Floor Statements

Mr. President, we cannot, we must not violate that trust.

This is my 49th year in the U.S. Senate. When I came here 49 years ago, there was no sound system in the Senate--none. And so when a Senator spoke, especially if he was giving his maiden speech, the word got around that a Senator was going to make his maiden speech. Senators came to the floor. The speeches, as I say, were not televised. There was no audio. A Senator spoke from his desk, and he spoke out. He spoke out. He spoke without an audio system. But other Senators would come up. They would come closer to the Senator who was speaking. They would gather around. I can remember when I made my maiden speech in the Senate. It was a long time ago.

It has been my privilege today to sit at my desk here and listen to the distinguished Senator who comes from my neighboring State just across the great Ohio River. It has been my privilege to listen to him. He spoke well. Senators are at their offices, most of them. A lot of them heard this speech. They were not here to hear it, but I was here. I wish to commend the Senator on his maiden speech. It was a good speech. I like the way he spoke. I like the way he spoke from his heart. That speech will be in the Record for 1,000 years. I compliment the Senator. I am proud to be here in his audience today. I want him to continue to take the floor and speak his mind, speak for his people and to the people all across this country. I thank him for his speech. It was well done. The content was splendid. It meant much to him, and it meant much to me as I sat here. I thank him. May God continue to bless him in his work here.

I yield the floor.

Yes.

Yes. And the quicker we begin that debate and the quicker we begin to bring the change and alteration in policy, as he has spoken to on other occasions, the better it is going to be not only for those extraordinary, brave service men and women who have been fighting bravely and gallantly for over 4 years in Iraq, but we will begin to restore the prestige and influence of this country and the State he represents and loves. I thank the Senator for an excellent statement.

Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, we have a rule which provides that a Senator who wishes to speak should address the Presiding Officer and that the Senator first seeking to speak shall be recognized. We have rules around here.

I don't much like this idea of having people stand in line to speak, and when some Senator comes to the floor and seeks recognition, he or she finds that somebody else already has consent to speak, and then someone else, and then someone else.

I will not object at this moment to this batting order, this lineup of speakers. I think the rules provide that if a Senator wants to speak, he or she shall stand and ask for recognition. That is the way to do it. So I will not object to this lineup of speakers which puts at a disadvantage a Senator who has not been here to listen to this lineup and who wants to come to the floor and speak--comes to the floor and seeks recognition and finds that somebody else has already gotten unanimous consent to speak. Let's do it right. I will not object today, but let's not have this lining up of speakers. Let Senators come to the floor and seek recognition and get recognition. That is what the rules say. I will not object.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I thank the Senator. Senator Baucus, who is the chairman and who is managing this bill--am I correct?

He is a fine Senator. I take off my hat to him and thank him for what he has said.

Here here.

Yes, Mr. President.

Amen. Yes.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the distinguished Senator from Maryland for--how much time?

For 5 minutes, or whatever time she desires, without losing my right to the floor.

I yield to the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. President, I yield as much time as the Senators may desire.

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

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Byrd pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 39 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, to many Americans, the word ``Vietnam'' has become a painful remainder of a bloody quagmire of a never-ending war without an exit strategy. Certainly, Vietnam is a reminder of failed leadership and two destroyed Presidencies. Like the Johnson and Nixon administrations during the Vietnam era, when their war policies were attacked, the Bush administration wraps itself in the American flag and often engages in tactics of impugning not only the integrity but the patriotism of its critics. President Bush has even said those who compared Iraq to Vietnam send the wrong message to our troops. Such a comparison, he suggests, harms our troops.

I continue to be alarmed that the war in Iraq shows all the signs of degenerating into an equally calamitous debacle as Vietnam. And that is the point. The war in Vietnam lasted more than 10 years. It took more than 58,000 American lives. That long, painful war could have been avoided. Thousands of American lives could have been saved. The blood of thousands of American sons and daughters could have been saved. It need not have been spilled. That is why references to Vietnam are being made when talking about the war in Iraq. I make the comparison because I am furious, absolutely furious, that this Government, after the bitter and bloody experience of Vietnam, has failed to heed the lessons of Vietnam.

How could we have failed to consider the lessons of Vietnam before stumbling into Iraq? I didn't vote to go into Iraq. I said, hell, no, I won't go. We are doing the wrong thing if we go into Iraq. Did they listen? Did they hear? The American people have a right, the public has a right, to ask this question.

As a Senator, I have an obligation both morally and politically to ask that question. How could we not think about the error this country made with respect to Vietnam before we invaded Iraq? The similarities were obvious. In opposing the Iraq war resolution, which I did, I and others expressed concern that the Iraq resolution was another Gulf of Tonkin resolution and could well lead to another Vietnam. As to the Tonkin Gulf resolution, S.J. Res. 46, I explained in this way:

. . . have several things in common. Congress is again

being asked to vote on the use of force without hard evidence

that the country poses an immediate threat to the national

security of the United States. We are being asked to vote on

a resolution authorizing the use of force in a hyped up,

politically charged atmosphere in an election year. Congress

is again being rushed into a judgment.

And I quoted Senator Wayne Morse, one of the two Senators who opposed the Tonkin Gulf resolution, as he proclaimed:

The resolution will pass, and Senators who voted for it

will live to regret it.

How right he was.

Tragically, tragically, as the war in Iraq has progressed, the parallels with the Vietnam war continue to mount. We have learned that, once again, the American people were led down the primrose path in rallying support for a costly war. Congress and the American people were told about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Yes. They were told about Saddam Hussein's connections to al-Qaida. They were told about Iraq trying to purchase uranium from Africa.

The cost of the war was once estimated to be less then $100 billion. But the bill is now rising ever closer to half a trillion dollars. As a result, the National Journal pointed out, ``as with Vietnam, political support for [the war in] Iraq has proved to be fragile in part because it was secured by justification that has been discredited.''

In each of the two wars, American soldiers were placed in the treacherously difficult situation of having to fight an uncertain, indistinguishable

enemy, never knowing friend, never knowing foe, until they started shooting. As in Vietnam, our soldiers are once again confronted with the deadly situation of trying to ferret out insurgents in a population that is willing--listen--a population that is willing to hide them.

In each war, we went in thinking of ourselves as liberators. We came to be seen by the people we were supposed to be liberating as the invaders. In each war, where it was so necessary for us to win the hearts and minds of the people of the country, our presence there, instead, alienated the people of the country and turned them against us. In each war, both the White House, yes, and the Pentagon, yes, grossly and tragically underestimated the determination and the ferocity of our opponents.

Bring them on, bring them on, President Bush chided the Iraqis and terrorists on July 2, 2003. Do you remember that? I do. He said ``bring 'em on.''

In the time since he made that statement ``bring 'em on,'' we, the American people, have lost more than 2,800 troops in that war.

Yes, ``bring 'em on.'' ``Bring 'em on.'' And so they brought them on. We have lost more than 2,800 troops in that war. As of today, 3,062-- get that--3,062 Americans in total have been killed in Iraq. And for what? And for what, I ask? As of today, 3,062 Americans in total have been killed in that war.

Yes, ``bring 'em on,'' President Bush chided the Iraqis and terrorists on July 2, 2003. So I will say it once more. We have lost more than 2,800 troops in that war since President Bush said: ``bring 'em on.''

Former Senator Max Cleland--do you remember him? I remember him. He used to sit right back there. Max Cleland, bless his heart, recently pointed out that American forces have now ``become sitting ducks in a shooting gallery for every terrorist in the Middle East.''

Although Congress should have learned important lessons from the Vietnam war, there are now ominous indications that a path to a new military confrontation is being created right before our eyes. Just this month, the President announced his intention to ``interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria'' into Iraq.

What does this saber-rattling comment really mean? Hear me. Does the President seek to expand the ongoing war beyond Iraq's borders? Does he? Does this comment really mean that? Or are we already on a course to another war in the Middle East? Are we? Will Syria or Iran be the Cambodia of a 21st century Vietnam? Will Syria or Iran be the Cambodia of a 21st century Vietnam?

In the State of the Union Address last night, the President called out Iran no less than seven times. Was the speech the first step in an effort to blame all that has gone wrong in the Middle East on Iran? Was the focus on Iran during the President's address an attempt to link Iran to the war on terrorism, and, by extension, start building a case that our response to the 9/11 attacks must include dealing with Iran?

I fear--and I hope I am wrong--that the machinery may have already been set in motion which may ultimately lead to a military attack inside Iran or perhaps Syria, despite the opposition of the American people, many in Congress, and even some within the President's administration.

Wise counsel from congressional leaders to step back from the precipice of all-out war in the Middle East is too easily disregarded. To forestall a looming disaster, Congress must act to save the checks and balances established by the Constitution.

Today I am introducing a resolution that clearly states that it is Congress--the Congress, the Congress, not the President--that is vested with the ultimate decision on whether to take this country to war against another country.

This resolution, which I hold in my hand--here it is--this resolution is a rejection--hear me--a rejection of the bankrupt, dangerous, and unconstitutional doctrine of preemption. Let me say that again. This resolution, which I hold in my hand, is a rejection of the bankrupt, dangerous, and unconstitutional doctrine of preemption, which proposes that the President--any President--may strike another country before that country threatens us, before that country threatens us. That is the doctrine of preemption: We may strike, we may attack, we may invade another country before it threatens us.

Now, this resolution, which I am going to introduce, returns our Government to the inspired intent of the Framers, God bless them, of the Constitution who so wisely placed the power to declare war in the hands of the elected representatives of the American people.

If there exists a reckless determination for a new war in the Middle East, I fear that the attorneys of the executive branch are already seeking ways to tie this war to the use of force resolution for Iraq, or the resolution passed in response to 9/11. But the American people need only be reminded about the untruths of Iraq's supposed ties to the 9/11 attacks to see how far the truth can be stretched in order to achieve the desired outcome.

If the executive branch were to try to prod, stretch, or rewrite the 9/11 or the Iraq use of force resolutions in an outrageous attempt to apply them to an attack on Iran, on Syria, or anywhere else, this resolution of mine is clear--clear as the noonday Sun in a cloudless sky--this resolution is clear: The Constitution says that Congress--we here and those over there on the other side of the Capitol--the Constitution says that Congress, not the President, must make the decision for war or peace. The power to declare war resides in Congress--resides here--and it is we--we, the elected representatives of the people--who are the ``deciders.''

Congress has an obligation to the people of the United States. With so many of our sons and daughters spilling their blood in one costly war, Senators and Representatives have a moral duty to question whether we are headed for an even more tragic conflict in the Middle East. But in order to question this administration--in order to fulfill the duties entrusted to us by the Constitution, to which we have sworn to support and defend--Congress must first insist that the powers given to this body--the Congress, the Senate and the House--are held sacrosanct. We must insist that these powers, including the power to declare war, are not usurped by this President or any other President who will follow.

The resolution, Mr. President, which I am submitting today, is an effort to protect the Constitution--an effort to protect the Constitution--from the zeal of the executive branch, whose very nature is to strive for more and more power during a time of war.

It is time now for Congress to put its foot down and stand up for the Constitution. Our Nation did not ask to be put into another Vietnam. Let us not deceive ourselves that we are somehow immune to another Cambodia. Let us stop a reckless, costly war in Iran or Syria before it begins by restoring the checks and balances that our Founders so carefully--so carefully--designed.

I send, Mr. President, the resolution to the desk.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, let the title be read, please.

I thank the Chair, and I thank the clerk.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, may I ask the Chair, there is no time limitation on speeches at this point, is there?

Mr. President, the very able and distinguished Senator from Kansas wants to speak for 5 minutes or more. I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the distinguished Senator for 5 minutes or 6 or 7 minutes or whatever he wants at this time, without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. President, how much time does the Senator want?

The Senator doesn't have to be in a great hurry. I know the Senator is reasonable and he will take such time as he may desire and it is not going to be too much. I yield to the Senator for that purpose without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. President, I very much admire the able Senator from New Hampshire. I like him. As Shakespeare said, ``He's a man after my own kidney.'' That about says it all, I guess. That is the way I feel about the Senator from New Hampshire. He and I served together in the last Congress as chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Senate Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee. I also have the pleasure of serving with him on the Senate Budget Committee, where he has been chairman--and I mean chairman--and is now the ranking member.

The Senator from New Hampshire is one of the finest, one of the brightest, one of the most illustrious Senators serving today. I want Senators to know--and, of course, the Congressional Record will reflect--that as much as I oppose the line-item veto--and that is saying a mouthful--I very

much respect the Senator from New Hampshire who has attached his name to it.

In his remarks last week on his line-item veto amendment, the very able Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, noted that this is not a new issue before the Senate. He correctly noted that the Senate passed a line-item veto measure in 1996, which was later nullified by the U.S. Supreme Court--the highest court of the land--in 1998.

It is appropriate, very appropriate, that Senators know something about the history of this issue, particularly those Senators who were not here when the Senate last considered this piece of garbage called the line-item veto. I can say plenty about this line-item veto. I call it garbage. I can call it worst things than that, but I won't right now.

Senators will recall, I believe, that the House of Representatives in the early 1990s passed a series of legislative line-item vetoes, or expedited rescissions, like the one now before this body. Because of constitutional concerns and a lack of support, none of those bills ever passed the Senate.

Senators will recall that in the summer of 1993, I delivered 14 speeches--I mean, they were cracker jacks, and, man, that is not the end of the line, either--later published as ``The Senate of the Roman Republic.'' They were addresses on the history of Roman constitutionalism on this very topic. Senators will recall that when the 104th Congress passed the Line-Item Veto Act of 1996, I was one of the most outspoken opponents.

I argued against giving any President--any President, any President, even a Democratic President; that makes no difference, even a Democratic President--a line-item veto or a or so-called enhanced rescission authority.

Senators will recall that after President Clinton signed into law the Line-Item Veto Act of 1996 I, Robert C. Byrd, a Senator from the State of West Virginia, joined with Senator Carl Levin and the late, God bless his name, Daniel Patrick Moynihan--oh, were he here today--in bringing suit--get that--in bringing suit in Federal court against the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, then Franklin Raines, arguing that the act unconstitutionally authorized the President to cancel certain spending and revenue measures without observing the procedures outlined in the presentment clause of article I, section 7.

That suit, Raines v. Byrd, was dismissed by the U.S. Supreme Court for lack of standing, but the arguments, I say, but the arguments were later validated in 1998, when the Court nullified the Line-Item Veto Act in Clinton v. City of New York.

Now, I am no stranger to this issue. I am no stranger to this issue. I have served with the eight Democratic and Republican Presidents since Harry Truman who have asked for line-item veto authority. And I have watched, as the Senate has said ``no,'' n-o, no--the hardest word in the English language to say--I watched as the Senate has said ``no'' to all but one. And where the Senate erred in yielding to a President's request for such power, I was there when the Supreme Court nullified the Senate's actions. I was there.

The first question ever asked was asked of Adam. The first question ever asked--I hope the Chair is listening closely, my friend in the chair--in all of the centuries of the human race, the first question ever asked was: Adam, where art thou? I won't go into the time and place where that was asked. Everybody ought to know it. Adam, where art thou?

Well, where was Robert C. Byrd when the Supreme Court nullified the Senate's actions? I was there when the Supreme Court nullified the Senate's actions.

I do not speak lightly about this subject--hear me now, if you want to take me on, on this question--and to refer Shakespeare:

And damned be him that first cries, ``Hold, enough!''

I do not say it is a proposal that stands in stark defiance of the Constitution without many decades of congressional experience and a deep, deep reverence for the Constitution of the United States, and when I speak about line-item veto today, and in the coming days, if necessary, I speak to all Senators of both parties about the oaths we swear and particularly the one we take upon entry into this office.

We take an oath before God and man to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

I speak today on a subject that broaches the most serious of constitutional questions. Now pending before the Senate is a legislative line-item veto proposal offered as an amendment by Senator Gregg and others to the minimum wage bill. The amendment would alter by statute the constitutional role of the President of the United States in the legislative process. The President does have a role in the legislative process. The amendment would alter by statute the constitutional role of the President in the legislative process. It would allow the President to sign a spending bill into law and then to strip from that bill any spending items he dislikes. Let me say that again.

I have already said that the amendment would alter by statute the constitutional role of the President in the legislative process. It would allow the President, one man, to sign a spending bill into law and then--get this--strip from that bill any spending items he dislikes.

Through a process known as expedited rescission, the President could force an additional vote by the Congress on spending items that do not mimic his budget request and impound the funding that he, the President of the United States, does not like until the Congress votes again.

Such a proposal is a lethal, aggrandizement of the Chief Executive's role in the legislative process. Lethal, deadly. Such a proposal is a lethal aggrandizement of the Chief Executive's role in the legislative process. It is a gross, colossal distortion of the congressional power of the purse. It is a dangerous, dangerous proposition, a wolf in sheep's clothing of fiscal responsibility. Wolf, wolf, wolf, that's what it is.

The Constitution, I say to Senators--hear me out there, my friends in West Virginia and throughout the land--the Constitution is explicit and precise about the role of the President in the legislative process. The President has a role in the legislative process. Read the Constitution, article I, section 7. Here is what it says:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of

Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a

Law, be presented to the President of the United States; if

he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it,

with his Objections. . . .

The President must act within 10 days, Sundays excepted. And once he, the President, has decided to forgo a veto, it is his constitutional responsibility under article II to ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.''

President George Washington interpreted his responsibility this way, and I quote the immortal first President of this land, the Father of our Country, the Commander in Chief at Valley Forge, George Washington. President George Washington interpreted his responsibility this way: ``I''--meaning George Washington, the President of the United States-- ``must approve all the parts of a bill or reject it in toto''--totally. No other way. Take it or leave it.

I must approve all the parts of a bill, or reject it in

toto.

The Father of our Country was right. It isn't Robert Byrd talking. That was George Washington. Now come to Robert Byrd. I continue:

A legislative line-item veto effectively creates a third option for the President of the United States--a third option, talking about the line-item veto. It adds a new dimension to executive power, one that is not found in the Constitution. Instead of vetoing and returning a whole bill to the Congress before it becomes law, under the Gregg amendment, under the amendment by my distinguished friend Senator Gregg, the President can resubmit only those provisions he opposes, and he can do so after a bill becomes law. Did you get that? Instead of vetoing and returning a whole bill to the Congress before it becomes law, under the Gregg amendment--and I speak with great respect--the President can submit only those provisions he opposes and do so after a bill becomes law.

What are we doing here? The President can sign a bill into law and then strip it of the provisions that he

doesn't like. Let me say that again. Are you hearing me? What am I doing? What am I saying here? I can't believe it. The President can sign a bill into law and then, after he has signed the bill into law, he can strip it of the provisions he does not like.

Have you ever heard of anything so radical? Instead of the President weighing in before a bill becomes law, he can ignore the pros and cons of debate and wait until well after it has become law. Am I in my senses when I read this? Can you believe it? He can literally ignore both public opinion and congressional debate and deliberation. He can pull out anything he does not like from legislation passed by both Houses of Congress--get that, now. This is one man downtown. He may be a Republican, he may be a Democrat, he may be a Socialist or whatever-- whatever the people elect down there at the White House in the future. He can pull out anything he doesn't like from legislation that has been passed by both Houses of Congress and insist on a second run through the legislative process.

The Gregg amendment allows the President to decide what is in a bill considered by the Senate or not in a bill after it has become law. It would allow the President to decide when the Senate considers a spending or revenue item and under what political conditions the Senate considers these measures. Such a proposal is a dangerous departure from the separation of powers doctrine, which aims to prevent any one branch of the Government from seizing both the power to make and to execute a law. The separation of powers dividing inherently legislative and executive functions between two separate and equal branches is a fundamental defense against overzealous and unwise acts by either the President of the United States or the Congress of the United States.

In Federalist No. 51 James Madison writes--this is not Robert C. Byrd who wrote it. In Federalist No. 51, James Madison writes:

But the great security against a gradual concentration of

the several powers in the same department consists in giving

to those who administer each department the necessary

constitutional means and personal motives to resist

encroachments of the others . . . Ambition must be made to

counteract ambition. . . .

So by empowering the President to craft legislation, the Congress would be ceding the constitutional means of the people to resist executive encroachments.

Let me say that again. By empowering the President of the United States to craft legislation, the Congress would be ceding the constitutional means of the people to resist executive encroachments. For up to 1 year after every bill is passed and signed into law--get this--the President could use this power to manipulate Senators--how about that--or advance his political agenda. Any President. I am not just referring to Mr. Bush. I am starting with him, but I am talking about any President, Republican or Democrat. The President could use this power that Mr. Gregg's amendment would give to the President-- remember, this isn't the last President, Mr. Bush. There will be others. The President could use this power to manipulate Senators or advance his political agenda. Under the Gregg amendment, a President could punish or reward recalcitrant Members of Congress by targeting or sparing their interests under the expedited rescission process.

Every debate between the Congress and the White House could be swayed, influenced, by this new power of the President of the United States to influence Senators: You, Mr. Conrad; you, Mr. Byrd; you, Mr. and Mrs. or Miss Senator--he can use this power over Senators to influence them. What kind of power are we talking about? It would subject every Member and the interests of their constituents and States to the political capricious and unchecked whims of a Chief Executive.

You better think about this. You better think about it. The Gregg amendment provides the President, any President--Democratic, Republican or otherwise--with a mechanism to rewrite legislation after it has passed the Congress. Where are we going? Instead of 10 days to act on a bill, the Gregg amendment would provide the President with up to 365 days. Hear me, friends, Romans, countrymen. Friends, Americans, countrymen, lend me your ears. Instead of 10 days to act on a bill, the Gregg amendment would provide the President with up to 365 days to act on a bill. This is a provision that is unconstitutional on its face. I don't believe that Senator over there sitting in the chair, in the chair to my left, would go along with that. That is Senator Conrad, for the record.

Within 10 days of the Congress submitting a bill to the President, we know if it has become the law of the land. Under the Gregg measure, nobody--except the President--for up to 1 year after an act is signed into law, will know if all of the provisions of a bill will be carried into effect. One can imagine the confusion of not knowing, for up to 1 year, whether all of the provisions of a single bill will become law. Imagine what happens if the Congress passes a major legislative package such as a Social Security and Medicare reform package, which affects the retirement and health care benefits of many millions of people and the payroll taxes of many millions more. Imagine the President dismantling that package, listen now. Imagine the President dismantling that package months after it has been passed by the Congress. Are you listening? Hear me. How wise and practical will this line-item veto seem then? This line-item veto is an anathema to the Framers' careful balancing of powers within the legislative process because it allows the President, any President, to aggressively--listen to me, my friends on the other side of the aisle; I am not just talking about Mr. Bush or Mr. Republican President--allows a President to aggressively impose his will on the legislative branch in regard to budgetary matters. I will say that once again. This line-item veto is an anathema to the Framers' careful balancing of powers within the legislative process because it allows a President, any President, to aggressively--and I mean aggressively--impose his, the President's, will, be he Republican or Democratic, on the legislative branch in regard to budgetary matters.

This line-item veto amendment goes far--and I mean far--beyond the President simply making recommendations to the Congress. It makes the President, any President, a lawmaker. It is a complete reversal of the legislative process. We do not need to rewrite the Constitution in order to legislate. We do not need to defer extraordinary and unconstitutional powers to the President, any President, in order to ensure that Congress uses its power of the purse in an ethical and rational and wise manner.

We should remember that the President has not exercised his existing constitutional authorities. The President--this President--has only vetoed one authorization bill, and he has never, never vetoed a spending or revenue bill. The President has not submitted a single rescission proposal as currently allowed under the Budget Act. Rather than dealing with the President's failed budget choices, the suggestion here today is that enlarging the President's power in the budget process will somehow magically--somehow magically--reduce these foreboding and menacing deficits. It will not. The suggestion here today is that handing the power to make laws to the President will somehow improve the quality of congressional budget decisions. This suggestion is without foundation. This nefarious line-item veto will only further politicize and degrade a process which is already too much of a political football.

Senators--Senator Byrd being one--take an oath--yes, an oath before God. The ancient Romans felt that an oath was sacred. They would give their lives--I won't go into Roman history at this point--they would give their lives to preserve an oath. Senators take an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution. A lack of understanding about the reasons for entrusting the purse strings to the hands of the Congress, and the unwise tax and spending decisions of this administration, must never, never be allowed to propel such an unconstitutional and dangerous as the legislative line-item veto.

I tell you, ladies and gentlemen, I will stand here until my bones crumble under me, until I have no further breath, if necessary, to let such a proposal become law. Why would we ever want to hand more power to a President who has already grabbed far too much power--any President? Why would we ever want to bargain away our most important tool for protecting the liberties of the people or for derailing a disastrous war? Why would we

ever want to fall for this legislative pig-in-a-poke that could cripple this body, the Congress of the United States?

So I urge Senators to listen. This isn't the last word by any means that I could have, let alone many other Senators here. Resist this assault on the Constitution and the Congress. I urge Senators--yes, I urge Senators--Senators--there is no greater name under the Constitution. Who was that great Roman Emperor who said, when he was about to become the Emperor ``I still revere the name of Senator.'' That is 476, I believe, A.D. It was Majorian, I believe, who said, ``I still revere the name of Senator.'' Senator. Did you hear that?

I urge Senators to resist this assault. I am talking about a line- item veto now. You ain't heard nothing yet. I urge Senators to resist this assault on the Congress and on the Constitution of the United States and on the people, the people of the United States.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

Let me thank him for this magnificent speech. Let me thank Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi for their remarkable patience and their consideration always. I thank the distinguished Senator for this magnificent speech.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I thank the very able and highly respected Senator from Massachusetts, my favorite Senator of this age, for what he has said.

I thank the distinguished Senator from North Dakota for his remarkable statement. It will be in the Record for 1,000 years. There is nothing I could say to embellish it, to add to it, to subtract from it, or to comment on except to say it is one of the great speeches I have heard in this Senate. And I have heard a lot. I have been here a long time. Next year will be my 50th year. The Senator from North Dakota is a leader among men, a leader among Senators. I commend him. I thank him.

I thank all Senators, and I thank the Chair.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, in the late hours last night, I took to the floor to decry some Senators who wish, if I may put it in this language, to sabotage the ethics reform legislation with a dangerous and unconstitutional line-item veto proposal. What is happening is little more than political blackmail, and the American people--those people out there who are watching through the lenses above the President's chair, the American people--should be outraged. I have been around here a long time. I have spoken on this subject many times. This so-called line-item veto is an assault on the single most important protection that the American people have against a President, any President, who wants to run roughshod over the liberties of the people prescribed in the Constitution. Today I am talking about the congressional power over the purse. The congressional power that is right here, and over on the other side of the Capitol, the congressional power over the purse.

Weaken the power of the purse and one weakens strong--the word ``strong'' is too weak--one weakens oversight, for example, on this bloody nightmare of a war in Iraq. Get that? Weaken the power over the public purse and we weaken the oversight over this bloody war in Iraq. That is just one example. One weakens the power of the purse and one weakens the checks on a President who wants to tap into personal telephone calls or pry into bank accounts or tear open the mail. Without congressional power over the purse--money--there is no effective way to stop an out-of-control President who is bent on his way, no matter the price, no matter the repercussion. Make no mistake-- hear me, now. The Roman orator would say, ``Romans, lend me your ears.'' Make no mistake, this line-item veto authority would grant tremendous--I say tremendous and dangerous--new power to the President.

There are new Members of this body. Perhaps we ought to have some discussions about the line-item veto. The President would have unchecked authority to imperil congressional power over the purse, a power that the constitutional Framers felt was absolutely vital to reining in an overzealous President.

Eight years ago, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the line- item veto--hear me, Senators; you may be watching your boob tubes. Hear me. Eight years ago, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the line-item veto was unconstitutional. I said at the time that the Supreme Court saved the Congress from its own folly. But now, it seems, memories in this Senate are short and wisdom may be even shorter in supply. Here we are, on the heels of 6 years of assault on personal liberty, 6 years of a do-nothing Congress all too willing to turn its eyes from the real problems of the Nation, 6 years of rubberstamps and rubber spines--here we are, all too ready to jettison the single most important protection of the people's liberties: the power of the purse.

Let's review the record. We have a President--I say this in all due respect.

I respect the President of the United States. I respect the Presidency; I respect the Chief Executive. We have a President who already has asserted too much power while refusing to answer questions:

I am the commander--see, I don't need to explain--I do not

need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting

thing about being the President. Maybe somebody needs to

explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I

owe anybody an explanation.

Those are the words of our President, the very President who some in this body are all too willing to allow to dominate the people's branch, this branch, your branch--the people's branch of Government.

This President claimed the unconstitutional authority to tap into the telephone conversations of American citizens without a warrant, without court approval. This President claimed the unconstitutional authority to sneak and peek, to snoop and scoop into the private lives of you, the American people. This President has taken the Nation to a failed war--yes, to a failed war that we should have never entered into--based on faulty evidence and an unconstitutional doctrine of preemptive strikes, a doctrine that is absolutely unconstitutional on its face. More than 3,000 American sons and daughters have died in Iraq in this failed Presidential misadventure.

What is the response of the Senate? To give the President even more unfettered authority? Give him greater unchecked powers? It is astounding. We have seen the danger of the blank check. We have lived through the aftermath of a rubberstamp Congress. We should not continue to lie down for this or any other President.

Of course, this President wants to strip Congress of its strongest and most important power, the power of the purse. Congress has the ability to shut down the administration's unconstitutional practices. Congress is asking tough questions and demanding honest answers. Congress is taking a hard look at finding ways to bring our troops home from the President's misadventure in Iraq that has already cost the lives of more than 3,000 of the American people's sons and daughters. Of course, the President wants to control the Congress. Some Presidents have wanted to do this before--silence the critics, ignore, if you will, the will of the people seriously cripple oversight.

Strip away the power of the Congress to control the purse strings, then you strip away the power of the Congress to say ``No more, Mr. President;'' strip away the single most important power granted to the people in this Constitution. That is the White House demand. I, for one, will not kowtow to this President or to any President. I, for one, will not stand quietly by while the people's liberties are placed in jeopardy. No Senator should want to hand such power to the President. No American should stand for it--not now, not today, not tomorrow, not the day after tomorrow, not ever.

Just a few weeks ago, Members of the Senate took an oath, ``I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend. . . .'' This is in our oath, my oath, that I have taken several times.

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the

Constitution of the United States against all enemies,

foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and

allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely,

without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and

that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the

office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

That is the oath I take: ``So help me God.''

If our Republican colleagues want to stop the Senate's efforts to end the scandals that plagued the last Congress, that is their right. If our Republican colleagues want to stop the first increase in the minimum wage in the past decade, that is their right. But I, this mountain boy from the hills, will not stand with them. And the American people will see through this transparent effort to gut ethics reform.

I, as one Senator with others, if they will stand with me, will do my very best to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Yet I will bear true faith and allegiance to this Constitution and to the people of this great Nation, defying an effort to weaken the power of the purse.

Mr. President, 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, I hope to speak at some length about the line-item veto at a later time. However, for the benefit of my colleagues, I want to respond to the arguments put forward today about two measures I endorsed in 1995 and 1996.

The Daschle amendment that I cosponsored in 1995, and the amendment I offered to the motion to recommit the line-item veto conference report in 1996, are vastly different in regard to their Constitutional ramifications from what has been offered by Senator Gregg to the ethics reform bill.

The Gregg proposal allows the President to submit rescission proposals up to 365 days after he signs a bill into law. Such latitude would allow the President to unilaterally veto a one-year appropriation by delaying its expenditure, and then submitting it for rescission within 45 days of its expiration. In contrast, the proposals I endorsed in 1995 and 1996 would have limited a President to submitting rescission proposals within 20 days of a bill being signed into law. The proposals I have endorsed would have prevented the President from unilaterally cancelling a one-year appropriations. The Gregg amendment contains no such protection.

The Gregg proposal also prohibits amendments to the President's rescission requests. In contrast, the proposals I have endorsed would have allowed motions to strike. Without the right to amend, Senators are vulnerable to threats by any President who would target a Member's spending and revenue priorities and force the Senate to vote on them at a time and in the manner decided by the President.

I have the greatest respect for the Senator from New Hampshire, and the knowledge and expertise he brings to the Congressional budget and appropriations process. He is a good Senator. But I cannot endorse his views with regard to the line-item veto.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise tonight at this late hour. The hour is late and the night is black. I rise tonight to shine a bright light on political chicanery that is playing out on the Senate floor.

In November, America voted for a change. The people sent a strong signal that they wanted less partisanship and more accountability in Washington. In response to the voters, Senator Reid, Senator Feinstein, and Senator McConnell put before the Senate an ethics reform bill that would add transparency and accountability to the legislative process. They should be proud of their product, and the Senate has had a good debate thus far on the bill.

But wait, wait, wait 1 second. Before we can clear the way for greater accountability and sunshine into the way work gets done in these halls, the Senate is being blackmailed into an assault on the Congress's single most precious and most powerful authority--the power of the purse. That is the most powerful authority we have: the power of the purse.

Tonight, this reform bill is threatened by an effort by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to give the President line- item veto authority. No vote on the line-item veto, they say,

and no ethics reform. That is nothing more than legislative blackmail, and I, for one, will not pay the price. No one should stand still when this Constitution, which I hold in my hand, is the hostage. No one should stand still, I repeat, when this Constitution, which I hold in my hand, is the hostage.

This line-item veto authority would grant tremendous and dangerous new power to the President. He would have unchecked authority to take from the Congress the power of the purse, a power that the constitutional Framers thought was absolutely vital to protecting the people's liberties.

It was just 8 years ago that the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the line-item veto was unconstitutional. Now our colleagues--some of them-- on the other side of the aisle are threatening to hold up the ethics reform bill in an effort to hand the President another line-item veto authority. Are the memories around here so short?

Are the memories around here so short?

We have a President who already has asserted too much power. This is a blatantly gross attempt to take even more power for the President and strip away power from the people.

This President claimed the unconstitutional authority to tap into the telephone conversations of American citizens without a warrant or court approval.

This President claimed the unconstitutional authority to sneak and peek, to snoop and scoop, into the private lives of the American people.

This President has taken the Nation to a failed war based on faulty evidence and the misrepresentation of facts. And many Senators voted not realizing that was what was being done when we voted on the war resolution.

So I say, this President has taken the Nation to a failed war based on faulty evidence and an unconstitutional doctrine of preemptive strikes. More than 3,000 American sons and daughters have died in Iraq in this crazed Presidential misadventure.

And what is the response of the Senate? To give the President even more unfettered authority? To give him greater unchecked powers? We have seen the danger of the blank check. We have lived through the aftermath of a rubberstamp Congress. We should not continue to lie down for this President or any other President.

Of course, this President wants to take away Congress's power of the purse. When Congress has the sole ability to shut down these unconstitutional practices, when Congress is asking tough questions and demanding truthful answers about this war, when Congress is taking a hard look at finding ways to begin to bring our troops home, over the objections of this administration, the President's response is to demand that the Congress give away its most crucial power. Silence the Congress. Ignore the people. Strip away our constitutional protections and one may just as well strip away the people's liberties lock, stock, and barrel. Strip away the power of the Congress, the power of the people, and amass all power behind the fences and secret doors of the White House.

No Senator should vote to hand such power to the President. No American should stand for it--not now, not ever.

If our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to stop the Senate's effort to add transparency and accountability to the legislative process, that is their right and their choice. But I will not blink. I cannot look the other way. We should get on with the business at hand and pass meaningful ethics reform legislation. But we should never, never, hand away those precious constitutional powers-- the last protections of the people's liberties, vested in the people's representatives in this Congress--to any President.

We have each taken an oath to protect and defend this Constitution of the United States. Here it is. I hold it in my hand. I say again, we have each taken an oath to protect and defend this Constitution of the United States. And it is about time we did protect and defend that Constitution of the United States.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank all Senators.

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

Mr. President, may I ask the distinguished Senator from Illinois if there is any additional time I might utilize?

Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished Senator for his characteristic courtesy.

James Madison reminds us, in Federalist No. 37, that:

The genius of republican liberty seems to demand . . . not

only that all power should be derived from the people, but

that those intrusted with it should be kept in dependence on

the people. . . .

Let me say that again. James Madison says, in Federalist No. 37, that ``The genius of republican liberty seems to demand . . . not only that all power should be derived from the people, but that those intrusted with it''--meaning that power--``should be kept in dependence on the people. . . .''

To ensure that this quotation I have just stated by James Madison is so, it is the representatives of the people in Congress--including Robert C. Byrd and all other Senators here--who are entrusted with the power of the purse.

Now, listen to that. To ensure that this is so, it is the representatives of the people in Congress who are entrusted with the power of the purse.

``This power,'' Madison writes, in Federalist No. 58, ``may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.''

We are Senators, the people's representatives. We are here to look after the interests of the people of our States. In many cases, they are not well-to-do people. They cannot just pick up a phone and call the White

House. And, too often, the Federal bureaucracy is an inaccessible morass. In time of need--in drought or flood, when a bridge is near collapse, when safe drinking water is not available, when health care services are endangered, when a community is struggling, when worker safety is threatened--the people call on their representatives in Congress.

Many times, we are the only ones who are willing to listen. Get that. Many times, we are the only ones who are willing to listen, and the only ones--hear me, again--who are willing to help. We, the people's representatives, are armed by the Constitution with the power of the purse to ensure that the Federal Government is responsive to their--the people's--needs.

And so when I speak about congressional earmarks, I speak about a subject that broaches the most serious of constitutional questions: Who--hear me--who shall control expenditures from the public treasuries, the unaccountable bureaucrats in the executive branch downtown--I do not speak ill of them; they are responsible people--but I say, the unaccountable bureaucrats in the executive branch or the representatives of the people?

Let me say that again. We, here in the Senate, are armed by the Constitution with the power of the purse--in this body and the other body--to ensure that the Federal Government is responsive to their--the people's--needs.

And so when I speak about congressional earmarks, I speak about a subject that broaches the most serious of constitutional questions: Who shall control expenditures from the public treasuries, the unaccountable bureaucrats in the executive branch or the elected representatives of the people in the legislative branch?

Earmarks are arguably the most criticized and the least understood of congressional practices. I know it is easy to attack these congressional practices. Many of the most vocal critics do not understand the purpose of the earmarks they criticize, nor do they have any appreciation of their uses or benefits in the communities that receive them.

Let me say that again. Earmarks--hear me, everybody; those from the States, I know they are always listening--earmarks are arguably the most criticized and the least understood of congressional practices. Many of the most vocal critics do not understand the purpose of the earmarks they criticize, nor do they have any appreciation of their uses, meaning the uses of earmarks, or benefits in the communities that receive these earmarks.

Many people do not know that earmarks are not specific to appropriations bills. For instance, earmarks can be found in revenue bills as tax benefits for narrowly defined constituencies. Earmarks can be found in authorization bills that are wholly separate from the appropriations process. Hear me now. Earmarks can be found--yes; where?--in the President's budget requests. How about that? Earmarks can be found in the President's budget requests, and sometimes as part of the budget reconciliation process.

There is no law, no rule, no universal standard that even defines what an earmark is. And so I leave the determination about the propriety and need for an earmark, not with the political pundits or the so-called watchdog groups or the news media or the unelected bureaucrats downtown, but where that determination rightfully belongs, where it rightfully belongs under the Constitution, with the people, with the people of the United States.

So hear me--hear me, everyone East, West, South, and North--when I say there is nothing inherently wrong with an earmark. It is an explicit direction from the Congress--the people's elected representatives; the Congress--about how the Federal Government should spend the people's money--your money out there in the hills and mountains and prairies and the plains and valleys of this country. I say again, it is an explicit direction--talking about earmarks--from the Congress about how the Federal Government should spend your money, the people's money.

It is absolutely consistent with the Framers' intentions. Dispute me, if you like. Challenge me, if you like, and challenge the Constitution of the United States. It is codified in Article I of the Constitution, giving the power of the purse to the representatives of the people.

We, the representatives of the people, have an obligation to be good stewards of the public treasury and to prevent imprudent expenditures. That is our duty. We have an obligation to guard against the corruption of any public officials who would sell their soul and the trust of their constituency in order to profit from an official act. That also is our duty, and one not to be taken lightly. But let no person suggest that the Congress errs in using an earmark to designate how the people's money should be spent.

Let me say that again. Let no person suggest that the Congress errs in using an earmark to designate how the people's money--your money out there, your money; hear me, the people's money--should be spent. That is equally our constitutional duty. It does not belong to the President. It does not belong to the unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch. It belongs to the people through their elected representatives here in Congress.

Well intentioned though they may be, the civil servants making budget decisions in the executive agencies and offices of the Federal Government do not understand the communities that we--you and I, Mr. President, all of us here--represent.

They do not meet with the constituencies. They do not know our States. They do not know our people. They do not see what we see.

How much time do I have, Mr. President?

I ask unanimous consent to proceed as long as I require, and it won't be too long.

I will try to finish in 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I thank my generous and considerate friend.

The process may not be flawless, but if public monies are spent unwisely or wastefully, at least the people have the means to know about it. Both the House and Senate in open session must agree on an earmark, and the president has an opportunity to veto the measure that carries it. There is a record of debate, and a record of how each Member of Congress votes. A controversial item is available for all to see and judge if not before, then certainly after it is enacted. Ultimately, Senators will have to defend their votes on the floor of the Senate, or respond to the inquiries of the media, or stand before the electorate and their constituency. The representatives of the people in Congress are held accountable.

If the Congress does not specify how funds are to be spent, then the decision falls to the executive branch--the so-called ``experts'' at bureaucratic agencies to determine the priorities of this Nation. In such cases, the American people may never know who is responsible for a spending decision. The American people never know how a spending decision is made. They may never hear anything about it. In the executive bureaucracy, there is far less accountability to the people.

We ought to prefer that spending decisions be made in an open and public forum of debate, rather than ensconced within the hidden and unaccountable agencies of the executive branch. The fact that controversial earmarks are being openly debated, and that several controversial earmarks were put before the voters last November, suggests that the system works. Those entrusted with power are being held accountable to the people.

So I say to Senators that we are treading some dangerous constitutional grounds with this bombast against earmarks. I support, as I always have, making the budget and appropriations process more transparent, but let their be no mistake that the misguided cries to do away with earmarks has constitutional ramifications

about who controls the power of the purse. The White House recognizes this. The President is asking the Congress to reduce congressional earmarks, leaving more spending decisions to the White House and executive branch. The President is asking for fewer limitations and more flexibility in how the executive branch spends the people's money. The President is even taking advantage of the current political environment to ask for a line-item veto--God help us--a wholly unconstitutional grant of power invalidated once before by the Supreme Court. If so-called earmark reforms happen too quickly and with too little thought to the constitutional ramifications, it could mark the beginnings of a dangerous aggrandizement of the executive in the legislative process, and I am not for that. I am not willing to go along with it.

In this rush to label earmarks as the source of our budgetary woes, and calls to expand the budgetary authorities of the President, we-- Members of the Senate--should remember why deficits have soared to unprecedented levels. Senators will recall that the president has not exercised his current constitutional authorities. He has not vetoed a single spending or revenue bill. He has not submitted a single rescission proposal under the Budget Act.

What has wrought these ominous budget deficits are the administration's grossly flawed and impossible budget assumptions. In 2001, the President inherited a $5.6 trillion, 10-year surplus. After 1 year operating under his fiscal policies, that surplus disappeared. We went from a surplus in the fiscal year 2001 of $128 billion to a deficit in the fiscal year 2002 of $158 billion, followed by the three largest deficits in our Nation's history in the fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005. The administration's excessive tax cuts added $3 trillion in budget deficits. The war in Iraq, which I voted against, has required the Congress to appropriate $379 billion, and another $100 billion request will arrive from the President next month. Rather than dealing with these fiscal failures, too many would rather propagate the specious argument that enlarging the president's role in the budget process and doing away with congressional earmarks will magically reduce these foreboding and menacing deficits. It absolutely will not.

Often, critics of congressional earmarks assert that earmarks, by definition, are wasteful spending. In the 1969 Agriculture Appropriations bill, Congress earmarked funds for a new program to provide critical nutrition to low-income women, infants and children. This program, which is now known as the WIC program, has since provided nutritional assistance to over 150 million women, infants and children, a critical contribution to the health of the nation. Is that wasteful spending? Is that wasteful spending?

In the 1969 and 1970, Congress earmarked $25 million for a children's hospital in Washington, DC, even overcoming a Presidential veto. That funding resulted in the construction of what is known as the Children's National Medical Center. The hospital has become a national and international leader in neonatal and pediatric care. Since the hospital opened, over 5 million children have received health care. Last year, Children's Hospital treated over 340,000 young patients, and performed over 10,000 surgeries, saving and improving the lives of thousands of young children. Is that wasteful spending?

In 1983, Congress earmarked funds for a new emergency food and shelter program. In 2005 alone, the program served 35 million meals and provided 1.3 million nights of lodging to the homeless. Is that wasteful spending?

In 1987, Congress earmarked funds for the mapping of the human gene. This project became known as the Human Genome Project. This research has lead to completely new strategies for disease prevention and treatment. The Human Genome Project has led to discoveries of dramatic new methods of identifying and treating breast, ovarian, and colon cancers, saving many, many lives. Is this wasteful spending?

In 1988 and 1995, Congress earmarked funds for the development of unmanned aerial vehicles. These efforts produced the Predator and the Global Hawk, two of the most effective assets that have been used in the global war on terror. Is this wasteful spending?

No. Each of these earmarks was initiated by Congress and produced lasting gains for the American people.

There is no question that the earmarking process has grown to excessive levels in recent years. From 1994 to 2006, the funding that has been earmarked has nearly tripled. That is why I have joined with House Appropriations Committee Chairman Obey in calling for a 1-year moratorium on earmarks in the fiscal year 2007 joint funding resolution that will be before the Senate next month. That moratorium will give the Congress the time it needs to approve legislation that adds transparency to the process of earmarking funds.

I support transparency and debate in the congressional budget and appropriations process. I support the provisions included in the ethics bill now pending before the Senate that would provide a more accountable, above-board, and transparent process by requiring earmarks for non-Federal entities in all of their legislative forms--as authorizing measures, as appropriations measures, as revenue measures-- to be disclosed--yes, let's have it out in the open--along with their sponsors and essential government purpose, prior to their consideration by the Senate. If the sponsor is Robert C. Byrd, let him show himself. Taxpayers, of West Virginia and the Nation ought to know how and why spending decisions are made. That is why it is essential to ensure that these spending decisions remain in the Congress.

In past years, the Congress routinely failed to consider the annual appropriations bills in a timely manner. When they were considered, they too often took the form of massive omnibus bills that were forced upon the Senate without the opportunity to amend--take it or leave it. Such practices encouraged the kinds of earmarking practices that have been criticized in recent months. As chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I, Robert C. Byrd, will endeavor to do all that I can to have the annual appropriations bills considered in a timely manner. When the fiscal year 2008 spending bills are brought to the floor, I will do all that I can to allow the Senate to work its will, and to open the spending decisions of the Congress to the American people.

Senators take an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution. Eliminating waste and abuse in the Federal budget process is important, but protecting the character and design of the Constitution is absolutely essential. Let's not lose our heads and subsequently the safeguards of our rights and liberties as American citizens.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, last night in his address to the Nation, the President called for a ``surge'' of 20,000 additional U.S. troops to help secure Baghdad against the violence that has consumed it. Unfortunately, such a plan is not the outline of a brave new course, as we were told, but a tragic commitment to an already failed policy; not a bold new strategy but a rededication to a course that has proven to be a colossal blunder on every count.

The President never spoke words more true than when he said, ``The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people.'' But the President, once again, failed to offer a realistic way forward. Instead, he gave us more of his stale and tired ``stay the course'' prescriptions. The President espoused a strategy of ``clear, hold, and build''--a doctrine of counterinsurgency that one of our top commanders, GEN David Petraeus, helped to formulate. Clear, hold, and build involves bringing to bear a large number of troops in an area, clearing it of insurgents, holding it secure for long enough to let reconstruction take place. But what the President did not say last night is that, according to General Petraeus and his own military experts, this strategy of ``clear, hold, and build'' requires a huge number of troops--a minimum of 20 combat troops for every 1,000 civilians in the area. If we apply that doctrine to Baghdad's 6 million people, it means that at least 120,000 troops will be needed to secure Baghdad alone. Right now, we have about 70,000 combat troops stationed all throughout Iraq. Even if they were all concentrated in the city of Baghdad, along with the 20,000 new troops that the President is calling for, we would still fall well short of what is needed.

But let us assume that the brave men and women of the U.S. military are able to carry out this Herculean task and secure Baghdad against the forces that are spiraling it into violence. What is to keep those forces from regrouping in another town, another province, even another country--strengthening, festering, and waiting until the American soldiers leave to launch their bloody attacks again? It brings to mind the ancient figure of Sisyphus, who was doomed to push a boulder up a mountainside for all of eternity, only to have it roll back down as soon as he reached the top. As soon as he would accomplish his task, it would begin again, and this would go on endlessly. I fear that we are condemning our brave soldiers to a similar fate, hunting down insurgents in one city or one province only to watch them pop up in another. For how long will U.S. troops be asked to shoulder this burden?

Over 3,000 American soldiers have already been killed in Iraq; over 22,000 have been wounded. Staggering. Hear me--staggering. And President Bush now proposes to send 20,000 more Americans into the line of fire beyond the 70,000 already there.

The cost of this war of choice to American taxpayers is now estimated to be over $400 billion. That means $400 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. That is a lot of money.

Hear me now. Let me say that, again. The cost to American taxpayers of this war of choice is now estimated to be over $400 billion, and the number continues to rise. When I say number, I am talking about your taxpayer dollars. That ain't chicken feed. One wonders how much progress we could have made in improving education or resolving our health care crisis or strengthening our borders or reducing our national debt or any number of pressing issues with that amount of money. Man, we are talking about big dollars. And the President proposes spending more money, sending more money down that drain.

On every count, an escalation of 20,000 troops is a misguided, costly, unwise course of action. I said at the beginning we ought not go into Iraq. I said that, and I was very loud and clear in saying it. I stood with 22 other Senators. I said from the beginning we ought not to go into Iraq. We had no business there. That nation did not attack us, did it? I said from the beginning I am not going down that road and I didn't and I am not going to now.

This is not a solution. This is not a march toward ``victory.''

The President's own military advisers have indicated we do not have enough troops for this tragedy to be successful. It will put more Americans in harm's way than there already are. It will cost more in U.S. taxpayers' money--your money. You, who are looking through those lenses, looking at the Senate Chamber, hear what I have to say. Many commanders have already said that ours is an Army that is at its breaking point. It is a dangerous idea.

Why, then, is the President advocating it? This decision has the cynical smell of politics to me, suggesting that an additional 20,000 troops will alter the balance of this war. It was a mistake to go into Iraq. Now we want to pour 20,000 more of your men and women, your sons and daughters, into this maelstrom, this sausage grinder, this drainer of blood and life.

We won't alter the balance of this war. It is a way for the President to look forceful, a way for the President to appear to be taking bold action. But it is only the appearance of bold action, not the reality, much like the image of a cocky President in a flight suit declaring ``mission accomplished'' from the deck of a battleship. Remember that?

This is not a new course. It is a continuation of the tragically costly course we have been on for almost 5 years now. Too long. I said in the beginning, I won't go; it is wrong; we should not attack that country which has never invaded us or attacked us. Those persons who attacked this country were not Iraqis, right? Somebody says I am right.

It is simply a policy that buys the President more time, more time to equivocate, more time to continue to resist any suggestion that the President was wrong to enter our country into this war in the first place. This war, in this place, at this time, in this manner, and, importantly, calling for more troops, gives the President more time to hand the Iraq situation off to his successor in the White House. The President apparently believes he can wait this out, that he can continue to make small adjustments here and there to a misguided policy while he maintains the same trajectory until he leaves office and it becomes someone else's problem.

If you are driving in the wrong direction, anyone knows, as you will not get to your destination by going south when you should be going north, what do you do? What should you do? You turn around. I see the Presiding Officer is following me. I saw him use his arm like that. He did just what I did, before I did it. You turn around and get better directions.

This President--I speak respectfully when I speak of the President. I speak respectfully of the President; that is my intention--this President is asking us to step on the gas in Iraq full throttle while he has not clearly articulated where we are going. What is our goal? What is our end game? How much progress will we need to see from the Iraqi Government before our men and women come home? I should think that is what the fathers and mothers of our American troops would want to know. What is our goal? What is our end game? In the first place, why are we there in Iraq? Why are we asking for more troops now? How much progress will we need to see from the Iraqi Government before our men and women come home? How long will American troops be stationed in Iraq, to be maimed and killed in sectarian bloodshed?

The ultimate solution to the situation in Iraq is political and would have to come from the Iraqis themselves. The Iraqi Government will have to address the causes of the insurgency by creating a sustainable power-sharing agreement between and among Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds, and it is far from clear that the Government has the power or the willingness at this point. But as long as American troops are there to bear the brunt of the blame and the fire, the Iraqi Government will not shoulder the responsibility itself. And Iraq's neighbors, especially Iran and Syria, won't commit to helping to stabilize the country as long as they see American troops bogged down and America losing credibility and strength. Keeping the United States Army tied up in a bloody, endless battle in Iraq plays perfectly into Iran's hands and it has little incentive to cease its assistance to the insurgency as long as America is there. America's presence in Iraq is inhibiting a lasting solution, not contributing to one.

Let me say that again. I should repeat that statement. Iraq's neighbors, especially Iran and Syria, won't commit to helping to stabilize the country as long as they see America bogged down and losing credibility and strength. Keeping the United States Army tied up in a bloody, endless battle in Iraq plays perfectly into Iran's hand and it has little incentive to cease its assistance to the insurgency as long as America is there. America's presence in Iraq is inhibiting a lasting solution, not contributing to a lasting solution.

The President has, once again, I say respectfully, gotten it backwards. What I hoped to hear from the President were specific benchmarks of progress that he expects from the Iraqi Government and a plan for the withdrawal of American troops conditioned on those benchmarks. Instead, we were given a vague admonition that the responsibility for security will rest with the Iraqi Government by November, with no suggestion of what that responsibility will mean or how to measure that Government's capacity to handle it.

The President is asking us--you, me, you, you out there, you who look around this Chamber today--asking us once again to trust him while he keeps our troops mired in Iraq. But that trust was long ago squandered. I weep for the waste we have already seen--lives, American lives, Iraqi lives, treasure, time, good will, credibility, opportunity--wasted, wasted. Now the President is calling for us to waste more. I say enough, enough. If he will not provide leadership and statesmanship, if he does not have the strength of vision to recognize a failed policy and to chart a new course, then leadership will have to come from somewhere else. Enough waste, enough lives lost on this misguided venture into Iraq.

I said it was wrongheaded in the beginning and I was right. Enough time and energy spent on a civil war far from our shores while the problems Americans face are ignored. Yes, while the problems that you, the people out there, face--you, the people on the plains and mountains and in the hollows and hills, your problems--we wallow in debt and mortgage our children's future to foreigners. That is what we are doing. We are continuing. We are asking now for more, more, more. Not: Give me more, more, more of your kisses but more, more of your money, more, more of your lives. Enough. It is time to truly change course. Mr. President, it is time to look at the compass, time to change course and start talking about how we can rebalance our foreign policy and bring our sons and daughters home--bring our sons and daughters home.

There are a lot of people making political calculations about the war in Iraq, turning this debate into an exercise of political grandstanding and point scoring. But this is not a political game. This is a game of life and death. This is asking thousands more Americans to make the ultimate sacrifice for a war that we now know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, was a mistake. We had no business going into Iraq. We had no business invading a country that never posed an imminent threat, a serious threat to our own country.

There were those of us who cautioned against the hasty rush to war in Iraq. And I have some credibility on that score. I cautioned against it, yes. And there were others in this Senate Chamber who stood against the hasty rush to war in Iraq. Unfortunately, our cries, like Cassandra's, went unheeded. Like Cassandra, our warnings and our fears proved to be prophetic--proved to be prophetic.

But we are not doomed to repeat our mistakes. We ought to learn from the past. We must understand--and understand it now, and understand it clearly--that more money and more troops--more American troops, more American lives lost in Iraq--are not the answer.

The clock--there is the clock above the Presiding Officer's chair. There it is. There is the clock. There is another one behind me on this wall. These clocks are running, running, running

on our misadventure. And I can say that with credibility because I said it was a misadventure in the beginning--our misadventure into Iraq.

Enough time has been wasted, Mr. President. Enough. Enough. Hear me: Enough. Enough time has been wasted.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Those of us who disagreed with the plan to go into Iraq in the beginning--and now who disagree with the request that we put more troops into Iraq--we are not talking about the Normandy beach. That was an entirely different matter.

What are we fighting for over here in Iraq? Why are the American people sending their boys and girls into Iraq, a country that has not attacked us? Why are we sending our boys and girls to have their blood spilled in that faraway country? For what? For what are we spending these billions of dollars?

I cannot understand it. I say that most respectfully to the distinguished Senator, who is my friend.

Yes. Very well. I thank the Senator.

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

What is it we are seeking to achieve by putting more troops into Iraq?

Will my friend yield?

He used these words: ``We have no stomach to stay there.'' The question is, How long and at what cost? Stay there how long? How long are the American taxpayers and mothers and fathers going to put up with the use of their sons and daughters and their money? How long are they going to continue to want to--I shouldn't say it that way--how long are they going to continue to put up with this expenditure of blood and money and for what? I thank my friend for yielding. I hope I don't appear to be discourteous in any way.

I thank the Senator for his comments.

Mr. President, I rise at this moment to discuss a vote earlier today which began at approximately 12 noon on the Vitter amendment to the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007, S. 1.

Had I been permitted to vote, I would have voted for the Vitter amendment. Now, why do I say ``permitted''? Why do I say ``had I been permitted to vote''? I say it because even though I was in the Capitol Building and on my way to the Senate floor, and even though my staff had so advised the Democratic cloakroom and was told that I had time to get to the Senate Chamber, the leadership arbitrarily closed the vote before I could get to the floor. That action prevented me from doing my constitutional duty to represent the people of my State of West Virginia. I was not more than 5 minutes from the Senate Chamber.

Next year, Mr. President, I will begin my 50th year of service in the Senate. In November, I was elected to serve an unprecedented ninth full term in the Senate. And I was also elected, just days ago, by my colleagues to serve as President pro tempore of the Senate, a position fourth in line in the order of succession to the Presidency of the United States.

I have cast, as of 11:59 a.m. this morning, 17,779 rollcall votes. And the vote I was prevented from casting would have made that number 17,780. The last rollcall that I missed in casting a vote was on March 30, 2006. It was 5 days after my darling wife of nearly 69 years had passed away.

And so I rise at this time not to blame anybody or to lecture anybody, but I do feel that I owe an explanation to the people of West Virginia why I missed the vote. I take these matters very seriously. And I want to explain to the people, who rightfully expect me to do on this day of January 10--and on every other day that the Senate has rollcall votes--they expect me to be here and to answer the rollcall.

I well understand the need to avoid undue delays in transacting the people's business. As majority leader of the Senate from 1977 to 1981, and from 1987 to 1989, I had to wrestle with such issues myself. It is very difficult to accommodate the schedules of 100 Senators and to get the Nation's business done expeditiously. I know all about that. I have been down that road. I have had my feet in those tracks before.

But I hope that as Senators, who serve in a body that reveres tradition, seniority, debate, deliberation, experience, and common courtesy, we try to avoid sacrificing an understanding of individual Members' circumstances and constitutional obligations as we aim for efficiency in our work, which we know that the Senate is not expected to be, and never will be--never has been--an efficient body. That is not the way legislation is done in a body such as ours where we do have free and open debate.

There is no Senate rule mandating the length of time for rollcall votes. I think we have to be careful and considerate in putting constraints on votes. While I wholeheartedly support efforts to avoid unduly dragging rollcall votes, I also hope that we will not forget the common courtesies for which this body has for more than 200 years afforded its Members, especially when Senators are making every effort to get to the floor and are only a few minutes away from appearing here to cast a vote. No real reason exists to deny this Senator a right to represent his constituents, as I was elected to do.

Surely we do not need to coldly sacrifice our regard for Members who, after all, are only human and who experience the travails of life which befall many human beings--we have traffic; we have head colds; we have infirmities or unexpected emergencies--when only a slight accommodation would assist them. After all, we do--when I use the pronoun ``we,'' I include myself--represent real people and we purport to understand human needs and circumstances. I hope that we will reflect that same reasonableness in our treatment of one another and our dealings with one another here in the Senate and studiously avoid overly arbitrary, artificial, sometimes unconscionable and bloodless decrees that are such an ill fit for a legislative body in which each Member carries such tremendous burdens and responsibilities under the U.S. Constitution.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter and accompanying section 102(b) report from the Office of Compliance Board of Directors.

Mr. President, the Oxford English Dictionary defines the word ``surge''--s-u-r-g-e--as ``a sudden large temporary increase.'' Note in particular the word ``temporary.'' President Bush's rumored new strategy on Iraq--a surge of U.S. troops intended to quell the violence in Baghdad--is both wrongheaded and headed for failure.

As outlined, the surge envisions clearing all violent factions out of Baghdad in an effort which is to be led by Iraqi security forces. Apparently, U.S. forces will provide indiscriminate firepower in another attempt to establish democracy by brute force. This does not seem to me to be the way to win hearts and minds in Iraq.

I oppose any surge in Iraq. Only days ago, just days ago, we passed the grim milestone of 3,000 American dead in Iraq. There are few firm numbers on Iraqi lives lost, but estimates are in the tens of thousands. I am reminded of one definition of ``insanity'': making the same mistake over and over while continuing to expect a different result. We have surged before. Still the violence in Iraq worsens.

We are close to the beginning of the fifth year--the fifth year--of a war which should never have been started by an administration that fed the Congress and the public false information. This is an administration which has learned nothing--nothing, zilch--nothing more about the country of Iraq than it knew before it launched an unprovoked U.S. attack.

Our stated purpose for continuing to occupy Iraq is to help the Iraqi people build a stable democracy. But the difficulty of that task should have been clear before we invaded. It was clear to me. Iraq is a country that was only held together by a brutal strongman, Saddam Hussein. And without the strongman to force cohesion, it is a country with deep ethnic and religious divisions and no central loyalties. There is no tradition of constitutions or equal rights, no unifying common beliefs about individual freedoms or governing with the consent of the governed--none of that commonality of thought that reinforces governing principles in the society at large.

The al-Maliki Government would never survive on its own outside the Green Zone in Baghdad, and indeed the point of a surge is to secure only the capital. But what then? After accelerating the violence, even if we are able to lock down Baghdad, what will transpire to keep the insurgency from regrouping elsewhere, possibly fed by Iran or by Syria? How will we then establish the legitimacy of a shaky Iraqi Government?

In my view, we may be about to make a critical mistake by moving in exactly the wrong direction in Iraq. Instead of a surge, we ought to be looking at a way to begin orderly troop reduction. The folly of the surge idea is apparent. The insurrection in Iraq is a civil war. The conflict is among warring factions battling for some measure of control over the others. U.S. involvement on one side simply further energizes all the other sides. This surge will only energize them, further provoking a likely countersurge of violence. If it is a true surge--in other words, temporary--the insurrection factions will only work harder to maim and kill our troops and claim victory if we reduce forces. So, in fact, there will probably be no surge but, rather, a permanent escalation of the U.S. presence, which is simply being sold to the American public as a surge. Once again, we get obfuscation and spin from a White House that seems incapable of careful thought and analysis.

Any plan to increase troops in President Bush's new strategy is simply a plan to intensify violence, put more American troops in harm's way, risk the lives of more innocent Iraqis, engender more hatred of U.S. forces, and embroil U.S. forces deeper in a civil war.

I would like to see a clear defining--a clear defining--of our immediate challenges in Iraq; a realistic discussion about short-term achievable goals; an admission that we cannot remain in Iraq for much longer because the American public will not tolerate it; and benchmarks for beginning an orderly withdrawal conditioned on actions by the Iraqi Government.

So, Mr. President, the al-Maliki Government has been duly elected by the people of Iraq. It is time we let them take charge. Let them, Mr. President. Let them take charge. As long as we prop them up and inflame hatred, they will never have the legitimacy they need to make the political decisions that may ultimately save Iraq. In short, it is time to take the training wheels off the bike. Do you know what that means? It is time to take the training wheels off the bike.

Our blundering--and it is nothing less--our blundering has inflamed and destabilized a critical region of the world, and yet we continue to single-mindedly pursue the half-baked goal of forcing democracy on a country which is now embroiled in a civil war. Our blinders keep us from seeing the regional problems which are bubbling and which soon may boil. The real damage to the United States is not only the loss of life and the billions of dollars expended, it is also the diminution of our credibility around the world as a country with the will and the vision to lead effectively.

Serious diplomacy is clearly in order on the matters of Lebanon, the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and on Iran. Multinational talks were part of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations, but diplomacy usually ends up at the bottom of the administration's option list, and that is where it has landed again.

If the ``shoot first'' crowd in the White House continues to stick its chin out and believe that bullets and bombast will carry the day, soon--very soon--our ability to mediate the morass of difficulties in the Mideast and elsewhere may be permanently damaged. Pariahs do not usually carry much weight at negotiating tables. If the lesson in Iraq teaches anything, it is that military might has very great limitations. But then that is a lesson we should have learned many years ago from Vietnam--many years ago from Vietnam.

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Byrd are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

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

Mr. President, we are now 69 days into the fiscal year and only 2 of the 12 appropriations bills are public law. The Senate now has before it a third continuing resolution that funds 13 of the 15 executive branch Cabinet departments through February 15.

When it comes to funding bills for domestic agencies, the majority leadership is apparently satisfied with a restrictive continuing resolution. Eight of the 12 bills were never even debated in the Senate. When it comes to caring for our veterans, the education of our children, the health of our elderly, and the ability of our deteriorating infrastructure to sustain a growing economy, the majority leadership is satisfied with a rubberstamp continuing resolution, kicking the decisions down the road to the next Congress. This dismal performance is not the result of the work of the Appropriations Committee. The Appropriations Committee did its work and, on a bipartisan basis, reported all 12 of its bills by July 26. Chairman Cochran did an outstanding job in leading the committee.

Sadly, the appropriations process, once again, has fallen prey to politics.

Next year, the 110th Congress will have to complete the 2007 appropriations bills, a war supplemental, and the 2008 bills.

This will be a huge challenge. However, in the bipartisan tradition of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I am committed to working with my colleagues to meet this challenge.

Mr. President, the Senate is set to give rubberstamp approval to legislation that would waive the most important parts of our nuclear nonproliferation laws, but only with respect to India. This so-called U.S.-India nuclear cooperation agreement is a mistake, and our Nation's efforts to draw a line in the sand against further proliferation of nuclear materials and technology may suffer as a result.

This agreement signals the willingness of the United States to look the other way when it comes to compliance with the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty. At a time when nuclear weapons programs in North Korea and Iran are front-page news, the United States should not be giving its blessing to any nuclear weapons program that is not in one hundred percent compliance with all nonproliferation treaties. It is especially galling that the only thing the United States appears to be getting from this agreement is a vague assurance of improved relations. That just does not sounds like a good deal to me.

India is a strategically important country, and the influence of the world's most populous democracy is expected to increase in the coming years. Closer relations between the United States and India is a worthy goal. However, the nuclear cooperation agreement before the Senate is a bad deal for the United States, and I will not support it.