fiscal year 2006 and $13 million more than the request, to allow the agency to continue its national efforts to hire and train new mine safety inspectors for safety in the Nation's 2,000 coal mines.

The legislation increases funding for Federal, State, and local law enforcement by $1.6 billion. According to the FBI, last year violent crime rose in America for the first time in 15 years. In response, this legislation directs $6 billion to the FBI, an increase of $200 million over fiscal year 2006, to ensure that the FBI not only retains all of its special agents but also completes the effort to double the number of intelligence analysts hired since September 11, 2001. Other law enforcement programs receiving support include State and local law enforcement grants, the Judiciary, Treasury antiterrorism efforts, and other crime prevention programs.

Under the continuing resolution now in law, highway funding is frozen at the 2006 level. Under this joint funding resolution, the Federal aid highway program is fully funded at the level guaranteed in the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act by providing an obligation limitation of $39.1 billion for fiscal year 2007, $3.5 billion over the fiscal year 2006 enacted level.

The joint resolution includes $4.8 billion for Global AIDS and Malaria programs, an increase of $1.4 billion over fiscal year 2006.

The Food and Drug Administration and the Food Safety and Inspection Service receive increases of $220 million over fiscal year 2006 in order to improve food and drug safety and to combat the threat of pandemic flu.

We also include funds for technology and innovation. The Department of Energy, Office of Science receives an increase of $200 million over fiscal year 2006; the National Science Foundation receives an increase of $335 million, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology receives an increase of $50 million.

In an effort to promote energy independence, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs will receive an increase of $300 million over fiscal year 2006.

Finally, we also include $785 million to provide agencies with 50 percent of the cost of the January 2007 pay raise in order to avoid RIFS and furloughs. The resolution will avoid the service delays for Social Security and the 1-800-Medicare call centers that would result from extending the current continuing resolution.

This is not a perfect resolution--we don't claim that--but it is a thoughtful resolution. By complying with the statutory cap on spending, it is a fiscally disciplined resolution. By eliminating earmarks, it provides Congress with time to pass ethics reform legislation to increase transparency and accountability. By targeting resources toward national priorities, such as veterans and military medical care, we solve the most distressing of the problems created by the existing continuing resolution.

On February 2, 2007--that was Groundhog Day, wasn't it--I received a letter from the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled American Veterans, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and AMVETS, urging quick passage of this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Madam President, adoption of this joint resolution will ensure that we answer some of our Nation's most pressing needs and avoid a totally unnecessary Government shutdown. The last time each of the appropriations bills was signed into law by October 1, the beginning of the fiscal year, was 1994. I was the chairman of the Appropriations Committee that year. I am committed to working with my friend and colleague, Senator Thad Cochran, to bring 12 individual, bipartisan, and fiscally disciplined fiscal year 2008 appropriations bills to the floor this year.

I urge swift adoption of the resolution. I thank all Senators.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

The Independent Budget

a budget for veterans by veterans

February 2, 2007.

Hon. Robert C. Byrd,

Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Byrd: On behalf of the co-authors of The

Independent Budget--AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans,

Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars--

we urge you to quickly pass H.J. Res. 20, a bill making

continuing appropriations for FY 2007 for the federal

government, including the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Currently, the VA is operating at FY 2006 funding levels.

The stop-gap budget bill, or continuing resolution, funding

much of the federal government for the current fiscal year,

includes a $3.6 billion increase for the Department of

Veterans Affairs while spending for many other agencies was

held at the 2006 level. Approving funding for the VA at

levels included in H.J. Res. 20 would show that the Senate

believes veterans are a national priority.

Any attempt to retreat from the levels established in this

legislation will have a drastic impact on veterans' health

care and benefits services provided to the men and women who

have served and sacrificed so much for this country. Without

this critically needed funding, the VA will be forced to

place further freezes on hiring of critical staff. It will

also lead to additional canceled appointments and longer

waiting times. The VA will also be unable to address the

rapidly growing claims backlog.

We hope that the Senate will show its support for the men

and women who have in the past and continue to place

themselves in harm's way. With these troops still in the

field, now is not the time to allow politics to get in the

way of doing what is right.

Sincerely,

David G. Greineder,

National Legislative Director, AMVETS.

Carl Blake,

Acting National Legislative Director, Paralyzed Veterans of

America.

Joseph A. Violante,

National Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans.

Dennis Cullinan,

National Legislative Director, Veterans of Foreign Wars of

the United States.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his views. I am absolutely committed to bringing 12 individual bipartisan and fiscally responsible fiscal year 2008 bills to the floor this year. However, for the nine remaining 2007 bills that we must have, we are now 131 days into the fiscal year. Over one-third of the fiscal year is gone, it is over, it is past.

I very much appreciate the Senator and his colleagues for joining me in the bipartisan development of this bill, and I believe we must move forward.

Again, I thank the Senator very much for his cooperation.

I was about to suggest the absence of a quorum, but I yield the floor. I see the distinguished Senator seeking recognition.

Mr. President, will the very distinguished Senator just allow me 1 minute to make a response to the discussions that have been going on here? Just for 1 minute.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I thank the Senator.

I want to assure all Senators that this resolution does not reduce funding for AIDS. In fact, it has significant increases with regard to funding for base closures. This resolution has a $1 billion increase above the levels available under the current continuing resolution. The remaining $3.1 billion that the Senator from Texas is seeking can be addressed--and I assure her can be addressed--in the war supplemental that the Senate will consider next month. There is no need to cut funding for the FBI, the NIH, for NASA, or for our Nation's highways.

I thank the Senator, and I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 8, 2007, at 11:30 a.m. to mark up an original bill entitled ``Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.''

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, February 8, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to evaluate the present and future of public safety communications.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 8, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on issues relating to labor, immigration, law enforcement, and economic conditions in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 8, 2007, at 9:15 a.m. to hold a hearing on the fiscal year 2008 budget request for international affairs.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 8, 2007 at 10 a.m. in SH-216.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, February 8, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting to consider pending legislative business, to be followed immediately by an oversight hearing on diabetes in Indian Country, with particular focus on the Special Diabetes Program for Indians.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, February 8, 2007, at 10 a.m. in Dirksen Room 226.

Agenda

I. Nominations

Norman Randy Smith, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit; Marcia Morales Howard, to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Florida; John Alfred Jarvey, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

II. Bills

S. 188, To revise the short title of the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, Salazar;

S. 214, To amend chapter 35 of title 28, To Preserve the Independence of U.S. Attorneys, Feinstein;

S. 316, The Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act, Kohl, Grassley, Leahy, Schumer, Feingold; S. 236, The Federal Agency Data Mining Reporting Act of 2007, Feingold, Sununu, Leahy, Akaka, Kennedy.

III. Resolutions

S. Res. 23, National School Counseling Week, Murray;

S. Res. 36, Honoring women's health advocate Cynthia Doles Dailard, Snowe;

S. Res. 37, Designating March 26, 2007 as National Support the Troops Day, Stabenow;

S. Con. Res. 5, Honoring the life of Percy Lavon Julian, a pioneer in the field of organic chemistry and the first and only African-American chemist to be inducted into the National Academy of Sciences, Obama.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 8, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Would the Senator say that again, please?

Could do what, may I ask?

What is the order that has been previously entered?

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, what is the request?

Is that the order that has been established or is that the request?

But the order as established is what, may I ask the Chair?

Well, what is the order?

Mr. President, I do not mean to be contentious, but what is the order without the request?

Following that, if there is no sequence laid out, I would like for my time to follow the Senator from Illinois, and then we can talk about my time if Senators want some of it.

Reserving the right to object, is there a previous order to the effect that I have an hour?

All right. The previous order is that I have an hour. When should I have the hour under the previous order?

I don't know yet, but I want the hour.

I want the hour.

An hour is a full hour.

As of now, I want the hour.

Yes. My objection as of this point----

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. SCHUMER addressed the Chair.

Well, before that, let me----

Mr. President, had an order been previously entered for me to have an hour?

All right. I thank the Chair.

Let's proceed under the order.

The Senator from Illinois, all right.

No, no, no. I asked----

Mr. President, I do not mean to be discourteous to my leader. I understand he yielded the floor.

Very well.

And I am going to speak often. I do not speak often.

That is all right.

Mr. President, I yield for that purpose.

Does the Senator wish me to yield at this point?

Mr. President, I am a reasonable man, a reasonable Senator. I yield 5 minutes now, and without losing my right to the floor. I ask unanimous consent that I may do that.

Mr. President, will the Senator allow me to intervene here?

Mr. President, I do not intend to take 60 minutes. But I do not want to waste 60 minutes before I start.

Mr. President, I will try to help if the Senator will let me get started.

I thank the distinguished Senator.

You bet.

Mr. LOTT [continuing]. Into the situation in Iraq. That is as it should be. I want to make it clear, this is not an effort to block debate. We could get an agreement, vitiate this vote this afternoon, and go right now into the debate. I think we ought to do that. What are the numbers and what resolutions will actually be offered, our leaders are going to work out.

But I do want to say this, too: If we really want to get to the debate about what is going to be the future there, we ought to be doing it in some way other than these nonbinding resolutions. This is a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing, so I question the whole process that we are under. I don't mind going forward. In fact, I want to go forward and have a full debate about what is going on here.

I recently had occasion to be at a meeting with a number of world leaders, and the discussion went back and forth. Finally, it came down to this: What do we do in Iraq? Stay, leave, or what? Well, they said: No, no, no, you can't leave. You have to stay. Then the question was, or then what? Well, they had no answer.

The President has been criticized for not coming forth with some changes to change the status quo. He did. Now he is being criticized with what he came

up with in this plan that we are going to be voting on later. I don't know if it is perfect. I don't know if it will work. But I do know this: he is the Commander in Chief.

We do need to change the dynamics there. We do need to go forward in a way that will produce a positive result or decide what else we are going to do. That is what the Senate, in the minds of our forefathers, was intended to do.

Let's stop questioning each other's motives or threatening to block this, block that. Let's work this out. Let's have a full debate on this issue, beginning tonight, going forward tomorrow. I think everybody will be satisfied with the results, once we actually get to some votes.

I yield the floor.

How much time do I now have?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, the great labor leader--and I mean great labor leader--and legendary president of the United Mine Workers of America, John L. Lewis, pleaded the cause of America's working men and women, as he said, ``not in the quavering tones of a feeble mendicant asking alms, but in the thundering voice of the captain of a mighty host, demanding the rights to which free people, free men are entitled.''

This was the voice of a true coal miner. I know that voice. I grew up in the coalfields of southern West Virginia. My dad--not my father, my dad--Titus Dalton Byrd, was a coal miner. He belonged to the United Mine Workers, then district 29, now district 17, local union 5771. My coal miner dad worked in the coal mines with my father-in-law, my wife's father, Fred James. My wife's brother-in-law was killed by a slate fall in a coal mine. My wife's brother-in-law died of pneumoconiosis, black lung.

I--yes, I--married a coal miner's daughter. You have heard the song ``I'm a Coal Miner's Daughter.'' By whom? By Loretta Lynn.

I married a coal miner's daughter a long time ago. We were married when we were 19. She was 19; I was 19. That marriage lasted almost 69 years, until her death. And today she is in heaven. She is in heaven. Yes, she is in heaven today. I believe that.

Together, my wife Erma and I--mostly Erma--ran a grocery store, yes, in Sophia, WV. Our customers were coal miners for the most part. Our neighbors were coal miners. Our friends were coal miners and others, but coal miners, surely.

Today my constituents in West Virginia, the core--certainly, the core in my viewpoint, but my constituents--includes coal miners. When I speak about coal miners and their safety underground, I am speaking about coal miners, my people, my family. I am speaking from the bottom of my soul when I speak about coal miners. It is a different breed of people, coal miners. Yes, they would leave the open air and sunshine and go back into the bowels of the Earth to search for their brothers, their brother coal miners--Black or White, it doesn't make any difference. They are all black when they come out of that mine. But they are all coal miners. They are West Virginians. I am talking about my constituents. I am speaking from the heart because that is the heart of my background, the coal miners.

I know what it is to stand at the mouth of a mine after an explosion. I know what it is to see the widows and the children who are left to shed their tears and to bury their loved ones. I know. I have helped to carry coal miners who had died around the mountainside. Their coffins are very heavy. I am no big man, never was, but I have helped to carry those coffins. And they are heavy, especially when we are walking on hillsides, yes. So I know what I am speaking about, and I am speaking from my heart. That is where I grew up. I expect to be buried there, yes, in the mountain soil of West Virginia.

The coal miner is proud--yes, you better believe it--of his profession. He is patriotic in that he mines the coal that fuels the American economy. You see those lights up there that are lighting this wonderful, beautiful Chamber of the Senate, the only Chamber of its kind in the world, the Senate, yes. The miner fuels those electric lights that surround this Chamber.

He, the coal miner, is religious in that he trusts in almighty God to keep him safe in his dirty, dangerous job; and he trusts in that God to keep and protect his family, while he, the coal miner, is away. He is courageous--you better believe it--in that he goes underground every day, even though he is surrounded by life-threatening hazards; they are overhead. I have been in the mines. I was not a coal miner, but I was in there with my dad--not my father but my dad. I have been in those mines. I heard the timbers, the tree trunks holding up the tons and tons and tons of earth and rock overhead to keep those rocks from crashing to the Earth and killing the miners. I could hear those timbers cracking. When I was in there, I heard the timbers--these trees, as they were. They are cut off, and they are 8, 10, 12, 15 feet, whatever the height of the covering earth is from the floor there; they were coming down. I heard them timbers cracking under that weight.

Coal miners provide so much for my country, for your country, for their country. And we--Robert Byrd, Senator Rockefeller, and other Senators and Members in the House--owe them, the coal miners, our best efforts in securing safer working conditions. Not as their alms but their right.

In 1977, the Congress passed--I was in this Senate in 1977--what is arguably the toughest worker safety law in the history of the world, the Federal Mine and Safety Health Act. I helped to write that law. I helped to champion its enactment in the Congress of the United States. It created the Mine Safety and Health Administration, MSHA, within the U.S. Department of Labor--MSHA, the Mine Safety and Health Administration, was in the Department of Labor--and the position of Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine, Safety, and Health. I helped. I was here.

The opening passages of the MINE Act tell us all we need to know about what MSHA's priorities ought to be:

The first priority and concern of all in the coal or other

mining industry must be the health and safety of its most

precious resource: the miner, the coal miner.

In recent years, that obligation has been neglected. It has been eroded by a Department of Labor that emphasizes so-called ``compliance assistance'' programs and has tried to recast its role as a technical consultant to business rather than a protector of working men and women. Let me read that again. In recent years, that obligation has been neglected. It has been eroded by a Department of Labor that emphasizes so-called ``compliance assistance'' programs and has tried to recast its role as a technical consultant to business rather than a protector of working men and women; namely, coal miners.

The Department's obligation to protect the safety of the coal miners has been eroded by arbitrary spending targets that are designed to appease the White House Budget Office rather than ensure the safety of the coal miners in the coal fields. These policies have fostered the highest casualty rates in the coalfields in more than a decade. Forty- seven coal miners perished--died, dead--last year, half of them in West Virginia. In the opening days of 2006, our Nation mourned as 12 coal miners--yes, my darling wife was on her deathbed at that time in the opening days of 2006; that was last year. Our Nation mourned after a 40-hour rescue effort was unable to save 12 miners at the Sago mine in Upshur County, WV. Our Nation watched with disbelief as an underground mine fire, days later, at the Aracoma Alma mine in Logan County, WV, killed 2 more miners after another exhausting 40-hour rescue effort. The disbelief--yes, the disbelief--soon turned to outrage as congressional hearings and investigative news reports revealed an atrocious safety record at the Sago and Alma mines. The Department of Labor had been lax in assessing penalties for repeat violations. When penalties were assessed, habitual violators were too often given minor slaps on the wrist or had their fines reduced or negated within the appeals process.

Congressional hearings revealed the Department of Labor had abandoned or

had withdrawn countless safety standards prior to the Sago and Alma tragedies, leaving coal miners underground with outdated emergency breathing and communications equipment. How would you like to be a coal miner in those conditions? Emergency preparedness and rescue training had been allowed to fall by the wayside, as the safety of coal miners became a secondary concern to what? To rising corporate profits. Shame, shame. This is the lives of men and women underground, in the bowels of the Earth.

The Department of Labor had allowed the Federal budget for mine safety to be squeezed by lesser priorities, reducing the number of coal mine safety inspectors by 217 since January 2001. The Government Accountability Office--the General Accounting Office--had warned as early as 2003 about the timeliness of inspections, and the Mine Safety and Health Administration, which was created to be an ever-vigilant advocate for the safety of coal miners, had been failing in its duty. Mine safety budgets and regulations had been allowed to erode at the Sago mine.

MSHA could have required better communications. That alone might have saved those miners. It could have mandated better emergency preparedness. It could have been more vigorous in its inspections and assessments of penalties. If MSHA, the Mine Safety and Health Administration, had used its authorities under the Mine Act to the fullest extent possible, those miners who perished at Sago and Alma might have survived. They might have been alive today. Who knows.

Coal mining communities across Appalachia were outraged by these findings, and they demanded action. They marched through the Halls of the Congress carrying pictures of their husbands, their brothers, their sons who had perished in the coalfield.

In response, my illustrious colleague, Senator Jay Rockefeller, and I, along with the entire West Virginia delegation in the House of Representatives--two Democrats and one Republican--introduced mine safety legislation to force the Department of Labor to act. The chairman and ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Senators Mike Enzi and Ted Kennedy, rallied to our cause. Our offices began to craft, to shape, to write important and much needed mine safety legislation.

By the end of May--May, O May, when the flowers bloom--the Senate had passed legislation to add the first new safety requirements to the Mine Act since 1977. The MINER Act required additional oxygen. Oh, I can only live with oxygen. You can only live with oxygen. You, Mr. President, can only live with oxygen. You can't live without it. No, I mean by that, without it, a few minutes. Oxygen. It has been around since Adam and Eve inhabited the Garden of Eden.

The MINER Act required additional oxygen supplies underground. It required emergency wireless communications within 3 years. It required improvements in emergency preparedness, rescue teams, and accident notification.

Separately, I worked to secure $36 million in the fiscal year 2006 Iraq supplemental for the Mine Safety and Health Administration, MSHA, to hire additional mine safety inspectors and for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, to expedite the introduction of emergency breathing and communications equipment into the coal mines.

Who am I? I am a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Yes, I am the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. So I worked to do that.

By June--the merry month of June--the Congress had passed the MINER Act and added $36 million to the Federal budget for mine safety. By the end of the summer, the Department of Labor had pledged, with the funds that I, a coal miner's boy, had secured, to hire 170 new coal inspectors by the end of the fiscal year 2007. By the end of calendar year 2006, the coal mining industry had at last focused on getting emergency communications and breathing equipment into the coal mines. That's late, isn't it? By the end of the calendar year 2006, while coal mining has been going on for decades--yes, yes, back beyond the beginning of the 20th century until now--by the end of the calendar year 2006, the coal mining industry had at last focused on getting emergency communications equipment and breathing equipment into the coal mines of America.

The question before the Congress now--do it here, do it now; do it here, do it now. Have you heard that on the radio or TV? Do it here; do it now. The question before the Congress now is, what happens next?

We know that extensive oversight will be required by the Congress not only to ensure that MSHA fulfills its duties under the MINER Act but also to ensure that the coal operators meet their duties. So we know that extensive oversight will be required by the Congress not only to ensure that MSHA fulfills its duties under the MINER Act but also to ensure that the coal operators meet their duties.

The House and Senate appropriations and authorizing committees have a significant role to play in this regard. We must do all--we must do all--that we can to ensure that the deadlines set by the MINER Act are met. We must do all that we can to ensure that wireless communications are available to coal miners within the next 2\1/2\ years, after all the many years that have gone before. If that means providing more funds to NIOSH to expedite the development of wireless communications and tracking and prodding the industry along to purchase and install that equipment, count on me. As the old Bible says: Here am I, send me. Here am I, send me.

We know also that several issues have not yet been addressed by the Congress from last year. The Congress has not yet addressed the issue of refuge chambers. The MINER Act required NIOSH to study the issue and report back by the end of this year. About what? Refuge chambers.

The Congress must require MSHA and NIOSH to find a way to make refuge chambers. What does ``refuge'' mean? A place to go. Refuge chambers, a place to go for refuge, for safety after an explosion. During the explosion, that's a big wind, a big explosion.

The Congress has not yet addressed the issue of whether belt air should be used to ventilate the working areas of underground mines-- belt air, a conveyor belt that comes along, a belt, a wide belt that comes on rollers and comes into the mine.

Given how the use of belt air and inadequate safety precautions at Alma Mine resulted in the death of two coal miners last year, this is an issue that will not go away with yet another study and yet another report to the Congress. The Department of Labor must reconsider the belt air rule issued in 2004.

We know that the low level of penalties remains an ineffective deterrent for too many coal operators. I am not against coal operators. We have to have them. They invest money, their money. They invest money. We know the low level of penalties remains an ineffective deterrent for too many coal operators. I know many of them personally. I like them. They like me, I think. Penalties are not commensurate with the seriousness of violations.

The Department of Labor recently informed my office that the accident at the Jim Walters Resources Mine in Alabama that killed 13 miners in 2001 will be punished with a fine as little as $5,000--$5,000. That is disgusting. That is disgusting. It is clearly a signal to the Congress that the penalty system demands further improvement.

Last October, MSHA issued its procedural instruction letter to revise the structure for how penalties are assessed by its inspectors. That procedural letter implemented the minimum penalty provision of the MINER Act. However, if higher fines are being assessed by inspectors but continue to be reduced or negated within the appeals process, then MSHA's procedural letter is almost irrelevant.

How much time do I have remaining, may I ask the Chair?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, we need to find a way to ensure that fair penalties are assessed by administrative law judges and the Mine Safety and Health Review Commission within the appeals process.

We must continue to review and ask questions about the structure of mine rescue teams and the changes codified by the MINER Act last year. Here is

another area where the rules issued by MSHA in recent years have contradicted the intent and spirit of the 1977 Mine Act.

We must continue to probe whether enough has been done. Two deaths last month in southern West Virginia serve as a macabre reminder that the crisis in the coal fields is not yet over--will probably never be over--but we have got to work at it. It is not yet over. We must be innovative. It is time for us to stop simply addressing mine disasters as they happen. We must seek opportunities to get ahead of the dangers. We must use foresight as well as hindsight.

Last month, I met with the Assistant Secretary of Labor, Mine Safety and Health, Richard Stickler. Mr. Stickler is in his current position because of a recess appointment in October 2006. He has not been confirmed by the Senate, and so his appointment will expire at the end of this year. I am hopeful that he will prove himself a friend of the coal miner. He has a dedicated team at MSHA, which includes many former coal miners who would like to see MSHA do better. I am convinced that more can be done. The question is whether the Department of Labor and the White House will let MSHA do what needs to be done. The Congress will get some insight into that question as it reviews the President's budget request for mine safety, which was delivered today.

As chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and as a Senator who will have some say about the Federal budget for mine safety, hear me when I say that the days of cheating the safety and well-being of our Nation's coal miners are over. The Senate Appropriations Committee will examine the various mine safety accounts, and the Senate Appropriations Committee will make its recommendations to the Senate about where improvements can be made. That process has already begun with the inclusion of $13 million above--above, on top of, over--the President's request in the continuing resolution for the fiscal year 2007 for MSHA to hire and train additional coal safety inspectors. I and other Senators have encouraged the President of the United States-- hear me--to include additional funds to retain those inspectors in his mine safety budget request for the fiscal year 2008, and I am glad that the President appears to have done so.

This is an issue that is close to my heart, and I pledge to do all that I can to increase congressional oversight in the coal field. As a son of the coal fields, the Appalachian coal fields, as the son of a coal miner, I am determined, yes, determined to be the ``captain of a mighty host demanding the rights to which free men''--free men--coal miners--``free men are entitled.'' And women. Free men and women are entitled.

Mr. President, that concludes my prepared speech.

I yield the floor.

Yes.

Yes.

Joined at the hip.

I thank the distinguished, the very distinguished senior senator from the great State of Virginia. I thank him.

Mr. President, I wish to speak on another matter.

Mr. President, the verdict is in on the President's plan to send more American troops into Iraq: 68 percent of the American people are opposed to it; 62 percent of Active-Duty military officers are opposed to it. Top military leaders have voiced skepticism about whether an increase in troops will succeed in suppressing the sectarian violence that has consumed Iraq. The evidence is in. The voice of the people, the American people--voix populaire--is clear. It is time to turn around. Unfortunately, this administration seems to have no intention of heeding that call from the people.

Last week, the Vice President talked about the ``enormous successes'' that have been accomplished in Iraq. Enormous successes? I ask, enormous successes? The Vice President's definition of ``enormous success'' is, apparently, different from mine.

The Vice President said that talk of failures and blunders in Iraq was just hogwash--his word, ``hogwash''--and the Vice President asserted that whatever Congress votes on in relation to Iraq, ``it won't stop us.'' Hear me now. Hear me. This is the Vice President talking. He asserted that whatever Congress votes on in relation to Iraq, ``it won't stop us.''

Now, listen to me, you people out there in the hills, in the valleys, across the mountain ranges, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, that is a slap in the face to you. Our constituents voted for change in the last election. They asked their elected representatives--us--to chart a new course in Iraq. This administration continues to disregard the will of the American people, it continues to disregard the people of the Nation, the authority of the Constitution. The administration believes it can continue to ignore the message that is coming--yes--from the American people, loudly and clearly: Bring our sons and daughters home.

That is why the bipartisan resolutions we will be debating are so important. That is why they are so important. We have a duty as the elected representatives of the people of the United States to be their voices and to speak the truth. And the truth is that sending more American troops into Iraq would be a continuation of the mistakes that brought us there in the first place. The truth is that many of us in both parties deeply, deeply disagree with the President's decision to increase our commitment in Iraq rather than to decrease it. The truth is that the American people are fed up with having our--our--soldiers caught in the crossfire of a civil war.

It is important to send that message from the people to the President of the United States. But it is not enough. The American people are asking us to send a message, but they are also asking us for answers. What is our strategy? What is our strategy in Iraq? I am not a Johnny- come-lately on this question. I was against sending American troops into Iraq in the first place. I said so, and I voted so.

So what is our strategy in Iraq? Why are we there? When can our sons and daughters and grandchildren come home? When can our sons and daughters come home? This President has had almost 4 years to articulate answers to those questions. Unfortunately, he has failed at every opportunity. And so it falls to us--us, you Senators and me, and Members of the other body--to find a way forward out of the mess he has created. That is why I will be introducing, within the coming days, a resolution that is a new approach to the war, a resolution that is

fully supportive of our troops, while laying out clear--clear; as clear as the noonday Sun in a cloudless sky--benchmarks for concluding U.S. military engagement in Iraq.

This administration has claimed that debating the President's plan will undermine the troops. Can you believe that? Debating--debating-- debating the President's plan will undermine the troops? Hogwash--h-o- g-w-a-s-h--hogwash. Only 38 percent of the Active-Duty U.S. military forces support sending more troops into Iraq. To imply that the American people and the American troops are somehow incapable of hearing and participating in debate about this war is utterly ridiculous--ridiculous--hogwash.

War--hear me now--war and the escalation of war is not something to be decided in some backroom corridor far from the madding crowd, far from the light of day. We have a duty--yes, a duty--and a responsibility to deliberate, to discuss, and to offer advice. That is the way democracy works, and that is the system established by our Founding Fathers. You better believe it.

Some have claimed that by putting forward these resolutions, we are only offering criticism--well, what is wrong with that in the beginning--and, they say, not alternatives. But criticism is only the first step. That is all right. Criticism is only the first step. It is critical to send a consensus message to this President that he is moving us in the wrong direction. The next step is to show the President the right direction. That is why my resolution is so important and why we should be allowed to debate it and to vote on it quickly. We must show the President the way forward. We must send a light in a binding resolution that cannot be ignored.

The American people want a fundamental change in the administration's policies toward Iraq. The American people elected Congress--you, you, you, and me--to make those changes. We must demonstrate that the Congress can take and is prepared to take action to compel the President to create a strategy that is not simply more of the same.

The resolution I will be introducing will do exactly that. You may not agree with it. The resolution will do exactly that. This resolution reflects the will of the American people that the war in Iraq must be brought to a close in a responsible way. It will establish provisions to bring to a close the U.S. military engagement in Iraq based not upon dates but based upon conditions.

It will restore to Congress--Congress; that is us, the people's elected representatives in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate--it will restore to Congress its constitutional war-making power by adding conditions that would terminate the original 2002 use of force resolution. I was against that resolution. I spoke against it. I voted against it. I was against it. I am against it. I was right. I am right. And there are others who voted with me--yes, the people's voice.

Let me say that again. It will restore to Congress--the House and Senate of the United States--it will restore to Congress its constitutional war-making power. Do you believe me? I have it right here. I hold in my hand a copy of the U.S. Constitution. It will restore to Congress its constitutional war-making power by adding conditions that would terminate the original 2002 use of force resolution. Hallelujah. Amen. I was against that to start with. Not everybody agreed with me, which was their right. But this would restore--where it was and ought to have been in the first place--to Congress its constitutional war-making power by adding conditions that would terminate the original 2002 use of force resolution. I was against it. But that resolution was enacted, and it is still the law of the land. It is still the law of the land and will be the law of the land unless and until the Congress acts to terminate it.

The conditions can be summarized as follows: We have achieved our objective. We are no longer needed--or we are no longer wanted in Iraq. These are not irresponsible conditions that would prolong our involvement in Iraq, nor do they require a chaotic or dangerous withdrawal of our troops. These are reasonable conditions that, through the exercise of the article I, section 8 powers granted to the Congress, set limits on the Iraq war resolution, which currently has no sunset provision. Hear me. It has no sunset provision. It goes on and on and on--like Tennyson's brook--forever, on and on and on. Do we want that? That war resolution will continue to be in effect in perpetuity. Do you know what that means? Till Kingdom comes; in perpetuity, from now on, as far as the human eye can see and beyond that. That war resolution will continue to be in effect in perpetuity if the Congress does not act. And if Congress does not act, that is an abdication of the responsibility of the Congress--that is an abdication of the responsibility of the Congress--to be a steward, a good steward, of its constitutional power to declare war.

Additionally, as the bipartisan Iraq Study Group concluded, a clear message must be sent to the Iraqi Government that the U.S. commitment to the war in Iraq is not open-ended. The Byrd resolution will point the way toward concluding that commitment.

No Senator must set aside his or her views of the war in order to support the Byrd resolution. Those who support a rapid redeployment of our troops must realize that the Congress must first reassert the powers vested in this body by article I of the Constitution. Those who have supported the war but are now calling for benchmarks for progress by the Iraqi Government should understand that there can be no clearer call for benchmarks for progress than by writing into the law of the land the conditions under which our presence in Iraq will end.

My approach is one that I believe should have wide bipartisan support. At the appropriate time, I will make the necessary motions to place my resolution, the Byrd resolution, directly onto the calendar, and I urge that the Senate schedule a debate on this proposal soon after this body completes action on the nonbinding resolutions. Although the President believes he can act without the support of the people, the Congress must not submit to such hubris. The work of the Congress must be the work of the people, and there is no more important issue--hear me, there is no more important issue--before our country today than finding a way out of the quagmire in Iraq.

Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to speak on another matter.

Mr. President, the verdict is in on the President's plan to send more American troops into Iraq: 68 percent of the American people are opposed to it; 62 percent of Active-Duty military officers are opposed to it. Top military leaders have voiced skepticism about whether an increase in troops will succeed in suppressing the sectarian violence that has consumed Iraq. The evidence is in. The voice of the people, the American people--voix populaire--is clear. It is time to turn around. Unfortunately, this administration seems to have no intention of heeding that call from the people.

Last week, the Vice President talked about the ``enormous successes'' that have been accomplished in Iraq. Enormous successes? I ask, enormous successes? The Vice President's definition of ``enormous success'' is, apparently, different from mine.

The Vice President said that talk of failures and blunders in Iraq was just hogwash--his word, ``hogwash''--and the Vice President asserted that whatever Congress votes on in relation to Iraq, ``it won't stop us.'' Hear me now. Hear me. This is the Vice President talking. He asserted that whatever Congress votes on in relation to Iraq, ``it won't stop us.''

Now, listen to me, you people out there in the hills, in the valleys, across the mountain ranges, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, that is a slap in the face to you. Our constituents voted for change in the last election. They asked their elected representatives--us--to chart a new course in Iraq. This administration continues to disregard the will of the American people, it continues to disregard the people of the Nation, the authority of the Constitution. The administration believes it can continue to ignore the message that is coming--yes--from the American people, loudly and clearly: Bring our sons and daughters home.

That is why the bipartisan resolutions we will be debating are so important. That is why they are so important. We have a duty as the elected representatives of the people of the United States to be their voices and to speak the truth. And the truth is that sending more American troops into Iraq would be a continuation of the mistakes that brought us there in the first place. The truth is that many of us in both parties deeply, deeply disagree with the President's decision to increase our commitment in Iraq rather than to decrease it. The truth is that the American people are fed up with having our--our--soldiers caught in the crossfire of a civil war.

It is important to send that message from the people to the President of the United States. But it is not enough. The American people are asking us to send a message, but they are also asking us for answers. What is our strategy? What is our strategy in Iraq? I am not a Johnny- come-lately on this question. I was against sending American troops into Iraq in the first place. I said so, and I voted so.

So what is our strategy in Iraq? Why are we there? When can our sons and daughters and grandchildren come home? When can our sons and daughters come home? This President has had almost 4 years to articulate answers to those questions. Unfortunately, he has failed at every opportunity. And so it falls to us--us, you Senators and me, and Members of the other body--to find a way forward out of the mess he has created. That is why I will be introducing, within the coming days, a resolution that is a new approach to the war, a resolution that is

fully supportive of our troops, while laying out clear--clear; as clear as the noonday Sun in a cloudless sky--benchmarks for concluding U.S. military engagement in Iraq.

This administration has claimed that debating the President's plan will undermine the troops. Can you believe that? Debating--debating-- debating the President's plan will undermine the troops? Hogwash--h-o- g-w-a-s-h--hogwash. Only 38 percent of the Active-Duty U.S. military forces support sending more troops into Iraq. To imply that the American people and the American troops are somehow incapable of hearing and participating in debate about this war is utterly ridiculous--ridiculous--hogwash.

War--hear me now--war and the escalation of war is not something to be decided in some backroom corridor far from the madding crowd, far from the light of day. We have a duty--yes, a duty--and a responsibility to deliberate, to discuss, and to offer advice. That is the way democracy works, and that is the system established by our Founding Fathers. You better believe it.

Some have claimed that by putting forward these resolutions, we are only offering criticism--well, what is wrong with that in the beginning--and, they say, not alternatives. But criticism is only the first step. That is all right. Criticism is only the first step. It is critical to send a consensus message to this President that he is moving us in the wrong direction. The next step is to show the President the right direction. That is why my resolution is so important and why we should be allowed to debate it and to vote on it quickly. We must show the President the way forward. We must send a light in a binding resolution that cannot be ignored.

The American people want a fundamental change in the administration's policies toward Iraq. The American people elected Congress--you, you, you, and me--to make those changes. We must demonstrate that the Congress can take and is prepared to take action to compel the President to create a strategy that is not simply more of the same.

The resolution I will be introducing will do exactly that. You may not agree with it. The resolution will do exactly that. This resolution reflects the will of the American people that the war in Iraq must be brought to a close in a responsible way. It will establish provisions to bring to a close the U.S. military engagement in Iraq based not upon dates but based upon conditions.

It will restore to Congress--Congress; that is us, the people's elected representatives in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate--it will restore to Congress its constitutional war-making power by adding conditions that would terminate the original 2002 use of force resolution. I was against that resolution. I spoke against it. I voted against it. I was against it. I am against it. I was right. I am right. And there are others who voted with me--yes, the people's voice.

Let me say that again. It will restore to Congress--the House and Senate of the United States--it will restore to Congress its constitutional war-making power. Do you believe me? I have it right here. I hold in my hand a copy of the U.S. Constitution. It will restore to Congress its constitutional war-making power by adding conditions that would terminate the original 2002 use of force resolution. Hallelujah. Amen. I was against that to start with. Not everybody agreed with me, which was their right. But this would restore--where it was and ought to have been in the first place--to Congress its constitutional war-making power by adding conditions that would terminate the original 2002 use of force resolution. I was against it. But that resolution was enacted, and it is still the law of the land. It is still the law of the land and will be the law of the land unless and until the Congress acts to terminate it.

The conditions can be summarized as follows: We have achieved our objective. We are no longer needed--or we are no longer wanted in Iraq. These are not irresponsible conditions that would prolong our involvement in Iraq, nor do they require a chaotic or dangerous withdrawal of our troops. These are reasonable conditions that, through the exercise of the article I, section 8 powers granted to the Congress, set limits on the Iraq war resolution, which currently has no sunset provision. Hear me. It has no sunset provision. It goes on and on and on--like Tennyson's brook--forever, on and on and on. Do we want that? That war resolution will continue to be in effect in perpetuity. Do you know what that means? Till Kingdom comes; in perpetuity, from now on, as far as the human eye can see and beyond that. That war resolution will continue to be in effect in perpetuity if the Congress does not act. And if Congress does not act, that is an abdication of the responsibility of the Congress--that is an abdication of the responsibility of the Congress--to be a steward, a good steward, of its constitutional power to declare war.

Additionally, as the bipartisan Iraq Study Group concluded, a clear message must be sent to the Iraqi Government that the U.S. commitment to the war in Iraq is not open-ended. The Byrd resolution will point the way toward concluding that commitment.

No Senator must set aside his or her views of the war in order to support the Byrd resolution. Those who support a rapid redeployment of our troops must realize that the Congress must first reassert the powers vested in this body by article I of the Constitution. Those who have supported the war but are now calling for benchmarks for progress by the Iraqi Government should understand that there can be no clearer call for benchmarks for progress than by writing into the law of the land the conditions under which our presence in Iraq will end.

My approach is one that I believe should have wide bipartisan support. At the appropriate time, I will make the necessary motions to place my resolution, the Byrd resolution, directly onto the calendar, and I urge that the Senate schedule a debate on this proposal soon after this body completes action on the nonbinding resolutions. Although the President believes he can act without the support of the people, the Congress must not submit to such hubris. The work of the Congress must be the work of the people, and there is no more important issue--hear me, there is no more important issue--before our country today than finding a way out of the quagmire in Iraq.

Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.