Floor Statements

Mr. President, will the Senator withhold?

Mr. President, the world is now well aware of the story surrounding PFC Jessica Lynch, the young soldier from Palestine, WV, who was taken prisoner by the Iraqi military on March 23. She is now recovering from her captivity at a military

hospital in Germany. While we regard with awe the reports of her courage at the time of her capture, as well as the daring of the troops who carried out her rescue from that hospital deep in Iraq, our Nation cannot forget that there are others who have been captured or who have gone missing during this war. The Pentagon reports that seven Americans remain in Iraqi hands, and that eight of our troops remain missing.

These troops deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. The resolution before the Senate, which will shortly be voted on, is right to point out that the Government of Iraq, even in the waning days of its authority, is obligated under the Geneva Convention and customary international law to give humane treatment for our captured troops and protect them against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

The resolution makes a clear and commendable statement about how we expect our prisoners of war to be treated by Iraq. I think it is unfortunate that the resolution raises political issues about the policies that brought us to war in the Persian Gulf. Like two previous resolutions passed by the Senate, the preamble to this resolution, as it will be amended, will contain a clause which states, in part, ``Whereas, the military action now underway against Iraq is lawful and fully authorized by the Congress in Sec. 3(a) of Public Law 107-243.''

I do not concede that this war is lawful. I do not concede that it has been fully authorized by Congress. The Constitution clearly states that Congress shall have the power to declare war. That is one of the powers that Congress should not have the power to delegate to any President, which is exactly what Congress attempted to do in the use of force resolution passed by the Senate on October 11, 2002, which I voted against, and which I am proud I voted against. Allowing a President, whether Democrat or Republican, to exercise powers that are intended to reside only with the legislative branch is the surest way to upset the careful system of checks and balances that was designed by the Framers of the Constitution.

It appears that Baghdad is now falling under the control of U.S. forces. It is my sincere hope that the war can soon be brought to its conclusion, but the cessation of hostilities may still be some time away. We do our captured and missing service men and women no favors by glossing over the realities of this war. I hope that the 15 service members who are now captured or missing will be able to return to the safety of their homes and the love of their families. And it is in this vein that I will vote for the resolution.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. President, on Tuesday, April 1, Mary Jane Ogilvie, the beloved wife of the Rev. Dr. John Lloyd Ogilvie, passed away. A light has gone out in the lives of the many people who were touched by her love, her dedication, and her compassion.

Rev. Dr. John Lloyd Ogilvie, who served as the Senate Chaplain from March 3, 1995, until just this past month, was an unfailing source of support on many occasions to many of us in this Chamber, as well as to our families and our staff. He has been a compassionate spiritual advisor and a personal counselor during some of the most dangerous and trying times in the history of the Senate, including the horror of September 11 and the anthrax attack a few weeks later. I think it is fair to say that his unstinting service was heightened by, and a reflection of, the equal strength and understanding of Mrs. Ogilvie in their many years together.

From what I know and understand, Mrs. Ogilvie was a kind, gentle woman, who exhibited indomitable courage and determination. Having dealt with illness in her own life, she was a source of inspiration and comfort in the lives of others. She was a petite woman, but her size belied a remarkable tenacity and will. Mrs. Ogilvie understood suffering, and she reached out to lessen the suffering of others. She was one of those special individuals who made life better and happier for all those who knew her.

Mrs. Ogilvie did not seek the limelight. Her own effervescence and love for her husband and family and friends offered light enough. I am sure that those who grieve for her now will be comforted by the quiet memory of her shining, luminous life.

Dr. Ogilvie will miss her. He will miss her very much. My own wife, Erma, and I extend to Dr. Ogilvie and his children--Scott, Heather, and Andrew--our deepest condolences and most heartfelt sympathies.

Sometimes at eve when the tide is low,

I shall slip my mooring and sail away,

With no response to the friendly hail

Of kindred craft in the busy bay;

In the silent hush of the twilight pale,

When the night stoops down to embrace the day

And the voices call o'er the waters flow--

Sometimes at evening when the tide is low

I shall slip my moorings and sail away.

Through the purple shadows that darkly trail

O'er the ebbing tide of the Unknown Sea,

I shall fare me away, with a dip of sail

And a ripple of waters to tell the tale

Of a lonely voyager sailing away

To Mystic Isles where at anchor lay

The crafts of those who have sailed before

O'er the Unknown Sea to the Unknown Shore.

A few who have watched me sail away

Will miss my craft from the busy bay;

Some friendly barks that were anchored near,

Some loving hearts that may heart held dear,

In silent sorrow will drop a tear.

But I shall have peacefully furled my sail

In moorings sheltered from storm or gale,

And greeted the friends who have sailed before

O'er the Unknown Sea to the Unseen Shore.

This bit of verse from Lizzie Clark Hardy I recall today in memory of Mrs. Ogilvie, and our dear friend the former Chaplain, Dr. Ogilvie.

Mr. President, I wish to speak in support of the amendment offered by Mr. Breaux.

For many months now, the American people have been told that we are at war. We are at war in Iraq. We are at war here at home. We are at war against the al-Qaida terrorist network and other organizations like it. We are at war against terrorists who would use any means possible to destroy our Government, strike fear in our people, and cripple this great Nation.

But, America is still woefully unprepared to prevent or respond to another terrorist attack. Despite the constant warnings from the Department of Homeland Security about terrorist threats here at home, and despite the obvious vulnerabilities, there are some in Congress who seem to want to put off sound investment for increased protections for our people. ``Hold off! Hold off! Wait for another day!'' they say. Mr. President, we may wait, but the terrorists, I fear, will not wait.

The amendment before the Senate, which is offered by Mr. Breaux, would invest dollars now--today!--in some of the most critical areas of vulnerability here at home.

The amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana would provide $2.6 billion for border and transportation security, including $200 million for the Coast Guard, $35 million for the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, $200 million for radiation detection equipment, $235 million for airport explosion detection systems, $300 million for mass transit security, $300 million for interoperable communications for first responders, $225 million for terrorism prevention at the Federal Bureau of Investigations, and funding to reimburse Department of Homeland Security expenses incurred as a result of Code Orange and to make up for fiscal year 2003 funding shortfalls at the Transportation Security Administration.

A March 12, 2003, General Accounting Office report concluded that the Coast Guard faces ``fundamental challenges in meeting its new security- related responsibilities while rebuilding its capacity to accomplish other missions that have declined'' and that these challenges are made even more difficult by the heightened terror alert and by Coast Guard deployments to the Persian Gulf.

In addition, a December 2002, GAO report identified more than $700 million in security needs at only eight transit agencies that were visited. The GAO concluded that, ``Obtaining sufficient funding is the most significant challenge in making transit systems as safe and secure as possible.'' Yet to date, no money--none--has been provided for transit security.

If there is one lesson that we should learn from 9/11, it is that terrorist attacks on our Nation can no longer be viewed as distant threats across the oceans. The enemy may attack our troops, the enemy may attack our citizens overseas or civilians here at home. Clearly, we must provide all of the necessary resources to support our troops overseas. But we must also provide significant homeland security resources now to meet real needs that have been authorized by the Congress and signed into law by the President for port security, airport security, border security, and nuclear security.

We should not accept the alarming deficiencies in our seaport security--an area that many experts have identified as perhaps the Nation's single greatest vulnerability. We should not accept the fact that our land borders are porous and that our airports simply cannot afford modern security equipment. We should not be satisfied that our cities and States--the front lines of this war

at home--do not have sufficient equipment or expertise to handle wide- ranging threats involving madmen who may have gotten their hands on weapons of mass destruction.

The danger is clear. The need is clear. I urge my colleagues to support the Breaux amendment.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Forty.

Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment.

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

Absolutely.

Mr. President, I sent to the desk an amendment and I asked unanimous consent that further reading be dispensed with, which was granted.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Hollings be made a cosponsor.

Mr. President, on March 25, 2003, the President sent to Congress a $74.7 billion supplemental appropriations request for ``urgent and essential requirements'' for the costs of Operation Iraqi Freedom and for the global war on terrorism. In his request, the President sought an unprecedented level of flexibility in the use of those funds. This request was not only for the Secretary of Defense for the prosecution of the war in Iraq but also for the Secretary of Homeland Security and for the Attorney General.

While I understand the unique circumstance in which the Nation finds itself, the situation is not entirely without precedent. We have been at war before. We have faced earthquakes and we have faced floods before. We have faced economic crises before. But the need to confront a crisis in a thoughtful or nimble way does not mandate that the Congress allow the executive branch to usurp its constitutional duties.

The Constitution grants to the Congress the authority to appropriate funds and the responsibility to use that authority to make careful choices. Yet the President has asked the Congress to hand over its responsibility to the executive branch. The bill that is before the Senate includes $1.135 billion to be parceled out by the Secretary of Homeland Security for whatever purpose he believes is most appropriate. So will he use that authority to support the Coast Guard? Will he use that authority for border security or for port security? Will he give the money to States or to localities? Will he give it to first responders--police, fire, or emergency medical personnel in our communities? Or will he use it to build up a new bureaucracy?

These are questions to which Congress should be seeking the answers. Congress itself must guard its prerogative and resist succumbing to expediency and to political partisanship.

While I fully support the funding in this legislation for the men and the women who are engaged in battle in Iraq, I do not support additional grants of authority to this administration, or to any other administration, that would infringe upon the congressional power of the purse.

Senator Stevens and I, together with the subcommittee chairmen and ranking members, have worked, in most cases, to improve the President's supplemental budget request. We have eliminated or reduced the sweeping grants of new authority requested by this administration, while still providing some very limited flexibility where appropriate.

However, with regard to this unallocated fund for the Secretary of Homeland Security, we have not adequately protected the prerogatives of the Congress, nor have we done enough to protect our homeland. Time and again, the White House has argued that funding for securing our homeland can wait. When the Senate debated legislation to increase funding for homeland security just 2 months after the September 11 attacks, we tried to add money for homeland security, but the President said let's wait--let's wait until 2002. Then, in 2002, the Congress approved a $2.5 billion supplemental for first responders, for port security, border security, aviation security, and nuclear security, and the President refused to spend it. He claimed that homeland security could wait until 2003. Now it is 2003 and Senators on the other side of the aisle--some of them--are saying we are half way through the fiscal year; so let's wait until 2004. Well, I must ask the Senate, in the name of the people whom we represent, when will it be time to invest in securing our homeland? How much longer must we wait?

The President proposes to put more than $1 billion in a fund for homeland security, but he does not tell us what the money will be used for. He does not tell us which agencies have requested funding. He provides us with no evaluations of those requests. He does not tell us when the money will be spent. For all we know, he may take the rest of this year to decide how the money will be spent so that he can reduce his spending request for fiscal year 2004. But who knows, he may just tell us that homeland security spending can wait until 2005.

How can I reconcile this desire to wait, wait, wait, with the fact that the Secretary of Homeland Security has said that more terrorist attacks are inevitable and the threat of further attacks is a long-term threat to our Nation? I simply cannot reconcile his statements with the policies of this administration. This threat of terrorist attack will not end at the end of this war.

So today, here is an amendment that does not add one thin dime to the bill. Instead, this amendment does what the Constitution--which we all swore to support and defend--compels us to do. This amendment makes choices. Last year, the Senate Appropriations Committee held 5 days of bipartisan hearings on homeland security. It was an excellent series of hearings where we heard from Governors, mayors, first responders, six cabinet officers, the Attorney General, and the Administrator of FEMA. In those hearings, we identified numerous gaps in our security. Based on those hearings and numerous reports, such as the nonpartisan Rudman- Hart report, my amendment, which I offered together with Senator Hollings, allocates the $1.135 billion contained in the committee bill for specific programs.

More than $365 million would fund critical improvements at our seaports. Six million containers enter into the United States each year through our ports and very little is known about the contents of these containers or their shippers. There is no national system in place to track who is working within our own ports. This funding would begin to develop that system.

The amendment would also pay for the installation of monitors at seaports to detect radiological, nuclear, chemical, biological substances, and weapons of mass destruction, without disturbing cargo. Additional equipment would expedite the inspection process. At the same time, we invest in port security teams and in other quick-response efforts should a terrorist strike at one of the Nation's seaports. We provide $150 million for mass transit and rail security. Transit systems throughout the world have historically been a top transportation target of terrorists. They are, by their nature, open systems used by a vast number of people and are very vulnerable to attack.

With the exception of the Metro in the District of Columbia region, no money to date has been provided to our Nation's transit system to enhance security and reduce the vulnerability of these systems.

Under the amendment, the Transportation Security Administration will receive $147 million for aviation security, while $55 million is directed toward the effort to find ways to protect commercial airplanes from missile attack.

Another key part of this amendment is the $100 million directed toward interoperable communications equipment for police and fire departments. First responders need equipment that allows them to communicate with each other regardless of the team, the squadron, or the department to which they belong.

Finally, there is funding totaling $75 million for the Secretary of Homeland Security to use for responding to unanticipated problems. The Secretary could draw on this fund by notifying the Congress 15 days in advance of spending the money. Mind you, this is no small sum. This is $75 million.

This Congress can make intelligent choices and this Congress should make intelligent choices about how to use the taxpayers' dollars. We should not abrogate that responsibility by handing it off to unelected officials in Washington.

I urge Members to support this amendment. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

How much time do I have?

I yield.

I thank my friend from South Carolina. He is a good listener. As far as I am concerned, he does not have any impediment in his speech.

The Constitution invests the power of the purse, the control of the purse, here, in Congress, section 9, article I, of the Constitution. The Constitution does not say anything about letting some bureaucrat downtown--we all appreciate the fact we have to have bureaucrats, but nowhere do I swear it is important to defend the Department of Homeland Security when it comes to the allocation of the taxpayers' money.

We are doing what we ought to do here. We are saying these funds are the taxpayers' money; Congress shall determine how they will be spent. Why should we turn over $1.3 billion to a Department and say to that Department head: You take it? That Department head does not appear on the ballot anywhere. He may have in times past. He

was a good Governor, I suppose. I have a lot of respect for him. But nowhere does he appear before the elected representatives, before the electors in the various States. And we do. We have a responsibility to say where this money will be spent.

We had hearings, as Senator Hollings has so ably pointed out. We had extensive hearings. We had six Department heads, we had the Attorney General, we had the Director of Homeland Security, we had mayors, we had Governors, we had local responders, we had firemen, we had policemen, we had emergency health personnel before the Appropriations Committee. Those hearings were well attended by Members on both sides of the aisle. My distinguished friend from Mississippi was there.

We then reported out bills based on the hearings and the facts that were gleaned from those painstaking hearings, and in a great way that work was for naught.

But here we are, we come back, and we are trying to say yes, we will respond, Mr. President. We will appropriate this money, but we are not just going to turn over a blank check to the Department of Homeland Security. That agency head--I have a lot of respect for him, as I say, but he was not allowed to come before our committee during those hearings. He was not allowed by this President. This President said, no, no, Mr. Ridge shall not appear before the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Now are we willing to turn it over to Mr. Ridge and say: Here it is, lock, stock and barrel, the whole kit and caboodle; you have it; we will spend it; we will set ourselves aside. I am not willing to do that, I say with great respect to my friend from Mississippi, and he is my friend. We have a responsibility to say where this money is going to be spent, how it will be spent. We ought to live up to that responsibility.

I hope Senators vote for the amendment.

How much time remains?

Mr. President, my friend from Mississippi says the folks downtown want to participate. They did not want to participate last year when we asked the Secretary of Homeland Security--who is now the Secretary of Homeland Security--to appear. The President did not want to participate then. The President said: No, he shall not go up before that committee.

So I say, Mr. President, once again, this administration is simply asking for too much authority. They want to participate? Well, this is not the first time administrations have wanted to participate. Under this Constitution, Congress has the power to appropriate funds. I say that Congress has not only the right, it has the responsibility to state how those funds shall be spent. We should not turn over the whole kit and caboodle to some unelected somebody down there, who will be the Secretary of Homeland Security. We transfer our responsibilities, we hand off our duties when we do that.

This is an effort to stand by our constitutional duties, to stand by the taxpayers of the country who provide the money. This is our responsibility. We should say where these moneys will be spent, and we are doing that based on the testimony that was given to the Appropriations Committee last year. That is where we are getting our information.

What is wrong with that? Why do Senators want to quarrel with that? It is the responsibility of Senators, I say to the distinguished Senator from Texas who is in the Chair. He shares that responsibility with the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from North Carolina and the Senator from Mississippi. That is our responsibility. Why do we want to hand it over to some bureaucrat who is not elected by the people, who doesn't have to stand before the bar of judgment as we Senators do? Why do we want to hand that over to the administration? Just because the administration wants to have it?

This administration, time and time again, has turned the back of its hand to Congress when Congress has made appropriations for homeland security--time and time again. We appropriated $2.5 billion last year, designated as an emergency, and that money would be out there in the hands of the local responders right today if this President hadn't turned the back of his hand on that and said: No, I refuse to attach my signature designating that as an emergency.

So, there you have it. That is talk versus action.

Mr. President, I hope Senators will support this amendment.

Read the Constitution once again if need be, but take my word for it, that is in the Constitution.

I hope Senators will stand up for the Constitution, stand up for the taxpayers. See, those taxpayers are looking right at us through those electronic lenses there. I say support this amendment.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I would like to inquire as to whether or not, in the opinion of the distinguished manager of the bill, we might be able to finish action by no later than 9 o'clock?

I wonder if it might be possible to get agreement that the vote would occur--the final passage would be voted at 9 o'clock.

Will the Senator yield?

Why don't we just finish this Tuesday?

Will the Senator yield?

In the request that will be propounded with respect to the appointment of conferees, how many conferees on the part of the Senate is the chairman expecting?

Will the Senator yield further?

Other Senators may do as they wish. This Senator is going to go home. That is my right to do. I don't have any quarrel with others who want to stay. I have cast over 16,600 votes in the Senate. I think I have been pretty loyal to my duties to my constituents. But I need to be home. I have been married almost 66 years. I have been in the Senate a little over 44 years. I have been married longer. So I think my duty is to my wife. There are only two duties that will exceed my duties in the Senate. One is my duty to my God and the second is to my family.

So I ask unanimous consent, in accordance with paragraph 2 of rule VI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, that I be granted leave to go home now and not vote any further today. I will be granted a leave of absence for the rest of the day so that I can go home and be with my wife. Others who wish to stay here may do so. I have spent my time over the years here. If others want to stay, that is fine. I don't think it is absolutely necessary to finish this tonight. I think we can wait until Tuesday. But as far as I am concerned, I thank all Senators for their staying around and completing action on this bill, but count me out. I so ask unanimous consent.

I thank the Chair.

The Senator does not owe me an apology.

The Senator has always been courteous to me. I have no quarrel with him or any other Senator.

Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about the miraculous rescue of a young West Virginian. Today, a community in West Virginia is celebrating amazing news. For many days, the people of the small town of Palestine--very appropriate--in Wirt County, WV, have been gripped with concern for PFC Jessica Lynch. She is part of the Army's 507th Maintenance Company convoy that was ambushed near the southern Iraqi town of Nasiriyah on March 23. Since that day, no word had been heard from PFC Jessica Lynch. The Army did not know where she was. The Defense Department did not know where she was. Her family did not know where she was. Her family could only be told that she was missing.

For each painstaking hour, over each nerve-racking day, the family and friends of Jessica Lynch awaited word. They held on to each other, they prayed together, they grasped for hope, and they held on to faith.

Then last night, in the afternoon late, the telephone rang. Good news. Amazing news. A miracle had happened: PFC Jessica Lynch has been found in a hospital in Iraq. She was rescued in a daring effort by the brave Army Rangers and Navy SEALS. Today, she is safe--safe once again.

Her State of West Virginia is relieved. Her community is exuberant. Her family is overjoyed. I spoke with Jessica Lynch's father last evening and shared with him our thoughts. The news of Jessica's rescue spread through the county and throughout the State like wildfire. Wirt County has fewer than 6,000 residents, and it appeared as though every one of those people were out honking horns and hugging neighbors last night. Jessica Lynch's parents and siblings were not alone. Jessica has become a part of everyone's family.

As a nation, while we celebrate this rescue, we remain steadfast in our concern for the other members of the armed services who are listed as missing or captured. We look forward to

one day celebrating their safe rescue and return.

We also pray for those families whose loved ones will not be coming home. When we say we pray for them, that is what we mean. Jessica Lynch was found and is safe today. She was preserved. She lived because of the prayers that went up to Heaven from the people of the community and from people all over the Nation.

Hundreds of people gathered yesterday for the funeral service of West Hamlim, WV, native Therrel Shane Childers, a U.S. marine who became the first American combat casualty in the war in Iraq. The Chaplain at the service yesterday noted that First Lieutenant Childers ``emanated a courageous sense about him, that nothing scared him.''

We must continue to wrap our arms around the hundreds of thousands of families of those men and women engaged in military action. Each day, each hour they struggle with worry and concern. They do not struggle alone. To those families, know that the Nation is with you at each step and at every turn. May God have mercy on your loved ones and may He bring them safely home.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I consider it an honor, I consider it a great honor to be able to work with the very distinguished Senator from Alaska, the senior Senator, the President pro tempore of the Senate, in bringing this bill to its present status.

I laud the distinguished chairman of the committee for his extraordinary knowledge of the subject matter here that we are going to discuss. He has been on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense for a long time, where he has worked arm in arm and hand in hand with our very distinguished senior Senator from Hawaii, Danny Inouye, who is my hero. Together, these men have brought their wisdom, their dedication, their knowledge to great usefulness, and I thank Senator Stevens for his work. He also is a hero of mine. I am proud to serve with him.

The Senator has stated that we are fighting three wars: the war in Afghanistan, the war on terrorism here at home, and the war in Iraq. I support the appropriations that we are going to recommend for all three wars. I do not support the policy that brought us where we are today in Iraq. I have no hesitancy in saying that. I can defend that position any time, anywhere. I am sure not everybody will agree with me, but I have reasons for my position. So, although I do not support the policy that puts our men and women in Iraq, I do support the appropriations for those, for the support of and the safety of those men and women in Iraq, and I do so wholeheartedly.

In a short time I will speak of one young West Virginian by the name of Jessica Lynch. I will have more to say about her shortly.

The Senate Appropriations Committee, under the very able leadership of the chairman, the distinguished President pro tempore of the Senate, Mr. Stevens, has unanimously reported the fiscal year 2003 supplemental appropriations bill. The Senate committee-reported bill totals $78,736,600,000 in benefits and appropriations; $4,011,600,000 more than the President's request. In that proposal, the President sought an unprecedented level of flexibility in the use of these funds. I was astounded at the request that the President put forth with respect to these ``flexibilities.'' While I understand the unique circumstance in which the Nation finds itself, the situation is not unprecedented--not unprecedented. We have been at war before many times.

I served in this Senate and in the House in several of these wars, so we have been at war before. This isn't something new, the matter of being at war. But these ``flexibilities,'' so-called, have startled me, in a way. But I am not so startled either, keeping in mind the whole of our experience with this administration. Yes, we have been at war before, but the Nation never wandered--never sought to wander away from the Constitution, never sought to impinge upon the congressional power of the purse as we have seen in this instance.

In World War II, for example, Congress passed eight supplemental bills to respond to the needs of our Armed Forces. This is what I said the other day during the appropriations hearing, the Appropriations Committee hearing on this bill, when Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was before the committee. I said: Why all these flexibilities?

I called them ``flexibilities'' because the Secretary of Defense, in his opening statement, used the word ``flexibility'' seven times.

I said: We fought previous wars. Why do we need these ``flexibilities'' now? I said: Congress can pass additional supplementals. That has been done before.

In World War II, for example, Congress passed eight supplemental bills to respond to the needs of our Armed Forces and there is little reason, in my

view, why this war in Iraq should require more flexibility for the administration than was granted during World War II to administrations.

This Republic rests on a system of checks and balances: three branches, two legislative Houses, and separate powers--shared powers, mixed powers. Our system reflects the hundreds of years of history behind it.

I said hundreds--yes. Yes, Mr. President, you didn't hear me wrongly. Our system reflects the hundreds of years behind it, going back to the Revolutionary War; going back to colonial days; going back to the history of the Englishmen who fought and bled and gave their lives in the struggle against tyranny, in the struggle against a monarchy that sought to gather all power unto itself.

The roots of our Constitution go back even to the Magna Carta, 1215. This is not a Constitution that came about just in 1787. Its roots go back 1000 years--and the blood of Englishmen is on it, as is the blood of our forefathers here in this, our country.

In our Madisonian system, divided power may not be as expedient as some would like. That is stating it well: not as expedient as some would like. I say it again. I will state it more loudly: In our Madisonian system, divided power may not be as expedient--hear me now down at the White House--may not be as expedient as some would like, but it guarantees the American people's liberties. Quite simply, our representative form of democracy depends upon power divided and power shared.

The Constitution grants to the Congress the authority to appropriate funds and the solemn responsibility to exercise that authority wisely. And for us to agree to the many sweeping grants of new, so-called ``flexible'' authority sought by this administration would be to abdicate--to abdicate--that heavy constitutional responsibility. We have a duty to the American people to exercise the authorities granted to Congress in our Constitution, and we have a duty to those Framers, those men who wrote the Constitution, to keep faith with them and to honor and respect and uphold and support and defend that Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

In the case of this bill, and for the many years ahead, it will take maximum effort to preserve the prerogatives of the legislative branch. I hope my colleagues will understand that. I hope they will hear that. And the Record will be there for those of our future colleagues to read.

Let me say that again. I say it to my colleagues. I hope my colleagues will remember: In the case of this bill, and for the many years ahead, it will take maximum effort on the part of our colleagues today, and those who will serve in this Chamber in the future, to preserve the prerogatives of the legislative branch.

Now, when it comes to the executive branch, we will always find those in the executive branch who will uphold, who will extol, and who will seek to add to the powers of the executive branch. The same can be said for the judicial branch. The judicial branch will always speak out for the protection of the constitutional authorities given to it.

But what about the legislative branch? This is the one branch in the three in which we will find increasingly--I might say, based on my 50 years in Congress--we will find increasingly those in the legislative branch who are always ready to stand up for the executive branch for whatever power grabs it may have in mind, and they will seek to defend that executive branch and to push its desires. I am sorry to say, it is usually about half of the legislative branch that is willing to do that, depending on what party is in power and what party controls the two Houses of the legislative branch. And I regret this.

As I look back over my 50 years here, I have seen great, great changes in the way the Members of the legislative branch view their role under the Constitution. Sometimes I wonder if they have read the Constitution lately. I am sorry to say I don't think our Constitution means a great deal to some of those who have served in this branch. They seem to think this is a monarchy and that we have a king. I look at the future with grave concerns, as I think about the changes I have seen sweep over this branch of Government.

Twenty-four hours a day, 365 days every 3 years, 366 days the 4th year, out there always is the executive branch. And it is awake. It seeks power. It seeks to aggrandize the authorities to itself. It is always awake. It is never sleeping.

Members of the legislative branch are here, they recess, they go to the four points of the compass. They are not always here. They are not always alert to the protection of the authorities of this branch of Government. And at this time, and under this administration, I have to say, I have seen more of that than ever before.

Members must understand their institutional role. Citizens must understand their Constitution and value the congressional role in protecting their freedoms. This is another thing that gives me concern--sorrow in many ways. All too few citizens think about the role they play and the responsibilities that are theirs under the Constitution.

Leaders in the Congress itself must guard its prerogatives. I have been a leader in this body. I have been majority leader. I have been minority leader. I have been President pro tempore and chairman of the Appropriations Committee. And I have never lost sight of the fact I must help to guard the prerogatives, the authorities, the powers that are enumerated in the Constitution, the powers that devolve upon this body, its duties, its responsibilities.

So leaders in the Congress itself must guard its prerogatives and resist succumbing to expediency, to political expediency, and to partisanship.

While I fully support the funding in this legislation for the men and the women engaged in battle in Iraq, I do not support additional grants of authority to this administration, or to any other administration, that would infringe upon the congressional power of the purse. That is the greatest power. The power of the purse is the greatest power in existence under this constitutional system.

As Cicero, that great Roman Senator, said: ``There is no fortress so strong that money cannot take it.'' ``There is no fortress so strong that money cannot take it''--the power of the purse.

Senator Stevens and I, together with the subcommittee chairmen and ranking members, have worked, in most cases, to improve the President's supplemental budget request.

We have eliminated or significantly reduced most of the sweeping grants of new authority requested by this administration while still providing very limited flexibility where appropriate.

More specifically, for defense the bill includes $62.6 billion, the full amount of the budget request, to cover the costs related to military operations against Iraq and to sustain the continuing global war on terrorism. The budget request proposes that $59,863,200,000 of the amount for national defense would be included in the unallocated Defense Emergency Response Fund. The Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, the full Appropriations Committee, and the Congress rejected this type of transfer account in the fiscal year 2002 supplemental, rejected it in the fiscal year 2003 Defense appropriations bill, and rejected it in the defense chapter of the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill.

In this supplemental, the amount allocated to the Defense Emergency Response Fund has been reduced from the request of approximately $59.9 billion to $11,019,000,000. The remainder of the funds, some $49 billion, have been allocated to the specific appropriations accounts. This is an improvement over the budget request, but I call the attention of my colleagues to the fact that on an annualized basis, it amounts to a blank check for more than $20 billion--on an annual basis. Because the taxpayer has a right to know how this $11 billion will be used, this so-called flexibility gives me great concern. I hope we will get away from these DERFs. I am concerned about them.

The administration's supplemental request sought $1.4 billion for the Department of Defense to allow the Secretary of Defense to allocate funds to reimburse and otherwise pay nations that have provided support primarily for the global war on terrorism. Most of the funding is anticipated to be for Pakistan. In the past, the Senate Appropriations Committee has taken a position that such reimbursement could take place only in response to

vouchers presented to the Department of Defense for reimbursement for activities conducted on behalf of the global war on terrorism. This supplemental bill again includes this provision. In addition, we require 15-day advance notification prior to obligation.

The President sought $150 million to be paid at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense to indigenous forces abroad. We have one Secretary of State; we don't need two. A similar proposal was rejected by Congress last year. It has been rejected again in this legislation.

The administration wanted to increase the Department of Defense reprogramming authority from an annual amount of $2 billion to 2.5 percent of its total budget, a staggering sum which would exceed $9 billion. I expressed opposition to this large new grant of authority to the Department of Defense. I expressed my appreciation and compliments to the chairman, Senator Stevens, for the fact that he has brought us a bill that reins in the administration, tightens up the limitation so that rather than provide an unprecedented $9 billion transfer authority, the legislation before us includes a $3.5 billion transfer authority.

The administration also sought authority to expend any funds from the defense cooperation account that may be received from other countries for the prosecution of the war against Iraq or the reconstruction of Iraq without first having these funds appropriated by Congress. The administration wanted to get away from that. They wanted a free hand with no strings attached.

During the first gulf war, Congress appropriated those funds after they were received. Let me repeat that. During the first gulf war, Congress appropriated those funds after they were received. The legislation before us takes the same approach and preserves the prerogatives of the Congress and of the people. No new authority is granted. Any funds collected from foreign countries for reconstruction of Iraq or for any other purposes will remain in the Treasury under this bill, unless appropriated by law. That is the way it should be.

The administration requested similar extraordinary grants of authority for the Secretary of Homeland Security, for the Attorney General, and for the Office of the President. More specifically, the Secretary of Homeland Security would receive $1.5 billion for a new counterterrorism fund for transfer to any Department of Homeland Security agency. The Attorney General would receive $500 million for transfer to any Justice Department organization for terrorism-related activities. The President would receive $2,443,300,000 for Iraq reconstruction and relief, without even as much as a reporting requirement. So they not only want no strings attached, they don't want to have to make any report--an absolutely free hand in expending the taxpayers' money.

We must all remember, we are having to borrow all this money. The taxpayers are going to have to pay interest on all this money. When our soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines get home, they are going to be paying interest on the money that has been borrowed to send them across the ocean. Each proposal, if the administration had its way, would leave the Congress out of the decisionmaking process in the allocation of the funds--no details, no explanation.

In the case of the Iraq reconstruction funds, the President proposes to spend the money ``notwithstanding any other provision of law.''

With regard to the funds to be provided to the President for the reconstruction of Iraq, the supplemental before the Senate stipulates that funds may not be transferred to the Department of Defense, and that all funds available under this appropriation shall be subject to the regular prior notification procedures of at least 5 days in advance of the obligation of the funds. The funds will be used for feeding and food distribution, water and sanitation infrastructure, electricity, transportation, telecommunications, and other such humanitarian activities.

With regard to the $500 million for the Attorney General, the legislation has been improved to require that these funds be subject to the regular reprogramming process. Likewise, the funds provided to the Secretary of Homeland Security also require prior approval notification of the committee under the usual reprogramming procedures, which are long-established and long-respected by the Congress and the executive branch.

Overall, the President requested over $9 billion for aid to foreign countries and for the State Department. Yet his request for homeland security programs is only $3.8 billion, $3.8 billion for homeland security he requested; while, on the other hand, he requested over $9 billion for aid to foreign countries and for the State Department. The Secretary of Homeland Security has said that another terrorist attack in America is inevitable. He has said attacks, such as the attacks of September 11, are long-term threats that will not go away. If there is one lesson we should learn from 9/11, it is that terrorist attacks on our Nation can no longer be viewed as distant threats from across the oceans. The enemy may attack our troops or citizens overseas or it may attack civilians here at home. So we must provide all of the necessary resources to support our troops overseas. But we must also provide significant homeland security resources now to meet the real needs that have been overwhelmingly authorized by Congress and signed into law by the President for port security, airport security, border security, and nuclear security.

When it comes to funding homeland security initiatives, partisan politics has no place. Protecting a vulnerable nation is a duty that we all must shoulder together. Congress knows the needs at the local level, and Congress has tried time and time again to address those needs. The administration's request takes a step in the right direction, but at this time, when the Nation is acutely aware of the increased threat of terror attacks at home, one step is not enough. We must do more to address the critical vulnerabilities all across the country. We live under an orange alert, a heightened concern for terrorist attack. The American people are nervous about safety at home. I know I am nervous about safety here at home. That apprehension ripples through our economy. We read about it every day in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post. We should all have an interest in doing what we can to secure obvious vulnerabilities and allay citizen concerns.

To that end, I hope to work on a bipartisan effort, as this bill moves forward, to responsibly invest in first responders, in protections at our airports and seaports, and in other areas to better ensure the safety of Americans at home.

Let me again congratulate the chairman of the committee, the distinguished President pro tempore, and let me thank all the members of the Appropriations Committee, especially the ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee, Mr. Inouye, for their cooperation in bringing this bipartisan legislation to the floor of the Senate. I expect its speedy passage, and I hope for its speedy passage. I join with the chairman in hoping to complete this bill in the Senate by tomorrow evening, or sometime tomorrow.

I congratulate the excellent staff we have for their hard work, especially Jim Morhard, the newly appointed staff director for the majority. Let me also thank my own two excellent staff persons, Terry Sauvain, and Charles Kieffer, for their dedication, hard work, and the long hours.

For certain, this legislation is not perfect and it is susceptible to improvement. I expect and hope to assist in such improvement over the next few days as the Senate proceeds to work its will on this important legislation, as it goes to and returns from conference. I thank all Senators.

Madam President, I must state my surprise at the distinguished chairman having offered an amendment that would provide for an open-ended increase in the national debt. I didn't even know this was going to happen. No one spoke to me about this. Yet this is open ended.

I had hoped to finish this bill tomorrow night, by tomorrow night. I don't think that I would ever offer an amendment of this nature without consulting with my colleague.

I yield.

I don't have that memory.

Madam President, ours has been a long friendship. It is going to continue. But I expect to be a partner in this fight. I expect to be told at least by the chairman that he anticipates calling up an amendment of this nature.

A point of order would lie against this amendment. That would have been the very reaction I would have had if he had mentioned such an amendment to me. I would say a point of order might lie against it.

That constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill.

Well, I know.

I hope in the future I will not be taken by this kind of surprise.

When did we discuss it; I ask where did we discuss it?

Well, that is quite all right, but I would at least like to know in advance that it is being done, that is No. 1.

No. 2, this is an open-ended increase in the debt ceiling.

I yield.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the amendment before the Senate addresses what many experts view as the largest vulnerability in the Nation's defenses here at home. This amendment would direct critical funds to the Nation's seaports.

During the Senate Appropriations Committee's homeland security hearings last year, one witness, Stephen Flynn, noted that the Nation's seaports ``are the only part of an international boundary that the Federal Government invests no money in terms of security. . . . Most ports, the best you get is a chain link fence with maybe some barbed wire.''

Is that comforting?

Consider that U.S. ports receive 16,000 cargo containers per day and 6 million containers per year that U.S. ports are home to oil refineries and chemical plants that process noxious, volatile chemicals; that there are 68 nuclear power plants located along U.S. waterways; that the average shipping container measures 8 feet by 40 feet and can hold 60,000 pounds; and that a ship or tanker transporting cargo can hold more explosives and dangerous materials than could ever be smuggled in an airplane or a truck crossing a land border.

Yet, despite the clear danger, the best port protection the American people have is a chain link fence? It is unfathomable why we have not insisted that this amendment be signed into law months ago.

Last November, the President signed the Maritime Transportation Safety Act. This amendment provides $1 billion to begin addressing these Federal requirements.

Specifically, this amendment provides $600 million in port security grants to begin to assist our seaports in hardening their physical security to comply with the Federal law. Additionally, the authorizing legislation requires that all vessels operating in U.S. waters carry equipment which will allow the Coast Guard to actively track and monitor their movements. This amendment provides $57 million so the Coast Guard can establish a system to track these vessels.

The amendment also addresses other critical port security needs such as providing additional cargo screening equipment for our seaports and funds to expedite the port security assessment program. Funds are also included to establish three additional Coast Guard Maritime Safety and Security Teams for domestic port security needs.

Funding is providing to improve secure systems of cargo transport from the port of departure overseas to the port of arrival in the United States.

The Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach, each in California, account for 35 percent of the international trade moving into and out of the United States. Port officials estimate that they need $10 million to build a container inspection facility where suspicious packages and freight can be opened and inspected. Similar realities face ports up and down the Atlantic and Pacific seaboards. Last December, the U.S. Coast Guard issued a report stating that the first year cost to implement port security authorizing legislation that the President signed in November would total $1.3 billion and that total costs for the next decade would be $6 billion. But despite the clear danger, and despite the overwhelming vote of approval by Congress to authorize security improvements at our seaports, the dollars have not been forthcoming.

International authorities have linked 20 merchant vessels to Osama bin Laden. Some of the vessels are thought to be owned outright by bin Laden business interests, while others are on long-term charter. The Times of London reported in October 2001 that bin Laden used his ships to import into Kenya the explosives used to destroy the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.

This amendment would make sure that more than a chain link fence is protecting the nation's ports. Children learn to hop a fence at an early age. How hard would it be for a terrorist?

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, last week, the Senate passed a resolution, by unanimous vote, that expressed the sense of the Senate in commending our troops who are now fighting the war against Iraq. At that time, I expressed my reservations about extraneous clauses in the resolution that implied that Congress acted properly in authorizing the President to begin this war.

Soon the Senate will vote on a resolution to commend those nations that are in support of U.S.-led efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein and end his regime. Now that war has begun, the United States needs to act with the greatest amount of international support. The countries that are supporting our efforts deserve our gratitude, even though I believe more could have been done to build a more robust coalition which would more equally share the burdens of war in Iraq.

But this resolution, like its predecessor, not only refers to the thanks that we wish to send to our friends and allies. The resolution also contains eight whereas clauses, some of which speak to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. After reading these clauses, it seems to me that the resolution, intentionally or not, implies that the President of the United States acted properly in initiating a war against Iraq based upon the authority of Resolution 1441. I disagree with that conclusion.

The resolution contains two whereas clauses that describe joint statements issued by several nations on January 30, 2003, and February 5, 2003. A reading of these joint statements can be interpreted to argue that Resolution 1441 was a sufficient basis from which to launch a war on Iraq. I do not agree that the United Nations authorized the use of force against Iraq. The U.N. Secretary General seems to share my view on this point.

The Senate should give its thanks to those countries that give their support to our troops in the field. I hope that the United States will work with these countries to address the long-term reconstruction needs of Iraq. I hope that the administration will begin to repair our ties with our other allies that did not share our view of the need to use force in Iraq. But I do not believe that it is proper to give a one- sided view of the diplomacy that brought us to this point in the context of thanking our friends.

Mr. President:

There is a Catskill eagle in some souls that can alike dive

down into the blackest gorges and soar out of them again and

become invisible in the sunny spaces. And even if he forever

flies within the gorge, that gorge is in the mountains; so

that even in his lowest swoop, the mountain eagle is still

higher than other birds upon the plain, even though they

soar.

I was saddened to learn last night of the death of one of the most educated, most versatile, and most gifted persons ever to bless this Chamber, and one of my favorites, our former colleague, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

With doctorate and law degrees from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, he was a Fulbright scholar and the author of a number of sometimes controversial, but important, books. He held academic positions at several of our country's most prestigious universities, including Syracuse, Harvard, and MIT.

Unable to settle into an academic life, Pat Moynihan went on to serve in high positions in the administrations of Presidents John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford--making him the first and only person to serve in the Cabinet or subcabinets of four successive administrations. His Government work included serving as the American Ambassador to India and as the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations.

Even with this background, and these accomplishments, Daniel Patrick Moynihan still refused to rest. In fact, his greatest work, I might even go so far as to say his destiny, was still ahead. In 1976, he was elected to the first of four terms in the United States Senate.

I was then the Democratic whip. I knew I was going to be the next Senate majority leader, so I welcomed Pat Moynihan to the Senate and assured him I would do my best to see that he got appointed to the Senate Finance Committee. That is where he wanted to go.

So it was in this chamber that the talents, the skills, and the powerful intellect of this philosopher-statesman shined the brightest.

It was more than his outstanding work as a Senator from a large and powerful State.

It was more than his outstanding work as chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

It was that he was a visionary with the strongest sense of the pragmatic, an idealist with the most profound grasp of what was practical, an internationalist who always put our country first. With his keen and profound historical perspective and his incredible breadth of knowledge ranging from taxes to international law, he had the uncanny ability to make us confront issues that needed to be confronted, and to cut to the core of a problem and then help us to solve it.

A person and a Senator not only of high intellectual quality, but also high intellectual honesty, Senator Moynihan took on the complicated and politically sensitive issues, like Social Security, health care, and welfare reform, with passion and compassion; he took on these mighty subjects with determination and foresight and with unflinching integrity.

I have never forgotten, and will never forget, our valiant fight together to challenge and defeat the line-item veto. I wish he were here now. This was one of his many struggles to preserve and to protect our constitutional system. We need more Pat Moynihans who would take an unflinching stand for the Constitution and this institution. He truly believed in our Constitution just as he truly believed in the mission as well as the traditions, the rules, and the folkways of the United States Senate. He knew that the American Government is not the monster that demagogues fear and like to portray but a positive, creative force in American life that has helped all Americans to enjoy better, safer, and more productive lives.

Senator Moynihan retired from the Senate in the year 2000. But he was one of those Senators who was so much a part of this institution that he has never really left it. I still look over at his seat and sit in my own and turn it in that direction and listen to him. I can hear him; I can still see him. Yes, just like I still see Richard B. Russell who sat at this seat and who departed this life on January 21, 1971; like I can still see Everett Dirksen, that flamboyant Republican orator and leader; as I can see Lister Hill of Alabama, and the other great lawmakers with whom I have had the privilege and the honor of serving.

I look over there and see his unruly hair, his crooked bow tie, his glasses that always seemed about to fall off his face, and that unforgettable Irish twinkle in his eyes.

But I have missed his incredible grasp of the issues. I have missed his intellectual vigor, and his incisive wit and wisdom. In these difficult and trying times, I, and the Senate, have sorely missed his innate sense of fairness, and his unbounded and unqualified determination to do the right thing regardless of political party or political consequences. As I said when he retired from the Senate, ``His conscience is his compass. . . . Senator Moynihan states facts, the cold, hard truths that many others in high places refuse to face and that some are unable to see.''

Senator Moynihan lived the lifetime of ten mortals. An author, ambassador, a college professor, an outstanding public servant, and a great United States Senator, he accomplished so much. He leaves an indelible mark on this country. His legacy is intact. His was a creative and successful life. And, he was blessed with a wonderful and gracious wife, Elizabeth. My wife, Erma, and I extend our deepest and heartfelt condolences to Pat's entire family.

I close my remarks by reciting the immortal words of Josiah Gilbert Holland:

God give us men!

A time like this demands strong minds,

great hearts, true faith, and ready hands.

Men whom the lust of office does not kill;

Men whom the spoils of office cannot buy;

Men who possess opinions and a will;

Men who have honor; men who will not lie.

Men who can stand before a demagogue

And brave his treacherous flatteries without winking.

Tall men, sun--crowned;

Who live above the fog,

In public duty and in private thinking.

For while the rabble with its thumbworn creeds,

It's large professions and its little deeds,

mingles in selfish strife,

Lo! Freedom weeps!

Wrong rules the land and waiting justice sleeps.

God give us men!

Men who serve not for selfish booty;

But real men, courageous, who flinch not at duty.

Men of dependable character;

Men of sterling worth;

Then wrongs will be redressed, and right will rule the earth.

God Give us Men!

Mr. President, those of us who knew Daniel Patrick Moynihan, especially those of us who served with him here in the Senate, will remember his ``strong mind,'' his ``great heart,'' his ``true faith,'' and his ``ready hands.'' We will remember him as a man of ``dependable character'' and ``sterling worth.''

Thank you, God, for giving us Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

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

Mr. President, time after time, coal has been there for this country. Coal has been and will continue to be an important part of America--its history, its economy, and its people.

During World War I, when coal supplied the Nation's heat and powered our battleships and industries, President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed that the Nation's war effort ``rested on the shoulders of [the American coal] miner.''

During World War II, when enemy conquests in Asia and Africa threatened to stop the worldwide flow of oil, the American government responded by initiating a federally sponsored synthetic fuels program based on coal. Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes acknowledged, ``We should not have waited until war was upon us to begin the development of synthetic fuels.''

After the war, that program was dismantled. Far-sighted men warned of the dangers of this decision. John L. Lewis, President of the United Mine Workers, predicted a growing reliance upon foreign oil in the post-war era would one day result in outrageous prices at the gas pump and cars lined up for blocks to purchase gasoline.

Those of us old enough to remember the oil embargoes and energy crises of the 1970s know how accurate that prediction was. Those oil embargoes and energy crises prompted the Carter Administration to establish a national synthetic fuels program largely based on coal as the United States was labeled ``the Saudi Arabia of coal.''

However, the Reagan Administration all but eliminated the Department of Energy's fossil fuels and renewable energy programs, and withdrew support for the development of alternative energy technologies.

How short-sighted that was. I correct myself. It wasn't just short- sighted, it was blind, and I said so at the time. In a speech on this Senate floor, I warned that the Reagan administration's cutbacks in our energy programs were ``leaving us dangerously vulnerable to foreign transgressions.'' Historians like to point out that those who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it. Why must we continue to relive yesterday's mistakes? Can we not learn from the past?

Once again, concerns about our Nation's current and future energy needs are on the minds of citizens across the country. Worrisome gas prices, erratic fuel costs, electricity supply needs, energy efficiency improvements, and U.S. dependence on foreign oil are major challenges that we must tackle. To develop a bipartisan, national energy plan, Congress must establish balanced energy policies that recognize the need for both economic growth, energy security, and environmental protection.

Coal will play a key role in that strategy.

It is paramount that we develop a comprehensive plan built on a balanced portfolio of resources, technologies, and ideas. Such a plan must look broadly across all sectors of the economy and set objectives to meet these needs both today and down the road. And, as we look at the needs of our economy and our future, we need to better understand where to put critical and precious research and development resources and how to best stimulate these technologies in the marketplace.

Undoubtedly, fossil fuels will continue to be a primary source for meeting our energy needs into the coming decades. Coal, used in cleaner and more efficient ways, will be a key component of that energy strategy. Coal is this country's most abundant natural resource, providing over half of the Nation's electricity and accounting for one third of our Nation's total energy production.

Today, a bipartisan group of Members join me in introducing the National Coal Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 2003. I very much appreciate the support of Senators Rockefeller, Thomas, Burns, Dorgan, Allard, Durbin, Voinovich, Bayh, Enzi, Campbell, and Conrad. We believe that this legislation will help to maintain our Nation's fuel diversity by ensuring a key role for coal in our Nation's energy future.

This initiative provides a roadmap to the future by authorizing $2 billion over that next ten years for a clean coal technology demonstration program to help speed these technologies from the laboratory to the marketplace. Our legislation aims to improve air quality as well as the efficiency of the current fleet of coal-fired power plants by providing targeted tax incentives for the installation of these technologies at existing coal-fired facilities.

Additionally, this legislation will help meet the need for new infrastructure by providing incentives to deploy a targeted number of advanced clean coal technologies to prove their viability in the marketplace now and in the future. Finally, it ensures that all generators of coal can compete for these targeted tax incentives on an equal basis. This initiative is an important component of a strategy to achieve energy diversity and independence.

I have been around Congress for a very long time--more than 50 years. Recently, I became the third longest serving Member of Congress. My association with coal started early in my life and has continued throughout my many years of service in Congress. Coal has always been with me, it has been there fore us. Coal is abundant. Coal is affordable. Coal is ours!

Clean coal research and development funding and tax incentive legislation gained significant bipartisan and bicameral support during the energy bill debates in the 107th Congress. This success was built on the framework outlined, developed, and refined with my support in past Congress.

There is a little verse that goes:

God and soldier all men adore,

in time of trouble and no more,

for when war is over, and all things righted,

God is neglected and the old soldier slighted.

In times of national struggle and adversity, in times of war, coal has been there. But in times of calm, when the urgency subsides, so does our national determination to establish and implement a comprehensive energy strategy. To fail to incorporate a comprehensive energy plan into our vision for the Nation's future would ultimately be to America's detriment.

The development of clean coal technologies is essential to the betterment of our Nation's economic, energy, environmental, and security future. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, time after time, coal has been there for this country. Coal has been and will continue to be an important part of America--its history, its economy, and its people.

During World War I, when coal supplied the Nation's heat and powered our battleships and industries, President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed that the Nation's war effort ``rested on the shoulders of [the American coal] miner.''

During World War II, when enemy conquests in Asia and Africa threatened to stop the worldwide flow of oil, the American government responded by initiating a federally sponsored synthetic fuels program based on coal. Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes acknowledged, ``We should not have waited until war was upon us to begin the development of synthetic fuels.''

After the war, that program was dismantled. Far-sighted men warned of the dangers of this decision. John L. Lewis, President of the United Mine Workers, predicted a growing reliance upon foreign oil in the post-war era would one day result in outrageous prices at the gas pump and cars lined up for blocks to purchase gasoline.

Those of us old enough to remember the oil embargoes and energy crises of the 1970s know how accurate that prediction was. Those oil embargoes and energy crises prompted the Carter Administration to establish a national synthetic fuels program largely based on coal as the United States was labeled ``the Saudi Arabia of coal.''

However, the Reagan Administration all but eliminated the Department of Energy's fossil fuels and renewable energy programs, and withdrew support for the development of alternative energy technologies.

How short-sighted that was. I correct myself. It wasn't just short- sighted, it was blind, and I said so at the time. In a speech on this Senate floor, I warned that the Reagan administration's cutbacks in our energy programs were ``leaving us dangerously vulnerable to foreign transgressions.'' Historians like to point out that those who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it. Why must we continue to relive yesterday's mistakes? Can we not learn from the past?

Once again, concerns about our Nation's current and future energy needs are on the minds of citizens across the country. Worrisome gas prices, erratic fuel costs, electricity supply needs, energy efficiency improvements, and U.S. dependence on foreign oil are major challenges that we must tackle. To develop a bipartisan, national energy plan, Congress must establish balanced energy policies that recognize the need for both economic growth, energy security, and environmental protection.

Coal will play a key role in that strategy.

It is paramount that we develop a comprehensive plan built on a balanced portfolio of resources, technologies, and ideas. Such a plan must look broadly across all sectors of the economy and set objectives to meet these needs both today and down the road. And, as we look at the needs of our economy and our future, we need to better understand where to put critical and precious research and development resources and how to best stimulate these technologies in the marketplace.

Undoubtedly, fossil fuels will continue to be a primary source for meeting our energy needs into the coming decades. Coal, used in cleaner and more efficient ways, will be a key component of that energy strategy. Coal is this country's most abundant natural resource, providing over half of the Nation's electricity and accounting for one third of our Nation's total energy production.

Today, a bipartisan group of Members join me in introducing the National Coal Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 2003. I very much appreciate the support of Senators Rockefeller, Thomas, Burns, Dorgan, Allard, Durbin, Voinovich, Bayh, Enzi, Campbell, and Conrad. We believe that this legislation will help to maintain our Nation's fuel diversity by ensuring a key role for coal in our Nation's energy future.

This initiative provides a roadmap to the future by authorizing $2 billion over that next ten years for a clean coal technology demonstration program to help speed these technologies from the laboratory to the marketplace. Our legislation aims to improve air quality as well as the efficiency of the current fleet of coal-fired power plants by providing targeted tax incentives for the installation of these technologies at existing coal-fired facilities.

Additionally, this legislation will help meet the need for new infrastructure by providing incentives to deploy a targeted number of advanced clean coal technologies to prove their viability in the marketplace now and in the future. Finally, it ensures that all generators of coal can compete for these targeted tax incentives on an equal basis. This initiative is an important component of a strategy to achieve energy diversity and independence.

I have been around Congress for a very long time--more than 50 years. Recently, I became the third longest serving Member of Congress. My association with coal started early in my life and has continued throughout my many years of service in Congress. Coal has always been with me, it has been there fore us. Coal is abundant. Coal is affordable. Coal is ours!

Clean coal research and development funding and tax incentive legislation gained significant bipartisan and bicameral support during the energy bill debates in the 107th Congress. This success was built on the framework outlined, developed, and refined with my support in past Congress.

There is a little verse that goes:

God and soldier all men adore,

in time of trouble and no more,

for when war is over, and all things righted,

God is neglected and the old soldier slighted.

In times of national struggle and adversity, in times of war, coal has been there. But in times of calm, when the urgency subsides, so does our national determination to establish and implement a comprehensive energy strategy. To fail to incorporate a comprehensive energy plan into our vision for the Nation's future would ultimately be to America's detriment.

The development of clean coal technologies is essential to the betterment of our Nation's economic, energy, environmental, and security future. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 minutes on each side on this amendment.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, my amendment will strike the reconciliation instructions to the Finance Committee that would shield the President's $726 billion tax cut from a thorough debate in the Senate. To use reconciliation to increase the deficit is an abuse of the budget process.

The Budget Act framers did not contemplate that reconciliation would ever be used to produce $726 billion in tax cuts that would be financed through Social Security surpluses and an increasing debt. The Budget Act includes explicit and implicit language underscoring that the purpose of reconciliation is for deficit reduction.

If the reconciliation instructions were removed from the pending budget resolution, the Senate could still pass any economic stimulus plan it chose. To limit debate on such legislation is irresponsible, particularly when the administration has not even explained how it intends to pay for the cost of the war.

I ask for an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. President, if this budget resolution passes with these reconciliation instructions included, the American people, through their elected representatives in Congress, will be denied their right to have a full debate upon the budgetary priorities of the Nation.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and a vote to strike the reconciliation instructions to the Finance Committee from this budget resolution.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my name be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, may we hear the reading of the amendment?

Or reading can be dispensed with. We have not heard the reading of the amendment.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair. And I thank my distinguished colleague, the Democratic whip, for his characteristic courtesy and attention to matters in the Senate, and his always readiness to help other Senators in getting recognition. I thank him very much.

Springtime

Mr. President, this is my 85th year, but it is my 86th coming of spring. I am 85 years old--85 years young--but this is my 86th first day of spring.

So, Mr. President, at long last spring has arrived. How sweet it is. How sweet it is. Spring has arrived.

After a long gray winter made darker by the specter of war, and with that conflict now upon us, it is heartening to be reminded of the great rhythm of the seasons and the renewal of the earth and the life upon it.

Now Nature hangs her mantle green

On every blooming tree,

And spreads her sheets o' daisies white

Out o'er the grassy lea

So wrote the poet Robert Burns.

On the world stage, war plays a leading role, demanding our attention with the strident clangor of steel and the tramp of marching troops. But in the wings, subtly repainting the background sets, spring softens the scenery and gives us hope for the rebirth of peace. Bright crocuses blanket the ground in a confetti of color and the green ink of new growth stains the tawny fields of winter. The redbuds cover the hillsides in a rosy blush as bare forests rush to cover themselves in verdant blankets of new leaves. Banks of nodding daffodils cheer the anxious hearts of families worrying over loved ones in uniform far from home.

Last year, a dry and mild winter caused spring bulbs to bloom in February. This year, as snowfall after snowfall piled up on lawns and roads, it seemed as if no flower could survive in the icy soil. Seed catalogs languished unread as we shoveled sidewalks and scraped windshields. We told ourselves that we needed the moisture and that the snow would replenish the groundwater, but these charitable thoughts faded as we faced another foot of new-fallen snow, another miserable commute, another slushy slog across parking lot melt. It was a long and wearing winter, and for those in the northern latitudes of the United States, it lingers on still. In Washington, and in West Virginia, however, we are emerging from our dens like bears--shaggy, lean, and hungry for spring.

Sweet is the breath of morn, her rising

Sweet

With charm of earliest birds; pleasant

The sun

When first on this delightful land he

Spreads

His orient beams on herb, tree, fruit

And flower.

The poet John Milton wrote those words.

I look forward to turning away from the incessant news coverage of war, and I look forward to spending a few precious moments outside listening instead to the spring peepers--those little frogs whose singing brings back boyhood memories of long ago, bubbling springs along Wolf Creek Hollow in Mercer County, WV. Their singing coincided with the arrival of warmer weather and with it, a welcome respite from those bitter early morning walks to school, cold hands wrapped around my lunch pail handle, coat collar turned up against the wind that transformed tender ears into red popsicles.

As I tend to the simple routines of springtime--cleaning up the sticks and leaves strewn across the yard by the winter winds, preparing my small garden, of four or five or six or seven tomato plants weeding and fertilizing the lawn--I shall look upon the spring flowers in all their finery. The forsythia, the lilac, the hyacinth, all are undaunted by the code oranges and the code reds. They care nothing for al-Qaida terrorists or Tomahawk missiles, for M1-A1 tanks or F-117 bombers, for sandy battlefields or military strikes. In their benevolence, they show the same cheerful faces to Presidents and dictators, to soldiers and to the loved ones those soldiers leave behind. In their camps in Kuwait and in their bivouacs in the desert, our brave troops will not see a daffodil this spring. But God's daffodil are there for them, just as we are, our support as eternal and dependable as the arrival of spring. I hope that they can take comfort in knowing that the daffodils still bloom and that spring has come at last. With my prayers for their safety and quick success, I wish them the energy and purpose of spring. May they soon be restored to their loved ones, to us, to enjoy a beautiful springtime at home.

I yield the floor.

I thank the distinguished Senator from Nevada.

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

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

Mr. President, I have an amendment. I send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate?

Mr. President, the budget resolution currently before the Senate cuts funding for Amtrak by almost 22 percent. There is no question that this funding level will put Amtrak into bankruptcy during the next fiscal year. We must not let that happen. The bipartisan Amtrak board of directors has stated that Amtrak needs $1.8 billion next year to operate all its trains and make a minimum level of capital investment. That board includes several Republicans.

This amendment that I offer with Senator Lautenberg would fund Amtrak at that $1.8 billion level. It is paid for by reducing the tax cut by just $900 million for 1 year. We need to stop having our national passenger railroad service just survive from one financial crisis to the next. We need to allow the next president of Amtrak to continue to reform Amtrak, rather than oversee its liquidation.

I encourage all Senators to save rail service in this country and support this amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, there may be men and women dying right now in the Arabian desert. Here we are talking about a budget resolution which is required by law to be passed by April 15. The administration has not added one penny in this budget for the war. They have not added anything in this budget for the war.

If we were debating a war budget today, it might be different. But we are not debating a war budget. There is no money in this budget by the administration for the war. Yet we are fighting a war. Why the hurry, when the deadline is April 15? Why the hurry?

We have asked the administration, I have asked the administration and representatives of the administration what is the cost of the war. How much is it going to cost. What is the cost of this war. The Secretary of Defense has answered it is not knowable. Here we are, the elected representatives of the people who want to know something about the cost of the war. The administration has said: It is not knowable. The administration has said, in essence, wait until you see the supplemental. We will send you the supplemental.

The answer to our questions have been rather contemptuous, in saying: Well, we don't know the cost. We will let you know when we send up the bill.

Why don't we wait and see what the supplemental is going to ask for? Why don't we wait and see what the administration asks for in the supplemental before we proceed with the budget? I cannot understand the hurry. We have at least two Members who have had serious operations. I don't mind staying a little while longer, but I have a responsibility also at home. If it were absolutely necessary that we complete this budget tonight, I would stay as long as I could, and if I had to go home, I would go home and let the Senate finish it. But this resolution doesn't have to be done tonight. This is not a war budget. The administration has nothing in this budget for the war. The administration has stiff-armed, as far as I am concerned, the Congress, those of us who have wanted to know something about what are the costs of this war. The administration has given us the back of their hand.

Here we are; we are being asked to rush through a budget that is not a war budget, no money in this budget for the war, and yet there is a war going on right now. Go look at your television sets and see the destruction that is being rained upon a capital city of a state that has not attacked the United States. Why can't we wait until we find out what the administration is going to request in a supplemental and then deal with the budget?

There is absolutely no necessity for dealing with this budget tonight. Suppose you lose a man here in the Senate because we continue to press for action on this budget tonight? You could lose a man. You could lose two. We have had plenty of time. We have had plenty of time. The administration should have told us how much they need in the supplemental. I have a feeling we are going to be asked for $65 to $80 billion, maybe $100 billion for the war in that supplemental. Why not wait and see what the administration is asking for in the supplemental before we proceed with this budget?

We have a huge tax cut in this budget, $1.3 trillion in tax cuts. So we want to pass the tax cuts before we find out how much the administration is going to request in a supplemental for fighting the war.

Men and women are dying. We ought not be on this budget today. We ought to at least show some respect for our own men and women. We are sending our own men and women across the sea to a foreign land where they may die and their families here today are worrying and crying and praying about their loved ones. That is saying nothing about the Iraqi men and women, old women, young women, old men, young men, sick people, children, babies.

Mr. President, I have been around here long enough to know what the regular order is. I also have been around here long enough to know that we are being asked to stay here and spend the rest of the evening. We may send some old men to their deaths by doing this. I have a sick wife. Sixty-nine days from now, if the Lord lets both of us live, we will celebrate our 66th wedding anniversary. My first duty is to her. There will be enough Senators left here to pass this bill if we want to stay that long. But I think it is unreasonable.

If there were a reason to stay here, I would say, let's stay here and do our duty. But there is no reason for that, except to get this resolution passed before we know what the administration is going to request in a supplemental to fight this war.

Now, call for the regular order if you want to. Mr. President, I say it is time that we agree on a few more amendments, act on a few more, and go over to next week. The administration, I understand, is going to fight me down at the White House to tell me about the supplemental next Tuesday as a ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. Let them tell us that first, and then let's complete action on this massive tax cut.

Mr. President, I hope reason will prevail today. There is time to pass this bill later. It doesn't have to be done today. Let's go home, at least out of respect for the men and the women who are being sent. They didn't ask to go to foreign lands, possibly to fight and die.

Out of respect for those, Mr. President----

I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 more minute.

Can we not at least respect the people who are being sent overseas to fight and die, possibly? Can't we, out of respect, at least shut down the Senate for today and go home? Why do we have to debate this while they are giving of their all? Remember, we are raining destruction

upon a city of a state that has not attacked this country. There are men and women, old people and young people, sick and dying people there. At least we should have enough respect to quit now. We have done a good day's work. We passed 15, 16, 17 amendments by rollcall votes. Why do we have to continue? We don't have to--not for the political reason of getting action completed on this resolution before we find out what the administration is going to ask for in the supplemental.

I hope Senators will insist on our going over to next week. Our staffs haven't had a chance to read the amendments. Senators don't know what is in these amendments. I don't.

Let's take the weekend and have our clerks read them so they can better advise us next week. I ask Senators to think about that.

Will the Senator yield?