Floor Statements

Mr. President, both requests have thus far been objected to; am I correct?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, let me begin by thanking my colleague, Senator Stevens, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for the excellent work he has done on the bill that is now before the Senate, H.R. 2673, the omnibus appropriations bill. It consists of seven appropriations bills. Senator Stevens has consistently sought to avoid having omnibus appropriations bills. He has zealously tried to have all of the 13 appropriations bills pass on time before the beginning of the new fiscal year and sent to the President of the United States for his consideration. Senator Stevens has at all times been fair--eminently fair to me and to all members of the Appropriations Committee. I congratulate Senator Stevens. He is an excellent chairman. And I congratulate the other members of the committee, both Democrats and Republicans, for working together as they have on this bill and as they have always done as long as I have been on that committee; and that is 45 years.

I share the disappointment of the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I share his disappointment. He has been valiant in his efforts. He has been consistent in his search for ways by which we can come together and pass a bill on time. I could ask for nothing more.

Members of this Congress have a duty and a responsibility to the American people, to the men and women who send us to represent them in this great Capitol. Those men and women who send us to represent them in this Capitol do not expect us to rubberstamp legislation. They do not expect us to cash our own paychecks without doing the work that we were sent here to do. Senators are paid to be in the Capitol when votes are taken. Today is such a day, yet few Senators are present.

The 1,182-page conference report before the Senate totals more than $328 billion. I hold my hand on the top of this 1,182-page conference report. Here it is. What a mammoth bill, 1,182 pages. Yet we were asked to adopt this mammoth piece of legislation by unanimous consent. The majority leader asked Senators for their consent to bring this bill up, which is in the form of a conference report, and pass it without a rollcall vote. Is that the way the American people want their business to be conducted?

This bill totals more than $328 billion. It provides funds for 11 of 15 Federal Departments. It wraps together the work of seven appropriations bills. This conference report funds our Nation's schools and highways, our veterans clinics, workplace safety initiatives, and medical research. It funds priorities that directly touch the lives of every American citizen. Yet Members of this body do not have the time, apparently, or the will, to be here at their desks in the Senate and vote on this mammoth piece of legislation. Instead of a rollcall vote, the majority leader sought unanimous consent to take up and pass this legislation by voice. My voice is not so good today but it is good enough to say no. I object to passing this bill without a rollcall.

I announced my intention days ago to object to any unanimous consent request to pass this bill without a rollcall vote. I am here, at my place, as I said I would be. Senators may have travel plans or schedule conflicts. They may prefer to be in their home States or traveling around the globe rather than be here in the Capitol. Our responsibility is here in this Chamber when we have an appropriations measure of this nature, of this size, of this importance.

Our responsibility is to work. Our responsibility is to debate and vote on this conference report. We should not have postponed this matter until next year. We should not have put this matter off for several weeks. There is no good excuse for putting this debate on hold.

Now, stop and think for a moment. We have had since April to pass these seven bills. The budget resolution was adopted in early April, on April 11.

That gave us our directions and the Appropriations Committees could go forward at that time. Here we have been since April 11 and we have only passed and sent to the President of the United States six appropriations bills. So more than half of the total of 13 appropriations bills are right here in this conference report and no Senator--no Senator and I daresay no House Members, perhaps a few--I will leave myself a little wiggle room--I can say no Senator has seen everything that is in this massive bill. No Senator, under God's heaven, knows everything that is in this conference report. No Senator's staff person knows everything that is in this conference report. This represents the people's business.

It is the people's money and Senators are asked to come here today and vote no. They were asked to come and pass this massive piece of legislation without a rollcall vote. This is an abomination. The American people deserve better from us.

I understand the reluctance of the majority leader. The leadership worries there may not be enough votes to pass the conference report and send it to the White House. But we would not know that until we voted. It is not unheard of to ask Members of the Senate to come back and vote. It has been done before. I have done it when I was majority leader. It has been done by other majority leaders. I don't criticize the current majority leader. He is doing what he thinks he has to do under the circumstances. But I think we all could have done better. I think the Members should have been asked to come back and do their work and finish the job, debate the conference report, have a rollcall vote and then go home for Christmas.

Make no mistake, there are many problems with this conference report: contracting out Federal jobs, stripping employees of bipartisan job protections, voiding an effort to protect overtime protections established by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, taking away the right of as many as 8 million employees to earn time and a half for extra hours worked. Last minute closed-door changes would postpone country-of-origin labeling. Let me say that again: Last minute closed- door changes would postpone country-of-origin labeling on meat and vegetables, robbing Americans from knowing where their food was grown for 2 years and breaking the balance crafted as part of the 2002 farm bill.

The 1-year limitation on the FCC media ownership rule was turned into a permanent cap at 39 percent. The practical effect of changes demanded by the White House is to protect Rupert Murdoch's FOX Television Network and CBS-Viacom from having to comply with the lower 35-percent ownership caps a congressional version of the bill would put in place. The White House is boosting special corporate interests at the expense of the people's interest for balanced news and information.

One could go on for quite some time ticking off the problems that are in this conference report, problems dictated to Congress by the Bush White House.

There are many provisions within this package that never came before the Senate--never. Yet Senators were asked to buy a pig in a poke, to vote for a pig in a poke, unknown, unseen, yet vote by unanimous consent--no, not vote, but asked to pass this gargantuan piece of legislation here by unanimous consent without a rollcall vote.

Can you imagine, $328 billion and not even a recorded vote? What would Everett Dirksen say today? He said: A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you have a lot of money. He should be here today. There is $328 billion. That is $328 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. That is a lot of money. We are asked to close our eyes, plug our ears--no debate, no questions asked--just hold your nose and vote for it. Hold your nose and say: Pass it without a vote. That is what we are asked to do.

Four of the bills contained in this omnibus did not have a recorded vote in the Senate. One of the bills, the Commerce-Justice-State bill, was never even debated in the Senate, let alone adopted. Scores of provisions are included in the so-called Miscellaneous Appropriations Act portion of the conference report that were never debated in the House or Senate.

Under pressure from the White House, provisions that were approved by both the House and the Senate have been dropped. Under pressure from the White House, controversial provisions that were written as 1-year limitations when they were before the House or Senate have been mutated into permanent changes in authorization law. Now, that is going a far piece--going a fer piece, I would say. Houdini was nothing when compared with what the conference did here under pressure from the Bush White House.

In fact, the majority leadership created a new appropriations authority: the Miscellaneous Appropriations Act. That is a new one on me. There are 13 appropriations subcommittees, but I have yet to meet the chairman of the Subcommittee on Miscellaneous Appropriations.

That section, whatever its genesis, is home to administration pet projects and priorities. Scores of provisions are included in the so- called miscellaneous appropriations umbrella that were never debated in the House or Senate. Under direct pressure from the White House, provisions approved previously by both the House and the Senate have been dropped. Under pressure from the White House, controversial provisions originally crafted by the House or Senate as 1-year limitations, may I say again, have mutated into permanent changes in authorization law.

This conference report includes an across-the-board cut that has never been debated in the Senate, an arbitrary cut that would apply to legislation already signed into law. It would cut homeland security. We are talking about your safety, and your safety, Mr. President, the safety of your home, your children, your grandchildren. Homeland security is the usual term. It would cut counterterrorism efforts. It would cut education and health care. This across-the-board cut would reach back into bills signed months ago and say: No, sorry. No, no, sorry, but that is just too much money. So we are going to take a little off the top.

Apparently, in the view of the White House, the United States can afford $1.7 trillion in tax cuts. When it comes to the Medicare bill, we can afford $12 billion for subsidies for private insurance companies. When it comes to the Energy bill, we can afford over $25 billion of tax cuts and $5 billion of mandatory spending for big energy corporations. But when it comes to initiatives funded in these appropriations bills, initiatives that help Americans every day, the President insists: Cut, cut, cut, cut. A cut of 0.59 percent would reduce funding for No Child Left Behind programs by more than $73 million, resulting in 24,000 fewer children being served by title I.

We are talking about this across-the-board cut now. This across-the- board cut does not sound like it would be much, a cut of 0.59 percent, but what does it do to the No Child Left Behind program? It would reduce funding for the No Child Left Behind program by more than $73 million, resulting in 24,000 fewer children being served by title I. Overall, the title I Education for the Disadvantaged program would be $6 billion below the level authorized by the No Child Left Behind Act that the President signed in January of 2002 with great fanfare-- another promise unfulfilled.

The across-the-board cut would reduce Head Start funding by $40 million, resulting in 5,500 fewer children attending Head Start. Veterans medical care funding would be cut by $159 million, resulting in 26,500 fewer veterans receiving medical care or 198,000 veterans not getting the prescription drugs they need.

I spoke earlier about cuts in homeland security. The across-the-board cut would chop funding for homeland security initiatives. How many more baggage screeners would be laid off resulting in longer lines and less security at our airports? How many flights will have fewer air marshals on board? How many fewer flights will have air marshals on board? How many more containers will come into this country uninspected? How many more illegal aliens will be able to remain in this country or how many will be able to come into this country? This is a threat to the Nation's security. How many potential terrorists will never be investigated because of cuts in the FBI program?

All this, and the distinguished majority leader sought consent that this

package be approved without a rollcall vote. That is no way to legislate. How would I feel facing my constituents and having to say: Well, it was getting close to Christmas and Members had other things they had to do; we did pass it; I wish now we would have had a rollcall vote but I wasn't there to object?

That is no way to be accountable to the American people. Taxpayers of this country rightly expect Senators to be accountable for funds drawn out of the Federal Treasury. It is your money. How many times have we heard that? I say to those who are looking at the Senate Chamber today through those electronic lenses: It is your money. How can Members be accountable when they are scattered to the four winds across the globe? What kind of perversion of the appropriations process would result in Senators approving this monstrosity without a recorded vote?

When Members took their oath of office, they pledged, standing right there at the Presiding Officer's desk with their hands on the Bible-- ``so help me God,'' they said--that they would support and defend the Constitution. So we have a responsibility to faithfully discharge the duties of the office of U.S. Senator. We took a pledge to do that. We took an oath to do that. We took an oath before God and man to do that. Senators did not pledge to do so just when it was convenient or when the schedule permits.

The House of Representatives saw fit to return to vote on this conference report. Why then could the Senate not do the same? We all get the same pay. Senators as well as House Members are paid to work for 12 months each year, not 10 months.

Chairman Stevens and I worked with each Senator on the Appropriations Committee to produce 13 individual appropriations bills to send to the President. I have commended--and do so again--the senior Senator from Alaska for his effort, but the process was hijacked.

By whom? Who is doing the hijacking? The Bush White House. The White House hijacked the process. The process was hijacked by the White House and the Republican leadership in both Houses. Instead of sending 13 fiscally responsible appropriations bills to the President, the Senate was asked to close its eyes, plug its ears, and be gagged in order to rubberstamp a 1,182-page conference report combining 7 appropriations bills for 11 of the 15 Departments of the Federal Government, on an unrecorded approval of a unanimous consent request. No vote to it--no rollcall vote, no vote by division, no vote viva voce, no vote by voice, with only a handful of Senators. You could count the number of Senators in this Chamber on one hand this morning. This would be legislating without accountability.

What is the use of having elections if the voters are prevented from knowing how their Senators voted on investing $328 billion of the people's money, your money? This is wrong. The people have a right to know how their elected representatives stand on this legislation which will affect the lives of so many.

I am saddened by the majority leader's decision to postpone a vote on this legislation until January 20. This is no way to govern. We have had since April 11 to pass these seven bills. That is no way to serve the American people.

I thank the Chair, and I thank all Senators. 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, is the Senate still in morning business with a 10-minute limitation?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak as long as I must speak. I can assure the Chair it will not be over 30 minutes.

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Byrd pertaining to the introduction of S. 1997 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. President, last week, the Bush administration--in what has become its normal pattern--ignored the pleas of thousands of hardworking Americans. It lifted the steel tariffs it had promised the U.S. steel industry and imposed on foreign imports back in March of 2002.

Despite its earlier pledge to stand by America's steelworkers, the White House, in typical fashion, decided to turn its back on our highest valued workers and most vulnerable retirees. In a fit of pique and hard-hearted hubris, the White House decided to lift U.S. tariffs on foreign steel imports 15

months ahead of time, instead of letting the tariffs stay in place until March 2005, as is permitted by U.S. law.

Why? Why would the White House betray America's steel industry--the backbone of America's industrial base--particularly during this time of war? Of national emergency? No. Because the President feared retaliation from America's trading partners, he quivered at the threat that they would retaliate against U.S. exports if he did not lift the 201 tariffs. He cowered in the face of exactly those nations whose steel exports to the United States have driven 42 U.S. steel companies to their knees and into bankruptcy. His resolve collapsed in the face of retaliatory threats from America's most virulent competitors, whose illegal trade against the United States has already cost nearly 50,000 steelworkers their jobs.

America's foreign trade opponents gambled that this President lacked the resolve to stand up to them and to the WTO. Do you know? They were right. They were sadly correct.

But this President, George W. Bush, did not need to cave like a ``weak willy'' in the face of belligerent foreign bullies. Instead, he could have invoked Article XXI of the GATT, a viable trade tool that has been legitimately and successfully employed by the United States in the past to exempt itself from the GATT, now the WTO, in a time of war or national emergency. The President on July 31, 2003, formally proclaimed our Nation to be in a continued state of emergency. As a result of the President's own misguided and ill-advised actions, we remain engaged militarily in Iraq.

On July 31, 2003, President Bush formally declared that, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act, he was ``continuing for one year the national emergency with respect to Iraq.'' We also continue to face an ongoing war against terrorism, both here at home and abroad.

So, President Bush had--and has--ample authority to invoke a provision of GATT 1994, negotiated by the United States and available to all WTO Members, that would permit him to exempt protections for the U.S. steel industry from retaliation by foreign countries.

But this President has so far lacked the foresight or the fortitude to take that step. Confronted with real threats of economic retaliation by determined competitors, the President folds like a house of cards astride the San Andreas fault.

That is why, today, I am introducing a bill that will do what the President refused to do. It will reinstate the 201 relief and reimpose the 201 tariffs against foreign steel imports. Under my bill, the 201 tariffs will be put back in place to stop foreign import surges, just as they did before the President so ill-advisedly lifted the tariffs last Thursday. And the tariffs will remain in place through March 5, 2005.

This administration should not have been bullied into abandoning the U.S. steel industry. Our steel industry is key to the national economic security of our Nation. Without steel, we cannot guarantee America's national security. Without steel, we could not have rebuilt after September 11. And I am not the only one who thinks that steel is integral to America's economic and national security. Just a few days before that fateful September day, on August 26, 2001, President Bush told America's steelworkers: ``If you're worried about the security of the country and you become over reliant upon foreign sources of steel, it can easily affect the capacity of our military to be well supplied. Steel is an important jobs issue; it is also an important national security issue.''

With an annual take deficit of almost $500 billion, Americans have a right to expect that international trade rules with work for them; not against them. They also have a right to know that the United States can respond as it must to the type of trade crises that have been suffered by America's steel industry for years.

There was absolutely no reason to lift the steel 201 tariffs. They are fully consistent with both U.S. law and our international agreements--regardless of the view of the WTO. The purpose of 201 relief is to give the domestic industry time to adjust to import competition. Our valiant steel industry is doing just that by pursuing unprecedented restructuring and new investment. Since the 201 tariffs were imposed, flat-rolled steel producers alone have invested more than $3 billion to enhance their productivity.

Critics of the 201 relief have been proved wrong on every significant fact concerning that relief. They said that once the tariffs were imposed, steel prices would go through the roof. Yet, prices have risen only modestly, and much less than abroad. The critics claimed that U.S. steel companies would do nothing to improve their competitiveness. But our Nation is witnessing the most dramatic restructuring in the industry's history. The critics also claimed that the tariffs would be bad for the U.S. economy, but the non-partisan U.S. International Trade Commission, ITC, recently found that the potential costs are minuscule--only about 2 percent of what Americans spend each month at McDonald's--and not even a drop in the bucket compared to the value we gain by restoring a critical U.S. industry to long-term competitiveness.

Other nations' actions in this Section 201 dispute have been truly disgraceful. The European Union originally threatened to retaliate against the United States immediately upon the President's application of the safeguard measures in March 2002. In the end, it hesitated. But its threat was sufficient to extort from the administration nearly unlimited exclusions from the tariffs to benefit foreign producers.

Acquiescing to this type of bullying jeopardizes the future of the U.S. steel industry, and it undermines the integrity of, and support for, the entire international trading system. Americans cannot be expected to support a system that works against them, rather than for them.

By lifting the tariffs, the administration is allowing Brazil, the European Union, Japan, and other nations, once again, to flood the U.S. market with imports. The Bush administration could have stood up for America's steelworkers like those at Weirton, WV, and Wheeling- Pittsburgh Steel in West Virginia, and demanded that other countries respect the legitimate rights of the United States in the world trading system. But this administration chose to back down, to lose face, to sit back and watch, once more, while thousands of additional U.S. steel jobs are destroyed by wave after wave of foreign imports.

The administration does not seem to care if the U.S. steel industry is destroyed at a time of war and in the midst of a national emergency. President Bush did not even care enough to personally inform the U.S. steel industry, its workers, and their families of his decision to lift the tariffs. No!! Instead, he sent a trade negotiator, Mr. Zoellick, to do his dirty work. Ambassador Zoellick had the audacity to tell us that the tariffs are ``no longer necessary.'' No longer necessary. And why did he say that they are no longer necessary? They are no longer necessary because, he said, ``these safeguard measures have achieved their purpose.''

The only purpose that I can see in this decision to shut the tariff program down is to succumb to threats and demands from abroad. The only effect will be the loss of more steel manufacturing jobs here at home.

On October 27, 2000, Mr. Dick Cheney--do you know him? He is now Vice President of the United States--just a few days before the elections he came to Weirton, WV, to campaign for the Bush-Cheney ticket. During that visit, Mr. Cheney forcefully pledged to help America's steelworkers. He said, ``We will never lie to you. If our trading partners violate our trading laws, we will respond swiftly and firmly.''

Promise made, promise broken. Unfortunately, like so many commitments this administration has made, its pledge to help America's steel industry got off to a headline-grabbing start, but has now been discarded, out of the glare of the campaign spotlight.

So now, only 3 years after Mr. Cheney's campaign-season vow of honesty to America's steelworkers, this White House has taken an axe to the 201 tariffs and betrayed the trust of thousands of American families whose paychecks depend on the U.S. steel industry.

Mr. President, the Bush White House has absolutely failed the working families across this country. This White House has traded the best interests of the American people for the big special interests of corporate campaign contributors. It is no surprise that the Bush Administration would turn its back on steelworkers.

When the Bush-Cheney ticket needed West Virginia's votes in 2000, it pledged to help our steel industry. At first, it appeared as though the administration would follow through on that promise. The White House applied the steel tariffs, for which West Virginia was thankful and for which I and other Senators congratulated, commended and thanked the administration. But then the President exempted import after import from those tariffs. Now the President has eliminated the tariffs completely.

The Bush White House may have forgotten the promise made to the steel industry in West Virginia, but thousands of West Virginians and other steelworkers across the Nation will not forget. The recognize a fair- weather friend when they seen one.

Mr. President, last week, the Bush administration--in what has become its normal pattern--ignored the pleas of thousands of hardworking Americans. It lifted the steel tariffs it had promised the U.S. steel industry and imposed on foreign imports back in March of 2002.

Despite its earlier pledge to stand by America's steelworkers, the White House, in typical fashion, decided to turn its back on our highest valued workers and most vulnerable retirees. In a fit of pique and hard-hearted hubris, the White House decided to lift U.S. tariffs on foreign steel imports 15

months ahead of time, instead of letting the tariffs stay in place until March 2005, as is permitted by U.S. law.

Why? Why would the White House betray America's steel industry--the backbone of America's industrial base--particularly during this time of war? Of national emergency? No. Because the President feared retaliation from America's trading partners, he quivered at the threat that they would retaliate against U.S. exports if he did not lift the 201 tariffs. He cowered in the face of exactly those nations whose steel exports to the United States have driven 42 U.S. steel companies to their knees and into bankruptcy. His resolve collapsed in the face of retaliatory threats from America's most virulent competitors, whose illegal trade against the United States has already cost nearly 50,000 steelworkers their jobs.

America's foreign trade opponents gambled that this President lacked the resolve to stand up to them and to the WTO. Do you know? They were right. They were sadly correct.

But this President, George W. Bush, did not need to cave like a ``weak willy'' in the face of belligerent foreign bullies. Instead, he could have invoked Article XXI of the GATT, a viable trade tool that has been legitimately and successfully employed by the United States in the past to exempt itself from the GATT, now the WTO, in a time of war or national emergency. The President on July 31, 2003, formally proclaimed our Nation to be in a continued state of emergency. As a result of the President's own misguided and ill-advised actions, we remain engaged militarily in Iraq.

On July 31, 2003, President Bush formally declared that, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act, he was ``continuing for one year the national emergency with respect to Iraq.'' We also continue to face an ongoing war against terrorism, both here at home and abroad.

So, President Bush had--and has--ample authority to invoke a provision of GATT 1994, negotiated by the United States and available to all WTO Members, that would permit him to exempt protections for the U.S. steel industry from retaliation by foreign countries.

But this President has so far lacked the foresight or the fortitude to take that step. Confronted with real threats of economic retaliation by determined competitors, the President folds like a house of cards astride the San Andreas fault.

That is why, today, I am introducing a bill that will do what the President refused to do. It will reinstate the 201 relief and reimpose the 201 tariffs against foreign steel imports. Under my bill, the 201 tariffs will be put back in place to stop foreign import surges, just as they did before the President so ill-advisedly lifted the tariffs last Thursday. And the tariffs will remain in place through March 5, 2005.

This administration should not have been bullied into abandoning the U.S. steel industry. Our steel industry is key to the national economic security of our Nation. Without steel, we cannot guarantee America's national security. Without steel, we could not have rebuilt after September 11. And I am not the only one who thinks that steel is integral to America's economic and national security. Just a few days before that fateful September day, on August 26, 2001, President Bush told America's steelworkers: ``If you're worried about the security of the country and you become over reliant upon foreign sources of steel, it can easily affect the capacity of our military to be well supplied. Steel is an important jobs issue; it is also an important national security issue.''

With an annual take deficit of almost $500 billion, Americans have a right to expect that international trade rules with work for them; not against them. They also have a right to know that the United States can respond as it must to the type of trade crises that have been suffered by America's steel industry for years.

There was absolutely no reason to lift the steel 201 tariffs. They are fully consistent with both U.S. law and our international agreements--regardless of the view of the WTO. The purpose of 201 relief is to give the domestic industry time to adjust to import competition. Our valiant steel industry is doing just that by pursuing unprecedented restructuring and new investment. Since the 201 tariffs were imposed, flat-rolled steel producers alone have invested more than $3 billion to enhance their productivity.

Critics of the 201 relief have been proved wrong on every significant fact concerning that relief. They said that once the tariffs were imposed, steel prices would go through the roof. Yet, prices have risen only modestly, and much less than abroad. The critics claimed that U.S. steel companies would do nothing to improve their competitiveness. But our Nation is witnessing the most dramatic restructuring in the industry's history. The critics also claimed that the tariffs would be bad for the U.S. economy, but the non-partisan U.S. International Trade Commission, ITC, recently found that the potential costs are minuscule--only about 2 percent of what Americans spend each month at McDonald's--and not even a drop in the bucket compared to the value we gain by restoring a critical U.S. industry to long-term competitiveness.

Other nations' actions in this Section 201 dispute have been truly disgraceful. The European Union originally threatened to retaliate against the United States immediately upon the President's application of the safeguard measures in March 2002. In the end, it hesitated. But its threat was sufficient to extort from the administration nearly unlimited exclusions from the tariffs to benefit foreign producers.

Acquiescing to this type of bullying jeopardizes the future of the U.S. steel industry, and it undermines the integrity of, and support for, the entire international trading system. Americans cannot be expected to support a system that works against them, rather than for them.

By lifting the tariffs, the administration is allowing Brazil, the European Union, Japan, and other nations, once again, to flood the U.S. market with imports. The Bush administration could have stood up for America's steelworkers like those at Weirton, WV, and Wheeling- Pittsburgh Steel in West Virginia, and demanded that other countries respect the legitimate rights of the United States in the world trading system. But this administration chose to back down, to lose face, to sit back and watch, once more, while thousands of additional U.S. steel jobs are destroyed by wave after wave of foreign imports.

The administration does not seem to care if the U.S. steel industry is destroyed at a time of war and in the midst of a national emergency. President Bush did not even care enough to personally inform the U.S. steel industry, its workers, and their families of his decision to lift the tariffs. No!! Instead, he sent a trade negotiator, Mr. Zoellick, to do his dirty work. Ambassador Zoellick had the audacity to tell us that the tariffs are ``no longer necessary.'' No longer necessary. And why did he say that they are no longer necessary? They are no longer necessary because, he said, ``these safeguard measures have achieved their purpose.''

The only purpose that I can see in this decision to shut the tariff program down is to succumb to threats and demands from abroad. The only effect will be the loss of more steel manufacturing jobs here at home.

On October 27, 2000, Mr. Dick Cheney--do you know him? He is now Vice President of the United States--just a few days before the elections he came to Weirton, WV, to campaign for the Bush-Cheney ticket. During that visit, Mr. Cheney forcefully pledged to help America's steelworkers. He said, ``We will never lie to you. If our trading partners violate our trading laws, we will respond swiftly and firmly.''

Promise made, promise broken. Unfortunately, like so many commitments this administration has made, its pledge to help America's steel industry got off to a headline-grabbing start, but has now been discarded, out of the glare of the campaign spotlight.

So now, only 3 years after Mr. Cheney's campaign-season vow of honesty to America's steelworkers, this White House has taken an axe to the 201 tariffs and betrayed the trust of thousands of American families whose paychecks depend on the U.S. steel industry.

Mr. President, the Bush White House has absolutely failed the working families across this country. This White House has traded the best interests of the American people for the big special interests of corporate campaign contributors. It is no surprise that the Bush Administration would turn its back on steelworkers.

When the Bush-Cheney ticket needed West Virginia's votes in 2000, it pledged to help our steel industry. At first, it appeared as though the administration would follow through on that promise. The White House applied the steel tariffs, for which West Virginia was thankful and for which I and other Senators congratulated, commended and thanked the administration. But then the President exempted import after import from those tariffs. Now the President has eliminated the tariffs completely.

The Bush White House may have forgotten the promise made to the steel industry in West Virginia, but thousands of West Virginians and other steelworkers across the Nation will not forget. The recognize a fair- weather friend when they seen one.

Mr. President, I note on the floor the distinguished senior Senator from the State of Montana. I am sure he has a desire to speak and fill other appointments. I ask the Senator, without losing my right to the floor, how much time does the Senator desire?

Mr. President, I have the floor; do I not?

Mr. President, I yield the floor to the distinguished Senator from Montana not to exceed 10 minutes, with the understanding that upon the completion of his remarks I retain my right to the floor.

I ask that the Senator from Montana be limited to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Montana, Mr. Baucus.

Mr. President, I join with my colleagues to decry this appropriations process. This process has fallen apart. Despite the hard work of the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and the bipartisan effort of members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, the omnibus bill is parked and the engine is cold.

Why? Why is it that funding for 11 of the 15 departments of this Government is two months late? Why is it that the Nation's veterans haven't received funding? Why is it that our classrooms have been relegated to the sidelines? Why is it that health care, law enforcement, education, roads, airports, embassy security, worker safety, job training, farmers are put off, day after day? It is because the White House has insisted on legislating. The White House has overplayed its hand and, as a result, the nation is not served.

On Thursday, the Nation will pause to celebrate Thanksgiving. But our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have decided to deliver to the Senate a turkey of an omnibus appropriations conference report. This turkey is filled with stuffing and all the trimmings, but as we stand here today, few Senators know what it is stuffed with. What we do know is that this turkey has been specially carved for special interests.

The process for producing this bill was just one more example of the President's disrespect for the Congress. My way or the highway is the President's mantra. He expects the Congress to rubber stamp his budget.

Initially, the conference process was bipartisan. Chairman Stevens wanted to do the right thing in producing this bill. The ranking members on the seven bills were at the table and worked out reasonable compromises on the bills. I commend Chairman Ted Stevens and House Chairman Bill Young for their efforts to get this bill done in a balanced way.

But when it came time to make the tough decisions, the leadership went behind closed doors with the White House at the table. And they served up a turkey.

They took a balanced package that was worked out by the conferees and at the eleventh hour insisted that they had to have it all. They insisted on changes that were not even contemplated when the bills were before the House and Senate.

The President prevailed on every one of his veto threats.

The overtime regulation prohibition, which passed the Senate by vote of 54-45 was dropped; virtually identical Cuba sanction provisions that were in both the House and Senate versions of the Transportation/ Treasury bill were dropped, as was a Cuba sanction provision in the Senate version of the Agriculture bill; the 1 year limitation on the FCC media ownership rule was turned into a permanent cap at 39 percent; the House language in the Transportation/Treasury bill, blocking OMB's plan to contract out 400,000 Federal workers was dropped. A bi-partisan compromise that was worked out by the conferees was rejected by the White House and what remains provides so many loopholes for OMB that little protection is provided for Federal workers.

This is a bad bill.

There are many provisions that are controversial and were not considered by the Senate. There is language that permits overfishing in the Northeast fishery. There is language that would mandate that the Justice Department destroy background check records for the purchase of guns within 24 hours of the gun purchase. These matters were never debated in the Senate because the Commerce/Justice/State bill was never debated in the Senate.

There is language in the omnibus conference report that would postpone the country of origin labeling rule that was enacted as part of the Farm bill. Rather than the 1-year delay that was in the House bill, there is a 2-year delay, breaking up the balance of the 2002 Farm bill. The DC portion of the bill contains $13 million for approximately 2,000 school vouchers.

The White House's approach to Congress is my way or the highway. Well, this turkey of a bill wandered out on the highway and the rights of Senators to amend legislation and the needs of the American people got crushed. Whenever the Senate Republican leaders decide to bring this turkey to the floor, the Senate will be asked to vote on this as a conference report, with no opportunity for amendment.

Let's look at the overtime issue. This omnibus appropriations bill does not include the overtime pay protections included in the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill. That provision was included in that bill on a 54-45 vote in the Senate in early September. The House of Representatives voted to instruct its conferees to the Appropriations bill to accept the Senate language on overtime on a vote of 221-203. Yet the provision was dropped. It should be clear to the working men and women of this country that it was the Republican leadership, at the behest of the White House, that killed the overtime pay protections in the omnibus appropriations bill despite a majority of members in both the House and Senate voting to protect the overtime rights of American workers. As a result, the White House is responsible for the pay cut that 8 million American families will receive this holiday season.

On the overtime issue, Congressman DeLay recently said, ``We're sticking with the White House. We're going to win.'' White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, on November 19, said the White House was unwilling to move away from its position of supporting the Department of Labor's proposed rules. ``We'll stick to it,'' he said.

In September, Members of Congress received a letter from several women's organizations that concluded, ``Millions of working women would see their pay reduced and their workdays lengthened.'' Well, as far as the President is concerned it is my way or the highway and the Senate effort to protect American workers is gone.

Let's look at the issue of the FCC media ownership cap. The original provision included in both the House and the Senate CJS appropriations bills limited funding to the FCC for purposes of keeping the media ownership cap at 35 percent for the next year. The CJS conferees agreed to the language. But behind closed doors, the White House said no, not good enough.

In a back room, the Republican Leadership and the White House changed the rules. Instead of a 1-year limitation, we now have a ``permanent'' fix, authorizing the cap to be raised to 39 percent. A permanent fix was never debated by the Senate. This is a policy decision that should be made by the authorizing committees. Instead, it was made by a few individuals and that authorizing language is now being placed in an unamendable appropriations conference report.

Let's look at the gun issue. As part of a carefully negotiated agreement, the C/J/S conferees agreed to drop language that was in the House bill that would have reduced the amount of time that the Justice Department has to retain records from gun purchases from ninety days to immediate destruction. Yet, the White House said that was not satisfactory. Agreements reached between House and Senate Republicans and Democrats did not make the cut for this White House.

A significant national security provision, a counter-terrorism initiative approved by Congress, is being gutted by the Bush White House. Under current law, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms can retain for 90 days the records from gun purchases. This 90-day period gives the law enforcement community the opportunity to find individuals purchasing weapons who should simply not have access to those weapons.

It is a simple matter of law enforcement, of national security. Yet the Bush White House wants no 90 day cushion. This administration is insisting that any federal record associated with the purchase of a weapon be destroyed after just 1-day. This current 90 day cushion is not a delay on the actual purchase. This is not a step that infringes on an American's right to bear arms. But it is a better protection for America's national security. At a time when we are in a heightened state of alert for terrorist attack, should we not provide law enforcement with more than 24 hours to examine information on weapons' purchases?

This administration's own Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, in an October 1, 2001, legal opinion concluded that having data from the gun transactions would aid in the investigation of 9/11. But for the White House, it is ``my way or the highway.'' No cushion, no security.

Among the many outrages that I find with the substance of this Omnibus Appropriations bill and the process in which it was developed, centers around the language regarding President Bush's so-called ``competitive sourcing'' initiative. Competitive

sourcing is President Bush's euphemism for throwing a federal employee onto the unemployment line for the purpose of contracting out his work to a private company.

Division F of this Omnibus Appropriations Act includes the Transportation, Treasury and General Government Appropriation bill. One will find in that division of the bill, under section 647, a largely meaningless and ineffective provision, that is rife with loopholes intended to mask the Bush administration's determined efforts to fire thousands of Federal employees. This provision did not always read this way. Indeed, the conferees on the Transportation, Treasury and General Government Appropriations bill met in open conference on Wednesday, November 12th and it was anticipated at that time that the conference agreement would be sent to the President as a freestanding bill. That conference was chaired by the very able Subcommittee Chairman Senator Shelby. I was a conferee on that bill and I was proud to sign the conference report when it was presented to me.

The original conference agreement reached by the members of that conference committee included a sound and balanced policy to govern the President's competitive sourcing initiative. The conference agreement ensured that there would be uniform rules for this initiative across all agencies of the Federal Government. It also ensured that the administration would have to demonstrate meaningful cost savings to the taxpayers before contracting out federal work. The agreement also provided Federal employees an opportunity to appeal a wrongful contracting out decision. Under the Bush administration's regulations, only private contractors have that appeal right.

That tentative conference agreement was agreed to as a substitute for the amendment that was included in the House bill that was championed by Congressman Van Hollen of Maryland. The Bush White House made it quite clear to all the conferees that inclusion of the Van Hollen amendment would result in the Transportation/Treasury bill being vetoed. Ever since the day that conference concluded--Wednesday, November 12th--we have been waiting for the conference agreement on the Transportation-Treasury bill to be filed in the House and Senate. Instead, what has happened has been an unpardonable effort by the Bush White House to dismantle this agreement as it pertains to its beloved ``competitive sourcing'' initiative.

Why did the administration not like this agreement? Because they do not care to have to demonstrate to the taxpayers that any real dollar savings will accrue to the taxpayer when they contract out Federal jobs; they do not want Federal employees to have the opportunity to appeal a decision that was made in error; and they do not want a consistent and fair policy for all Federal agencies in this area.

Believe it or not, the Bush administration complained about provisions in the Transportation/Treasury conference agreement that were identical to provisions that President Bush had already signed into law on the Department of Defense Appropriations Act and the Department of Interior Appropriations Act. When one now reviews the Omnibus Appropriations bill, it is clear that the Bush administration has succeeded in neutering the original conference agreement in this area. Never mind that we met in full and open conference and agreed to a meaningful set of safeguards. Never mind that all the members of the conference committee signed on to that agreement--Democrats and Republicans alike. This White House would have none of it. So, working through the offices of the House and Senate Republican leadership, the White House has succeeded in undermining the provisions of the original conference agreement to the point of making them largely hollow. The Bush administration has made a sham of our Federal procurement process and a sham of the appropriations process. So, on the Transportation Appropriations bill, once again, the President says it is my way or the highway.

Finally, there is the matter of the across the board cuts. The President set an arbitrary topline for discretionary spending of $786 billion. In the President's view, we can afford $1.7 trillion dollars of tax cuts. When it comes to the Medicare bill, we can afford $12 billion for subsidies for private insurance companies. When it comes to the Energy bill, we can afford over $25 billion of tax cuts and $5 billion of mandatory spending for big energy corporations. But when it comes to discretionary programs that help average Americans, the President insists on cuts. A cut of 0.59 percent would reduce funding for No Child Left Behind programs by over $73 million, resulting in 24,000 fewer kids being served by Title I. Overall, the Title I Education for the Disadvantaged program would be $6 billion below the level authorized by the No Child Left Behind Act that the President signed in January of 2002. Another promise unfulfilled.

The across-the-board cut would reduce Head Start funding by $40 million, resulting in 5,500 fewer kids attending Head Start. Veterans Medical Care funding would be cut by $159 million, resulting in 26,500 fewer veterans receiving medical care or 198,000 veterans not getting the drugs they need.

Funding for highway construction would be cut by over $170 million. Well, for this President, it is my way or the highway, but fewer Americans will be building highways next year.

Chairman Stevens and I tried very hard to produce thirteen bills to send to the President. I commend him for his effort to do so. But, the process was kidnapped by the White House and the leadership. Instead of sending thirteen fiscally responsible appropriations bills to the President, the House is filing a turkey of a conference report. That is no way to govern. That is no way to serve the American people.

I wish all Senators a happy Thanksgiving and a happy Christmas. I hope they stay safe for the holidays.

Mr. President, I thank again the Senator.

Mr. President, Thanksgiving is one of the oldest and most cherished American holidays. Along with the Fourth of July, it is a uniquely American holiday. I realize that other countries and other cultures have their days of feasts, some even have them in autumn to glorify their harvests. But our Thanksgiving, our day of thanks, is a truly American holiday.

Thanksgiving is our special day. It is a day on which we celebrate with Turkey, gravy, dressing, cranberry sauce. You should try Erma's cranberry sauce; there is nothing like it anywhere in the world, my wife's cranberry sauce. Just to think of it, just to think of it makes me want to go home now--cranberry sauce, sweet potatoes, pumpkin pie.

In addition to being a time of family togetherness, it is a day of football games, parades, and the beginning of the Christmas holiday season--a little early for the Christmas holiday season, but that is the way it is in this commercial time in which we live.

But more profoundly, Thanksgiving is a day for recognizing and celebrating our Pilgrim heritage--that small group of men and women who left their homeland, crossed a mighty ocean, and settled in a wilderness so that they could worship God as they chose.

Before disembarking from the ship that brought them to these lands, the famous and legendary Mayflower, this gallant group of early American settlers gathered together and they formulated a government for their new world--a government based on the principle of self-rule. It was also a government under God--a government under God. The document that created that new government, the Mayflower Compact--we should have on our office walls. That government was anticipated in the Mayflower Compact. The Compact read in part--listen to this:

In the name of God, amen, we whose names are underwritten .

. . Having undertaken for the Glory of God . . . Do by these

Presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of

God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together

into a civil Body Politik. . . .

How about that? That was the Mayflower Compact. A copy of that Compact ought to hang or appear in every schoolroom in this country. I know there are a few atheists around who wouldn't like it, but who cares that they wouldn't like it? Maybe we could win them over.

But let us read it again. How wonderful it is to read that. I wonder if there would be those who would say it is unconstitutional.

In the name of God, amen, we whose names are underwritten .

. . Having undertaken for the Glory of God . . . Do by these

Presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and

one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a

civil Body Politik. . . .

A year after landing--after months of privation, suffering, sickness, hunger, and death--these men and women set aside time to express their gratitude to God for protecting them and for the preservation of their community. With all the hardships and agony they had endured, they still set aside time to thank God for being good to them. They were not only men and women of great courage, they were also men and women of great religious faith.

Two years later, in 1623, the Pilgrims made this day of thanks a tradition. The spirit of that glorious day, which some people recognize as the first official Thanksgiving, was captured in a proclamation attributed to Governor Bradford that read:

Inasmuch as the Great Father has given us this year an

abundant harvest of Indian corn, wheat, peas, squashes and

garden vegetables, and made the forest to abound with game

and the sea with fish and clams, and inasmuch as he has . . .

spared us from the pestilence and granted us freedom to

worship God according to the dictates of our own conscience,

now I, your magistrate, do proclaim that all ye Pilgrims,

with your wives and ye little ones, do gather at ye meeting

house, on ye hill, between the hours of nine and twelve in

the daytime on Thursday, November ye 29th, of the year of our

Lord one thousand six hundred and twenty-three, and the third

year since ye Pilgrims landed on ye Plymouth Rock, there to

listen to ye Pastor and render Thanksgiving to ye all

Almighty God for all his blessings.

The tradition of Thanksgiving was reaffirmed again during the American Revolution. Following the Battle of Saratoga in October 1777, the American victory that marked a crucial turning point in the war and the birth of our Nation, the Continental Congress approved a resolution designating a day of ``Thanksgiving and praise.'' George Washington wrote of the day set apart--these are words I quoted--the ``day set apart by the honorable Congress for Public Thanksgiving and praise, and duty calling us to devoutly to express our grateful acknowledgments to God for the manifold blessings he has granted us.''

This was George Washington, the Father of our Country, Commander of the American Forces at Valley Forge--George Washington, the first President of the United States, the greatest of all Presidents of these United States--who said in part when he wrote of the ``day set apart by the honorable Congress for public Thanksgiving and praise, and duty calling us devoutly to express our grateful acknowledgments to God for the manifold blessings he has granted us.''

That was George Washington.

Following the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress used Thanksgiving as the day to give thanks to the proper authority for delivering the country from colonization and war into independence and peace.

These were our forefathers--George Washington, of whom there is none greater--nay, of whom there is no peer, George Washington.

On October 11, 1782, Congress proclaimed ``the twenty-eight day of November next, as a day of solemn THANKSGIVING to God for all his mercies.''

Think about that.

On October 11, 1782, Congress proclaimed ``the twenty-eight day of November next, as a day of solemn THANKSGIVING to God for all his mercies: and they do further recommend to all ranks, to testify to their gratitude to God for his goodness.''

I was just verifying from the fine man who serves on my staff that this coming Thanksgiving again falls on the calendar on the day of November 28.

The proclamation further stated:

It being the indispensable duty of all Nations, not only to

offer up their supplication to ALMIGHTY GOD, the giver of all

good, for his gracious assistance in a time of distress, but

also in a solemn and public manner to give him praise for his

goodness in general, and especially for great and signal

interpositions of his providence in their behalf.

Following the establishment of the new government of the United States in 1789, President George Washington--he is now President; the President is George Washington--issued the first Presidential proclamation calling for ``a day of public thanksgiving and prayer.'' He asked that the public observe that day ``by acknowledging with grateful heart the many favors of Almighty God.'' At President Washington's request, Americans assembled in churches on the appointed day and thanked God for his blessings.

Then during the awful Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln officially asked the people of the United States to set aside the last Thursday of November ``as a day of Thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father.'' ``In the midst of a civil war of unequal magnitude and severity,'' President Lincoln proclaimed in 1863 that the country should take a day to acknowledge the gracious gifts of the most high God.

Perhaps we have noticed that in every one of these proclamations, the Founders and the early leaders of our country carefully and purposefully recognized and thanked Almighty God for their blessings.

So in a year when we have been told that it is wrong to post the Ten Commandments in our courthouses, and we have Federal courts ruling that ours is not a nation under God, it is well to remember how the Founders of our country, going back to the Pilgrims, continuing through the Continental Congresses and our foremost Presidents, Washington and Lincoln, certainly considered ours to be a nation under God.

I was a Member of the House of Representatives on June 7, 1954, when the House voted to insert the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. That was June 7, 1954. I was a Member of the House 1 year from that day, perhaps just coincidentally, when the House voted to place the words ``In God We Trust'' on the currency and coins of these United States. June 7, 1955, that was.

There you have it, June 7, 1954, the words ``under God'' were inserted in the Pledge of Allegiance, and 1 year from that day, June 7, 1955, they put the words ``In God We Trust'' on the currency of our Nation. And there they are, the words ``In God We Trust.''

Do you think we would ever have to remove those words from the walls of this Chamber? Let us trust in God that those words will never be removed. No court will ever think that it can remove those words ``In God We Trust'' from the walls of this Chamber.

So our foremost Presidents, Washington and Lincoln, certainly considered ours to be a nation under God. They used Thanksgiving, our special unique American holiday, as a time and a reason to celebrate it.

That acknowledgment of divine blessing did not stop there. After 1863, President Lincoln issued other Thanksgiving proclamations, and subsequent Presidents who followed him, followed his example.

In 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt talked of how appropriate it was to ``set apart one day in each year for a special service of thanksgiving to the Almighty.'' ``It is eminently fitting,'' he proclaimed, ``that once a year our people should set apart a day of praise and thanksgiving to the Giver of Good . . . [therefore] I ask that through the land the people gather in their homes and places of worship and in rendering thanks unto the Most High for the manifold blessings of the past year.''

In his 1938 Thanksgiving proclamation, President Franklin Roosevelt noted:

[F]rom the earliest recorded history, Americans have

thanked God for their blessings. In our deepest natures, in

our very souls, we, like all mankind, since the earliest

origin of mankind, turned to God in time of happiness.

Mr. President, 20 years later in his 1958 Thanksgiving proclamation, President Eisenhower proclaimed:

Let us be especially grateful for the religious heritage

bequeathed us by our forefathers, as exemplified by the

Pilgrims, who,

after the gathering of their first harvest, set apart a

special day for rendering thanks to God for the bounties

vouchsafed to them.

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy asked the American people to ``renew the spirit of the Pilgrims at the first Thanksgiving, lonely in an inscrutable wilderness, facing the dark unknown with a faith borne of their dedication to God and a fortitude drawn from their sense that all men were brothers.''

So it is that we celebrate this unique American holiday, a day devoted to family, to country, and to God. It always has been. I pray it always will be a day for giving thanks. With the turmoil of the past year with our sons and daughters in far away lands putting their lives in danger, we still have so much for which to be thankful.

We can be thankful for the heritage of liberty bequeathed to us by our ancestors, and from whom we are entrusted to preserve for future generations of Americans.

Mr. President, we can be thankful for the wisdom and the foresight of our Founding Fathers, who bequeathed to us a form of government unique in history, with its three strong pillars of the executive, the legislative, and the judicial branches, each balanced and checked one against the other.

Like President Washington, we can be thankful for ``the many favors of Almighty God,'' including a government that ensures our ``safety and happiness.''

And like President Lincoln, we can be thankful for the ``gracious gifts of the most high God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.''

While we are saddened that there are so many young American men and women in uniform who will not be able to be with their families on this holiday, we can be thankful for their courage, thankful for their devotion to duty, and thankful for their service to our Nation.

We can be thankful for those men and women who, 383 years ago, had the courage, the faith, and the devotion to our Almighty Father, to God, to embark upon the most difficult and dangerous of journeys and face the darkest unknown so that they, and we, could worship freely.

We can be thankful, can we not, for the abundance of America, an abundance that includes an annual production of millions of turkeys, millions of pounds of cranberries and sweet potatoes and pumpkins.

Mr. President, a few minutes ago, I read from President Lincoln's Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1863. Permit me now to read from the 1863 White House Thanksgiving menu.

According to that menu, in 1863, the White House Thanksgiving dinner consisted of the following, and I quote from that menu: cranberry juice; that is good. How sweet it is, cranberry juice; roast turkey with dressing, cranberry sauce.

Look at that man sitting in the chair, presiding over this Senate. Yes, there he is. I can see his mouth is watering like mine is watering.

Sweet potatoes, creamed onions. Well, I like my onions just plain onions, not creamed, but that was on the menu. Squash, pumpkin pie, plum pudding, mince pie, milk, and coffee.

Does that sound familiar? How about it, does it sound familiar?

I hope my wife Erma is watching right at this moment because nobody in my lifetime can spread a table like my wife Erma. She has been spreading that table in my family now for 66 years, bless her heart.

But does it sound familiar? It sure sounds like the 2003 Thanksgiving menu at the Byrd house. Boy, how I look forward to it. I am getting hungry just thinking about it. I am getting hungry. How about that?

I hope that my listeners are getting hungry also, and thinking about the first Thanksgiving. The first Thanksgiving, how would you have liked to have sat with that incredible, intrepid band of men and women?

So I am going to stop talking now, and I am going to head home, before too long, for our great Thanksgiving meal with my wife Erma and our two daughters and their husbands and our five grandchildren, their spouses, and our three great-grandchildren and our little dog, Trouble.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. Happy Thanksgiving.

Mr. President, the Republican leadership and even a member of the President's Cabinet twisted arms and bullied individual House Members late in the night and into the wee hours of Saturday morning. A roll call vote was held open for almost 3 hours--the longest House roll call vote in history--until enough Members ignored their conscience, cried ``mercy,'' and voted ``yes'' on the Medicare bill.

I believe most Americans would find such tactics repulsive and unbecoming of how Members of Congress should behave. One might expect to see such arm twisting and intimidation during a prisoner interrogation scene in an episode of ``Law & Order,'' not a voting session of Congress--especially on a vote of such great importance to the citizens of this country.

What happened the other night was nothing short of a subversion of the democratic process itself and a subversion of the democratic principles our Founders stood for. Is this the manner of legislating that our Founding Fathers had in mind when they so craftily designed the political institutions of this country? I do not believe it is the scenario our Founders envisioned when they created the Senate--to act as the ``saucer,'' as George Washington so wisely said, to absorb the overheated passions pouring out of the House of Representatives.

If ever there were a time for the Senate to act as that ``saucer,'' it is now. It is a time when the health care security of 40 million senior citizens, and millions of Americans for years to come, could be on the brink of collapse as a result of this bill. We may even be in a race toward the finish line of Medicare itself. And I am afraid that the race is driven by partisan politics, extreme ideological fervor, and blatant special-interest greed--all at the expense of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. Will the Bush administration and Republican leadership of this Congress stop at nothing in order to get what they want?

I am bewildered as to why we are engaged in such a mad stampede to ram this bill through the Congress--especially when this legislation will not take effect until 2006. I have been around long enough in Congress to know that the actions of today's leadership smack of arrogant politics and calculated indifference.

The more I read through this Medicare bill, the more I become convinced

that history is again repeating itself. I can recall a painful experience during my majority leadership when an outraged citizenry, composed mostly of seniors, forced Congress to repeal the ill-fated Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act back in 1989. The year before, Congress was engaged in a Medicare debate eerily similar to the one we are having today. An agreement was reached to make the most sweeping change in Medicare's ``then'' 23 years of existence.

At that time, Congress agreed to two key changes to the Medicare Program--a prescription drug benefit and a ``stop-loss'' protection from catastrophic medical bills. Facing deficits as we do today, Congress decided that beneficiaries should pay for the new benefits themselves, with the wealthiest paying the most. The new law included a complicated benefit that was too difficult to explain and a lengthy delay in the benefit's taking effect. In the end, seniors saw the bill, and wanted no part of it. After angry protests, it was repealed. We are poised to make the same mistake again.

I foresee a great deal of confusion and dismay occurring around kitchen tables across America when people actually start to read beyond the newspaper headlines and see the fine print of this plan three years from now. Seniors may not know whether to laugh or cry. And if seniors reject this new Medicare plan, it will fail and fail miserably.

When senior citizens wake up in 2006 and find out what this bill is really about, it will not be the turkey that needs to be eaten on Thanksgiving day, it will be all of us in Congress eating crow.

We should not let political ideology drive our Nation's Medicare policy when we are dealing with the health care and lives of the most vulnerable in the country. I am worried that this body is being asked to hand over one of the most popular Government programs in history to private insurance companies. I have been down this tortured road before during my 51-year tenure in Congress. My constituents and others around the Nation are reeling from public programs that have been turned over to the so-called free market. Utility rates, cable rates, airline rates, you name it, the free market has ensured exorbitant prices with diminished service. Pensions and retirement security have taken a similar beating.

So here we are again, this time being presented with a rosy scenario about how private industry competition will improve the Medicare program. The rhetoric is familiar: increased competition, lower costs, and greater services will be provided. Yes, the rhetoric is familiar, but so is the reality. This scheme will not deliver what it promises.

I fear that we are going to wind up with a patchwork across the country of differing coverages, differing plans, differing copays and differing premiums. No senior will know for sure what they can count on.

Analysis of the GOP Medicare bill estimates that 31,000 Medicare beneficiaries in West Virginia will lose their retiree health benefits as a direct result of this package. Nearly 45,000 Medicaid beneficiaries in West Virginia will pay more for the prescription drugs they need. As many as 27,700 fewer seniors in West Virginia will qualify for low-income protections because of the assets test and lower qualifying income levels. More than 7,500 Medicare beneficiaries in West Virginia will pay more in Medicare premiums because of income means-testing.

Let's slow down and take a better look at this legislation and the unintended consequences. We need more time to explain this plan to our elderly citizens. Don't we need their feedback? I doubt that our Nation's seniors will be excited about accepting a bill that poisons the well. Seniors will likely want no part of it--especially when they see how it will undermine the rest of Medicare down the road. Just like they did almost 15 years ago, they may revolt, and Members of Congress could be back here scratching their heads and scrambling to find a solution and save their seats.

This bill fails our seniors. It sells senior citizens out in exchange for big profits for prescription drug companies. America's senior citizens and disabled citizens deserve more than some new hocus-pocus scheme that leaves them naked to the whims of private insurance companies, and offers only a new-you-see-it, now-you-don't promise of coverage. Instead of selling illusions, Congress ought to go back to work and settle on a good, comprehensive, voluntary Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Let's not shortchange our seniors. We owe them much, much better.

Mr. President, in any event, the distinguished Senator from Illinois would be recognized at the same time--if I understand the request of the Senator from Nevada. If the Senator from Idaho goes first and then I go next, then the Senator from Illinois would go; or if I go first, and the Senator from Idaho goes next, then the Senator from Illinois would go. So the Senator from Illinois, through his gracious courtesy, which is so characteristic of him, either way, that would suit the Senator from Illinois.

That being the case, I have no problem with yielding to the Senator from Idaho next, if he can limit his statement to 10 minutes, which I understood he would.

I will not speak longer than 20 minutes.

Mr. President, our friend, the distinguished Senator from Idaho, who serves on the Appropriations Committee, is welcome. I thank him for his kind references to me.

I thank the Chair, Senator Cornyn of Texas, who has had the good fortune of presiding over the Senate on many occasions this year. I say, I have had the good fortune of speaking on almost every occasion that the Senator from Texas has presided over the Senate, and he presides so well. He presides with a degree of dignity and skill and aplomb that is so rare as a day in June.

I also thank my majority whip, the best whip the Senate has ever had. And I have been the whip. I was the whip for 6 years. But I say--I will repeat the words of a great poet--``You're a better man than I am Gunga Din.''

Harry Reid is a better whip than I was, and it wasn't because I didn't do my best. I don't grow lax in any job. Any duty that is placed on me, I do my very best. But he is a jewel, Harry Reid.

Let me thank the Senator from Illinois also, the distinguished Senator, Mr. Durbin. He is always so gracious, but he can afford to be gracious. He is so able, an inimitable debater. He can speak at the drop of a hat, and the hat won't hit the ground. That man, Durbin, is a very fluent and ready speaker. I am so pleased that he is my friend and that he is a Senator on my side of the aisle. I thank him for his courtesies on this beautiful morning in November.

It is a beautiful morning. May I say to the young pages who are here so early in the morning:

Ah, great it is to believe the dream

As we stand in youth by the starry stream;

But a greater thing is to fight life through

And say at the end,

The dream is true!

Mr. President, I had hoped to be out here on the floor talking about a plan to give senior citizens a prescription drug benefit for Medicare.

I had hoped to be extolling the virtues of a bill that would give needed relief to the millions of our Nation's elderly citizens who have been serving their country and their communities for so long and who are entitled to needed relief. Instead, the Congress will be voting on a measure that would undermine Medicare--undermine Medicare, I say. Listen to me. Hear me now. The elderly citizens who are watching through those electronic lenses, and also the sons and daughters of the elderly citizens as well, will be affected. So instead of voting on a measure that would give relief to the elderly citizens of this country, we are going to vote on something else.

In speaking of the elderly citizens, I speak of the young people as well. Why do I say that? I say it because I can remember the days when there was no Social Security or Medicare Program in this country. I used to go by the old county poor farm in Raleigh County, and as I traveled by there many years ago I would see sitting on the porch up there at the old county poor farm, sitting just within sight of the road, those old people in their rocking chairs. They had no dreams to look forward to. When they grew old, as some of them did--and those coal miners especially grew old early in life--they had no place to go, no place to go but to the homes of their sons and daughters. They would stand with their hats in their hands waiting to be taken in by their children. What a life.

Then there came to the White House of this country a crippled man, a man

who was paralyzed, a man who could not walk, as I can walk even at my young age of 86. There they stood waiting at the gates of their children hoping that they could be taken in. Then that man came to the White House and a Democratic Congress worked with him to give to the people of this country, the elderly citizens and their children, that promise. He fulfilled that promise of Social Security so that no longer would the old folks stand at the gates of their children with their hats in their hands. They could live out their lives with dignity and not be such a burden to their children.

Then I remember Medicare when it came. I was a Member of the Senate and voted for that program. That was when Lyndon Johnson, a great Democrat, was President of this land. Again, the Democratic Congress, working with that Democratic President, gave to the country this program of Medicare, the most successful program that the country has ever had, a program that today's Senators know and trust.

The Congress should be fashioning a real prescription drug benefit. That is what the American people have been told we are doing, but we are not doing that. Instead, the Congress debates a major restructuring and a step toward the privatization of Medicare.

I watched them tearing a building down,

A gang of men in a busy town.

With a ho-heave-ho and a lusty yell,

They swung a beam and a sidewall fell.

I asked the foreman, ``Are these men skilled,

As the men you'd hire if you had to build?''

He gave me a laugh and said, ``No, indeed!

Just common labor is all I need.

I can easily wreck in a day or two

What builders have taken a year to do.''

And I thought to myself as I went my way,

Which of these two roles have I tried to play?

Am I builder who works with care,

Measuring my life by the rule and square?

Am I shaping my deeds by well-made plan,

Patiently doing the best I can?

Or am I a wrecker who walks the town,

Content with the labor of tearing down?

That is what we are doing here. That is what we are about to do. That is what we are getting ready to do. That is what the seniors and their children of this country are about to see happen. This building which was built by careful hands, by caring hands, is about to be torn down.

This is a debate that has largely been hidden from the public, a debate for which our Nation's seniors did not ask. They did not ask for this.

The conference report before us was hatched behind closed doors. We see so much of that time and again under this Bush administration-- programs, plots, hatched behind closed doors. Most Members of Congress have been largely excluded from the backroom deals--largely excluded from the backroom deals--that produced this conference report.

Some have asserted this legislation is merely a Trojan horse designed to get rid of Medicare. I hope that is not true, but there is something awfully suspicious about this particular horse that is galloping through the Congress.

We need to slow down and consider the unintended consequences of this massive bill. We may be signing off on the assisted suicide of Medicare as we know it. This legislation takes the first step to undermine a health care system that has benefited millions of retirees, and it is all happening within legislation designed to enhance Medicare to provide a drug benefit. Proponents are selling it one way but may be doing something quite different. You know the old magic tricks? I can remember vaudeville. I can remember when the vaudeville shows came to those coal camps in the hills of southern West Virginia and the actor would say: Watch my right hand, watch my hand, watch my hand. Don't look at this one. Watch this hand. Don't look at what's going on over here.

There is my friend from Maryland--he knows; he remembers--Senator Sarbanes, one of the great pillars of the Senate, one of the truly great Senators, a thinker in the tradition of the venerable Socrates: Paul Sarbanes.

So proponents are selling it one way but may be doing something quite different--a classic bait and switch. But seniors are not falling for the bait. Many letters coming to me clearly reveal a genuine fear that this Medicare bill will leave seniors worse off. West Virginians have not been clamoring for enrollment in HMOs. They don't want restrictions on their choice of doctors. They have not been pushing for a new Medicare system that could leave them bouncing in and out of private health plans. My constituents are rightly fearful at the thought of having to pay significantly higher premiums just to stay in their current Medicare plan.

Some analysts of this bill estimate that as many as 29,000 beneficiaries in West Virginia will lose their retiree health benefits as a direct result of this bill and that as many as 45,000 Medicaid beneficiaries in my State will pay more for the prescription drugs they need. I thought our goal was to help seniors, not hurt them, as this bill may do.

Senior citizens across America are fed up with fast rising drug costs that they cannot afford. They are traveling by the busload to Canada-- yes, traveling by the busload to Canada and Mexico--just to obtain the medications prescribed by their doctors. And this bill does nothing, zilch, to help reduce the price of prescription drugs. In fact, this legislation explicitly prohibits the Federal Government from directly negotiating with pharmaceutical companies to use the bargaining power of 40 million senior citizens to lower the cost of prescription medicines. This is something the Veterans' Administration, the Department of Defense, the Medicaid Program do every day to save money on drugs. Why in the world are we prohibiting Medicare from saving money?

Unfortunately, this bill offers more of a figleaf than sufficient prescription drug coverage--a figleaf. Do Senators remember the first question that was ever asked in the history of the human race? It occurred during the evening, during the cool of the day when God came walking through the Garden of Eden looking for Adam and Eve. There they were in that paradise--how it might have been, how it might have been. God came through in the cool of the evening looking for Adam, and it was there and then that God asked that first question:

Adam, where art thou? Adam, where art thou?

Adam was hiding. Adam and Eve were hiding. They were trying to hide from that all-seeing eye that pierced through every veil. Yes, they were hiding back in the bushes with a figleaf--a figleaf.

That question: Where art thou? These seniors, senior citizens all over this country, are going to be asking their Senators: Where were you? Where were you when the critical moment came?

I hear the siren call: ``You better take it. It's all you are going to get.''

This Senator will never bow to that siren call. And there are others who will not.

Rather than building on the traditional and successful Medicare Program, the measure in front of us would force Medicare beneficiaries to rely on a private, untried, untested, drug-only insurance market for their prescription drug coverage. Is that what our seniors want? Is that what the people of West Virginia want? No. No.

It would cover less than a quarter of the Medicare beneficiaries' estimated drug costs over the next 10 years. The complicated coverage formula has a large, gaping hole smack in the middle, providing zero coverage just when seniors might need that coverage most--a large hole, large enough for Attila the Hun to drive his thousands of horsemen through.

This legislation includes copayments, premiums, and deductibles that may be unaffordable for many low- and middle-income seniors. A closer look at the fine print of this legislation reveals that private insurers could choose to charge seniors double or even triple these amounts. Seniors may find that their premiums could fluctuate dramatically based upon where they live and how healthy they are. At the same time, the Federal Government will be handing over billions of taxpayer dollars to for-profit insurance companies, just to get them to participate in Medicare.

Let's face it, the kind of prescription drug benefit that we have repeatedly promised to our Nation's seniors and they now rightly expect would cost at least $800 billion during the next decade. Drug costs for senior citizens alone are expected to total almost $2 trillion during this same period. Yet the Bush administration and congressional leadership have only set aside $400 billion for a Medicare prescription

drug benefit. Although, isn't it remarkable that we can afford to spend $1 billion a week--$1 billion a week--in Iraq?

I will have plenty more to say about that. I made 62 speeches on that gargantuan mistake. I will make some more, the Lord willing.

Missiles? Yes. Medicines? No. Missiles? Yes. Medicines? No.

Where are the priorities of this administration? Where are the priorities of the Congress?

It seems that this Congress is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of our Nation's seniors hoping to claim victory and keep seniors in the dark until they become painfully aware of the fine print in this legislation upon a visit to their local pharmacy--in 2006. That will be my next election year, 2006, the Lord willing.

In the Book of James, we are told always never to say, I will go here, I will go to this city or to that city, I will buy this, or I will buy that tomorrow, but always to say, the Lord willing, I will go to this city or I will go to that city and I will buy this or that. So, the Lord willing, 2006 is my next election day. Eighty-six is not too old. I am 86 years old. Abraham lived to be 175, Isaac lived to be 180, Jacob lived to be 147, Moses, 160; and so on.

Was I wrong on that?

All right, 120. The distinguished Senator from Iowa corrected me. But he won't correct me on this bill. He won't correct me on the tragedies of this bill. But I accept his correction. I will go look it up to make sure.

As lobbyists for the pharmaceutical and health industry swarm all corners of the Capitol, the Congress is on a mad dash to pass this bill before Thanksgiving, regardless of its contents or its flaws, so long as it can be called prescription drug coverage. Unfortunately, when it comes to their health care security, it appears our Nation's senior citizens will find that they have little for which to be thankful.

I have heard some Senators argue that something is better than nothing. Is that what we are being given? Something rather than nothing? Nothing?

They try to rationalize a bad bill by claiming that this may be our last chance and you had better take it; something is better than nothing. They argue that we should vote for this now and fix the bill's problems down the road. I have been down that road. I have seen that and heard that many times in my 51 years in Congress. This conference report is a pill that is too bitter to swallow.

I am one of perhaps only a handful of Senators in this body who voted to create Medicare. I can say to you, Mr. President, that it was not created overnight. It was not created in the hidden dungeons, in the hidden subterranean caverns under this Capitol. It was created in response to a private sector that would not offer affordable and reliable health insurance to the elderly and the disabled.

Few can argue that seniors are not better off today as a result of Medicare. We should not turn our backs on one of the most successful Government initiatives ever created. We should seek ways to strengthen Medicare, not dismantle it.

Senior citizens who need life-sustaining medicines want us to get it right. They trust us to get it right. We should reject this bill and work to pass a bill that does get it right. Thanksgiving is an arbitrary deadline. It means nothing when measured against the potential damage that could be done in haste--haste that could jeopardize the health care security of generations to come. We should do better for our senior citizens. We owe them that much.

In closing, I thank Senators who have worked hard on this bill, Senators who have toiled late into the nights and weekends. I thank Senator Grassley. I thank Senator Baucus. I thank all Senators. I thank all Senators for listening.

By the way, as to Joseph, how long did he live? He lived to be 110 years old.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I am deeply grateful to these two fine Senators for the kind words they have just spoken, Senator Durbin and Senator Sarbanes. I will go to my everlasting resting place with love and gratitude and affection and admiration and respect for these two Senators and how they have served the Nation and this institution and been loyal and true to the Constitution of the United States forever. I shall think of them and be in their debt. I thank the Senator.

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

Mr. President, I am under the impression that there will be a session of the Senate either tomorrow or on Monday or on Tuesday or on any number of those days. I am also under the impression that the Senate is rapidly, hopefully, approaching a sine die date for adjournment.

Being confronted with those expectations, I want to make a speech about Thanksgiving. I don't want it to appear in today's Record, necessarily, but I would ask for it to appear in the Record of the last day's session prior to Thanksgiving, whatever day that is.

I make such a unanimous consent request, that my speech not appear in today's Record but that it appear in the Record of the last day of the session prior to Thanksgiving.

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

Madam President, we have before the Senate the long-awaited Energy bill. For the more than 3 years of its making, we have been led to believe this was to be the piece of legislation that would go a long way toward solving our Nation's energy problems. But instead of providing for our Nation's energy security and stability, this bill does little more than codify back-room bargaining, underwrite the administration's corporate contributions, and further deepen our deficit ditch.

This bill is a monstrosity of gifts for special interests. Its passage will mean another lost opportunity to shore up our Nation's energy security, provide for future economic growth, and protect consumer interests.

The White House and Republican advocates may argue that this bill is national, comprehensive, and strategic. It is not. Advocates argue that this is a premier jobs bill and that hundreds of thousands of new jobs will be magically created because of the Pixie dust that is sprinkled throughout the bill. But these are empty assertions. This Energy bill will be neither an economic shot in the arm nor a jobs booster.

The White House and its secretive energy task force have done their utmost to dictate the terms of energy legislation for more than 3 years now. This energy conference bill is that dismal result. The Republican energy bill negotiators took a page out of the Vice President's playbook by not undertaking their deliberations in an open, transparent, and bipartisan manner. When well-placed corporate heads have a greater voice at the conference table than the minority Members of Congress, then we have truly sold our Nation's energy policy to the highest bidder. This conference was a shameful example of how the big moneyed interests who are bosom pals of this administration, continue to elbow out the best interests of the American people.

The American people should also know that the White House and Republican proponents who have so often avowed the free market system and fiscal responsibility are essentially ignoring those policies in this bill today. During the deliberations on energy legislation, the White House raised concerns about unrealistic authorizations and indicated its support for only $8 billion in tax incentives. But now the Bush administration wholeheartedly welcomes and strongly supports this bill regardless of its budgetary impact.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the deficit will be deepened to the tune of $25.7 billion because of mandatory spending and unbalanced tax incentives. This Energy bill, like so many bills that Congress has passed, is another empty promise. The White House's only major goal is to tick off a campaign pledge, regardless of its contents or lack thereof.

Furthermore, this bill is replete with unrealistic new authorizations that go far beyond the reality of our limited and shrinking budgetary resources.

Passage of this bill is far from a guarantee that the money will flow. How many authorization bills have been passed during the tenure of the Bush administration pledging huge sums of moneys that never came into being? How easy it is to vote to authorize funding, to make a splash in the headlines, and raise hopes about the funds that will flow from Washington, but when it comes to actually putting money in the budget and supporting the promised funding levels in the appropriations bills, this administration jumps ship again and again and again. One need only look at the No Child Left Behind program to see how this game of bait and switch is practiced and played.

What complicates the matter further is the number of new programs that have been created in this bill. In a perfect world I would like nothing better than to be able to support a plethora of energy programs that truly advance our neighbor's ability to produce and use energy more cleanly and efficiently. But realistically, this legislation only creates more programs that will have to compete for the same pot of money, and that pot of money is ever dwindling. Instead of focusing on our Nation's highest energy priority needs, longstanding programs-- programs that are working--could well be severely fractured and diluted for years to come. That is not progress. In the end, this bill will just be another empty soapbox for the President to stand upon even though the necessary resources to carry out our energy programs will never materialize.

I certainly recognize that there are several important and useful provisions that have been included in this legislation, including a number of specific clean coal programs which I have supported. These and several other provisions have had bipartisan support in the Senate in both the 107th and 108th Congresses. Yet, in the aggregate, this bill will not help us to achieve our energy, economic, and environmental goals and, in many cases, will create even bigger problems down the road.

I have long advocated developing a complimentary approach toward our energy and environmental policies. Yet I have serious concerns about this bill's liability waivers, exemptions, and alterations to longstanding environmental laws, and limited consumer protection provisions. Furthermore, like several major tax cut bills and the homeland security legislation, special deals have been stuffed into the nooks and crannies of this bill. Yet some of the matters that rightfully should have been dealt with in this legislation are glaringly absent.

I speak, for example, of the coal miners Combined Benefit Fund. Nearly 50,000 retired coal miners and their dependents are facing an imminent crisis. These miners, who live in every State, are in danger of having their health care benefits cut due to a financial emergency in the fund, created by law, to pay those benefits. These are elderly men and women--women for the most part. Most of these are elderly widows who are truly among America's most vulnerable citizens. Yet among all the billions of dollars to help oodles of special, corporate interests in this bill, I find not a penny--not one penny--to help these elderly Americans, most of whom, as I say, are widows.

For the past 2 years, as the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, as the Senator who has been on that Appropriations Committee longer than any other Senator in history, I have come to the aid by providing relief to that fund through several appropriations transfers of funds.

The Appropriations Committee was not the committee of jurisdiction. Other committees in the Senate are the committees of jurisdiction, not the Appropriations Committee. But I have come to the aid, with the support of my friends on both sides of the aisle in that committee, and especially I remember the support that was rendered on my behalf and on behalf of the coal miners and retired miners by Senator Ted Stevens, my Republican friend.

These were transfers that did not cost any State any money to clean up its abandoned mine lands. Yet these retirees and their dependents, most of them probably in very ill health and frail health--I believe the average age of these retirees is in the high seventies, probably near eighty--are being held hostage in some cold-hearted game of chicken. There was a chance in this bill to help them. There was a chance to provide a fix for the program that Congress designed to fulfill our promise to them, but the conferees failed to make that fix. The effort was killed by too many greedy hands grabbing for their own piece of the pie.

I hope the Senate and House committees of jurisdiction--not the Appropriations Committee; the Appropriations Committee has helped time and again--I will act next year to ensure that our Government keeps its promise to these retired miners. Certainly, compassion for the old and the sick should prevail over greed.

It pains me to conclude that this energy conference report, in its totality does not fully integrate four fundamental principles of good energy policy; namely, energy security, fiscal soundness, consumer protection, and environmental balance.

Despite its rhetoric, this White House's lip service and corporate coddling have been the sum total of this White House's energy policy. It began with the Vice President's National Energy Policy plan and concluded with the exclusion of Democrats from the energy conference.

As the Sun begins to shine on this leviathan, I hope that Americans will understand that this Energy bill will do

little to resolve our energy problems, and if it passes, it could very well turn out to be a Pandora's Box.

Madam President, this legislation comes to us at the end of a session, and the Republican majority is attempting to serve up this elaborate and expensive dessert. But these are just empty calories--a delicious photo opportunity for the President, rich filling for industry lobbyists, but, in the end, only empty calories and heartburn for the American taxpayers. Sadly, when all is said and done, the American people will continue to stand in the bread line, hungry for a comprehensive national energy strategy.

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

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

Mr. President, what is the order of business at the moment?

I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that I may speak on a matter out of order.

Mr. President, on November 3, the State of West Virginia lost one of its most enduring and most colorful political figures, A. James Manchin.

A. James Manchin was born in Farmington, WV, on April 7, 1927. He had a deep love for West Virginia and its people, and that deep love showed everywhere he went, in every office he held, in everything he did, and with every person he met.

With his booming voice, his flamboyant oratory, and his wonderful sense of humor, A. James was an undeniable presence. I find it difficult to imagine traveling around the State of West Virginia and speaking before a crowd without seeing my friend Jimmy Manchin standing there somewhere in the crowd, lifting his hat into the air--by the way, he wore big hats--and shouting out a greeting to me.

With his political skills and his tenacious determination to make West Virginia a better place in which to live

and work and raise families, Jimmy Manchin won a place in the hearts and minds of people throughout West Virginia. He found a way to touch the hearts of all whom he met. Everybody loved him, even his political opponents. He was a man and a public servant who cared deeply for others and they, in turn, cared a lot for Jimmy Manchin.

I first met Jimmy Manchin in 1949. That was in my second term in the West Virginia House of Delegates. Jimmy had been elected to the house of delegates and was being sworn in that year, 1949. So I first met Jimmy Manchin in 1949, as he and I wove our political careers, when both of us served there in the house of delegates. After that, he pursued and held a multitude of political offices.

In 1961, President Kennedy named Jimmy Manchin as West Virginia State director of the Farmers Home Administration.

In 1972, he was appointed State director of the Rehabilitation Environmental Action Program, REAP, where he was placed in charge of cleaning up and restoring the natural beauty of our State's magnificent rolling green hills and beautiful valleys, which he loved so dearly. His campaign to restore our State's beauty was fueled by his personality and fashioned by his talent for poetic oratory. As part of his REAP campaign, Jimmy called on all West Virginians to ``purge our proud peaks of these jumbled jungles of junkery.'' That was pure A. James Manchin politicking. He understood the theatrical part of politics better than most politicians of this era and, as a consequence, his incredibly successful work for REAP earned him a national ``Keep America Beautiful'' award.

In 1976, he was elected secretary of state, and in 1984, he was elected State treasurer.

In 1998, he again won a seat in the West Virginia House of Delegates, a half century after his first election to that body.

His political career, which spanned 55 years, earned him numerous awards, honors, and recognitions. In 1974, for example, Salem College named him ``Mr. West Virginia,'' while, just this year, the West Virginia Italian Heritage Festival named him ``Italian American of the Year.''

He was an outspoken booster and promoter of West Virginia, a genuine public servant who will be sorely missed by the people of West Virginia.

The Bible says: ``In my Father's house are many mansions.'' Well, Jimmy had a way of using this beautiful verbiage from the King James Bible and, before huge audiences he would quote that. ``In my Father's house are many mansions.'' On November 3, our Father brought home one more. My friend, A. James Manchin.

Mr. President, my wife Erma and I offer our most heartfelt condolences to Jimmy Manchin's wife Stella and their children, Patricia Lee, Mark Anthony, and Rosanna.

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