Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the Environment and Public Works Committee be discharged from further consideration of the nomination of Jeffrey Merrifield to be a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and that his nomination be placed on the Executive Calendar.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I now ask for the second reading and I object to my own request.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, over the last several weeks, a number of revelations have surfaced about how our intelligence agencies failed to analyze and connect the pieces of information that they obtained. According to these news accounts, while the September 11 attacks were a shock to the American people, they may not have been a total surprise to the intelligence arms of our Government. While there is no smoking gun to indicate that the FBI, the CIA, or anyone else or any other agency knew the totality of the September 11 plot before it was carried out, it now seems fairly clear that there were known pieces of information, which, if thoroughly and properly analyzed, could have put our Government on a higher state of alert for a major terrorist attack upon the United States. President Bush himself has acknowledged that our intelligence agencies were not connecting the dots that would have prepared our homeland for a devastating act of terrorism. In partial response, the President has proposed the creation of a Department of Homeland Security with a new bureau that is intended to sort through the intelligence reports and hopefully connect the dots that are sometimes overlooked or unappreciated by the FBI and/or CIA. The proposal has some merit. However, I am troubled with the manner in which this and other proposals are being crafted by the administration. Shrouded often in ambiguity and cloaked often in deep secrecy, this administration continues suddenly to sometimes unexpectedly drop its decisions upon the public and Congress, and then expect obedient approval without question, without debate, and without opposition. The Senate is not like that. We scrutinize, we debate, we ask questions. For months, the President has been sending signals that U.S. efforts to topple Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq will involve direct military action. In his State of the Union address on January 29, 2002, the President listed Iraq as a member of an ``axis of evil'' that seeks to attack the United States with acts of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. The President punctuated his bold words with a warning that he ``will not wait on events, while dangers gather,'' and that ``the United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.'' That is saber rattling. This saber rattling prompted many questions for the American public, for Members of Congress, and for our allies. The question being: Will we invade Iraq? When will it happen? Will the United States go it alone? These are some of the questions. On February 12, 2002, during a Budget Committee hearing, I questioned the Secretary of State about the administration's designs on Iraq. Unfortunately, the answers I got were not sufficiently clear to put to rest my questions. Secretary of State Powell stated that the President had ``made no decisions about war.'' Now, Mr. President, when I was in a two-room school in Algonquin, WV, in 1923, I could read through that answer. That should not require the mind of a genius to interpret. Secretary Powell stated that the President had ``made no decisions about war.'' So my question remained unanswered. The Secretary, for whom I have a great deal of respect and with whom I have been associated for many years in several difficult decisions that have arisen over those years, the Secretary of State also stated that he--meaning the President--``has no plan on his desk right now to begin a war with any nation.'' I go back to that two-room schoolhouse in Algonquin in southern West Virginia. I can figure that out. That is not answering the question. Everybody knew it. The Secretary of State knew it. He did not intend to answer that question. While I have a great deal of respect for Secretary Powell, his answers provided more in the way of qualifications and confusion than in the pursuance of clarity. Earlier this month, President Bush added another dimension to our national security policy. On June 1, 2002, he addressed the cadets at West Point on the progress of the war on terrorism. In his remarks, the President argued that deterrence and containment by themselves are not enough to fight terrorism. He said, ``In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action.'' And he urged Americans ``to be ready for preemptive action when necessary.'' In order to be ready for such action, the President said that the U.S. military ``must be ready to strike at a moment's notice in any dark corner of the world.'' According to a Washington Post article on June 10, the National Security Council is drafting a new defense doctrine to emphasize the use of preemptive attacks against terrorists and rogue nations. According to this article, the Department of Defense is also now studying how to launch ``no warning'' raids using a ``Joint Stealth Task Force'' that includes aircraft, ground troops, and submarines. Mr. President, these ``no warning'' raids will be a devastating application of military force from the air, the ground, and the sea. On Sunday, June 16, the Washington Post followed up on its reports about this new national security strategy with an article entitled, ``President Broadens Anti-Hussein Order.'' According to this article: President Bush earlier this year signed an intelligence order directing the CIA to undertake a comprehensive, covert program to topple Saddam Hussein, including authority to use lethal force to capture the Iraqi president, according to informed sources. The Post article continued: One source said that the CIA covert action should be viewed largely as preparatory to a military strike. It then discussed the difficulties involved in carrying out an attack on Iraq, including the large number of U.S. forces that would be required, the size of the Iraqi military, and the contentious relationships between Iraqi opposition groups and the United States. So what we have is a lot of dots--a dot here, a dot there--about what the foreign policy of the United States is; a dot here, a dot there about what military action our Government might pursue. I am constrained to ask, Is this a way to run a constitutional government? Is this a way to lead in a Republic? I hear so many of our Senators talk about this ``democracy.'' This is not a democracy. I ask unanimous consent to have printed at the conclusion of my remarks certain excerpts from SA No. 10 and SA No. 14 of the essays by Jay and Madison and Hamilton, the Federalist essays.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Are Senators permitted to speak therein?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that I may speak as long as I may desire.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Nation will honor its birthday on the forthcoming July 4. That was the day on which, in 1826, both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams died. They both died on the same day, 50 years exactly from the date on which Thomas Jefferson wrote that Declaration of Independence and the Congress approved it. What a coincidence. God works in miraculous ways, his wonders to perform, does not he? As I look forward to that Fourth of July, I know the Senate will not be in session. But before we depart, I want to talk about the event that Senators and Members of the other body will be celebrating next week back in their home States and districts: Independence Day. As I think of Independence Day, I think of Henry Van Dyke's poem, ``America For Me.'' 'Tis fine to see the Old World, and travel up and down Among the famous palaces and cities of renown, To admire the crumbly castles and the statues of the kings,-- But now I think I've had enough of antiquated things. So it's home again, and home again, America for me! My heart is turning home again, and there I long to be, In the land of youth and freedom beyond the ocean bars, Where the air is full of sunlight and the flag is full of stars. Oh, London is a man's town, there's power in the air; And Paris is a woman's town, with flowers in her hair; And it's sweet to dream in Venice, and it's great to study in Rome; But when it comes to living there is no place like home. I like the German fir-woods, in green battalions drilled; I like the gardens of Versailles with flashing fountains filled; But, oh, to take your hand, my dear, and ramble for a day; In the friendly western woodland where nature has her way! I know that Europe's wonderful, yet something seems to lack: The Past is too much with her, and the people looking back. But the glory of the Present it is to make the Future free,-- We love our land for what she is and what she is to be. Oh, it's home again, and home again, America for me! I want a ship that's westward bound to plough the rolling sea, To the blessed Land of Room Enough beyond the ocean bars, Where the air is full of sunlight and the flag is full of stars. I will think of America in the context of Henry Van Dyke's beautiful poem, ``America For Me.'' I am not referring to the movie of several years ago. No one will be battling any alien invasions. Rather, we will participate in that most American of all holidays, all birthdays certainly, celebrating the founding of this Nation on July 4, 1776. That was 226 years ago. Our Nation's birthday party is a time for picnics, ice cream, parades, and fireworks. It is a time for family and friends to gather under the shade of the biggest and the oldest tree around, camped out in lawn chairs and on blankets with sweating glasses of cold drinks in hand, watching, laughing, as children run through the lawn sprinklers-- ha, ha. What a joy that was, to run through those lawn sprinklers. These pages have enjoyed those things. We did not have lawn sprinklers when I was a boy, but I knew the joy of the summer rain. So while these children are running through the lawn and enjoying the lawn sprinklers, our minds will shift to hotdogs. When the evening shadows gather and the fireflies begin their display, it is time to pull out the sparklers and watch the fireworks. Small children then, like my granddaughters, like my great granddaughter, will nestle against parents or grandparents or great grandparents. They are made timid by the loud booms and shrill shrieks of the big rockets, but their shyness is soon forgotten as the enormous chrysanthemum bursts of red, gold, green, and blue burst forth against the dark sky. I can see it from McLean. I can look toward Washington and see these enormous chrysanthemums of fireworks, these bursts of gold, red, yellow, and blue as they burst against the dark sky. Only when the show is over do small heads and sticky hands hang limp against a parent's shoulder for a long, sleepy walk back to the car and then home. Many holidays touch deep wellsprings of feeling in Americans. Memorial Day and Veterans Day play upon our heartstrings like the melancholy sigh of a violin, calling up visions of heroism and sacrifice, of the tears and loss and suffering that are sadly necessary parts of defending our nation, our people, and our freedom. Columbus Day sounds a bright note of discovery and optimism, the shining promise of new worlds. Flag Day foreshadows the patriotism of Independence Day, but no other holiday brings out such affection and pride in our nation and the ideals upon which it is based. It is as if the July sun heats the deep strong current that flows through this nation and brings it to the surface, each year as strong and fresh as ever, as powerful as it was in 1776. July 4, 1776 was probably much like July 4, 2002 will be: hot, sunny, sticky with humidity in the South and East, dry in the West, but in 1776, the air would have been thick with tension. The colonies' ties with England were tearing apart. The previous year, on July 6, 1775, the Congress had issued a ``Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms,'' which detailed American grievances while explicitly denying any intention of separating from Great Britain. King George responded by proclaiming a state of rebellion in the colonies, and Parliament passed an act that cut off colonial trade. Since January of 1776, everyone had been reading and talking about the then-anonymous pamphlet, ``Common Sense,'' that so eloquently argued for independence. Rebel forces were fighting, and winning, battles against British forces at Lexington, Concord, Fort Ticonderoga, Breed's Hill, and around Boston. A lot of things going on around Boston. Unable to conscript sufficient forces, King George had resorted to hiring mercenary soldiers from Germany the ``Hessians.'' In May, King Louis XVI of France secretly authorized arms and munitions shipments to the Americans. In June 1776 the Continental Congress appointed a committee to compose a declaration of independence. On June 28, 1776, American forces in Charleston, South Carolina, fought off a British attack, but on July 2, British General Sir William Howe landed an army that would reach 32,000 troops, including 9,000 Hessian mercenaries, at Staten Island, New York. The same day, Congress voted for independence. Two days later in Philadelphia, on the evening of July 4, the Declaration of Independence was adopted when John Hancock, president of the Congress, signed the final draft copy. Composed primarily by one man, Thomas Jefferson, with changes made by after debate among the Congress, parts of the Declaration of Independence are well known to many Americans. Many people can recite the opening words--``When, in the course of human events * * * ''--and more can recite the first line of the second paragraph: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'' After that, sadly, Americans' knowledge of the substance of the Declaration drops off sharply. I hope that perhaps some parents will read the Declaration of Independence to their children this July fourth. Or some children will read the Declaration of Independence to their parent, on this 4th. The litany of wrongs inflicted upon the colonists by the British crown, designed to incite rebellion, still retains the power to inflame our passions. The actual declaration that follows, in the last paragraph of the document, is by contrast, firm and solemn, a straightforward and almost lawyerly assertion of separation from the Crown. At the signing of the Declaration, which occurred on August 2, 1776, John Hancock was reported to have urged unanimity, saying ``There must be no pulling different ways. We must hang together.'' To which Benjamin Franklin, with his usual wit, is said to have retorted, ``Yes, we must indeed all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.'' Gallows humor aside, Franklin's words were true. Failure on the part of the signatories to make the Declaration of Independence a reality would, for these men, mean losing not just a war, but their homes, their possessions, and, in all likelihood, their lives. These men were committing treason. Think about that. These men were committing treason. They were putting their lives, their honor, their sacred honor, on the altar. They were putting everything they had on the line. The final words of the Declaration could not have been lightly written: ``And, for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.'' In the months ahead, American defeats at the battles of Long Island, White Plains, and Fort Lee may have made a few signers wish that they had not been swayed by Hancock's plea. Indeed, by September of 1777, the British under Howe had driven Washington's army toward Philadelphia, forcing Congress to flee the city. On September 26, 1777, Howe's forces occupied the city where the Declaration of Independence was signed. The Revolutionary War continued for six more difficult years, until a preliminary peace treaty was signed in Paris. Congress would not declare a formal end to the war until April 11, 1783. The Treaty of Paris formally ending the war was signed on September 3, 1783 and ratified by Congress in January 1784. Mr. President, I think it is good to remind ourselves of these things from time to time. And remember those men who were willing to sign their names on the line, committing to the cause their lives--their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. What would you have given for their lives had they not won that war? They were putting their lives on the line. They were committing treason. What a chance they took--for us. For us! It is difficult today, accustomed as we are to automobiles, air conditioning, electricity, mobile phones and instant communications, to imagine what those years of war must have been like. Weeks might pass before you heard or read, by candlelight on a hot summer's night, about a decisive battle in a spot that might take you weeks to reach on horseback. Imagine life as a Revolutionary soldier: a wool uniform if you were lucky, and some French powder and ammunition hanging at your waist while you walk in the middle of long, dust-covered column between battles, carrying your three-foot-long, very heavy musket over your shoulder. I can see those boys from Vermont, can't you? In the hills of New Hampshire, Boston--can't you see them, plodding along from Lexington on to Concord? In the winter you might have a tent to protect you from the winter, not nearly enough to eat. You might get paid only sporadically. Most of us could not do that for a weekend, let alone for six years. This Independence Day, America is at the beginning of what promises to be another kind war--a war against terrorism. It, too, will be fought on our territory as well as at points far distant from us. It will require the same kind of resolve and commitment, and the same reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, that our Founding Fathers showed. But next week, as we celebrate 226 years spent enjoying the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, of freedom from tyranny, I am confident that Americans will demonstrate the same fortitude and bravery that our Founding Fathers displayed. Our ideals are too deeply ingrained in us to be lightly given up. I close with the words from Longfellow's poem, ``The Building Of the Ship'': Thou, too, sail on, O Ship of State! Sail on, O Union, strong and great! Humanity with all its fears, With all the hopes of future years, Is hanging breathless on thy fate! We know what Master laid thy keel, What Workmen wrought thy ribs of steel, Who made each mast, and sail, and rope, What anvils rang, what hammers beat, In what a forge and what a heat Where shaped the anchors of thy hope! Fear not each sudden sound and shock, 'T is of the wave and not the rock; 'T is but the flapping of the sail, And not a rent made by the gale! In spite of rock and tempest's roar, In spite of false lights on the shore, Sail on, nor fear to breast the sea! Our hearts, our hopes, are all with thee, Our hearts, our hopes, our prayers, our tears, Our faith triumphant o'er our fears, Are all with thee,--are all with thee!

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, we all know that on Wednesday, in a 2-to-1 decision, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the United States Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. The court held that the pledge was unconstitutional because in 1954 the Congress had the audacity--imagine that--to include a reference to God in its provisions. Some say these are just mechanical, ceremonial provisions. Get out of my face. That may be what some people think, but the majority of people in this country I don't believe are thinking in terms of ceremonial language. I was a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives at that time. I am the only Member of Congress today in either body who can say that I was a Member of the House of Representatives on June 7, 1954, when the words ``under God'' were included in the Pledge of Allegiance. Now I see in the morning paper that the next thing these misguided atheists are wanting to do is to challenge the words ``In God we trust.'' I was a Member of the House of Representatives on that same date, coincidentally, June 7, 1 year later, 1955, when the House voted to add the words ``In God we trust'' to the Nation's coins and currency. Every time you take out a dollar bill--that is a pretty popular bill in my lifetime, a dollar bill; here it is--on it we read the words ``In God we trust.'' It is all there. It is on the coins. I was a Member of the House of Representatives when Congress voted to make that the motto, and here it is, inscribed, which is said in marble, ``In God we trust,'' right here over this door to the Chamber. Over to my left are those words, ``Novus Ordo Seclorum,'' a new order of the ages. ``E Pluribus Unum,'' all in one, one in all. Over here, ``Annuit coeptis,'' God has favored our undertakings. Here are these inscriptions. Bring in your stone masons and take these off the walls. That is what these pernicious atheists are saying. They want everything to suit themselves. God have mercy on them. But if they have their way, we will have to have stonemasons come into this Chamber and chisel off these words. They are not going to have their way. The people of these United States are not going to stand for this. And the courts had better take notice and kind of draw back a little bit. After all, if the American people do not believe in it and if they do not support it, that court decision is not going to be obeyed. The courts, starting with the Supreme Court, need to take a new look at this first amendment. If anything will ever result in amending the first amendment, then continue to go down this road, I say to the courts. They ought to draw back just a little bit distant from going down the road they are presently on. I am proud to inform my colleagues that I was in the House when Joint Resolution 243, which was entitled ``A Joint Resolution to codify and emphasize existing rules and customs pertaining to the display and use of the flag of the United States of America'' was enacted. That resolution was approved by the House on June 7, 1954--almost half century ago. The plaintiff in the case that was just decided is a self-described atheist. His daughter attends elementary school in California. The public schools there, as elsewhere, begin each school day with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. If this court's outlandish and ill- conceived decision is allowed to stand, it will mean that children in public schools in at least nine states will no longer be allowed to recite the pledge of allegiance by referring to America as ``one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'' That is too much power. Specifically, the court in this case has held that the words ``under God'' are unconstitutional because they support the existence of God but deny ``atheistic concepts.'' Unbelievably, the Court has held that this runs counter to the intent of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, because, according to this court, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from endorsing any particular religion, including a belief in one God--which the court calls ``monotheism''--at the expense of atheism. Take a look at this Bible, which I hold in my hand. Here it is, the Holy Bible. It is the King James version--King James of England. Here is what it says in Psalm No. 127: Except the Lord build the House, they labour in vain that build it: except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain. Those are the words written long before the U.S. Constitution was written--written by wise men in many instances, Solomon, Son of David-- long before the Constitution was written, long before the court system was established in these United States. Those are the words: Except the Lord build the House, they labour in vain that build it. Hear me, Judges! In reading the court's decision, I was astonished by the tortured reasoning of the majority as opposed to the lucid opinion recorded by Judge Fernandez, the lone dissenter. In responding to the arguments of the majority, Judge Fernandez did not see fit to hold that the phrase ``under God'' violates the Constitution of the United States. How silly, how lucidly silly. If the schoolchildren of America were to be required to commemorate to memory, as they used to be required to commit many things to memory, the Declaration of Independence, would that ninth circuit judge render such an absurd decision concerning the constitutionality of the Declaration of Independence? Let's just select three or four phrases from the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration refers to ``Nature's God.'' The Declaration also refers to ``the Supreme Judge of the world,'' meaning God. The Declaration refers to ``a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.'' This is the Declaration of Independence. It was not written by Congress in 1954, as the words ``under God'' were inserted into the pledge. This Constitution was not written then. This Declaration of Independence was not written then. And who wrote it? In the main, it was written by Thomas Jefferson, along with John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Philip Livingston, and one other. But there are at least four or five references to ``Providence,'' to ``the Divinity,'' to ``God,'' to ``the Supreme Judge of the world'' in the Declaration of Independence. Now, would the same judge render such a misguided, absurd decision concerning the Declaration of Independence? Let's see who signed that Declaration of Independence. John Hancock-- there are several signers. I will just select a few: John Hancock; George Wythe; Richard Henry Lee; Thomas Jefferson; Benjamin Harrison, who later would become President; Robert Morris, the financier of the American Revolution; Benjamin Rush; Benjamin Franklin; George Clymer; James Wilson of Pennsylvania; Samuel Adams; John Adams; Elbridge Gerry and Roger Sherman. What would they think? What would these signers of the Declaration think? What would the signers of the Constitution say if they could speak today? What would they say about this pernicious decision we have just read about? What would Roger Sherman think? What would William Livingston think? I am wondering, if they could speak today, what would they think? What would Benjamin Franklin say? What would Robert Morris think, George Clymer? These are also signers of the Constitution. What would James Wilson think? How about George Read? How about John Dickinson, what would he say--John Dickinson of Delaware, who signed this Constitution? What would George Washington think? He presided over the Constitutional Convention. What would he say? What would John Rutledge say? What would Charles Cotesworth Pinckney say? What would Charles Pinckney say? What would Pierce Butler say? If they could speak to this--I will use a word that is pretty widely used--god-awful decision, what would they say? Well, Judge Fernandez said we should recognize ``that the religious clauses in the Constitution were not designed to drive religious expression out of public thought; they were simply written to avoid discrimination.'' Judge Fernandez acknowledged further, that, ``we can run through the litany of tests and concepts which have floated to the surface from time to time.'' But, he said, ``when all is said and done, the danger that the words `under God' in our Pledge of Allegiance will tend to bring about a theocracy or suppress somebody's beliefs is so minuscule as to be de minimis.'' He concluded his dissent by finding that there is nothing unconstitutional about the Pledge of Allegiance, because any danger presented to first amendment freedoms by the phrase `one nation under God' is, in his words, ``picayune.'' Well, to that, I would say, ``Amen.'' Mr. President, over my many years in office, I have known other critics, like the majority of this court, who have attacked the words ``under God'' as they exist in the Pledge of Allegiance. They have implied that the Founding Fathers were essentially ``areligious'' or ``neutral'' about religion. Some of these critics even claim the Founding Fathers were antireligious, that they were bent on establishing a completely secular state in which God has no place. These individuals assert that America's fundamental origins are basically devoid of religious meaning, and that this was the intent of the Founding Fathers. Well, nothing could be further from the truth. If we read the Federalist essays, if we read other documents, we know that the intent of the Framers was to keep the new government from endorsing or favoring one religion over another. It was never meant to prohibit any voluntary expression of religious faith. I believe that this court's decision is wrongheaded, destructive, and completely contrary to the intent of the Founders of this great Nation. Instead of ensuring freedom of religion in a nation founded in part to guarantee that basic liberty, a literal suffocation of that freedom has been the result. The rights of those who do not believe in a Supreme being are being zealously guarded, to the denigration, I repeat, the denigration, of the rights of the millions of people in this country who do believe. The American doctrine of separation of church and state forbids the establishment of any particular religion by the state, but it does not forbid the influence of religious values in the life of our Nation. Religious faith has always been a basic tenet of American life. This is evident throughout the history of America. The history of the first amendment in particular is one of the great legacies of faith bequeathed by the Founding Fathers, but it is one that is little understood and sometimes distorted--as it was in the recent court decision. In 1791, Congress passed the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. We refer to these 10 amendments as the Bill of Rights. The very first amendment recognized the importance of religion in American life, stating that, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, which the second phrase is just as important and has equal weight with the preceding clause. The purpose of this tenet was to allow religious faith to flourish, not to suppress it, not to hobble it. In fact, even earlier--before the passage of the First Amendment-- Congress had clarified its attitude toward religion when, on August 7, 1789, it officially reenacted the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which included an explicit endorsement of religion. Article III of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 stated, ``Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of learning shall forever be encouraged.'' At that juncture, most schools were church enterprises. Congress recognized this, and expected--and I want to emphasize this--expected that the schools would teach religion and morality. Against this backdrop, the First Amendment is especially enlightening. James Madison, the principal sponsor of the Bill of Rights and later himself President, was a lifelong Episcopalian who had studied theology at Princeton with apparent plans to enter the ministry. However, on his return to Virginia after college, he changed his mind and went into politics primarily because he was deeply disturbed by the persecution of Baptists and other nonconformists in the Old Dominion. He therefore entered politics to become an ardent advocate of religious tolerance. Madison declared that, ``the religion of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man.'' Thus, in consultation with John Leland, the leading Baptist clergyman in Virginia, Madison hammered out the church/state principles that were eventually embodied in the first amendment. As a result, the institutions of Church and State were officially separated, but the exercise of religion and its influence on society were encouraged--not discouraged. One of the most perceptive observers of the early American scene was the celebrated Alexis de Tocqueville. De Tocqueville, in summarizing the condition of religion in the United States in the 1830s, wrote: On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention . . . In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. That is what this court would have us do in this country. But, continued de Tocqueville: But in America, I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country . . . Religion . . . must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of the country-- Meaning this country-- for if it does not impart a taste for freedom-- We hear the word ``freedom'' kicked around everywhere today---- it facilitates the use of free institutions. De Tocqueville grasped what millions of Americans have known, past and present. God has been and continues to be an intimate and profound participant in the ongoing history of these United States. Keep that in mind. God has been and continues to be an intimate and profound participant in the ongoing history of America. Remember the Scriptures: ``Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.'' The American people believe that. Through the decades, most Americans have come to discover the truth of de Tocqueville's conclusion when he asserted that, ``Unbelief is an accident.'' Hear that, ye atheists: ``Unbelief is an accident, and faith is the only permanent state of mankind.'' In the context of this heritage, then, it is not surprising that the United States--a nation that evolved out of the American Revolution--should be, at root, a religious nation, from the beginning, from the Mayflower Compact, which in at least four instances refers to God. Indeed, most of the men who have been President of the United States have been men of exceptional faith. Two Presidents other than James Madison John Adams and Benjamin Harrison had considered entering the ministry. James Garfield was a lay preacher in the Disciples church. And Theodore Roosevelt, Benjamin Harrison, William McKinley, and James Earl Carter were all Sunday School teachers at various points during their lives. Of all of the Presidents, Abraham Lincoln was among the most theologically astute and Biblically influenced. Paradoxically, he never formally joined any particular church. Nonetheless, he said the Bible-- this is what Lincoln was talking about, the Holy Bible--was ``the greatest gift God has given to man.'' Hear me, Judge Goodwin of the Ninth Circuit. This is Lincoln speaking, not Robert C. Byrd. Lincoln said the Bible was ``the greatest gift God has given to man.'' And he was an avid reader of the Bible. He kept a battered old family Bible with him in the White House, and his speeches were laced with Biblical quotations. Reporters of his day stated that his delivery reflected the cadences and rhythms of the King James Version of the English Bible. The first Bible was the Coverdale Bible, written in 1535, the same year Thomas Moore was executed. But Lincoln was not alone among the Presidents who bore public witness to their personal faith. Every President, from George Washington through George W. Bush, has included some reference to God in his inaugural address. I have gone through all the inaugural addresses. I think there might have been one President who was pretty weak in his references to the Supreme Judge of the world. But in most cases they didn't have any hesitancy about referring to providence, to God. In his First Inaugural address, Washington declared, ``No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.'' George Washington also instituted another custom that has been followed by every President since, by proclaiming a national day of Thanksgiving in late November of 1789. Jefferson, specifically included in his plans for the University of Virginia the proposal that ``proof of the being of God, the Creator, Preserver, and Supreme Being of the Universe, and Author of all morality, and the laws and obligations these infer, will be the province of the Professor of ethics.'' However, nowhere, perhaps, did Jefferson's religious faith have a greater influence than in the words of the Declaration of Independence. At one point, Jefferson wrote, ``Religion is the alpha and omega of our moral law.'' He also pledged that he had ``sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.'' In the Declaration, which he wrote, Jefferson made it clear that religion is not only the root of our moral law but of our political rights. The Declaration of Independence contains five synonyms for the word ``God,'' and maintains that freedom itself is a gift from God as an element of man's being. As, hopefully, we all recall, the Declaration of Independence states, with respect to God: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. . . . We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions. . . . And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. . . . These are various and sundry excerpts from the Declaration of Independence. Based on this foundation established by Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers, archaeologists in future millennia will have little difficulty reading the evidence of the religious faith and traditions that have been part and parcel of American history. Every nook and cranny of this Capitol--and I might add, of this Capital City--provides such evidence. In fact, wherever one may go in this great national city, he or she is constantly reminded of the strong spiritual awareness of our forefathers who wrote the Constitution, who built the schools, who built the churches, who hewed the forests, who dredged the rivers and harbors, and who created this Republic. Here in the Senate, for example, the services of an ordained clergyman have been employed since 1789. The Senate Chaplain is the embodiment of a corporate faith in God and the symbol of the eternal judgment that we Senators recognize exists over our legislative and personal actions. Moreover, the institution of the Senate Chaplaincy is itself the result of a historical process that reveals much about the long development of American values. For example, the first prayers offered in Congress were uttered on September 7, 1774. At the initial meeting of the First Continental Congress, Samuel Adams requested that the convention begin with prayer. As the Revolutionary War continued, the Continental Congress issued calls for periodic national days of prayer and fasting, asking the populace ``to reverence the Providence of God, and look up to Him as the Supreme Disposer of all events and the arbiter of the fate of nations.'' These religious expressions were not just pretense, they were not just ceremonial verbiage. Heavens no. Prayer and worship were held in high regard by the remarkable men who led the American Revolution, and the Chaplaincy of today's Senate is derived directly from the guidance provided by those great men. During the rocky sessions of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the various representatives of the several States were locked in heated disagreement over petty prerogatives with little concern, apparently at that moment, for the national well-being. The weather had been very hot--probably as humid as it gets here in Washington at times--and the delegates to the Convention were tired and they were edgy. The debates were stymied and a melancholy cloud seemed to hang over the Convention. Suddenly, old Dr. Franklin stood to his feet and faced the chair in which sat GEN George Washington. His famous double-spectacles were low on his nose, and he broke the silence when he addressed George Washington. Franklin reminded the Convention how, at the beginning of the war with England, the Continental Congress had prayed for Divine protection in that very room. ``Our prayers, sir, were heard,'' he declared. ``They were graciously answered. . . .'' He then asked, ``And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance?'' He continued on saying: I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that ``except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.'' He selected the same portion of Scripture that I picked today, didn't he? This is Benjamin Franklin talking. He went on to say: I firmly believe this: and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel. . . . Well, today, we follow the Senate tradition of morning prayer. The Chaplain was among the first officers elected in the Senate upon adoption of the Constitution. In my volumes, ``The Senate 1789-1989,'' Senators will find a chapter on the Senate Chaplain. I hope they will read it again. To this very day, the first daily order of the business in the Senate is a prayer for Divine Guidance by the Chaplain. This, of course, was not perceived by the Framers as an attack on the first amendment requiring separation between church and state, for the simple reason that no single church has anything to do with it. It is not simply prayer in the Senate that reaffirms the religious history of the American people. Let us speak briefly of some of the other reminders in Washington that reaffirm the proposition that our country is founded on religious principles. On the Washington Monument, one may read three Biblical quotations on the 24th landing. One was donated by the Sunday school children of the Methodist Church of Philadelphia who contributed a stone bearing an inscription from the Book of Proverbs which states: Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it. Another inscription on the Washington Monument, which was contributed by the Methodist Church of New York, is also taken from Proverbs and reads: The memory of the just is blessed. That comes from chapter 22 of Proverbs, verse 6. And the third stone bears these words of Christ from the Book of Luke: Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven. Near the Washington Monument, of course, is the Lincoln Memorial. This massive shrine pays homage to the greatness of this simple and heroic man whose very life was offered on the altar of liberty. We know of his knowledge of the Bible and his gentleness, his power, his determination, and we know that determination of Lincoln came to us clearly through his features chiseled in granite by the sculptor. We can almost hear Lincoln speak the words which are cut into the wall by his side. Mr. President, we need to get some stonemasons to go down to the Lincoln Memorial. If this judge with his pernicious ruling and if the atheists are successful in having these words stricken from this Chamber--``In God We Trust''--and from the Nation's currency, we will have to have a lot of new dollar bills printed and a lot of new coins. We have to strike those words ``In God We Trust'' now from the bills if these pernicious suits by atheists are upheld by some misguided judges, like the one who rendered this decision. We had better hire some stonemasons. That might be a pretty good job, come to think of it. Maybe I should just retire at the end of this term--I would be about 89 then--and then I can perhaps get myself a job as a stonemason. I could go down here to the Lincoln Monument--I would not do it--at least I could think in terms of being a stonemason and take these words off that Lincoln Memorial. Listen to what Lincoln says, according to the inscription on the Lincoln Memorial. Can you just witness those stonemasons going down there and chipping with chisel and hammer, chipping out these words? Listen, these are words that are cut into the wall by the side of Lincoln on the Lincoln Memorial: That this Nation under God-- Praise God, hallelujah, there they are. That is Lincoln, that is what he said. That this Nation under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. . . . Hear that, judges of the Ninth Circuit. Hear that, Judge Goodwin of the Ninth Circuit. I have a great judge in West Virginia named Goodwin. He is a Federal judge. He is Judge Goodwin. But I daresay he would not have rendered that kind of a foolish decision. Here are the words that are cut into the wall by the side of Lincoln: That this Nation under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth. In his second inaugural address, this great President--a Republican, by the way. See, I do not hold that against him--in his great second inaugural address, great President Lincoln made use of the words ``God,'' ``Bible,'' ``prayer,'' ``providence,'' ``Almighty,'' and ``divine attributes,'' and then his address continues: As was said 3,000 years ago so it still must be said, [that] ``the judgements of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'' That was Abraham Lincoln. With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God-- This is Lincoln talking, Abraham Lincoln talking-- With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the Nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the brunt of the battle and for his widow and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and all nations. Before leaving Washington, a visitor might make a final stop at the National Cemetery in Arlington, VA. Here are the peaceful ranks of crosses, stars of David, other religious symbols reminding us that our Government has given its fallen men back to the God who gave them life. The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier stands for all those who have fallen in battle who could not be identified--members of all sects, faiths, and religions. And here, once more, we find the acknowledgment of God's divine power in the eloquent words: Here lies in honored glory, an American soldier known but to God. Can you imagine, we may have to someday get stonemasons to go over there and take hammers and chisels and take those words off that monument. Thus, the connection between God and the United States of America is long established in the minds of most Americans. If we begin now to erase the connection between God and schoolchildren under the pretense of protecting the so-called constitutional rights of nonbelievers or atheists, as the Ninth Circuit did, will it not be necessary to go a little further, or perhaps a great deal further, in the future? Will we next be forced to remove the name of God from all official documents, historic edifices, and patriotic events for fear of possibly offending what is a nonbelieving minority? Must we do so when even the possibility of offending such a minority is, in the words of Judge Fernandez, picayune? What will the court crier say--``God save this honorable court''? He will have to stop there, will he not? He will have to say something else. Would he say, ``President Bush save this honorable court?'' Would he say, ``President Clinton, save this honorable court?'' One can see how silly such a decision was and how foolish it is to pursue that line in this country with all of its history. Obviously, in establishing and maintaining a secular government, the American people never intended to foster an atheistic or a faithless society. In this light, in closing, I recite perhaps more sincerely than ever the prayer that climaxes one of our greatest national hymns: Our fathers' God to Thee, Author of liberty, To Thee we sing; Long may our land be bright With freedom's holy light; Protect us by Thy might, Great God our King.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have serious concerns about the amendments that have just been adopted to add $814 million to either missile defense funding or combating terrorism. We have heard a day and a half of debate on these amendments, which relate to one of the great issues of our national defense policy. I am stunned that these important amendments were accepted without a rollcall vote. My concern with these amendments are numerous. The supposed offset for these additional funds is, at the moment, nothing more than a work of fiction. Supposedly, the Office of Management and Budget, in its mid-session review of the budget, will revise downward its estimate of the inflation rate. Not only is this report yet to be released, but also we are making budget decisions based upon projections that may or may not pan out. In addition, the amendments backtrack on cuts in the missile defense program made by the Armed Services Committee. As a member of that committee, I think that we made the right choices on trimming a missile defense budget request that was far too large to support a program that remains in an elementary phrase. By pouring so much money so quickly into missile defense programs, we are only encouraging a rush to failure. I am especially alarmed that these amendments allow for more missile defense funding at a time when the programs are becoming increasingly shrouded in secrecy, as if the Pentagon wishes to stifle public debate about the utility and effectiveness of anti-missile systems. The amendments leave the decision about whether to use $814 million for missile defense or for combating terrorism entirely to the President. There is an alarming trend in Congress to simply delegate the decisions on many important issues to the Chief Executive. The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the military, but the Constitution charges Congress with the authority to ``raise and support armies'' and to ``provide and maintain a navy.'' The Founding Fathers of this country clearly intended to have Congress determine how the funds intended for our national defense would be allocated. The amendments adopted today delegate, from the Congress to the President, the decision of how to use $814 million. It is an advoidance of our constitutional responsibilities. The amendment offered by the chairman of the Armed Services Committee establishes the top priority for these funds to be used for combating terrorism at home and abroad, but I have no idea for what purposes these funds could be used. I do not know whether I would have supported this amendment, but it is profoundly disappointing that Senators did not have the opportunity to cast their vote on this proposal. I had even greater concerns about the underlying amendment, offered by the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. As I said before, I question the source of the $814 million, the potential for the funds to restore the well-justified cuts in missile defense programs, and its delegation to the President of an important decision on the funding of our military. But again, I did not have the opportunity to register my vote. I hope that my colleagues would take a more careful look at what powers we invest in the President. We should also take a look at how we dispose of such important business as increasing the missile defense budget by $814 million. We must never allow ourselves to be absolved of our constitutional responsibilities to decide and vote on matters of such great importance.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, it would be my suggestion that this judge go back and read the Declaration of Independence. I wonder if he can hold that Declaration to be unconstitutional--the Declaration of Independence. This is what it says: When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. Let that judge read further, ``We hold these truths to be self- evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed,''--by whom?--``by their Creator.'' It is in the Declaration of Independence, ``by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'' Let that same judge go a little further and read in this same Declaration of Independence, in case he has not read it lately, and let him declare it unconstitutional, the reference to ``the Supreme Judge of the World.'' Who is this ``Supreme Judge of the World?'' Certainly, not some atheist. Nor is it a judge who sits on the Ninth Circuit and whose name is Goodwin. The final words of the Declaration state, ``with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence.'' Let atheists find something to bring before that judge in this Declaration of Independence. Let that atheist lawyer do that. Let that judge sit in his black robe and address the court and the Constitution and the people of the United States as to whether or not the words I have quoted from the Declaration of Independence are unconstitutional. Here are these words printed in the Declaration of Independence, ``with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.'' That judge should not be a judge in my opinion--and I can say this: I hope his name never comes before this Senate, while I am a Member of it, for any promotion. He will be remembered. Let him declare this Declaration of Independence unconstitutional. Do the words I have quoted offend the Constitution? I am the only Member of Congress today, bar none, in either body, who was a Member of the House on June 7, 1954, when the words ``under God'' were included in the Pledge of Allegiance. Coincidentally, may I say, on that same day, June 7, one year later, 1955, the House of Representatives voted to inscribe the words ``in God we trust'' on the currency and coin of the United States. Some of the coins already bore the inscription, but on that day, June 7, 1955, the House of Representatives, of which I was a member, voted to make that the national motto and to have it inscribed on the currency and the coin. Let that judge's name ever come before this Senate while I am a Member, and he will be blackballed--if Senators know what ``blackballed'' means--fast. I say the sooner we can pass a resolution--and I want my name to be third because I am the only Member of Congress--let him who would challenge that stand--in either body today who was in Congress on the day we voted to include the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance. That same judge ought to go back and read the Mayflower Compact.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Democratic whip. That is all I have to say for now. I hope the Senate will waste no time in throwing this back in the face of this stupid judge. Think of the history of this country, the men and the women who have shed their blood for this country. The men who founded this country, who wrote the Constitution in Philadelphia, George Washington, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin--what would they say if they were living today? A country that was founded by men and women who believed in a higher power--we do not all have to be Baptists, we do not all have to be Methodists, we do not all have to be Christians. But the people by and large who founded this country, who hewed the forests, who dredged the rivers, who built the bridges and who created a country from sea to shining sea believed in a higher power. What is this country coming to? What is it coming to? ``Blessed is the Nation whose God is the Lord.'' He can be your Lord. He can be mine. What are we coming to when we cannot speak God's name? Let them put me in jail. I will read that Bible right here on this desk. I have done it before. I will do it again. I have recited the pledge and so has every other Member of this body time and time again. Come, Judge Goodwin of the Ninth Circuit, put us in jail. I say the people of America are not going to stand for this. I, for one, am not going to stand for this country's being ruled by a bunch of atheists. If they do not like it, let them leave. They do not have to worship my God, but I will worship my God and no atheist and no court is going to tell me I cannot do so whether at a school commencement or anywhere else. I say let's let the people speak.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Appropriations Act directed the State Department to study and report on the United States-People's Republic of China Science and Technology Agreement of 1979, and its protocols. The Agreement has been the basis for nearly a quarter century of science and technology transfers from the U.S. to China by twelve agencies of our government. While the Cox Report of 1999 detailed how private companies in the United States have transferred technologies that have aided the development of China's military, up until now there has never been an assessment of the joint scientific activities between the governments of the U.S. and China. As the report on the science and technology agreement states, this report ``is the first major analysis of the agreement in nearly 25 years and is intended to provide a comprehensive review of the agreement, its protocols, and their impact on the Chinese economy, military, and defense industrial base.'' The report, which was developed in close consultation with the U.S.- China National Security Review Commission, has been delivered to Congress. It is in both an unclassified form, with an executive summary and voluminous annexes, and in classified form, which is available in S-407 in the Capitol for my colleagues to review. There are several troubling aspects of this report. It makes clear, for example, that there is no coordinating mechanism to oversee the activities undertaken by the twelve agencies and dozens of offices and bureaus of our government that are carrying out the 1979 Agreement with China. In fact, the report, noting certain changes to the State Department bureaucracy in 1996, ``there has been no mechanism within the U.S. Government since then to keep a systematic account of protocols under the U.S.-China Science and Technology Agreement.'' Furthermore, this report was reportedly the first time that the intelligence community has had an opportunity to evaluate the range of programs that are underway. According to the State Department, we have spent an average of $5 million in taxpayer funds over each of the last five years to carry out this Agreement and its protocols, yet there is no single office in our government that oversees the spider's web of the technology exchange programs that have spun from it. The report fails to fully analyze the impact of the science and technology exchange programs on the development of Chinese military power. While it argues that the development of China's industrial and military power has been based primarily on its economic growth and its general efforts to acquire technology from the West, the State Department also states that ``the degree to which cooperative science and technology activities conducted under the Agreement may have contributed to China's economic and military growth is difficult to assess.'' That amounts to, at the very least, a mixed message. The report also notes that there is no regular reporting requirement to Congress on the range and types of programs that are carried out under the Science and Technology Agreement. This lack of reporting indicates that no one is paying very much attention to what activities we are undertaking with regard to the Agreement. Just who is minding the store? Is anyone in the Executive Branch truly concerned with these technology transfer programs? Or is this Agreement considered just another means to smooth over the inevitable hiccups in relations between our countries? Finally, to no surprise, the State Department provided no recommendations for improving the monitoring of the Science and Technology Agreement. In essence, the report argues that whatever technology and scientific knowledge China might have gained through cooperative programs with the United States pales in comparison to the knowledge China has gained through other channels. The report points to the number of Chinese students studying in U.S. universities, China's investment policies, and scientific agreements with other countries as other routes for technology transfer. The State Department's contention is akin to arguing that the Chinese are gorging so heartily on science and technology through universities, private industry, and other countries, that another few morsels from Uncle Sam cannot be very important. Ridiculous! As a result of this analysis, the State Department's principal recommendation is to ``allow the Agreement to operate, as heretofore, without the encumbrance of any special monitoring mechanism, which we,'' referring to the State Department, ``do not believe is either necessary or desirable.'' I do not think that it is going out on a limb to suggest that the U.S.-China Science and Technology Agreement has been used as a balm to soothe the sore spots of our bilateral relations. As the State Department report says, ``In April 2001, at the height of the EP-3 plane incident, the U.S. and China quietly renewed the Science and Technology Agreement despite the severe chill in political/economic relations resulting from this diplomatic confrontation.'' It is astounding to note that in the very same month that a Chinese fighter jet crashed into one of our reconnaissance airplanes in international airspace, and the same month that China detained our military personnel after executing an emergency landing at a Chinese airfield, we ``quietly'' renewed this significant bilateral agreement. I wonder if the Secretary of Defense was aware of the renewal of this agreement at that time? I wonder if the President knew about it? Mr. President, I do not think that it is wise to view the transfer of advanced technology and scientific knowledge as simply a diplomatic tool. The amendment I offer today takes very basic steps to improve oversight of the 1979 Science and Technology Agreement. The amendment simply designates the Office of Science and Technology Cooperation in the State Department as responsible for monitoring the Agreement. According to its report, the State Department has not even kept track of the sixty protocols to this Agreement since 1996. This needs to be changed. The amendment also requires the Secretary of State to see that activities carried out under the Agreement are consistent with our laws and regulations that prohibit the transfer of sensitive technology. Further, the amendment establishes a reporting requirement so that the State Department will inform Congress every two years on what activities have taken place under the Agreement. As I stated earlier, the State Department report released in May 2002 was the first-ever comprehensive assessment of the implementation of the 1979 U.S.-China Science and Technology Agreement. It does not make sense to wait another 23 years for the next assessment. Mr. President, China is embarking on a substantial military buildup. They are using technologies that have been acquired from a vast number of sources. It is hard to believe that our own government has been cooperating with China in exchanging scientific information that has the potential, in the words of the State Department, to facilitate China's military research programs. My amendment takes very simple steps to make sure that the government-to-government scientific exchanges that take place are focused on peaceful uses of technology. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the United States completed its withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty on June, 13, 2002, and the Pentagon has shifted into high gear its efforts to deploy a rudimentary anti-missile system by 2004. The drivers of this missile defense hot- rod are doing their best to make it look as good as possible, and they are spreading the word of its latest successes on the test track. But I am not alone in wondering what this vehicle, with its $100 billion purchase price, really has under the hood. Does it have the souped-up engine that we are being promised, or is this another dressed-up jalopy? And, more importantly, as this missile defense hot-rod charges down the road with its throttle wide open and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in the rear-view mirror, is the scrutiny of Congress and the American people being left in the dust? As part of its normal oversight duties, the Armed Services Committee has requested from the Department of Defense information relating to cost estimates and performance measures for various components of the missile defense research program that is underway. This kind of information is essential to allowing Congress to render its own assessment of whether these programs are on-budget and meeting expectations. As the Armed Services Committee began hearings on the fiscal year 2003 Defense budget request in February 2002, we requested basic information from the Department of Defense on its proposed missile defense program. We asked for cost estimates, development schedules, and performance milestones. But the committee has not received the information. It is as though the Department of Defense does not want Congress to know what we are getting for the $7.8 billion in missile defense funds that were appropriated last year. On March 7, 2002, at an Armed Services Committee hearing, I questioned the Pentagon's chief of acquisition, Under Secretary Pete Aldridge, about the delays in providing this information to Congress. He answered my questions with what I believed was an unequivocal statement that he would make sure that Congress gets the information it needs. Three and a half months later, we still have not received the information that we requested. It also seems that the Pentagon is developing a new aspect of its strategy in its consultations with Congress and the American people. On June 9, 2002, The Los Angeles Times ran an article entitled, ``Missile Data To Be Kept Secret.'' The Washington Post ran a similar story on June 12, ``Secrecy On Missile Defense Grows.'' The two articles detail a decision to begin classifying as ``secret'' certain types of basic information about missile defense tests. These missile defense tests use decoys to challenge our anti-missile system to pick out and destroy the right target, which would be a warhead hurtling toward the United States at thousands of miles per hour. According to the newspaper articles, the Pentagon will no longer release to the public descriptions of what types of decoys are used in a missile defense test to fool our anti-missile radars. This information will be classified. Independent engineers and scientists who lack security clearances will have no means to form an opinion on the rigor of this aspect of missile defense tests. No longer will the experts outside the government be able to make informed comments on whether a missile defense test is a realistic challenge to a developmental system, or a stacked deck on which a bet in favor of our rudimentary anti-missile system is a sure winner. I do not think that it is a cooincidence that independent scientists have criticized the realism of past missile defense tests because the decoys used were not realistic. I cannot help but be left with the impression that the sole reason for classifying this kind of basic information is to squelch criticism about the missile defense program. Should this basic information about our missile defense program be protected by the cloak of government secrecy? If the tests are rigorous and our anti-missile system is meeting our expectations, would it not be to our advantage to let our adversaries know how effective this system will be? But perhaps this national missile defense system is not progressing as rapidly as hoped. Then would it not be to our advantage to encourage constructive criticism in order to improve the system? In either case, I cannot see how these secrecy edicts will promote the development of a missile defense system that actually works. The bottom line is that Congress and the American people must know whether the huge sums that are being spent on missile defense will increase our national security. Since September 11, we have been consumed with debates about homeland security. What is this system intended to be but a protection of our homeland? Do we believe that American people can be entrusted with information about their own security? I certainly think so. Without a doubt, we need to carefully guard information that would compromise our national defense, but public scrutiny of our missile defense program is not an inherent threat to our security. In April, the Appropriations Committee heard testimony from a number of people with expertise in homeland security. We heard many warnings about the peril of losing public trust in our Government. No matter if the threat is terrorists with biological weapons or rogue states with missiles, we must not jeopardize the trust of the American people in their Government. If the missile defense system does not work as it is supposed to do, and we hide its shortcomings inside ``top secret'' folders and other red tape, we will be setting ourselves up for a sure fall. We ought to have more, not fewer, independent reviews of our antimissile system. So I oppose the amendment to increase missile defense funding in this bill by $812 million. The Department of Defense has shown it is more than willing to delay and obfuscate details about what it is doing on missile defense, and I cannot understand the logic of increasing funds for an antimissile system that is the subject of greater and greater secrecy. It does not make sense to devote more money to a system of questionable utility before there is a consensus of independent views that an antimissile system is technologically feasible. The missile defense system that we are developing needs more scrutiny, not more secrecy, more assessment, not more money. In the next few days, the Senate will vote on this bill and authorize billions of dollars in missile defense funds. While the Pentagon will continue to portray these programs as a hot rod that is speeding toward success, one thing is certain: this hot rod is running on almost $8 billion in taxpayer money this year. Talk about a gas guzzler! If Congress is not allowed to kick the tires, check the oil and look under the hood, this rig could fall apart and leave us all stranded.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Nation faces a transportation crisis. Amtrak, the country's passenger rail service, is running out of dough-- D-O-U-G-H--money, that green stuff, funds, what makes the cash registers ring, funds, and its passengers are running out of time. Without an infusion of funding quickly, Amtrak will stop all operations within the next very few days. If Amtrak closes, the Nation's transportation system will be thrown into chaos. All of Amtrak's 68,000 daily riders will be without service. Thousands of vacation passengers who have already paid money for Amtrak tickets will be left stranded at the station. Commuter railroads from East to West will be completely shut down. For example, Washington's Union Station is just a few blocks from this Capitol. None of the Maryland or Virginia commuter rail trains will be able to access Union Station. Why? Because Amtrak owns the station. The Virginia trains will not operate at all because Amtrak runs the trains. The commuter rail authorities in Philadelphia, New York City, and in many parts of New Jersey will stop running. Why? Why will they stop running? Because Amtrak provides the electricity for those trains to operate. Access to Penn Station in New York City the single busiest rail station in the country will be limited. Why? Because Amtrak already has mortgaged away parts of that station. In Boston, tens of thousands of commuters daily rely on Amtrak because it operates commuter lines under contract with the State of Massachusetts. Those commuters will have to find a new way to get to work. Why? Because their trains will not be running. Out West, in California, all ``Caltrains'' service will be halted. Why? Why, I ask? Because Amtrak operates those trains. That is why. The same can be said for the ``Sounder Commuter Rail Service'' in Seattle. Without Amtrak service, these passengers will take to the highways and the airways. The traffic jams that are already difficult to navigate will grow by thousands, tens of thousands of cars. How would you like that? The airways between Boston, New York, and Washington already comprise the most congested airspace in the entire country. The air traffic control system cannot simply absorb dozens of additional flights during peak business travel times. Mr. President, the July 4th holiday is almost upon us. As the celebrations approach, the warnings for potential terrorist attacks grow louder. We should heed those warnings and ensure that Amtrak stays open. Amtrak has a vital homeland security role. The railroad is a viable transportation alternative to highways and airways. To allow Amtrak to close its doors now, when the terrorist threats and the attack warnings come almost daily, would be irresponsible, wouldn't it? It seems to me it would be. To take away the safety net for the traveling public would be foolhardy, wouldn't it? Wouldn't it be? I would think so. We also must consider the ramifications to the Nation's economy if Amtrak is allowed to file for bankruptcy. Immediately, more than 20,000 Amtrak employees would lose their jobs. That is 20,000 families without paychecks, 20,000 families without health care benefits. Thousands more jobs at commuter lines, suppliers, and vendors would be in jeopardy. In the blink of an eye, the Nation's economy would be dealt a devastating blow in States from coast to coast. With the economy in a precarious state as it is, with the markets fluctuating by the day, it makes no sense--none--to allow Amtrak to close. With the support of the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens of Alaska, I have proposed, in our discussions with House conferees on the supplemental appropriations bill, that the supplemental appropriations bill, currently pending in conference, include at least $205 million for Amtrak to keep trains running through the end of the fiscal year. With the looming crisis facing the Nation's passenger rail service, we should insist that this funding for Amtrak be part of the final version of the bill, hopefully to be considered by Congress this week. The Senate included $55 million for Amtrak emergency repairs in its version of the supplemental bill which passed on June 7 by an overwhelming margin of 71 to 22. The House did not include any funds for Amtrak in its bill. The conference report on the supplemental bill would build on the package already approved by the Senate and provide sufficient funding to keep Amtrak on track through the end of this fiscal year. Last week, Amtrak's new president, David Gunn, testified before the Senate Appropriations Transportation Subcommittee. At that hearing, Mr. Gunn said: The urgency of this is enormous. We are very near the point of no return. Those are not Robert Byrd's words. They are the words of Mr. David Gunn, new president of Amtrak. Let me repeat them: The urgency of this is enormous. We are very near the point of no return. In the days since that hearing, there has been no news that I know about to change Mr. Gunn's assessment of the situation. Amtrak's board of directors has been involved in discussions with Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta and the Federal Railroad Administration. But the national administration, instead of stepping up to the plate and providing Amtrak with the funding that it needs, has pushed for a half- way approach that only delays the crisis. I have spoken with Secretary Mineta. I have spoken with President Gunn. Following those conversations, it is clear that the best alternative is an emergency appropriation of $205 million. That is cash on the barrel head. There is no time for creative accounting. There is no time for posturing. There is no time for so-called reforms. We can talk about reforms and improvements later, but we cannot reform a dead railroad. Amtrak needs help. It needs help now. Last September, when the nation's airline industry was shut down, to whom did Americans turn for transportation? To Amtrak. Since then, Amtrak's ridership has continued to increase, with record numbers of Americans turning to passenger rail service. At a time when the Nation is turning to Amtrak, the Federal Government should not turn its back. On September 21, after just a few hours of debate, Senators approved $15 billion for the airline industry. Of those funds, $10 billion was made available in loan guarantees and $5 billion in cash for emergency grants. Few questions were asked. The airlines needed this infusion; the airlines got it. Congress acted; the administration acted. We should do the same now. We did not blink when the airline industry faced a financial crisis. The administration did not urge grand reforms of the airline industry in order to qualify for these funds. Congress did not urge grand reforms of the airline industry in order to qualify for these funds. When asked for help, when the need was clear, Congress and the administration provided help to the airlines. We ought to show the same leadership for the Nation's rail passengers and employees. The truth of the matter is that none of this has to happen. We can provide a short-term immediate solution for Amtrak to carry it through the fiscal year by enacting the proposal I have made, with the support of Senator Stevens, in the supplemental appropriations conference, for $205 million in the supplemental appropriations bill. I have joined with more than 40 Senators to urge President Bush to support the $205 million supplemental appropriation. As the letter states: The Nation's economy and the Nation's morale have suffered enough since September 11. Allowing the Nation's passenger rail service to shut down would idle more than 20,000 employees and throw the lives of tens of thousands of passengers into disarray. The administration and Congress must not allow this to happen. Quite simply, Amtrak is vital. It is vital to those Americans who rely on Amtrak for their daily commute to and from work. It is vital to those Americans who use Amtrak for their vacation travel. It is vital to thousands of rail employees. It is vital to our Nation's homeland security. Congress should move ahead with an emergency appropriation for Amtrak and stave off the bankruptcy that would result in absolute chaos for the Nation's transportation network and would give certitude and assurance to Amtrak that the Federal Government, Congress, and the administration do not intend to let it happen to Amtrak; that the Federal Government, that Congress and the administration, stand ready to act, and act quickly. The administration and the congressional leadership should support the addition of $205 million in the supplemental appropriations bill for Amtrak. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, has the Pastore rule run its course?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I speak out of order.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President and fellow Senators, have you noticed how everyone seems a little happier today? Their smiles are brighter, their greetings are a little more gracious and their thank yous are more sincere. Have you noticed how the sun seems to be shining brighter today and food tastes better today? The air seems sweeter today. The Senator from Pennsylvania does not know what a great day this is. That is, no doubt, because today is June 20, and that means it is West Virginia Day. All over the country, it is June 20th. All over the world, it is June 20th. That means all over the country, and all over the world, it is West Virginia Day. It was 139 years ago today that West Virginia, by an act of Congress and the signature of President Abraham Lincoln, became the thirty-fifth state of our Union. The birth of the State of West Virginia was not an easy delivery. It involved great labor pains, and blood, sweat, and tears. West Virginia was born in the middle of our country's bitter, divisive, and bloody Civil War, and there were serious constitutional questions involved in her delivery. But goodness and righteousness prevailed and West Virginia, predicated upon its allegiance to the Constitution and the republic, became a State, and here I am. Had that not happened, I would not have been here. This Union may not have survived. It all began on that great and glorious day of June 20th, 1863--and what a great and glorious day it was. It was a day a local newspaper, the Wheeling Intelligencer, called a ``great gala day.'' The newspaper reported that ``thousands of people from abroad'' joined with the new state officials and the ``entire population'' of Wheeling, the city where the official ceremony took place, to celebrate the occasion. Business was suspended. Workers were given the day off. Flags were everywhere--everywhere, on all the street corners, along all the streets. Flags of all sizes were flown from every housetop and every business in the city. It was reported that flags were as ``thick as the locusts that were then occupying the suburbs and surrounding countryside.'' The ceremonies included brigade bands playing patriotic songs, and units of the West Virginia militia parading through the town. There were countless toasts and even more cheers for the United States and for its new state, the State of West Virginia. And, of course, there were political speeches. The man considered the ``father of West Virginia,'' Francis H. Pierpont, declared: May we [meaning West Virginia]--may we from this small beginning today, grow to be the proudest state in all the glorious galaxy of States that form the Nation. Waitman T. Willey, one of the State's first two U.S. Senators, proclaimed: What we have longed for and labored for and prayed for is [now] a fixed fact. West Virginia is a fixed fact. West Virginia is a fixed fact. The first Governor of the State, Arthur Boreman, a 39-year-old man with a full-flowing black beard, promised to do everything in his power ``to advance the agricultural, mining, and manufacturing, and commercial interests of the State.'' After the speeches, 35 little girls representing the 35 states of the Union, sang more patriotic songs and the band played the ``Star Spangled Banner.'' The day closed with a ``brilliant display of fireworks'' over the Ohio River. The next day, the New York Post reported: [B]orn amid the turmoil of the Civil War and cradled by the storm . . . the 35th State is now added to the American union. The New York Times echoed the words of Senator Willey with the headline that read ``West Virginia is now a fixed fact.'' The State of West Virginia was a ``fixed fact,'' but its future was not. The State's childhood and adolescence were to be as difficult and tumultuous as its birth. The State of West Virginia soon became an economic colony of northeastern, absentee landlords, the infamous Robber Barons of the late nineteenth century, who ruthlessly exploited the State for its rich natural resources. Other problems came piling on. From the Monongah mine disaster of 1907, when I believe 361 miners lost their lives, the worst coal-mine disaster in American history, to the Marshall University plane crash of 1970, the worst sports tragedy in American history, the people of West Virginia came to know and suffer many and various forms of tragedy, including the Silver Bridge collapse at Point Pleasant, the Buffalo Creek Slag Dam collapse in Logan County, as well as a multitude of deadly mine explosions and disastrous floods. And for too long, the State suffered from economic backwardness. Through it all, the courageous, patriotic, and dedicated people of West Virginia have remained loyal to their country and their government. They have continued to supply the nation with the energy it needs to heat our homes, to light these Chambers, fuel our battleships, and power our massive industries. And the people of West Virginia have served our country in times of war as well as peace. West Virginians have fought and died in our nation's wars, including World War II, Korea and Vietnam, far beyond proportion to West Virginia's population size. Meanwhile, the people of West Virginia have struggled to overcome exploitation and oppression by joining unions and electing political leaders who would better represent them. It took decades and it took tremendous effort, but, as I have said, the spirit of West Virginia is to ``endure and to prevail.'' The people of West Virginia endured and they have prevailed. One of my favorite Roman philosophers, Seneca, said, ``Fire is the test of gold; adversity, of strong men.'' Today, many strong men and women have brought West Virginia to the brink of vast social and economic change. The State is cultivating new economic growth and prosperity as a result of a bumper crop of better roads, new technology, and forward-looking leadership. Traditional industries are being augmented by fresh business activity, flexible manufacturing, leading-edge and information-age high technology. People across America are discovering West Virginia. They are coming to West Virginia to camp, hike, fish, raft our white waters, and ski our slopes. They are discovering the natural wonders of my State--that West Virginia is truly one of the most beautiful states in the union. With its rushing, trout-filled mountain streams, its majestic rolling green hills, picturesque villages and towns, magnificent forests, scenic State parks, no wonder the State has been depicted in song and verse as being ``almost heaven.'' People are discovering what West Virginians already knew, that the State is a great place to just relax and enjoy life. In the early morning hours, you can sit back in your favorite chair looking east, and enjoy the most beautiful sight in the world: the sun rising over the beautiful, rolling green hills of West Virginia. A few hours later, you can turn your chair around and look to the west, and enjoy the second most beautiful sight in the world, the sun setting over those beautiful, rolling green hills of West Virginia. Mr. President, in the inaugural ceremony on June 20, 1863, the Reverend J.T. McLure offered the inaugural prayer, in which he stated: We pray Thee, almighty God, that this State, born amidst tears and blood and fire and desolation, may long be preserved and from its little beginning may grow to be a might and a power that shall make those who come after us look upon it with joy and gladness and pride of heart. Mr. President, this child of ``tears and blood and fire and desolation'' did grow. Today, on this anniversary of the birth of West Virginia, as the Reverend Mr. McClure predicted, one may look upon my state of West Virginia ``with joy and gladness and pride of heart.'' I am reminded of the words of the English poet, William Blake, who wrote: ``Great things are done when men and mountains meet.'' Congratulations, West Virginia! Happy birthday, West Virginia! You have not merely endured, you have prevailed! Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, the first national observance of Flag Day occurred on June 14, 1877, when Congress ordered that the flag be flown over public buildings every June 14. June 14 officially became National Flag Day when President Truman signed an act of Congress on August 3, 1949. This year marks the 225th anniversary of the signing of the Flag Act resolution on June 14, 1777. What a historic day this is, June 14. The resolution was a model of simplicity in just 32 words: Resolved that the flag of the United States be made of 13 stripes, alternative red and white; that the Union be 13 stars, white in a blue field, representing a new constellation. Thus, was our national flag established. The last phrase ``representing a new constellation'' carries tremendous weight in just four words. The new United States of America was truly a new constellation in the firmament of nation states, and it blazes just as brightly today, 225 years later. The poet, Joseph Rodman Drake, said it best, in the ``American Flag.'' When freedom from her mountain height Unfurled her standard to the air, She tore the azure robe of night, And set the stars of glory there. She mingled with its gorgeous dyes The milky baldric of the skies. Then from his mansion in the sun She called her eagle bearer down, And gave into his mighty hand The symbol of her chosen land. So our flag, our standard, is known throughout the world and beyond. No other flag flies on the face of the Moon. Our flag is instantly recognizable in every capital and in the emptiest quarters of the world. Even those who revile that flag, even those who would attack that flag in our Nation, recognize America's dominant, even preeminent, role in world affairs, symbolized by that flag. There it stands. For over 200 years, the American flag has led the way. It took us west to California, a great State--one of whose Senators at this moment presides over the Senate with a degree of decorum, aplomb and dignity that is so rare as a day in June. Yes, it took us west to California, north to Alaska. It led brave men to the North and South Poles. It has flown atop Mount Everest. It has been emblazoned in the sides of deep-diving submarines. It has led charges. It has held fast against terrible odds, and it has risen from the ashes to soar over Iwo Jima and the World Trade Towers. In every bleak hour, the snap and the crack of that mighty banner has rallied our courage and given us hope. Without words, the American flag instantly sums up all that is best about our Nation: Our courage, our leadership, our generosity, our determination, our freedom. That first Flag Act forever shaped our flag, but in the early years of the Nation, several variations existed for the Flag Act was not precise about the exact arrangement of the stars. As new States joined the Union, additional stripes, as well as additional stars, were added to the flag. An act passed in 1794, for example, provided for 15 stripes and 15 stars after May 1795. By 1818, the flag was growing unwieldy, and a subsequent act of April 4, 1818, signed by President Monroe, provided for 13 stripes for the original 13 colonies and one star for each State to be added to the flag on the 4th of July following admission of each new State to the Union. Almost a century later on June 24, 1912, which is the year the great Titanic went down--1,570 people lost their lives that year on April 15, 1912-- an Executive Order of President Taft established the proportion of the flag and set the arrangement of the stars in six horizontal rows of eight each, a single point of each star to be upward. The continued expansion of the United States required further modification to the flag, and an Executive Order of President Eisenhower, dated January 3, 1959--I was here at that time--provided for the arrangement of the stars in seven rows of seven stars each staggered horizontally and vertically. A quick schoolchild who knows his or her multiplication table, sometimes referred to as the times table, knows that 7 times 7 is 49. With the addition of Hawaii to the Union in 1959, a further Executive Order on August 21, 1959, was required to establish the flag as we know it today with the stars in nine rows staggered horizontally, and 11 rows staggered vertically. Will the flag change again as it has in the past? I do not know. But some things will never change. The love and respect that patriotic Americans have for this chosen symbol of our native land will never die, so long as the Government remains true to the spirit and the words of this Constitution, which I hold in my hand. Equally immutable is the power of our flag to lift our hopes and our morale. The blossoming of flags across the Nation on and after September 11 has proved that Old Glory, Old Glory, Old Glory, the Stars and Stripes, by any name, is our own beloved flag. And there it stands in all its glory, beside the Presiding Officer of the Senate. Madam President, hats off to the flag! That is the appropriate response to the sight of an American flag passing by. To my mind, no one has ever said it better than Henry Holcomb Bennett, in his stirring poem ``The Flag Goes By.'' Let it be my salute and birthday salutation to the American flag. Long my she wave! The Flag Goes By Hats off! Along the street there comes A blare of bugles, a ruffle of drums, A flash of color beneath the sky: Hats off! The flag is passing by! Blue and crimson and white it shines, Over the steel-tipped, ordered lines. Hats off! The colors before us fly; But more than the flag is passing by. Sea-fights and land-fights, grim and great, Fought to make and save the State: Weary marches and sinking ships; Cheers of victory on dying lips; Days of plenty and years of peace; March of a strong land's swift increase; Equal justice, right, and law, Stately honor and reverend awe; Sign of a nation, great and strong To ward her people from foreign wrong: Pride and glory and honor,--all Live in the colors to stand or fall. Hats off! Along the street there comes A blare of bugles, a ruffle of drums; And loyal hearts are beating high: Hats off! The flag is passing by!

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, the Bible commands us to ``honor thy father and thy mother.'' Last month, we honored mothers. It was mother's day. This month, this Sunday, it is the fathers' turn. On that day, we honor men in their role as fathers, not as any of the many other titles they may wear: not for their accomplishments at work, though that is how many men define themselves; not for their accomplishments at home that are not family related, such as in their role as gardeners or home builders or mechanics; but as fathers. Fatherhood requires no special training, no advanced degree, but it does require a long commitment and a considerable level of effort. It is not always easy. It requires a certain warmth. It is not for the faint-hearted or the self-centered. Though it has its hero moments, it is not a popularity contest. As a father, a man will hunt buggers, as they used to say; buggers or monsters in closets on dark nights, investigate all strange sounds, and kill a lot of bugs and spiders. Just ask any father. He will be expected to know how to make volcanoes out of plaster of Paris and 2-liter soda bottles. He will become the instant authority in all manner of arcane subjects like sports rules. He will become the ultimate authority in all matters of discipline. Father will set, and enforce, limits and intimidate all prospective suitors of his daughters. He becomes the man by whom all other men are judged. It is difficult to over-estimate the importance of a father figure. If you ask a child what he or she likes best about their father, they likely will not mention the father's job. They won't comment on how nicely he mows the lawn, or how the car gleams, the chromium shines, those fenders which mirror themselves. It is more likely to be that dad makes funny faces--yes, that is what they will comment on, dad makes funny faces--plays catch, makes waffles on Saturday mornings, or gives pony rides on his shoulders. Maybe dad does a great cannonball jump into the pool, maybe he cooks the best hamburgers on the grill, or maybe he takes his kids fishing. It is those times that a father is most engaged with his children that makes a moment special to a child. As we grow older, we can appreciate the effort that fathers put into their jobs, so that they might provide for their families, but that appreciation only sweetens the treasured times when dad plays with his kids. I have spoken many times about my dad. He was not my biological father. But he was my biological father's sister's husband. He and my aunt raised me as my mother died when I was a year old, a little less than a year old, in the great influenza epidemic of 1918. I was just reading last night a Senate hearing by the Appropriations Committee on a resolution appropriating $1 million to fight influenza in 1918. That hearing was conducted in September of 1918. Less than 2 months later, my mother died of that influenza. So she asked, per her wish, that my father's sister--he had eight or nine sisters, two or three brothers; there were large families in those days--my mother's wish was that one of my father's sisters who had married Titus Dalton Byrd take me, the baby. I had three older brothers and a sister, but take me, the baby, and rear that baby. And so because of a mother's wish, my uncle, Titus Dalton Byrd, and his wife, my aunt, Vlurma Byrd, took me to West Virginia from North Carolina, and there in the coal fields of West Virginia they reared me. They took care of me. They loved me. My memories are of that tall man, with a red mustache and the black hair, who went to the mines every day and worked hard for me and for his wife, my aunt--the only mother I ever knew. And he was the only father I ever knew. As a matter of fact, I didn't know that he wasn't my father until I was a high school senior. In that year, 1934, this man whom I called my dad took me and sat me down and told me the story of how the influenza had taken away my angel mother and how he and his wife, whom I knew as my mom, had taken me as an infant, just a few days under 1 year old, and raised me. And I can remember him, that old coal miner, honest as the day is long. He had no enemies. When he died, he didn't owe any man a penny. He was honest, as I say, as the day is long. He worked hard in the bowels of the Earth. I never heard him use God's name in vain in all the years that I was with him--never. I never heard him talk about his neighbor. I never saw him sit down at the table and grumble at whatever was on the table, whatever it was--never, ever a grumble. As I say, I didn't know for a long time that Titus Dalton Byrd was not my father. I called him Pap. He was my dad. He was a quiet, hard-working man, worn down by the strenuous life of a coal miner in the days before the mechanized and much safer practices of modern mining. He would come home--I see the coal dust sometimes in his eyes. I see him coming down the railroad tracks. I see him coming home from a hard day's work in the mines. Many times in those mines the roof was so low that the miners had to walk on their knees. They had knee pads and they would walk on their knees, sometimes working in waterholes, lifting that slate and lifting the shovels of coal and heaving them into the coal car. They worked hard. There was little hope for them, not much to look forward to in that coal miner's life. Day after day, day after day, the same old grind, lifting that coal, shoveling that coal into the coal car. I would see him coming down the railroad tracks from afar. I would run to meet him. As I came to him, I could see that tall man with the red mustache and the black hair set down his dinner pail on a crosstie. As I came near, he would lift off the lid from that dinner pail. And when I came up to him, he would reach into that dinner pail and bring out a cake that my mom had bought, a 5-cent cake--a 5-cent cake from the company store. He had taken it to work. He had taken it to eat for himself, but he didn't eat it. He always saved the cake for me. He always saved the cake for me. What a man that was. I have met Presidents and Governors and Senators, Members of Congress and Kings and Shahs and Ambassadors--all the great people of the Earth. In my time as majority leader, I met with the Shah of Iran, the old Biblical country of Persia, just a few weeks before he left Iran forever. I met with him in his palace, just he and I and his wife and my wife. I met with the King of Saudi Arabia, the great royal family of Saudi Arabia. I met with President Sadat, one on one. I met with Prime Minister Begin of Israel; President Assad of Syria; the King of Jordan. I knew the King's father. I met with Vice Premiere Deng, the real leader in Communist China. I met with President Brezhnev, down in the Crimea, just he and I sitting across the table, he with one person who was an interpreter, I with an interpreter and one assistant, that was all, sitting down, in the Crimea. Brezhnev, he reminded me of an old county commissioner back in West Virginia. I bet there are some of those county commissioners in Missouri, just oldtimers, people of the soil, people of the Earth. So I met with these people: Margaret Thatcher, the King of Spain, I met with all this great array of world leaders. Who was I? I was a country boy from southern West Virginia, a coal miner's son. But the greatest of all these people that I have met on Earth, one of the greatest--I knew he was great because I lived with him--the greatest was my old coal miner dad, coal miner dad. Well, I would walk along with him, kind of feeling grown up, you see. Here I was, a little old boy. He saved me a cake and then I would walk on down to the house with him. I felt pretty grown up, walking with my dad. So he always saved the cake for me. He never forgot to save me something. He would always give it to me with one of his quiet smiles. Those short walks were a special time just for us, and the memory of them gives me a warm feeling to this day. I have no doubt that there is a Heaven. I have no doubt that in that Heaven right today is that mother who died on the evening before November 11, 1918. And because of her wish, I am here today. If it hadn't been for her wish, that I be taken by Titus Dalton Byrd and his wife, I probably would have grown up in North Carolina. It is hard to tell what I might have amounted to but because of a mother's wish. My dad was the one who gave me pencils and paper, drawing books and watercolors at Christmas. He didn't give me a cowboy suit or a cap buster. He gave me drawing tablets and watercolors, urged me to learn how to draw and how to write and how to read. He was the one who bought a violin for me and encouraged me to play. The fiddle was a big gift in a day and place where there wasn't much money for frills. I got a lot of enjoyment out of that fiddle playing. And because of that fiddle, I really had a political advantage, and I was advised by a Republican--as I told some of these fine pages here, earlier today--a Republican lawyer advised me to take that fiddle. He said: You take that fiddle, Bob, and everywhere you go you make that fiddle your briefcase. You play a tune or two and then you put that fiddle down and you give them a straight story on why you want to go to the West Virginia Legislature. And quote a little poem or two, but they will remember you because of that fiddle. Nobody else who is running can play a fiddle. They will remember you not because of the fiddle but because it got their attention and caused them to remember you. But it is what you say that really counts. I ran my first campaign for elected office. I was an underdog. I was very young. I was unknown. I was untested. But my fiddle playing at campaign stops got people's attention and left them with a memory associated with my name. They were willing to listen to me talk as the price for getting to hear me play. So in that way you could say that my dad helped me to win an election--my first election. He did, because he bought that fiddle for me. Without that fiddle, I wouldn't have won that first campaign, and probably wouldn't have been reelected when I ran for the West Virginia Senate. I had to go into additional counties, and I took the fiddle there. When I ran for the House of Representatives, there were additional counties. I took the fiddle around. So that was what my dad gave me--that fiddle. It was because of his and my mother's wish, you see, that I am here today. It is how far I was influenced. My dad also encouraged me in school. He did not want me to follow him into the mines. He knew the dangers too well. He had seen those dangers up close. He had seen too many of his fellow coal miners killed. He had seen the men on the floor of the house with a piece of canvass stretched over them who had been run over by a motor, or executed by a fallen cable, or killed by falling slate. He had seen those dangers up close. So he pushed me to do well in school. He wanted me to do well in school. He encouraged me. He always wanted to see that report card. And there was one category on the report card entitled ``deportment.'' He always looked at that deportment. How well did Robert do in school? How well does he mind the teacher? Does he do what the teacher says? Is he a rowdy or is he not? He always watched that. From him and from my aunt, I developed a love of learning that has lasted my whole life. I was the first in all of my family--going back many generations to William Sayle who settled in Virginia in 1657 on the banks of the Rappahannock River. He was the ancient forbear of my father, my real father, my biological father--I was the first in my family, going all the way back to England, to go to college. I am proud to say that my children and my children's children have excelled in challenging academic fields. My grandson, Frederick, is a physicist, following in his father's footsteps. I may be biased, but at the rate my family is going I wouldn't be surprised if one of my great- granddaughters won a Nobel Prize, thanks to the academic legacy inspired by my dad who himself had practically little or no schooling whatsoever. I know he must look down and be proud of all of us, just as we strive to make him proud. I have another grandson who is a physicist also, Darius. I have a grandson who is on one of the appropriations committees as a staff person. I have a granddaughter who works in the Senate. I have a granddaughter who lives in Leesburg. She is a wonderful granddaughter. These daughters of mine and the grandchildren and now three great- grandchildren--three are great-granddaughters--I have no doubt that they will win some Nobel Prize or something even more worthy. I know that I am not alone today in cherishing the memories of my dad--the man who raised me. Nor am I alone in seeing the reach that a father's encouragement can have through many generations who cannot feel the warm touch of that long-gone father's smile. History books are replete with the stories of famous men and women who owed their start to some early encouragement from their fathers or their mothers. Benjamin West, an early American painter, said, as I understand it, that he owed his becoming a great painter to his mother--his angel mother--who, when he was a little infant, a little child, came to her with his child's drawings of flowers and birds and showed his mother. She would take him upon her knee and say, Benjamin, you will grow up to be a great painter. And Benjamin West grew up to be a great painter. He said he was made a great painter by a mother's kiss. That is the way it is. It is what we celebrate on Father's Day. It is not the work, it is not the accomplishments, it is not the titles, it isn't the bank account that bring children home to visit with their father and share a meal with him or send him a funny yet sentimental card. The moments of a father's love made manifest--these are the pieces of gold in memory's treasure chest. Those moments of joy, of laughter, of mutual pride at being in the same family make the labors of the week drop away like a heavy winter coat in the warm rays of the summer sun. For myself, of course, and also for all fathers, I hope that this Sunday is filled with family and with laughter and with warm feelings. Let us all look upon, think upon, and remember our fathers and our father's father, and glory in their greatest and most lasting achievement--happy families. Let us not forget that Biblical admonition, honor thy father and thy mother. We only have one of each. That is it. That is the sum total-- only one. I close with the words of an unknown who wrote the ``Little Chap Who Follows Me.'' I am sure that my dad, although he never had the luxury of sitting in a schoolroom reading that poem, the ``Little Chap Who Follows Me,'' certainly in his life typified that poet's thought as a father who thinks of the ``Little Chap Who Follows Me.'' Many of the poems, like these simple little poems, have a message: A careful man I ought to be; A little fellow follows me; I do not dare to go astray For fear he'll go the self-same way. I must not madly step aside, Where pleasure's paths are smooth and wide, And join in wine's red revelry A little fellow follows me. I cannot once escape his eyes; Whate'er he sees me do, he tries-- Like me, he says, he's going to be; The little chap who follows me. He thinks that I am good and fine, Believes in every word of mine; The base in me he must not see, The little chap who follows me. I must remember as I go, Through summer's sun and winter's snow, I'm building for the years to be, A little fellow follows me. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. May I be so bold as to close this pleasant interlude with these words to Henry Thomas Daschle: First in thy grandfather's arms, a new-born child, Thou didst weep while those around thee smiled; So live that in thy lasting sleep, Thou mayest smile, while those around thee weep. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, with great pleasure, I call attention to a new Democrat's having been brought forth in this Congressional election year. With even greater pleasure, I point out that our distinguished majority leader has become a grandfather for the first time. This new Democrat, Henry Thomas Daschle, arrived with the angels last Friday. Being a Democrat, I always welcome a new member to our party. Being a grandfather, I know the joy and pleasure that a grandchild brings. There is nothing so wonderful as cradling in your arms a swaddled baby. It awakens in one so many emotions. It is a one-of-a-kind experience. A newborn fairy glows with freshness and the promise of the life to come. But a grandchild is beyond special, and the birth of one's first grandchild is an experience nearly beyond verbal description. The birth of one's own child is tempered by a certain apprehension. With this fragile baby, there also comes the responsibility of protecting and molding a tiny, dependant creature until adult status arrives. Parenthood is truly a delicate balance of bounteous love and serious responsibility. But to become a grandparent and to see oneself being projected on, on into the eons in the future, one has really reached his first plateau of immortality. It is a higher plateau. It is a completely different kind of experience. It is pure joy. As a grandparent, the diapers that one changes will be because one volunteers to change them. Won't have to do it. Somebody else can do it. But one volunteers to do it. Shameless spoiling can be the order of the day without guilt. You can spoil those grandchildren and then let the parents take them home. Elder wisdom can be meted out with the sure, certain knowledge that admonishments will follow to ``listen to Grandpa. He is wise.'' The first grandchild, so delicate, and yet so determined to join this turbulent but wonderful world, stirs the heart and vividly demonstrates man's enduring link to the eternal. A grandchild is the sweetest, most profound measure of time's passage. In innocence and promise, that tiny being links generation to generation and embodies mankind's persistent, stubborn hope for a brighter future in spite of the difficult lessons of the past. As Carl Sandburg said: ``A baby is God's opinion that life should go on.'' A grandchild is living, breathing proof that significant components of the fortunate grandparents' DNA will still be in evidence hundreds of years hence. Grandpa's dimples or Grandma's curly hair will most certainly be remarked upon by future family members as they compare their own likenesses with treasured old photos in the family album. Grand babies and great grand babies are part of the long continuum of mankind's collective experience on this lovely sun-washed planet. They are the reason we occupants of planet earth strive to make life better and commit our resources to alleviate suffering and disease. The entire rationale for every effort to improve our world, and the millions and tens of millions of good works toward that end performed by homo sapiens across the whole panoply of history, can be understood in an instant when one hears the tenuous first cry of a newborn child. It is a wonder beyond wonders; an affirmation of God's love; and a tangible demonstration that hope is not a futile emotion. And so today, I would like to dedicate these few beautiful lines by William Wordsworth to Henry Thomas Daschle and to Grandpa Daschle: Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting: The soul that rises with us, our life's star, Hath had elsewhere its setting, And cometh from afar; Not in entire forgetfulness, And not in utter nakedness, But trailing clouds of glory do we come From God, who is our home: Heaven lies about us in our infancy! I extend my heartiest congratulations to Senator Daschle on his first grandchild, and I wish the best to his son, Nathan and wife Jill, who also had an important role in last Friday's grand happening.

Mr. BYRD

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