Floor Statements

Mr. President, I draw the attention of the Senate to a bill I recently introduced, S. 1529, the Executive Accountability Act of 2009. This legislation is similar to H.R. 473, introduced in the House of Representatives in January by Mr. Jones of North Carolina.

``Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.'' That is Santayana's Law of Repetitive Consequences, and it is the reason I introduced this legislation--that we might learn from history so that we do not repeat it.

The Executive Accountability Act certainly addresses lessons learned from the debate leading to the Iraq conflict, but it is also a lesson we should have learned, and should have corrected, as a result of executive branch actions leading to and during the Vietnam conflict, World War II, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War and other points in our history when Presidents have distorted the facts, withheld critical information, or exaggerated circumstances in order to sway public opinion and congressional will.

History is replete with examples that know no partisan allegiance. Presidents from both parties have fallen into the trap of inflating fear and distorting facts, if not resorting to outright fabrication, in order to win approval for or justify using military force.

Democratic President Lyndon Johnson misled Congress during the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964, publicly announcing that a second attack had occurred. On the same day, however, a naval commander in the Gulf of Tonkin cabled that a review of the second attack was doubtful, calling for a complete evaluation before any further action was taken. Without the complete facts, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, leading the United States in to a war that ultimately took more than 55,000 American lives.

Republican President Richard Nixon expanded the Vietnam conflict in 1969 by authorizing bombing operations in Cambodia and directing that they be conducted clandestinely. Operational reports of the bombings were either not made or were falsely described as having occurred over South Vietnam rather than Cambodia. A few Members of Congress were informed, secretly, of the bombings, but the remainder of Congress was deceived about the secret bombing campaign over a nation with which the United States was not at war.

Most recently, of course, another President, his Vice President, and other Cabinet officials, used scare-mongering tales of ``smoking guns'' and ``mushroom clouds''; of nonexistent weapons of mass destruction; dubious tales of mobile biological laboratories; fictional African trips to buy yellowcake; and, improbable and unsupported rumors of alliances between dictators and terrorists to stampede a fearful nation and a spineless Congress into a so-called ``preemptive'' invasion of another sovereign nation.

President Abraham Lincoln, an opponent of the Mexican-American War during his service in the House of Representatives, well understood the dangers of preemptive war and the need for the constitutional check on executive power inherent in the requirement for a congressional declaration of war or an authorization to use military force. Lincoln condemned President Polk for driving the U.S. into war with Mexico by putting U.S. forces in danger on disputed territory. Polk then inflamed public and congressional anger by asserting that Mexican soldiers had shed U.S. blood on U.S. soil. Lincoln explained his concerns with his usual eloquence:

Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation,

whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and

you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he

deems it necessary for such purpose--and you allow him to

make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit

to his power in this respect, after you have given him so

much as you propose. If, today, he should choose to say he

thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British

from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him,

``I see no probability of the British invading us,'' but he

will say to you, ``be silent; I see it, if you don't.''

Lincoln went on to say,

The provision in the Constitution giving the war-making

power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the

following reasons. Kings had always been involving and

impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if

not always, that the good of the people was the object. This,

our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all

Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to frame the

Constitution that no one man should hold the power of

bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the

whole matter, and places our President where kings have

always stood.

Lincoln's insight considered preemptive wars only against neighbors. One can only imagine what he would think of the global reach that the current military might of the United States

gives to an unfettered executive. One can only wonder if Lincoln would think the ``good of the people'' has been served by a war that has climbed to more than $845 billion in direct costs, with a total cost to the U.S. economy estimated by some to be more than $3 trillion. What good has been served that is worth the more than 4,000 U.S. combat deaths and more than 31,000 U.S. casualties?

S. 1529 is a simple piece of legislation that applies only in the most limited but most important intergovernmental communications--the warmaking power. It prohibits the President, Vice President, and other executive branch officials from deliberately misleading Congress in an effort to persuade the Congress to authorize the use of force by the Armed Forces of the United States.

Officials are not prohibited from being wrong or having incomplete facts, but they may not knowingly and willfully falsify, conceal, or cover up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or make any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation. They may not make or use any false writing or document that they know to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement. If the Congress finds that it has been deceived or lied to, the official can be referred to the Attorney General by either House of Congress for investigation and judicial action, if warranted.

The Executive Accountability Act is limited to executive branch officials only, and only with regard to lying to Congress and only about decisions on the use of force. Therefore, its penalties are unlikely to inhibit the normal flow of intergovernmental communications by creating a fear that any statement made before Congress might result in the threat of prosecution.

To those who say that there are already laws that prohibit individuals from making false statements to Congress, rendering the Executive Accountability Act unnecessary, I urge them to read the history of the False Statements Act, section 1001 of Title 18, U.S. Code.

In 1995, the Supreme Court ruled in Hubbard v. United States that section 1001 covered only false statements made to the executive branch, not to the judiciary or to Congress. Congress then moved to reverse the ruling by legislating changes to section 1001 in 1996. However, that bill, as enacted, applies only to administrative matters within Congress and any investigation or review conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress.

The Executive Accountability Act clarifies the requirement for honest testimony and discussion with the Congress about the most important question debated by Congress and provided by the most authoritative officials of the government.

The Framers were absolutely clear about the warmaking power: they gave the President the authority to lead troops after war was declared and to repel invasions of the United States, but only the Congress could authorize the use of force--the ability to send troops into battle. The Framers were well aware of the dangers inherent in vesting the warmaking decision with a single executive, having the history of the world's kings and emperors as their foundation.

Our recent history has shown us that a powerful and persuasive executive can, and too often has, used his command of the intelligence and information gathering and dispensing functions of government to paint a distorted picture designed to frighten and sway Congress into ceding even more power to him. Presidents of all political parties have shown themselves to be equally susceptible to the lure of absolute power, making the Executive Accountability Act a non-partisan solution to a deep-seated problem.

S. 1529 restores balance to the system of checks and balances by reinforcing the role of Congress in decisions to use force. Congress does not have millions of civil servants working for it. It does not have its own intelligence community or its own diplomatic corps. Congress must rely upon the executive branch for those missions and for the product of those missions. So Congress must be confident that the information it receives is complete and factual--particularly when that information is used to inform a decision to commit U.S. troops and U.S. treasure to any foreign battlefield. Testimony and communications from the White House and the executive branch must be reliable--not fictional, not distorted, not embellished, not cherry-picked for the purpose of supporting only the decisional outcomes desired by the President.

I urge my colleagues to support S. 1529. It is not retroactive. It will not reach back to affect any statements made by previous administrations. We can learn from the past, make this necessary correction, and move into the future with greater assurance that the most difficult and consequential decisions made by Congress--those involving the use of military force--will be made on the basis of open and frank discussion based on all of the facts.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to reauthorize the Appalachian Development Highway System. This network of highways and corridors, known as the ADHS, was designed to provide access to and from communities in Appalachia. The concept of the ADHS was born 45 years ago. It was, and is, an important promise made by the Federal Government to the people of my State and the rest of Appalachia. I thank the cosponsors of my bill: Senators Rockefeller, Casey, and Webb, and I look forward to working with Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Boxer to have my legislation included in the next highway reauthorization.

While serving in the House of Representatives, I cast my vote in favor of establishing the Interstate Highway System back in 1958. I have had a long history of advancing the cause of our Nation's highway systems and of emphasizing the immense economic and safety benefits that come with the improvement of all surface transportation.

The ADHS's inception was in 1964, when it was recognized by the first Appalachian Regional Commission that, while the Interstate Highway System would provide historic economic benefits to most of our Nation, the system was designed to bypass the Appalachian region. This was primarily due to the difficulties involved in building roads upon Appalachia's beautiful, but very rugged topography. Absent the Appalachian Development Highway System, my State, as well as the whole of the Appalachian region, would have been left solely with a transportation infrastructure of dangerous, narrow, winding roads which follow the paths of river valleys and stream beds, winding around mountains and hills. Thus, the limited access to these regions has tended to stifle economic opportunities for countless communities--a problem that still exists all these years later.

In addition to the Federal Government's responsibility to keep the promise made decades ago to the people of Appalachia, new benefits-- benefits to the entire Nation--have evolved because of the ADHS. In a recent economic analysis conducted by the Appalachian Regional Commission, the study found that completion of the ADHS will result in significant reductions in travel time for personal, business, and long- distance freight trips. By 2020, the aggregate savings in travel time is estimated to be over 67 million hours, 240,000 hours daily of travel time saved, and grow to almost 180 million hours of reduced travel time by 2035.

ADHS corridor improvements will produce significant monetized travel benefits to individuals and businesses both within and outside the ARC region. Total user benefits--travel time, fuel and non-fuel operating costs, and safety--are estimated to be $1.3 billion in 2020, the year of system completion, and grow to $4.3 billion by 2035. Over half the benefit is expected to accrue to business-related travel--commodity- based truck flows, local nonfreight truck trips, and on-the-clock auto trips.

The reason for the existence of the Appalachian Development Highway System is no less valid today than when it was established in 1964. The benefits of completion of the ADHS are twofold: continue to make inroads into isolated communities, and address and alleviate an already overly burdened Interstate Highway System.

Unfortunately, there are still children in Appalachia who lack decent transportation routes to local schools. There are thousands upon thousands of people who cannot obtain sustainable, well-paying jobs because of poor transportation access to major employment centers. Some of the most beautiful places in the country are in Appalachia, but for tourism to thrive, Americans must be able to actually get to these beautiful destinations.

It is time for this Congress, in concert with the administration, to take the last great leap forward and to authorize sufficient contract authority to finally complete the Appalachian Development Highway System. The legislation I am introducing today will provide sufficient contract authority to complete the system, and the completion of the system will provide additional economic opportunities, safer modes of travel, and ease the strain on our current transportation infrastructure.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to reauthorize the Appalachian Development Highway System. This network of highways and corridors, known as the ADHS, was designed to provide access to and from communities in Appalachia. The concept of the ADHS was born 45 years ago. It was, and is, an important promise made by the Federal Government to the people of my State and the rest of Appalachia. I thank the cosponsors of my bill: Senators Rockefeller, Casey, and Webb, and I look forward to working with Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Boxer to have my legislation included in the next highway reauthorization.

While serving in the House of Representatives, I cast my vote in favor of establishing the Interstate Highway System back in 1958. I have had a long history of advancing the cause of our Nation's highway systems and of emphasizing the immense economic and safety benefits that come with the improvement of all surface transportation.

The ADHS's inception was in 1964, when it was recognized by the first Appalachian Regional Commission that, while the Interstate Highway System would provide historic economic benefits to most of our Nation, the system was designed to bypass the Appalachian region. This was primarily due to the difficulties involved in building roads upon Appalachia's beautiful, but very rugged topography. Absent the Appalachian Development Highway System, my State, as well as the whole of the Appalachian region, would have been left solely with a transportation infrastructure of dangerous, narrow, winding roads which follow the paths of river valleys and stream beds, winding around mountains and hills. Thus, the limited access to these regions has tended to stifle economic opportunities for countless communities--a problem that still exists all these years later.

In addition to the Federal Government's responsibility to keep the promise made decades ago to the people of Appalachia, new benefits-- benefits to the entire Nation--have evolved because of the ADHS. In a recent economic analysis conducted by the Appalachian Regional Commission, the study found that completion of the ADHS will result in significant reductions in travel time for personal, business, and long- distance freight trips. By 2020, the aggregate savings in travel time is estimated to be over 67 million hours, 240,000 hours daily of travel time saved, and grow to almost 180 million hours of reduced travel time by 2035.

ADHS corridor improvements will produce significant monetized travel benefits to individuals and businesses both within and outside the ARC region. Total user benefits--travel time, fuel and non-fuel operating costs, and safety--are estimated to be $1.3 billion in 2020, the year of system completion, and grow to $4.3 billion by 2035. Over half the benefit is expected to accrue to business-related travel--commodity- based truck flows, local nonfreight truck trips, and on-the-clock auto trips.

The reason for the existence of the Appalachian Development Highway System is no less valid today than when it was established in 1964. The benefits of completion of the ADHS are twofold: continue to make inroads into isolated communities, and address and alleviate an already overly burdened Interstate Highway System.

Unfortunately, there are still children in Appalachia who lack decent transportation routes to local schools. There are thousands upon thousands of people who cannot obtain sustainable, well-paying jobs because of poor transportation access to major employment centers. Some of the most beautiful places in the country are in Appalachia, but for tourism to thrive, Americans must be able to actually get to these beautiful destinations.

It is time for this Congress, in concert with the administration, to take the last great leap forward and to authorize sufficient contract authority to finally complete the Appalachian Development Highway System. The legislation I am introducing today will provide sufficient contract authority to complete the system, and the completion of the system will provide additional economic opportunities, safer modes of travel, and ease the strain on our current transportation infrastructure.

Mr. President, Sunday is Father's Day. The third Sunday in June is a lovely time of year, and a perfect time for any celebration. This year, it is also the first day of summer--the best day of summer, before the weather is too hot, before bugs mar the beauty of fresh green leaves and weeds threaten to smother the garden, before we are tired of marveling at the smooth green of a freshly mown lawn. On this Sunday, we thank both our heavenly Father and our earthly father for all that is good and strong and vibrantly beautiful in our lives.

Although scientists say that some smells can trigger strong memories, I think that there are certain sounds that many people instantly associate with fathers. The keening whine of a power tool, the droning buzz of a lawn mower on a Saturday morning, the grunt and clank of tools in tight places, the quiet scrape of a razor over a stubbled chin, the slow tread of a tired man coming home in the evening, or even the nighttime chorus of snores--these are the everyday sounds of fathers that provide the quiet sounds during a peaceful childhood. Other father sounds may have occurred less frequently, but still trigger their own quick smiles of recall--the slap of a baseball into a worn glove, perhaps, or the gentle splash of a fishing lure hitting the water, that remind us of pastimes enjoyed together.

On Sunday, fathers will be feted with brunches or barbeques. They may open a few gifts and some funny cards. Mother's Day might warrant more sentimentality, but Father's Day seems to call for a more humorous approach--perhaps so that fathers will not be embarrassed by any teary- eyed show of emotion. It is enough, for many fathers, to get a card at all, and to have all the attention focused on him. Most fathers are not much given to displays of emotion or sentimental speeches.

A father's love is expressed through his presence and the endless labor that he expends to care for his family. His love is expressed through his actions, and all the sounds that accompany them. My own Dad was a quiet man, but he saved his cake from lunch to give to me. He listened attentively to my recitations and my fiddle playing, and he made sure that I had paper and pencils to draw with as a child. Without words, he showed me how much he cared.

An untitled poem by an unknown poet captures the unspoken love that fathers find easier to express:

Fathers seldom say, ``I love you''

Though the feeling's always there,

But somehow those three little words

Are the hardest ones to share.

And fathers say, ``I love you''

In ways that words can't match--

With tender bedtime stories--

Or a friendly game of catch!

You can see the words ``I love you''

In a father's boyish eyes

When he runs home, all excited,

With a poorly wrapped surprise.

A father says, ``I love you''

With his strong helping hands--

With a smile when you're in trouble

With the way he understands.

He says, ``I love you'' haltingly,

With awkward tenderness--

(It's hard to help a four-year-old into a party dress!)

He speaks his love unselfishly

By giving all he can

To make some secret dream come true,

Or follow through a plan.

A father's seldom-spoken love

Sounds clearly through the years--

Sometimes in peals of laughter,

Sometimes through happy tears.

Perhaps they have to speak their love

In a fashion all their own.

Because the love that fathers feel

Is too big for words alone!

Mr. President, we can all remember times in our own lives when our fathers let us know that they were proud of us. We remember the words of praise, the thumbs up, the smile or simply his quiet presence at some long ago event. An occasion was important, if our father made the time to be there. This Sunday is our chance to return the favor and make the occasion important for him, by our presence at brunch, or by the grill, or on the phone. He will appreciate the effort, even if he may find it difficult to show just how much it means to him.

Mr. President, on June 20, 1863, West Virginia became the 35th State in our great Union. This coming Saturday, West Virginia will celebrate those 146 years of statehood, so I say, ``Happy Birthday, West Virginia!'' I might also add, `` and many more!'' It is a happy day.

West Virginians will celebrate the State's birthday in many different ways. In the myriad State parks and forests, special programs may be enjoyed amid the majestic scenery, views of endless, rolling hills, and rushing, tumbling white water with which the Creator has blessed us. At the Haddad Riverfront Park in Charleston, an outdoor concert will entertain the crowds with music and fun. Blenko Glass, in Milton, has produced another stunning artwork in molten, hand blown glass in honor of West Virginia Day. Across the State, local arts festivals and historic reenactments will celebrate the history and talents of West Virginia.

West Virginia Day is a wonderful day to celebrate all that is unique about our great State. Of her 55 counties, 47 were named after notable individuals. Some counties derive their names from Revolutionary War heroes like Francis Marion and the Marquis de Lafayette. Others are named after U.S. Presidents and Vice Presidents, including Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, and Grant; or notable politicians such as Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky. Just three county names reference the State's English heritage--Hampshire County, named after the county in England; Berkeley County, named after the Royal Governor of Virginia, Norborne Berkeley; and Raleigh County, named after the English explorer Sir Walter Raleigh.

Several counties are named after prominent Virginians, reflective of West Virginia's origins as a part of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Still other county names commemorating frontiersmen like Daniel Boone and Lewis Wetzel remind us of West Virginia's time at the fringes of the American union, when the Nation was still young and growing. Counties named after Native Americans like the Mingo Chief Logan, Powhatan princess Pocahontas, and the Mingo tribe, however, speak to West Virginia's even earlier history. Five county names celebrate natural features like rivers or the minerals that are West Virginia's great natural treasure.

The stories of all these people, places, and things help to tell the history of West Virginia. It is a rich, complex and fascinating tale full of hope and hardship, triumph and tragedy. From the Native Americans who lived and hunted these rich woodlands, to the hearty settlers who built new lives in the hollows and along the rivers, West Virginia is full of unwritten history marked only by trails, mounds, campsites, and old homesteads. Modern history is built of soft red brick and bright limestone, iron rail lines and asphalt highways painstakingly carved through the hills. Every county is full of scenic drives, history, natural wonders, beautiful handcrafted goods and foods, and--most of all--welcoming people.

Throughout her history, the State's motto has shone through: ``Mountaineers are always free.'' West Virginians value grit and hard work put forth by individuals. Populated by hardworking families and individuals, West Virginians also value their close-knit communities. You can see that spirit whenever natural disasters bring neighbors together to work together in the aftermath of storm or flood. The same friendly atmosphere fills the many festivals and celebrations held throughout the State virtually every weekend.

I urge those listening to come and explore West Virginia. We are closer than you think, but thanks to the mountains that have shaped our history, still quiet and unspoiled. I know that I may be a little bit biased, but West Virginia is my favorite State, full of never ending variety and great beauty in every season. From the colonial and Civil War history in the eastern panhandle's Harper's Ferry and Berkeley Springs, to the whitewater adventures offered on the Gauley and other rivers,

West Virginia offers something for every taste. You can sample true luxury at the Greenbrier resort or ski and snowboard in the Canaan Valley. You can hunt game or the works of great artisans; listen to bluegrass music or to the wind blowing through the trees. West Virginia has been waiting for you for 146 years--come and celebrate with her.

Mr. President, our flag is the most recognizable symbol of the United States, an instant wordless message freighted with history and meaning. The Stars and Stripes is much more than a war banner. Each flag carries visions of smoke-clouded battles, to be sure, but also visions of brave explorers venturing into new lands, astronauts landing on the moon, athletes celebrating Olympic victories, and of coffins carried on somber caissons to a final honored resting place. Old Glory also marks every great American moment, from presidential inaugurations that celebrate the peaceful transition of power in our democracy to the defiant unfurling of flags over the battered ruins of the Pentagon and the Twin Towers.

June 14 is Flag Day. Although flags fly every day in front of many Federal, State and local office buildings every day, and many flags are displayed on other holidays such as the Fourth of July, Memorial Day, and Veterans Day, only on Flag Day do we honor the flag itself.

The first national observance of Flag Day was in 1877, though it was not until 1949 that President Truman signed into law legislation recognizing the anniversary of the adoption, on June 14, 1777, by the Continental Congress, of the Stars and Stripes as the official flag of the United States.

In earlier years, much more was done to mark the occasion of Flag Day. Schools educated students on the rituals and principles of citizenship, and held patriotic programs to honor the flag. These days, it is enough to mark the day by flying the flag. I hope that many Americans will do so, and do it properly--hoisting the flag up smartly, bringing it down reverently, and folding it away again properly. Once it is up and flapping in the breeze, take just a moment to admire it, or to say the Pledge of Allegiance.

On June 14, 1777, a congressional committee established the design of our flag in a few short words. The record notes simply that ``. . . the flag of the thirteen United States be thirteen stripes alternate red and white; that the union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new constellation.'' In the years since, the number of stars in that constellation has expanded, but the brave ideals that it represents--that all men were created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness--shine as true today as they have since 1776.

Our flag is a symbol that goes well beyond the cloth out of which it is fashioned. It is America, and long may it wave.

I close with a favorite poem of mine, by Henry Holcomb Bennett, that I like to recite on Flag Day. It never fails to stir my spirits, as I hope it does for those listening.

The Flag Goes By

(By Henry Holcomb Bennett)

Hats off!

Along the street there comes

A blare of bugles, a ruffle of drums,

A flash of color beneath the sky:

Hats off!

The flag is passing by!

Blue and crimson and white it shines,

Over the steel-tipped, ordered lines.

Hats off!

The colors before us fly;

But more than the flag is passing by.

Sea-fights and land-fights, grim and great,

Fought to make and to save the State:

Weary marches and sinking ships;

Cheers of victory on dying lips;

Days of plenty and years of peace;

March of a strong land's swift increase;

Equal justice, right, and law,

Stately honor and reverend awe;

Sign of a nation, great and strong

Toward her people from foreign wrong:

Pride and glory and honor,--all

Live in the colors to stand or fall.

Hats off!

Along the street there comes

A blare of bugles, a ruffle of drums;

And loyal hearts are beating high:

Hats off!

The Flag is passing by!

Mr. President, I like this budget. I support many of the policies that the President's budget embraces including middle-class tax relief, and badly needed investments in our Nation's infrastructure but I cannot, and I will not, vote to authorize the use of the reconciliation process to expedite passage of health care reform legislation or any other legislative proposal that ought to be debated at length by this body.

Using reconciliation to ram through complicated, far-reaching legislation is an abuse of the budget process. The writers of the Budget Act, and I am one, never intended for its reconciliation's expedited procedures to be used this way. These procedures were narrowly tailored for deficit reduction. They were never intended to be used to pass tax cuts or to create new Federal regimes. Additionally, reconciliation measures must comply with section 313 of the Budget Act, known as the Byrd Rule, which means that whatever health legislation is reported from the Finance Committee or legislation from any other committee that is shoe-horned into reconciliation will sunset after 5 years. Additionally, numerous other nonbudgetary provisions of any such legislation will have to be omitted under reconciliation. This is a very messy way to achieve a goal like health care reform, and one that will make crafting the legislation more difficult.

Whatever abuses of the budget reconciliation process which have occurred in the past, or however many times the process has been twisted to achieve partisan ends does not justify the egregious violation done to the Senate's constitutional purpose. The Senate has a unique institutional role.

It is the one place in all of government where the rights of the numerical minority are protected. As long as the Senate preserves the right to debate and the right to amend we hold true to our role as the Framers envisioned. We were to be the cooling off place where proposals could be examined carefully and debated extensively, so that flaws might be discovered and changes might be made. Remember, Democrats will not always control this Chamber, the House of Representatives or the White House. The worm will turn. Some day the other party will again be in the majority, and we will want minority rights to be shielded from the beartrap of the reconciliation process.

Under reconciliation's gag rule there are 20 hours of debate or less if time is yielded back, and little or no opportunity to amend. Those restrictions mean that whatever is nailed into reconciliation by the majority will likely emerge as the final product. With critical matters such as a massive revamping of our health care system which will impact the lives of every citizen of our great land, the Senate has a duty to debate and amend and explain in the full light of day, however long that may take, what it is we propose, and why we propose it. The citizens who sent us here deserve that explanation and they should demand it. We must not run roughshod over minority views. A minority can be right. An amendment can vastly improve legislation. Debate can expose serious flaws. Ramrodding and railroading have no place when it comes to such matters as our people's healthcare. The President came to the White House promising a bipartisan government because he knew how sick and tired the American public is of scorched earth politics. I daresay President Obama should not be in favor of the destruction of the institutional purpose of this Senate in which he served any more than he would bless a rigged psuedo-debate on

healthcare, completely absent minority input.

While I support the admirable budget priorities outlined in this resolution, I cannot and will not condone legislation that puts political expediency ahead of the time-honored purpose of this institution.

Yes, yes.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee and his staff for their hard work on this year's budget resolution.

I regret, however, that the discretionary spending level is less than President Obama's request. The Obama administration, to its great credit, recognizes the serious consequences of the previous administration's lack of investment in American infrastructure. I will continue to support President Obama's full discretionary budget request. I look forward to working with the chairman of the Budget Committee on this matter as the resolution moves forward.

I also compliment the chairman for making the right decision to forego reconciliation instructions in this budget. Unfortunately, the House budget resolution does include reconciliation instructions, and that should be of concern to every Senator.

The House provisions open the door in conference to language requiring as many as five Senate committees to report reconciliation legislation--the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the Finance Committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee, and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. While the House reconciliation instructions are ostensibly for health reform and education bills, they could also be used to report other bills under the jurisdictions of those committees--including climate legislation--as long as the bill complies with the budget's net deficit reduction instructions. Whatever legislation those committees decide to report, their bills would require only 51 votes for Senate passage. Under the Budget Act, debate is limited to 20 hours, and amendments are sharply curtailed.

I am one of the authors of the reconciliation process. Its purpose is to adjust revenue and spending levels in order to reduce deficits. It was not designed to cut taxes. It was not designed to create a new climate and energy regime, and certainly not to restructure the entire health care system. The ironclad parliamentary rules are stacked against a partisan minority, and also against dissenting views within the majority caucus. It is such a dangerous process that in the 1980s, the then-Republican majority and then-Democratic minority adopted language, now codified as the Byrd Rule, intended to prohibit extraneous matter from being attached to these fast-track measures. The budget reconciliation process will not air dissenting views about health and climate legislation. It will not allow for feedback from the people or amendments that might improve the original proposals.

If there are rules--such as the Byrd Rule--that frustrate Senators, I hope that they will take the time to understand that those rules exist for a reason. They protect every Senator, regardless of whether they are in the majority or minority party, because even a Democrat in the majority today may have a viewpoint in the minority tomorrow.

I understand the White House and congressional leadership want to enact their legislative agenda. I support a lot of that agenda, but I hope it will not require using the reconciliation process. Again, I commend the chairman of the Budget Committee for excluding reconciliation instructions, and look forward to working with him to ensure those instructions are not included in conference.

Hear, hear.

Hear, hear.

Mr. President, my colleague from Oklahoma has offered an amendment which seeks to eliminate funding for 11 initiatives. Among those initiatives he seeks to eliminate is language authorizing the National Park Service to expend up to $300,000 to defray the costs of the events associated with the 150th anniversary of John Brown's raid on the arsenal at Harpers Ferry.

For those whose memories need refreshing, on the evening of October 16, 1859, abolitionist John Brown led a group of men to Harpers Ferry to seize control of the town and steal weapons from the old Federal armory to be used in the cause against slavery. By the morning of October 18, the engine house, later known as John Brown's Fort, was surrounded by a company of U.S. Marines under the command of COL Robert E. Lee of the U.S. Army. With most of his men either dead or captured, John Brown was taken into custody, tried, and found guilty of treason, conspiring with slaves to rebel, and murder. Although John Brown's short-lived raid on Harpers Ferry failed, his trial and execution helped to focus the Nation's attention on the moral issue of slavery and constituted a major step toward the Civil War.

I had requested $300,000 to enable the National Park Service to fully support the myriad activities that have been planned in the Harpers Ferry area throughout this year to highlight the relevance of John Brown's raid to the history of this country. Ultimately, the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, rather than supporting direct funding, included language to provide the National Park Service the authority to expend up to $300,000 for the anniversary effort.

The Park Service is expecting that nearly 100,000 people will participate in the series of reenactments, dramatic productions, family activities, and special tours that have been planned by the John Brown Sesquicentennial Quad-State Committee. Supporting the events for such crowds at the Harpers Ferry National Historical Park will largely be the burden of the National Park Service. Without the additional support, the agency reports that planned activities at Harpers Ferry would likely have to be reduced in scope by 75 percent.

As a Congress, we should be doing all in our power to keep the unique history of our country alive and accessible to anyone who wants to learn. In better understanding the significance of the Harpers Ferry raid, we learn about our Nation's failures, our mistakes, and the inequities of our past. But we also learn about the values and ideals upon which our Nation was founded--the values and ideals that have inspired the American people throughout our history. Writing about the thousands of soldiers who lost their lives during the Civil War battle at Antietam, historian Bruce Catton explained that those men did not die for a few feet of a cornfield or a rocky hill. They died that this country might be permitted to go on, and that it might be permitted to fulfill the great hope of our Founding Fathers.

So may be said of all those courageous men who participated in the historic raid on Harpers Ferry. They paid the ultimate sacrifice to permit this country to go on, to fulfill the great hope of our Founding Fathers. They sacrificed to promote and to protect the freedom and liberties of all Americans. As President Abraham Lincoln said of those soldiers who fell in the Battle of Gettysburg, they ``gave their lives that this Nation might live.''

Without this knowledge of our heritage, we cannot appreciate the hard-won freedoms that are now our birthright. As I have said before, one does not protect what one does not value. And one does not value what one does not understand.

Mr. President, I oppose S. 160, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act. I must--in other words, I have to--review and renew my objections to legislation of this kind. I have to speak and speak loudly--can you hear me--to its flaws, as I have done when similar erroneous attempts have been made to amend the Constitution with legislation.

As I have said previously, my quarrel is not with the intent of the legislation

but with the vehicle with which the Congress is seeking to effect this change.

What does the Constitution say? Article I, section 2, of the Constitution says--now listen:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members

chosen every second Year by the people of the several States

. . .

The Constitution does not include the residents of the District of Columbia in this context as a State.

We know--or we ought to know--from our history books that our Founding Fathers sought out a Federal city that would not have to rely upon the protections of any one State. Their vision, the vision of the Founding Fathers, a center of government apart from the States, is seen in the distinction made in article I, section 8, between the ``States'' and a ``District.'' Therefore, under the Constitution, the District is not a State. Consequently, a constitutional amendment is required to give the District's citizens voting representation in Congress. This is the step that ought to be taken. It is the step I have consistently supported. As far back as 1978, as the majority leader of the Senate, this body, I--let me identify myself: Robert C. Byrd--spoke in support of and voted for H.J. Res. 554, a joint resolution that proposed amending the Constitution to provide for representation of the District of Columbia in Congress. Where is that? Here.

Every Member of this Senate ascribes to the underlying tenet of our system of government; namely, that the Government of the United States of America serves only by the consent of its citizens, as expressed through their elected representatives. That is us, their elected representatives. Every Senator seeks the goal of upholding and perfecting our representative form of government, but the difference lies in how we seek to effect those rights.

I contend that this is no way to go about doing it. While the goal in this case is laudable, it is a dangerous course on which we embark. Simply passing a law that grants voting rights to an entity that is not a State is plainly circumventing the Constitution. As John Adams noted: ``Facts are stubborn things.'' Let me say that again. This is John Adams talking now, not Robert C. Byrd. ``Facts are stubborn things.'' That is right, I may say to the Senator.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes,

our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot

alter the state of facts and evidence.

So I say this imperfect method of legislation employed to amend the Constitution has already been met with swift opposition and solid opposition. The text of the legislation anticipates that very outcome by providing for the Court's expedited review. And legal challenges will surely come quickly--don't doubt it--calling into question the validity of this legislation, and the fate of the District's long- sought voting rights will be further bogged down in a swamp--a swamp-- of litigation.

Providing voting rights for the District through a constitutional amendment would provide the clarity and the constitutionality needed and would also avoid the path of litigation. Anything short of a constitutional amendment will be insufficient and will certainly set a dangerous precedent.

While it is indeed an arduous task to amend the Constitution, and rightly so, thank heavens, something so critical as representation in the House for the people of the District of Columbia compels it. Shortcuts have no place here. In this instance because of litigation, any shortcut, so-called, may turn out to be the long cut, the long way home for the very deserving, long-suffering people of the Capital City of this country, Washington, DC.

I will support the point of order raised by Senator McCain against the underlying bill, as it addresses this most crucial issue.

I thank the distinguished, very able Senator. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

It has been my honor, my dear friend.

Madam President, these are perilous economic times.

The national economy is shedding jobs at an alarming rate. Nearly 2 million jobs have been lost nationwide in the last 3 months, with 3.6 million jobs lost since December 2007. In West Virginia, our workforce has been buffered to some degree by the mining industry, but we, too, are now feeling the painful global recession. In December--in just 1 month--West Virginia lost 4,100 jobs. We are hearing more frequently about layoff and job loss announcements: Dow Chemical in Kanawha County, Century Aluminum and Alcan in Jackson County, Bayer Material Science in Marshall County, Patriot Coal in Boone and Kanawha Counties, Mountaineer Racetrack & Casino in Hancock County, Simonton Windows in Ritchie County, AGC Flat Glass in Harrison County, American National Rubber in Wayne County, Georgia-Pacific in Fayette County, Greenbrier Resort Hotel in Greenbrier County, Kingwood Mining in Preston County, and Goodies Clothing and Circuit City stores throughout the State.

The Federal Reserve has reduced its interest rate target to near zero, and continues to experiment with unprecedented programs to bolster lending, injecting about $1 trillion into the banking system. Adding to the unease, the Congress has authorized the Treasury Department to purchase up to $700 billion of toxic debt from financial institutions. This is an authority that has been used, so far, to recapitalize the banking system, seemingly with few, if any, strings attached on the institutions receiving the funding. Meanwhile, national deficits and debt are increasing to what still seem like improbable levels.

If the stimulus package before the Congress today seems extraordinary, it is because the economic and fiscal challenge before us is extraordinary.

Not only has the recession created a $3.6 trillion economic gap over the next 5 years, but the fiscal programs of the previous administration have left this Nation with a $2.2 trillion deficit in infrastructure investments. Highway and mass transit systems, airport and rail construction, energy and water projects, schools and public facilities were starved under the previous administration. As State and local budgets shrink, these infrastructure deficits will continue to increase. In West Virginia, I have seen how inadequate infrastructure can limit access to jobs, to health care, and to schools. It can strangle and suffocate local economies.

It may seem incredible to some, but with a $2.2 trillion infrastructure deficit, and a $3.6 trillion contraction in the economy, an $838 billion stimulus is not enough. Rather than cutting back the stimulus package as some have suggested, we should be adding funds to infrastructure projects, which is why I cosponsored an amendment to the stimulus bill that would have further increased investments in transportation infrastructure. I agree with others who have said that the risk here is not that we may do too much. The real risk is that we may not do enough, fast enough, soon enough, and that jobs will continue to evaporate.

I have tried to focus this stimulus where I think it can do the most good for the working people of this Nation, including the people of West Virginia. During the debate, I supported several amendments to limit costs, and to target spending and tax cuts toward working families and their communities. I fought to make sure the bill would create jobs quickly. Seventy eight percent of the stimulative effect will take place in the next 18 months--a big improvement compared to the House bill. I also sought to ensure that there is some oversight of how these funds are spent at the state and local level. I have supported the creation of a Recovery and Transparency Board comprised of inspector generals across the Federal Government, to bring to light wasteful and corrupt spending. Likewise, I am hopeful that this Board will monitor State and local management of these funds, to ensure that excessive or political strings are not attached, delaying this critical funding.

I am sorry to see this stimulus package derisively referred to as wasteful, pork-barrel spending. I suspect many of these naysayers are not looking to create jobs, so much as they are looking to create a sound bite. I do not consider moneys for our Nation's roads and bridges, for our schools and communities, and for a safety net for the unemployed and uninsured to be handouts. I do not consider funding wasteful if it helps to ensure that state and local officials do not have to layoff police officers, school teachers, and fire fighters.

This stimulus is exactly what we need to be doing. I have been fighting for this infrastructure funding for many years. The bill may not win any popularity contests, but it is still the best idea for helping to mitigate this

economic downturn. It achieves the principle goals of creating jobs, of helping to prevent painful and dangerous budget cuts at the State and local level, and of investing in the long-term growth of the U.S. economy. I unhesitatingly cast my vote in support of this measure.

Me too.

Mr. President, the Senate has traditionally given the President, especially a new President, great leeway in choosing his Cabinet. I like to follow this practice when I can, as a matter of grace and in the spirit of cooperation, believing that a President has an understandable desire to want trusted advisors in his Cabinet who are sympathetic to his programs. But I also take very seriously the oath I swore to support the U.S. Constitution and to faithfully discharge the responsibility entrusted to each Senator in

advising and consenting to the appointment of all officers of the United States.

Some very serious questions have been raised about the President's nominee to be Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, and his failure to pay Social Security taxes on income he earned at the International Monetary Fund--IMF--between 2001 and 2004. According to documents released by the Senate Finance Committee, Mr. Geithner recently filed amended tax returns for the years 2001-2002, 2004-2005, and 2006, reporting additional taxes and interest totaling $31,536. In addition to adjusting his claims for certain expenses and credits, Mr. Geithner paid Social Security taxes on income he earned at the IMF from 2001 through 2002. This follows an audit by the IRS in 2006, when Mr. Geithner was required to pay Social Security taxes for income earned in 2003 and 2004, totaling an additional $16,732 in taxes and interest. At the time of the 2006 audit, Mr. Geithner chose not to pay the Social Security taxes he owed for 2001 and 2002, apparently because he had been advised that the statute of limitations had expired requiring the payment of those taxes.

I believe Mr. Geithner when he expresses regret for his failure to pay these taxes, but that doesn't explain why the failure happened. This embarrassing ``mistake'' occurred despite Mr. Geithner receiving annual and quarterly documents from the IMF and signing annual tax allowance requests that were supposed to serve as reminders about his tax obligations. He also failed to pay these taxes despite having accountants review his tax filings, and despite using software to prepare his tax returns. He only paid these taxes in full after being selected to be Treasury Secretary.

Had he been nominated to head almost any other position, perhaps this might not seem so egregious. But this matter seriously undermines Mr. Geithner's credibility to be the Nation's top tax enforcement officer. It suggests serious negligence on his part and creates the impression of someone trying to game the system. Mr. Geithner showed poor judgement in waiting so long to pay these taxes, and then doing so only because it became a political necessity. Certainly most American taxpayers do not have that luxury.

Whatever his qualifications and talents for addressing the banking problems that are plaguing our economy, I cannot in good conscience vote to confirm this nomination.

I yield the floor.