Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, on July 30, 1619, in the church at Jamestown, VA, the colonial Governor of Virginia, George Yeardley, called into session a meeting of twenty-two citizens called burgesses, from each of the eleven boroughs subdivisions, of colonial Virginia. According to one of the participants, Mr. John Pory, ``all the Burgesses took their places . . . till a prayer was said by Mr. Burke, the minister,'' who asked God to ``guide and sanctify'' the ``proceedings to his own glory.'' The Speaker then addressed the members of the assembly on their duties as participants. ``Our intent,'' wrote Mr. Pory, was ``to establish one equal and uniforme kinde of government over all Virginia.'' Thus began, 382 years ago this very day, the first representative, legislative body in American history, the Virginia House of Burgesses. I do find it ironic that today, when there is so much talk about separation of church and state, that the very first legislative assembly in American history took place in a church. It seems very fitting that the legislative foundations of the world's greatest power, and the world's foremost proponent of liberty and, I might add, religious freedom began in a church. What a momentous day July 30, 1619 was, not only in American history, but also in world history. Right there in that little church in Jamestown, VA, a colony still struggling to survive, a colony that had been decimated by plagues, disease, hunger, and war, a significant step was taken in the development of representative government. Think about it, even with all the problems of simply staying alive, these men, driven by that eternal desire to be free and to rule themselves, to be free of the control of kings, emperors, czars, and other autocrats, had the intellect and the foresight to meet in that church and begin a journey that would eventually lead to the establishment of our republic. Independence was still more than 150 years away, but the seeds of American democratic thought had been sown. It is probably no coincidence that from the House of Burgesses would come some of the most important champions of American liberty and greatest leaders of the American Revolution, including Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Marshall, and Patrick Henry. For this reason, I want to recognize this very important, if overlooked, day in our American heritage.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, will the distinguished Senator, who is the manager of the bill on this side of the aisle, yield for a question?

Mr. BYRD. I have a brief statement to make. I would like to make that statement and go on to other issues. The distinguished Senator from Arizona has been waiting. I would like to make my speech and get back to my office. Could the Senator tell me about when I might be able to get the floor? How much longer will she need?

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I say to my friend from Arizona, who mentioned the money for scenic byways in West Virginia, all highways in West Virginia are scenic, all highways. They are all scenic, and the money in this bill for scenic highways in West Virginia is going to be yielded in conference with the House. I take great pride in the fact that all of West Virginia's highways are scenic, and I thank the Senator from Arizona for bringing to the attention of the Senate these scenic byways. There are scenic byways in Arizona also. My wife and I traveled through Arizona in 1960 on our way to the Democratic Convention in Los Angeles. We took the southern route, and we came back to Washington on the northern route. They are beautiful States that we traveled through. Madam President, the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, went into effect on January 1, 1994. I voted against NAFTA. Now, 6 years later, the costs associated with NAFTA are becoming increasingly clear. On February 6, 2001, a NAFTA dispute resolution panel concluded that the U.S. refusal to approve any applications from Mexican motor carriers who wanted to provide cross-border trucking services is a breach of NAFTA. Even though the panel determined that the Mexican regulatory system for trucks was inadequate, they decided that this was an insufficient legal basis for the United States to maintain its moratorium on approving cross-border trucking applications. In other words, the panel decided that, even though Mexican trucks barreling down American roads would endanger human health and safety, these trucks must be allowed to enter. This panel's decision has shifted the American public's concern about safety into high gear. The Administration has said that it intends to lift the toll-gate to Mexican trucks sometime before January 1, 2002. Instead, we ought to downshift and carefully consider our route on this issue. Believing that Mexican trucks will suddenly come into compliance with U.S. trucking safety standards within the next six months is like believing that a car will keep running without gas. Mexican trucking is not well regulated. Mexican truck- and driver- safety standards are nearly nonexistent. Mexican law fails to require many of the fundamentals of highway safety policy that are required by U.S. law and regulation, such as enforced hours of service restrictions for truck drivers or the use of log books. There is no Mexican truck safety rating system and no comprehensive truck equipment standards. From the lack of basic requirements, it is apparent that Mexico is making little investment, and undertaking no regular maintenance, to ensure that its trucks operate in accordance with fundamental trucking safety standards. Opening our borders to more Mexican trucks would allow Mexico to export more than just goods to the United States; it would export truckloads of danger. Without Mexican investment to ensure that its motor carriers are operating safely, the financial burden of ensuring the safety of Mexico-domiciled motor carriers operating in the United States is loaded onto the shoulders of the American taxpayer. From 1995 to the present, the U.S. Department of Transportation has dedicated $22 million to the border States, above normal allocations, for the purpose of enhancing inspection capabilities. The Senate's fiscal year 2002 Department of Transportation Appropriations bill would appropriate an additional $103.2 million for increased border inspections of Mexican trucks. This amount is $15 million above the level included in the President's request. Of the more than $103 million provided, $13.9 million is provided to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to hire 80 additional truck safety inspectors, an amount of $18 million is provided for enhanced Motor Carrier safety grants for the border, and $71.3 million is provided for the construction and improvement of Motor Carrier safety inspection facilities along the border between the United States and Mexico. Have we taken leave of our senses? In addition to the costs associated with an increased need for inspection, more Mexican trucks on U.S. roads will compromise safety, and could result in serious accidents on our highways. During fiscal year 2000, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration reports show federal and state border inspectors performed 46,144 inspections on Mexican trucks at the border and within the limited commercial zones where some Mexican trucks are currently allowed to travel. For those trucks that were inspected, the percentage of trucks taken off the road for serious safety violations, declined from 44 percent in fiscal year 1997 to 36 percent in fiscal year 2000. Regardless of these inspections, the fact remains that more than one in three Mexican trucks is a lemon. And we cannot count on inspections to cull out every single one of these time bombs and get them off our highways. In February, I wrote to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick and Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta to urge that the United States not compromise the safety of America's highways. We cannot, because of a NAFTA dispute resolution panel decision, subvert U.S. safety standards that have been put in place to protect travelers on our Nation's roads. Until the United States and Mexico agree on comprehensive safety standards, and until the United States is able to effectively enforce those standards, we must stand on the brakes against efforts that would compromise current U.S.-imposed safeguards for Mexican trucks. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to use a portion of my time on a subject that is not germane to the matter before the Senate.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, for those who toil in the clandestine world of national security, where the dictates of secrecy cloak heroes actions in vaults full of files marked with code words and warnings, there are precious few opportunities to stand before bright lights and listen to applause. Today, a group of men were honored who kept their secret from 1942 until 1968, when their talents and contributions in winning the war in the Pacific were finally declassified. Today was their turn in the sun, as the President awarded the original 29 Navajo Code Talkers the Congressional Gold Medal. Now the world knows how these men gave the U.S. military a decisive edge in communications during the war in the Pacific theater and elsewhere. Their presence at Iwo Jima, at Guadalcanal, and throughout the Pacific provided U.S. military units with secure communications and the element of surprise that allowed U.S. forces to overwhelm dug-in Japanese units and win some of the bloodiest battles in World War II. The Navajo Code Talkers' unique contribution to the nation's security can be counted in those victories and in the number of servicemen who survived the war and returned home to their families. The story behind the development of the Navajo Code Talkers is fascinating. Every American knows the history behind December 7, 1941, the ``day that will live in infamy,'' as Japanese forces launched a surprise attack on U.S. military bases in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Almost simultaneously, having assured themselves that the U.S. could not react militarily, the Japanese attacked and overwhelmed other islands throughout southeast Asia and the Pacific. U.S. losses were staggering, and reaction was immediate--the U.S. declared war against Japan and the other Axis powers within hours. Declaring war and waging war, however, are two very different animals. The Pacific theater of war presented U.S. military forces with unique challenges. Distances were large, and the Japanese defenders were able to ``dig in,'' creating bastions from which small numbers of Japanese troops could hold off invading forces and inflict terrible losses upon the military men of the United States. Synchronizing air, land, and seaborne forces in coordinated attacks proved to be a major challenge. And the Japanese held an early intelligence advantage. An elite group of English-speaking Japanese soldiers would intercept U.S. radio communications and then sabotage the message or issue false commands that led American forces into ambushes. The U.S. responded by creating ever more complex military codes, but his effort had its own problems. At Guadalcanal, military leaders faced a two-and-a-half hour delay in sending and decoding a single message. Something needed to be done. That something was first suggested by Philip Johnston, a World War I veteran who was familiar with the use of Choctaw Indians as Code Talkers during that war. Johnston, the son of a missionary who was raised on a Navajo Indian reservation and who spoke Navajo fluently, believed that the Navajo language was the ideal candidate for service as a military code. Navajo is an unwritten language of great linguistic complexity. It would be doubtful indeed to suppose that the Japanese Army would possess any fluent Navajo speakers. Mr. Johnston contacted the U.S. Marine Corps with his proposal in early 1942, and after a demonstration of his concept, a group of twenty-nine Navajo speakers was recruited to become Marine Corps radio operators. Those first twenty-nine men, and the others that followed them and who will be receiving a Congressional Silver Medal in a ceremony next month, developed a code so successful that it became one of the war's most closely held secrets. The first twenty-nine recruits developed the original code vocabulary of some 200 terms. Then, in a novel way of addressing other words outside that initial vocabulary, the group developed an ingenious method of spelling out any other word using any Navajo words that would, when translated into English, begin with the initial letter that was desired. Thus, if a Code Talker wanted to spell ``day,'' for instance, they could use the Navajo word for ``dog'' or ``dig'' or ``door'' followed by any Navajo words that translated to a word beginning with ``a'' and ``y.'' Thus any five radio operators could pick a different combination of Navajo words that would, when translated, spell ``day.'' ``Dog'' ``ant,'' and ``yellow'' or ``door,'' ``apple,'' ``yawn'' would both give you the initials ``d,'' ``a,'' and ``y'' in the correct order. Combined with the unique linguistic and tonal qualities of the Navajo language, such flexibility made the Navajo Code bewildering to the Japanese yet speedy and flexible to use. Military commanders credited the Code Talkers with saving the lives of countless American soldiers and with providing a decisive edge in such battles as those that took place in Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. Major Howard Connor, the 5th Marine Division signal officer at Iwo Jima, had six Navajo Code Talkers working nonstop during the first 48 hours of the battle for Iwo Jima. Those six men sent and received more than 800 error-free messages during that period. Major Connor stated that ``Were it not for the Navajos, the Marines would never have taken Iwo Jima.'' The raising of the American flag at Iwo Jima was captured on film--I can see it now--captured on film as one of the war's most compelling images, one that was translated into bronze at the Marine Corps memorial here in Washington, here in the city. Today the Department of Defense has an Undersecretary of Defense for what is termed ``C4ISR'' which stands for Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance. Billions of dollars are spent in an effort to keep swift-moving combined military forces coordinated in an attack and aware of the dangers around them. In World War II, such things were more rudimentary. Communications were largely confined to open radio waves, making U.S. forces vulnerable to exactly the kind of intercept and sabotage practiced by Japanese forces. The Navajo Code Talkers, like World War I's Choctaw Code Talkers, represented an innovative and hugely successful answer to a problem that plagues military forces to this day. It is not surprising that the Department of Defense wanted to keep the Navajo Code Talkers a closely guarded military secret until 1968. What is laudable is that the Code Talkers kept their secret so well, despite every temptation to brag and every disappointment in having their priceless contribution remain hidden behind a Top Secret stamp. In receiving the Congressional Gold Medal, the Navajo Code Talkers join a very short list of American heroes and luminaries that began with General George Washington on March 25, 1776. Their service merits this, the long-overdue thanks of a grateful nation and the award of the Congressional Gold Medal. To each Navajo Code Talkers, I offer the sincere thanks and deep appreciation of the United States Senate. My thanks also go to Senator Jeff Bingaman for sponsoring the legislation in the Senate authorizing the award of the Congressional Gold Medal to this gathering of heroes, the Navajo Code Talkers. It should never be too late to recognize and reward the heroism of those who risk much to preserve the freedom and liberty that we all enjoy. It is all too common to heap the laurels on the general, admirals, and other leaders, and to overlook the invaluable contribution made by each soldier, sailor, airman, and, in this case, each radio operator who put just as much on the line as did those with more braid and brass on their collars. The Navajo Code Talkers were an essential element in each victory, as much as the man at the top who gave the command to attack. I close on that thought with the words of John Jerome Rooney, who wrote the following lines in his poem, ``The Men Behind the Guns.'' I give you his first and last stanzas. A cheer and salute for the Admiral, and here's to the Captain bold, And never forget the Commodore's debt when the deeds of might are told! They stand to the deck through the battle's wreck when the great shells roar and screech-- And never they fear when the foe is near to practice what they preach: But off with your hat and three times three for Columbia's true-blue sons, The men below who batter the foe--the men behind the guns! Oh, well they know how the cyclones blow that they loose from their cloud of death, And they know is heard the thunder-word their fierce ten- incher saith! The steel decks rock with the lightning shock, and shake with the great recoil, And the sea grows red with the blood of the dead and reaches for his spoil-- But not till the foe has gone below or turns his prow and runs, Shall the voice of peace bring sweet release to the men behind the guns! Today, Mr. President, I tip my hat and offer three times three to the Navajo Code Talkers.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I compliment the managers of this bill. They have put an enormous amount of time and effort and work into bringing the bill to the floor, marking it up in committee, and conducting hearings on it. I believe the Senate is in their debt. This is a bill that is needed. It has important appropriations in it for our country and it is a bill that comes to the floor in a situation in which we are very constrained for time. We have the August recess fast approaching. We have already reported from the committee seven appropriations bills in addition to the supplemental appropriations bill. The committee will be meeting this afternoon to report two additional appropriations bills. Thus, we will have nine appropriations bills reported by the committee, in addition to the supplemental, which has already been signed into law. Here we are, with only a week remaining before the August break. Presumably, we will go home and not tackle this enormous task before we return. We have all these conferences that have to take place on these bills. I have talked with the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee just this morning. He agrees with me that we need to move ahead with these conferences. I have urged we at least get our staffs to work on the preliminary differences that exist between the two Houses, especially on my own bill, the Interior appropriations bill. So the two Houses, through the chairmen, are working together, not just the chairman. We also include our ranking member, Senator Stevens, and in the case of my own bill, there is also, of course, Mr. Obey and Mr. Dicks. So we have work to do. I hope the Senate will invoke cloture on this motion. We must get on with our work. It is not my choice that we delay our work. Every Senator has certain rights. I respect the rights of any Senator to offer amendments, to debate, speak, even to delay. I have every respect for that. Those things are within Senate rules. Again, I commend the managers of the bill. I commend our leader, Mr. Daschle; our assistant leader, Mr. Reid of Nevada; and I hope Senators will respond to the demands of the moment, the demands being that we utilize our time, get on with the work of the Senate, pass this appropriations bill, and send it to conference. There are 13 regular bills. Those bills have to be passed before we go home. They have to be passed to keep the Government running. I don't want to see an omnibus bill. I am against omnibus appropriations bills; things are done in a hurry. They are more costly because things are added which otherwise might not be added, and all too often the administration is virtually given an open invitation to come into the conference when there is an omnibus bill and we reach the fiscal deadline. We have done very well thus far this year. We have a lot of work to do and I hope the Senate acts today to save time and act upon this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, every class of Senators seems to have characteristics or qualities that make it distinguishable from other classes. The Senate class of 1946, for example, has been considered the ``post-New Deal Republican Eightieth Congress.'' The Senate Class of 1958, my own class, had qualities to which I devoted an entire chapter in Volume I of my history of the United States Senate. The class of 1974 has been referred to as ``Kennedy children'' because of the influence that President John F. Kennedy had on so many of them, and as the ``Watergate Babies'' because so many of them owed their victories to the fallout from the scandals of the Nixon Administration. The Senate class of 1980 was certainly an integral part the ``Reagan Revolution.'' I daresay that the Senate class of 2000 may well become known for, and distinguished by, a renewed dedication to the Senate as an institution. That is what they have brought to the Senate. I have never seen a freshmen class of Senators demonstrate more pride in understanding the rules, customs, and traditions of the Senate as has the class of 2000. They first grabbed my attention early in this session when three of them--namely, Senators Mark Dayton, Bill Nelson, and Hillary Clinton-- came to me and asked for my advice not only on how the Senate works, but also what makes it work, and what they could do to make it work better. I have seen and witnessed so much in my lifetime that few things ever impress me any more, but that did. I was impressed by their eagerness and their sincerity, and their interest, not only in their individual Senate careers, but their interest in the Senate as an institution, as well. These new Senators wanted to know how they could contribute to the Senate, how they could be good Senators in the context of being useful, of being efficient, of being Senators who develop and retain an institutional memory, how they could best serve their States in this institution. At about that same time, our Majority Leader, Mr. Daschle, asked me if I would conduct a session with new Senators to discuss some of the elemental rules that would be important to new Members, especially when they are called upon to preside. I began meeting with these new Senators and discussing Senate rules and Senate traditions and how the Senate operates, how it should operate, how it has operated in the past. These meetings have been well attended. Now I have enjoyed watching members of the class of 2000 preside over the Senate, and the attentiveness and the pride with which they perform this duty. I realize that presiding over the Senate is often regarded as a chore. The limitations of the position keep it from being seen as an exciting or glamorous assignment. For example, Senators are restricted in what they can say from the Chair. Even when criticisms are directed to the Chair, the Chair is not supposed to respond. The Chair is only to respond when called upon by way of a parliamentary inquiry or to make a ruling on a point of order, or to restore order in the Senate Chamber or in the galleries. Perhaps this is why, over the years, I have detected a tendency among some Senators not to take the position of Presiding Officer seriously. This is why, no doubt, some Senators have shied away from serving in the position, and why, when they did preside, they could be seen reading a newspaper or magazine, or reading their mail or writing out their checks--anything but paying attention to what was happening on the floor. But I want to take this opportunity to stress that the Presiding Officer has a most important, most fundamental responsibility to the Senate and to the people of the United States. The Presiding Officer is the person who maintains the rules and the precedents of the Senate, and from these rules and precedents come the order, civility, and decorum in the Senate. In his farewell speech to the Senate, in 1805, Aaron Burr, who was Vice President, referred to the Senate Chamber as a ``sanctuary.'' He said: This House is a sanctuary; a citadel of law, of order, and of liberty; and it is here--it is here, in this exalted refuge; here, if anywhere, will resistance be made to the storms of political phrenzy and the silent arts of corruption; and if the Constitution be destined ever to perish by the sacrilegious hands of the demagogue or the usurper, which God avert, its expiring agonies will be witnessed on this floor. This is the place where we, the Nation's lawmakers, come together to talk to one another, to listen to one another respectfully, to learn, and to make our best case to the best of our ability. Order and decorum are needed so that Senators may be properly recognized, the clerk can hear and record the votes, and the people in the galleries--the people who watch silently over our shoulders--can hear the debate. As I was sitting in the chair earlier today and watching the people in the galleries, I thought: Here are the silent auditors. These are the people; sovereign rests in them. They come here; they listen; they watch us; they watch over our shoulders. And then my imagination carried me from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and I thought: Here are 284 million people represented in this body by 100 men and women. What an honor, what a responsibility, what an opportunity. Order and decorum are needed if our different political parties are to work together in the best interests of our Nation and its people. So as we conduct our business in front of the galleries and in front of the television cameras, we must keep in mind that the American people are watching. They are watching us. They are the people who send us here. They are the people who pay our salaries. They are watching us. They are evaluating what we do and what we say, and they are pondering not only what is being said but also the way we act. They are looking over our shoulders. They are judging us. Calling the U.S. Senate the ``citadel of liberty,'' Senate President pro tempore-elect William King of Alabama pointed out that it is ``to this body''--this body--``[that] the intelligent and virtuous, throughout our widespread country, look with confidence for an unwavering and unflinching resistance to the encroachments of power.'' Think of that. The people look to us--the Senate in particular--to guard them, to guard their liberties, to guard their freedoms against the encroachments of power from an overweening Executive. Senator King then proceeded to explain: To insure success . . . in the discharge of our high duties, we must command the confidence and receive the support of the people. Calm deliberations, courtesy toward each other, order and decorum in debate, will go far, very far, to inspire that confidence and command that support. Now with the televising of Senate proceedings, we are being observed by teachers, by students around the country, by judges, by coal miners, by farmers, by members of legislatures, members of city councils, observing and studying the legislative process. They are watching us. We are being observed by millions of taxpayers in the kitchens, in the living rooms. We are also being viewed by people around the world. The U.S. Senate is the premier upper Chamber in the world today, and we ought to keep it that and be proud of it. There are over 61 nations in the world that have bicameral legislative bodies. All the others have unicameral legislatures. But the U.S. Senate and the Italian Senate are the only bicameral legislative bodies in the world today in which the upper chamber is not dominated by the lower chamber. Furthermore, developing democracies are watching us for guidelines on how a legislature operates in a representative republic, in a democratic republic. It is imperative, therefore, that the U.S. Senate be seen as a model, and that the Presiding Officer be seen as a model Presiding Officer; order and decorum are essential to that objective. Order and decorum are established in the Senate rules. Of the 20 rules that the Senate first observed in 1789, many of them regulated order and decorum. Yet Senate rules, like order and decorum, I fear, are taken too much for granted. I am not the first Senator to express that concern. In 1866, Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts cautioned his colleagues that they had become so ``accustomed'' to the parliamentary rules that ``govern legislative proceedings'' that they failed to recognize their ``importance in the development of liberal institutions.'' These rules, he maintained, ``are among the precious contributions which England has made to modern civilization. . . . [They] have become a beautiful machine by which business is conducted, legislation is molded, and debate is secured in all possible freedom.'' These rules, he said in a phrase that I have always held dear, are ``the very temple of constitutional liberty.'' Some years later, Vice President Adlai Stevenson reminded his colleagues ``that the rules governing this body [the U.S. Senate] are founded deep in human experience; that they are the result of centuries of tireless effort in [the] legislative hall, to conserve, to render stable and secure, the rights and liberties which have been achieved by conflict.'' Our English forebears wrested from tyrannical monarchs the power of the purse and vested it in a body made up of the elected representatives of the people, the House of Commons. The parliamentary rules that ``govern legislative proceedings'' serve many purposes. They perform many vital functions not only here in the Senate but also in our Government. Arthur Onslow, whom Thomas Jefferson considered the ``ablest among the Speakers of the [British] House of Commons,'' maintained ``that nothing tended more to throw power into the hands of administration . . . than a neglect of, or departure from, the rules of proceeding.'' We have seen that right here in this Senate. ``By its rules the Senate wisely fixes the limits on its own power,'' declared Vice President Adlai Stevenson. I have said this time, time, and time again, but this is Vice President Adlai Stevenson saying it this time: ``The right of amendment and of debate.'' The right of amendment and of debate, and how often in recent years have we seen Senators denied these fundamental, basic rights: the right to debate and the right to amend? ``Great evils often result,'' continued Vice President Stevenson, ``from hasty legislation; rarely from the delay which follows full discussion and deliberation. In my humble judgment, the historic Senate--preserving the unrestricted right of amendment and of debate, maintaining intact, the time-honored parliamentary methods and amenities which unfailingly secure action after deliberation--possesses in our scheme of government a value which cannot be measured in words.'' I would add, Mr. President, that it is the Senate rules which establish the basis for order and decorum in the Senate. In his ``Manual of Parliamentary Practice for the Use of the Senate of the United States,'' Thomas Jefferson laid out strict rules for maintaining order and decorum, including a provision that read: No one [Senator] is to disturb another in his speech by hissing, coughing, spitting, speaking, or whispering to another, nor to stand up or interrupt him, nor to pass between the Speaker and the speaking member, nor to go across the house, or walk up and down it, or take books or papers from the table, or write there. That was Jefferson speaking. The Senate has remained ever attentive to the need for order and decorum, Mr. President. According to the Senate Historian's Office: Persistent concern for the chronically disordered state of floor activity in the early 1850s moved the Senate to authorize construction of a new and larger chamber. The chamber-- This Chamber into which the Senators moved in 1859-- included ample galleries and floor space, and--for the first time--cloakrooms to which members could retire for private conversation and writing. Ergo, Mr. President, order and decorum are needed because in this Chamber we are dealing with important, often controversial, national issues. We are dealing with precious issues that mean so much to the people we represent and to the Nation's values. Pressure is constantly building upon us with so much at stake in nearly everything we say and do. As tensions rise and pressures mount, it is essential that we maintain order and decorum as well as mutual respect for one another. Only with respect for and obedience to the rules, especially those governing order and decorum, can the Senate function properly and effectively. Without observance of these rules, events in the Senate can escalate, and have escalated, out of control. During the decade in which the country approached the Civil War, for example, antagonisms over the difficult issues of the period flared, and so did tempers, and so did disorder in the Chamber. During a heated argument in 1850, Senator Henry Foote of Mississippi in the Old Senate Chamber just down the hall drew a pistol on Senator Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri. In that same Chamber in 1856 came the caning of Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts. In 1859, Senator William Gain of California challenged Senator Henry Wilson of Massachusetts to a duel. In 1863, in this Chamber, William Salisbury of Delaware threatened to shoot the Sergeant at Arms. Several decades after the Civil War, in a heated debate over a treaty, two South Carolina Senators got into a fight. Senator Benjamin Tillman and Senator John McLaurin, both of South Carolina, traded punches on the Senate floor. We no longer draw pistols on each other, engage in fist fights, or threaten to shoot the Sergeant at Arms, but for a long while I was seriously concerned about the decline of decorum in this body. In December 1995, I came to the floor and expressed my deep concern at the growing incivility in this Chamber. Senators were using what I call ``gutter talk'' and ``fighting words'' that once could have led to fist fights or even duels. Just last year, I complained of the lack of decorum that had developed over the past few years. Having served in both Houses of the West Virginia State Legislature, I pointed out that the decorum, the order within the House of Delegates of West Virginia and the West Virginia Senate, were far more to be desired than we would find in the United States Senate Chamber. I was beginning to regret my role in helping to arrange the televising of Senate proceedings. I could not help but believe that the decline in order and decorum fell to a large extent upon the Presiding Officer, the burden of maintaining order and decorum. It is the Chair's responsibility to maintain order in the Senate when disorder arises. It is the duty of the Chair, without being asked from the floor, without a point of order being made from the floor, to maintain order and decorum in the Senate Chamber and in the galleries. When the Presiding Officer fails in the mission, he fails the Senate. I often say to these new Members: Don't be afraid to use that gavel. Hit the desk hard. Use that gavel. It is made of ivory. It won't crack. Only once has the gavel been broken in more than two centuries of debate in the Chamber. Just tapping is all right. It is all right just to tap the gavel if the pages are being a little noisy or if there are two or three Senators making a noise up here close and if the Chamber is not crowded with Senators. But when there are many Senators in the Chamber, one needs to use that gavel. I have been very proud of the way these new Senators use the gavel. The Senate ladies here--I am an old-fashioned Senator; I still refer to men as gentlemen and women as ladies--these female Senators use that gavel and they make themselves heard. And they are firm when they ask for order. When they are presiding and they ask for order, they get it. They make that gavel sound. They make the rafters ring with the sound of that gavel. When they ask for order, they get it. I daresay that much of the indecorous ways of the Senate from time to time come about when the Presiding Officer is not paying attention to the floor, is not enforcing the rule. My how things have changed in the last few months with the Senate class of 2000. I no longer see the Presiding Officers reading newspapers or signing mail at that desk. They don't do it. They pay attention to the Senate. I have said to the Senators, if you are called upon to preside and you have letters to sign, beg off presiding for that time. We can supply a new Presiding Officer. Don't go to the desk and sign your mail. People are watching you. What are they going to think of you? What do the people in the galleries think of a Presiding Officer who sits up there and reads the newspaper or looks at a periodical? Our new Senators, when presiding, are not reading the mail. They are paying attention to what is happening on the floor, and they are keenly aware of what is going on. One quick look at them and you realize that they take the responsibility of presiding over the Senate very seriously. They perform very professionally. To these Senators who are presiding, the class of 2000, it is not just a chore that they must undertake as freshmen. It is a way to learn even more about the Senate, to watch and study the way it works and to learn from it. And perhaps even more importantly, they recognize the importance of the position in keeping the Senate operating and functioning properly. These Senators are determined to keep order. They are not afraid to pound the gavel to get order in the Senate. Even though they are freshmen Senators, they will pound that gavel against more senior Members when it is called for. Just the other day I watched as one of the freshman Senators hammered away until he got absolute silence. That is the way it ought to be. I know that sometimes a freshman Senator may hesitate to pound the gavel or to insist that a Senator of great seniority here takes his seat or stops talking. I know just how a freshman Senator feels because I once was in that position as a new Senator. The Chair should pound that gavel. Make it crack. Make it be heard. Make it be heard until it is the only noise in the Chamber. Because of the efforts of these Presiding Officers to maintain order and decorum, I believe I have detected a Senator or two who would respond with a rather shocked expression. I have been in that chair and sought order, and I have had a few Senators look at me as though they wondered, who does this fellow think he is? They will give the Chair an impudent stare, but as long as they cease their talking, perhaps the Chair will be done with that. But it is evident. We owe that Chair respect. We owe the gavel, the Presiding Officer, respect. And the leaders can go a long way in helping to get order in this Senate if they, too, listen to the Chair; if they, too, when the Chair asks that the well be cleared, if they, too, will clear the well, they will set a good example to other Senators. This crop of Senators has not budged. They are not intimidated. They are determined to do their job. They are making a difference. They are restoring a decorum to the Senate that was on the decline for too long. I thank them for their efforts. Much to the surprise of many Senators, I am sure, there is a resolution No. 480 of the standing rules of the Senate. For those who do not know this order, it requires Senators to vote from their assigned desks. It is there. It is not often enforced, but it can be enforced. I constantly vote from my chair. I try always to vote from my chair. Only a few vote from their desk. That is what Senators are supposed to do, vote from their desk. I constantly observe Senators going into the well and milling around. As I have stated before, this makes the Senate look more like the floor of the stock exchange than the world's greatest deliberative body. When I came here, there were giants in the Senate. I did not see the giants of the Senate--Senators Everett Dirksen of Illinois, Styles Bridges of New Hampshire, Richard Russell of Georgia, Stuart Symington of Missouri, Norris Cotton, George Aiken--get into the well and mill around. They may have walked through the well or they may have walked up to the desk and asked something about a vote, but they did not gather in the well and carry on long conversations. They sat in their seats or they moved to the back of the Chamber or moved outside the Chamber. There are plenty of places where Senators can go to converse. I know how it is. You come to the floor, we have been in committees. It has been a while since you last saw a Senate colleague and we greet other Senators and we sometimes begin talking about the business of the Senate and we become oblivious to the fact there is being business transacted. We become oblivious to the fact we are making a noise. I have been the culprit in many instances. But once that Chair sounds the gavel and asks for order, I try to obey that Chair. Mr. President, I ask for 3 more minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, there are plenty of places where Senators can converse. Think how different it is on those occasions when Senators do vote from their seats. There is less noise and less chaos and voting goes so much faster. Think how impressive it is when the United States acts and votes in accordance with the standing rules and orders of the Senate. I want the American people to revere the Senate. If they respect this body, they will have more respect for the laws that we enact. I am not suggesting that it is the fault of the Presiding Officer when Senators fail to vote from their seats, but I must say that when I first came to the Senate I watched the Senate. And even in escorting the Chaplain to the podium at the opening of the Senate, daily, the way those Senators--the way the President pro tempore did that in those days was very impressive. I watched Senator Richard Russell of Georgia escort the Chaplain to the dais. Senator Russell did not walk up on that platform with the Chaplain. Senator Russell paused on the step just below the platform, allowing the Chaplain to stand alone on the platform. I was really moved by this act. Senator Russell did not stand behind the Chaplain. He did not stand beside the Chaplain, thus crowding the space. He was not hovering over the Chaplain like an old hen watching over her chicks. Senator Russell remained out of the picture until the Chaplain had finished. I kept thinking how proper that was. He was giving the Chaplain the platform. This was God's moment, God's moment before the Senate, and the Presiding Officer was honoring and respecting God's moment. That was class. By Senator Russell's actions, he, too, was according proper homage to the Supreme Being. And people liked that. People liked that. Nothing we do here in the Senate is more important than seeking the Lord's blessing and paying our respects to the Creator. When the Chaplain is before us--he may be a guest Chaplain of whatever faith--it is God's time. We should respect it. We should cherish it. We should honor it as did the Presiding Officers in that day. The memory of how that impressed me has been with me through the years so that always when I open the Senate I do it the way those Senators did it in those days, now so long ago. Back in 1990 I pointed out that: [I]f something seems wrong with the Senate from time to time, we, the members, might try looking into the mirror; there, in all probability, we will see where the problem lies. Those who weaken the Senate are members who, in one way or another, bring discredit on the institution. Those Members, I said, are the ones: . . . who never quite understand the Senate [and lack] an appreciation of its customs, its traditions, its rules and precedents, and a pride in having been chosen to serve in it. Only 1,864 men and women have served in this body. Today, more than a decade later, I want to rephrase that point. Let me say that it is the Members who try to understand the Senate, who try to gain an appreciation of its customs and traditions, its rules and precedents, and who take a pride in having been chosen to serve in the Senate--they are the ones who bring credit to the Senate. They are the Senators who will keep the U.S. Senate as a model to the people of America and the world. In the few months that they have been here, the class of 2000 is doing that. And, again, I salute them for it. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in his delightful work ``Democracy in America,'' Alexis de Tocqueville begins his thoughts on the origins of Anglo-Americans with these words: ``The emigrants who came at different periods to occupy the territory now covered by the American Union differed from each other in many respects; their aim was not the same, and they governed themselves on different principles. These men had, however, certain features in common, and they were all placed in an analogous situation. The tie of language is, perhaps, the strongest and the most durable that can unite mankind. All the emigrants spoke the same language; they were all children of the same people.'' For generations, the United States has had the good fortune to be able to draw upon not only the talents of native-born Americans but also upon the talents of foreign-born citizens. Immigrants from many nations built our railroads, worked in our factories, mined our coal, made our steel, advanced our scientific and technological capabilities, and added literature, art, poetry, and music to the fabric of American life. Of course, many of these new Americans struggled with our language and customs when they first arrived, but they learned our language, they absorbed our constitutional principles, they abided by our laws, and they contributed in a mighty way to our success as a nation. Indeed, I believe that, particularly in the case of those who came to our shores fleeing tyranny, there has existed a unique appreciation for the freedom and opportunity available in this country, an appreciation which makes those special Americans among our most patriotic citizens. In other words, do not go to Weirton, WV, and burn the flag. No, not in Weirton. We have at least 25 or 30 different ethnic groups in that small steel town in the Northern Panhandle. Mr. President, the United States today is in the midst of another immigration wave--the largest since the early 1900s. According to the latest numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau, immigrants now comprise about 10 percent of the total U.S. population. That is about 28.4 million immigrants living in the United States. During the 1990s, an average of more than 1 million immigrants--legal and illegal--settled in the United States each year. Over the next 50 years, the U.S. Census Bureau projects that the U.S. population will increase from its present 284 million to more than 400 million. Immigration is projected to contribute to two-thirds of that growth. These are unprecedented numbers. When I was born in 1917, there were about 102 million people in this country. When I graduated from high school in 1934, there were about 130 million people in this country. And today, there are 284 million people in America. This nation has never attempted to incorporate more than 28 million newcomers at one time into its society, let alone to prepare for an additional 116 million citizens over the span of the next 50 years. Although many of the immigrants who have entered our country over the last ten years are skilled and are adjusting quickly, others have had problems. Last year, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, 41.4 percent of established immigrants lived in or near poverty, compared to 28.8 percent of natives. The situation had completely reversed itself from 30 years before, when, in 1970, established immigrants were actually less likely than natives to have low incomes, with about 25.7 percent living in or near poverty compared with 35.1 percent of the native population. The deterioration in the position of immigrants can be explained, in part, by a significant decline in the education of immigrants relative to natives and by the needs of the U.S. economy. In 1970, 7.1 percentage points separated the high school completion rate of established immigrants versus natives. By 2000, established immigrants were more than three times as likely as natives not to have completed high school, with 34.4 percent of established immigrants and 9.6 percent of natives lacking a high school diploma. The less skilled the immigrants, the worse their employment prospects, the bigger the burden on schools, and the greater the demand for social services. The National Research Council recently estimated, in December 1999, that the net fiscal cost of immigration ranges from $11 billion to $20.2 billion per year. That is enough money to fund the operations of the State of West Virginia for nearly 3 to 6 to 8 years. As chairman of the Appropriations Committee and as a member of the Budget Committee, I well know of the extreme shortage of money to meet the needs of own population today. Because of the 10-year tax cut that was enacted earlier this year, I am wrestling mightily with trying to provide enough money to educate our children, meet our health care needs, provide transportation to our population, and battle crime in our streets. And, so, Mr. President, I grow increasingly concerned when I read media reports about discussions within the administration to grant amnesty to 3 million Mexican immigrants who illegally reside in the United States. I am very concerned that an open immigration policy only makes it more difficult to adequately meet the needs of our Nation. I have found the attempt to fund critical needs for America to be among the most frustrating challenges that I have ever undertaken. I have implored this administration to take into account these critical needs. In many school districts overcrowding is already a major problem. As our classrooms fill to the brim, they are becoming breeding grounds for violence. Economic growth in some regions of the country, and the resulting influx of workers, has created a surge in the number of school-aged children. A less stringent immigration policy will only make this problem worse. This country's personal and commercial highway travel continues to increase at a faster rate than highway capacity, and our highways cannot sufficiently support our current or projected travel needs. Between 1970 and 1995, passenger travel nearly doubled in the United States, and road use is expected to climb by nearly two-thirds in the next 20 years. This congestion will grow even worse as immigration traffic increases. And, how will we provide for health care costs of these new citizens? Whether or not they arrive here legally or illegally, immigrants can receive federally funded emergency health care service. As the immigrant population continues to increase, so will health care expenditures to the Federal Government. We also have an obligation to ensure the safety of the residents living in the United States--both native citizens and immigrants. Yet the Attorney General must soon release from jail and into our streets 3,400 immigrants who have been convicted of such crimes as rape, murder, and assault because their own countries will not take them back. We cannot protect our residents if our country is used as the dumping ground for the criminals of other nations. We are struggling with ways to preserve and protect our environment. But population growth only exacerbates the increasing demands on our aging water and sewer systems, and further threatens the safety of our drinking water. Our ``green spaces'' are diminishing as more and more homes are being built to house our growing population. We lament the loss of and the damage to our natural resources, yet we seem unable to see the connection to our loose immigration policy. We have a weakening economy, an increasing unemployment rate, a problem with adequately educating our people, a congested transportation infrastructure, a lack of adequate health care, and an administration that certainly is not totally unsympathetic to these needs. We cannot afford to take on more. I understand the desire to help the millions of people around the world who crave the blessings of freedom that we, as Americans, enjoy. At this time in our history, I do not know how we can possibly afford to provide for additional people who may need assistance with education, health problems, and job skills. If we invite new masses to citizenship, we have an obligation to adequately provide for them. Yet we are presently frustrated with an inability to even provide for those who have come before and those who have been born in this country. Mr. President, an interdepartmental group formed by the White House to suggest reforms of immigration policy is expected to include the option of granting legal residency to undocumented Mexican immigrants who have been working in the United States. The report raises the possibility of these illegal immigrants ultimately becoming citizens. Such a proposal would take this Nation's immigration laws in the wrong direction. The Immigration and Nationality Act, our primary law for regulating immigration into this country, sets out a very specific process by which immigrants may live and work in this country. To capriciously grant amnesty to 3 million immigrants who circumvented these processes, who have resided and worked in this country illegally, sends exactly the wrong message. Such an amnesty suggests that it is possible to gain permanent residency in the United States regardless of whether you are an alien who arrived here legally or illegally. That is the message that was sent in 1986 when President Reagan proposed a blanket amnesty to 2.7 million illegal immigrants based largely on the mere fact that they had lived in this country at least since 1982. I supported that amnesty, after accepting the arguments of the Reagan administration that such an amnesty would reduce illegal immigration when combined with tougher sanctions on employers who hire illegal aliens. What happened instead, was that the United States sent a message to the world that illegal immigrants could gain legal status in the United States without having to go through the normal processes. Consequently, illegal immigration jumped from an estimated 5 million illegals in 1986 to somewhere between 7 million and 13 million illegals today--and these estimates do not even include the 2.7 million illegals who were granted amnesty in 1986. So, Mr. President, we should not repeat our earlier mistakes. If amnesty is given to a class on the basis of their having broken the law, then we are rewarding breaking the law, we are rewarding a criminal act. This is not the message that we should send to those who would consider illegally entering this country. What is worse, such an amnesty undermines our present immigration laws and suggests that these laws mean nothing if, to those who break them, the Federal Government simply grants amnesty with a wink and a nod. Millions of potential immigrants are waiting patiently for a chance to come to the United States legally. Why should illegal aliens have preference over these aliens who are waiting patiently? Amnesty sends the message that it is far easier and faster to become a U.S. citizen by immigrating illegally than it is to wait for legal approval. Now, Mr. President, American citizenship should mean something. It should not be something merely handed out as a means of political expediency. It should not be something that one can achieve as some kind of squatter's right, particularly when access to the soil they claim was gained illegally. Being an American is something to be cherished, something to be revered. Citizenship in the United States brings with it certain inalienable rights. Those who would come to our country to try to establish citizenship are often enticed by the promise of those rights. The notion that each citizen is guaranteed certain protections is powerfully alluring. But what many fail to understand is that those rights are protected only so long as Americans are willing and able to defend them. Our populace must be constantly vigilant for those things that threaten to endanger our rights, our Constitution, and our form of Government. Such threats go well beyond military invasion. They include the preservation of ideals such as liberty and equality and justice, which can be so easily chipped away. In order to become a citizen, most aliens are required to devote time to a study of our country and its history. They receive, at least, elementary guidance to help them appreciate the precious title of ``citizen'' and all that it entails. What goes all too often unspoken in this debate is that U.S. citizenship entails much more than rights. It entails responsibilities. Our citizenry should be instilled with at least a basic understanding of the precepts that formed the foundation for this country. Lacking that, they are ill-prepared to be guardians of our future. We Americans are justifiably proud of their history as a melting pot. If we go back far enough, we are all products of that melting pot, at least most of us. But the melting must be done in a way that ensures that these new citizens are ready to be productive, functioning Americans. We owe it not only to today's citizens but also to future citizens, including those who come to our shores expecting the opportunity for which America is so renowned.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today we are considering the conference report on H.R. 2216, the Supplemental Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001. My colleague, Senator Stevens, is momentarily off the floor. He has some constituents. He understands that we are beginning our discussions and has indicated his willingness for me to proceed. But he will come to the floor shortly and have some things to say also about the conference report. On June 1, 2001, President Bush asked Congress to consider a supplemental request for $6.5 billion primarily for the Department of Defense. The conference report the Senate will adopt later today totals $6.5 billion--not one dime above the President's request. The conference report contains no emergency designations. The President has said he will not support such emergency designations, so the conferees have not included any emergency designations in this bill. Unrequested items in the bill are offset. The conference report is the product of the hard work and cooperation of all of the conferees, especially Senator Stevens, ranking member of the Appropriations Committee in the Senate, and Chairman Bill Young, the House Appropriations Committee chairman, and the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee in the House of Representatives, David Obey. I cannot say enough about the cooperation of my friend and colleague, the former chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the Senate and now the ranking member, Ted Stevens. The word really isn't ``cooperation.'' It is better than that. It is ``leadership''-- leadership on the part of Senator Ted Stevens. Ted Stevens has been exemplary in his cooperation and support as we have crafted this conference report, as we have crafted this agreement in a bipartisan and collegial way. The distinguished ranking member is on the floor now. As I indicated earlier, ``cooperation'' is not really the word. There is a better word than that. The word is ``leadership.'' I compliment the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, on his leadership in crafting this agreement. It was not an easy task to craft an agreement that had no emergency designation, that offset all unrequested items, an agreement which conformed to Senate rule XXVIII and was not one dime over the President's request. I thank all of the conferees for their cooperation. The conference report includes a number of offsets to pay for unrequested items, and Members should know--and perhaps be reminded-- that with passage of the bill, we are at the statutory cap for budget authority in fiscal year 2001. H.R. 2216 funds the President's defense request for a net increase of $5.5 billion, including $1.6 billion for defense health care, $515 million for military pay and benefits, $3.25 billion for increased military readiness, including the high costs of natural gas and other utilities, for increased military flying hours, and for other purposes. The conference report also includes $278 million for defense-related programs of the Department of Energy. While the conferees have approved the President's request for the Department of Defense, I stress the importance of accountability for these and future funds. Financial accountability remains one of the weakest links in the Defense Department's budget process. This is no criticism of the Secretary of Defense. He is a new man on the job. He has been there before, but he inherited this. It is an accumulation over years and years. Recently, the General Accounting Office reported that, of $1.1 billion earmarked for military spare parts in the fiscal year 1999 supplemental, only about $88 million could be tracked to the purchase of spare parts. The remaining $1 billion--or 92 percent of the appropriation--was transferred to operations and maintenance accounts, where the tracking process broke down. We must do better in making sure these dollars that are requested for spare parts go where they are intended. The conference report includes report language requiring the Secretary of Defense to follow the money and to provide Congress with a complete accounting of all supplemental funds that are appropriated for spare parts. I am gratified that the administration recognizes this problem and included $100 million for strengthening the DOD financial management systems in their recent budget amendment for fiscal year 2002. The conference report provides $300 million for the Low Income Energy Assistance Program, an increase of $150 million above the President's request, to help our citizens cope with high energy costs. The conference agreement also includes $161 million for grants to local education agencies under the Education for the Disadvantaged Program in response to the most recent poverty and expenditure data. Also provided is $100 million as an initial U.S. contribution to a global trust fund to combat AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. A special request was made to me by our leader on this side of the aisle, Mr. Daschle. In conformity with his request, I worked to have $100 million included for that purpose, and it is here in this conference report. In addition, $92 million requested by the President for the Coast Guard is included, as is $115.8 million requested for the Treasury Department for the cost of processing and mailing out the tax rebate checks. The conference report includes $3 million for the Department of Agriculture for inspection and enforcement activities to protect and promote humane treatment of animals. The American people are becoming increasingly sensitive to the treatment of animals. In the past few weeks, in the local papers here in Washington--the Washington Post and the Washington Times--I have read reports of animals being processed while still alive--processed for food products while still alive. They were not adequately stunned; they could still feel pain. So we are trying to do something about that on appropriations. The American people are becoming sensitive to it. Reports of cruelty to animals through improper livestock production and slaughter practices have hit a nerve with the American people. So this provision attempts to address their growing concern. Additional inspectors are being provided by moneys that were added in our committee--the $3 million added for additional inspectors to enforce the laws that are already on the books. We expect those laws to be enforced. The bill includes authority to make payments during fiscal year 2001 from the radiation exposure trust fund to provide compensation to the victims of radiation exposure for individuals who were involved in the mining of uranium ore and those who were downwind from nuclear weapons tests during the cold war. These victims have waited for too long for this, and I compliment the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, and Senator Ted Stevens for their insistence upon a proper response by the Congress, by the Government, to the needs of these people who have been promised assistance. The conference agreement includes critical disaster assistance through the Corps of Engineers and the Departments of Agriculture, Interior, Transportation, and Defense in response to recent flooding, ice storms, earthquakes, and other natural disasters across the Nation. These are the kinds of items, certainly, that are eligible to be called emergencies. These are acts of God--not the acts of man but the acts of God--and they ought to be designated emergencies. That is what they are. They are unforeseen and they are very costly--many times in human lives. There has to be help, and there is a certain area of assistance when these disasters come that can only be supplied by the Federal Government. They cost all of the people. So there are times when there must be items in appropriations bills that are properly designated as emergencies. But even so, we don't have any emergencies in this bill; no items are designated emergency. There was $473 million in the House bill designated as emergencies but not in this conference agreement. We helped the House to find offsets for these items. I am particularly pleased that this supplemental bill does include disaster assistance in response to recent floods in West Virginia. During the weekend of July 7 and 8, communities in eight southern West Virginia counties were ravaged by torrential floodwaters. Entire towns were buried in mud. For many families, this latest flood came just weeks after cleanup efforts were completed from heavy rains in May that prompted a Federal disaster declaration. In this latest round of devastating flooding, more than 3,000 homes were damaged or destroyed, and the severe impact on the infrastructure in the southern part of my State--from roads, bridges, water and sewer, to power sources--has brought a normal way of life to a screeching halt. The U.S. Department of Agriculture funding of $8 million is provided in the supplemental to remove debris and obstruction from waterways and to protect property. Additionally, $8 million is provided in the supplemental for the Corps of Engineers to assist in the recovery effort. FEMA estimates that its costs of cleanup and recovery in West Virginia will be at least $180 million. FEMA funding is available through existing appropriations, and the committee has included $2 billion for FEMA in the fiscal year 2002 VA-HUD appropriations bill. We did that yesterday in our Senate Appropriations Committee. I am very appreciative and grateful for the cooperation my colleagues have demonstrated with regard to the funding that has been added, which will accelerate the pace of recovery in West Virginia. West Virginia is not the only State that has been hurt in this regard. But true to the nature and character of the people of West Virginia, West Virginians immediately began to reclaim their communities. I have seen this happen time after time after time over the long years in which I have served in the Senate--the mud, the muck, the misery that accompanies these sudden storms. West Virginia is prone to these things because we have these steep mountains that run up suddenly from the deep hollows, which lend themselves to these sudden storms and floods. This aid will help to repair the state's injured infrastructure and clear the debris that has clogged our waterways. The conference agreement does not include additional funding for FEMA disaster relief or Forest Service firefighting programs. On July 17, 2001, OMB Director Mitch Daniels sent the Appropriations Committee a letter which indicates that the Administration believes that these programs have adequate funding through the end of this fiscal year. We will closely monitor this situation and if there is need for additional resources, we will address those needs in the fiscal year 2002 appropriations bills, which as I say we already began yesterday. We began addressing many of these needs that exist in several States by including $2 billion for FEMA. In its June 19, 2001 Statement of Administration Policy on House action on the supplemental, the Administration states that, ``emergency supplemental appropriations should be limited to extremely rare events.'' So I say again and again and again, this conference agreement contains no emergency designations. I do believe that it is appropriate for Congress and the President to use the emergency authority from time to time in response to natural disasters and other truly unforseen events. How rare such events may be, is up to a power greater than the Congress or the White House. There is such a power. Mr. President, during debate on the recent tax-cut bill, I argued that the tax cuts contained in that bill could return the Federal budget to the deficit ditch. I stressed that the tax cuts were based on highly suspect 10-year surplus estimates and that if those estimates proved illusory, the tax-cut bill would result in spending the Medicare surplus. While we are confronted with this problem, we on the Appropriations Committee are very sensitive to it. We are very sensitive to it. We are trying to be responsible. We are trying to be responsive to the needs of the country, and I think the action by the conferees, and particularly by this Senate and more especially by our committee, has indicated that we know how to be responsive and we know how to be responsible. I thank my colleagues. Again, I thank the benign hand of destiny for allowing me to work with a Senator of the stature of Ted Stevens. This is not the first time I have said things like this, and it ought not be the last time, either. I have been on the committee 43 years. This is my 43rd year. No Senator in history has ever served on the Appropriations Committee 43 years, other than I. I have seen chairmen come and I have seen them go and, in the main, they have all been good chairmen. When we are in a time such as this when we have to scrimp and save and hold on to every penny, as it were, and I find myself chairman of the committee, I would be an ungrateful wretch if I did not thank my colleague, Senator Stevens, and the other members of the committee on both sides of the aisle for my good fortune. I thank them for my good fortune in having them on board that committee at a time when responsibility of being chairman devolves upon me. Again, I say this bill has not one thin dime--not one thin dime, not one Indian head copper penny--above the President's request; not one penny, not one thin Indian head copper penny above the President's request. Do you hear me down there at the other end of the avenue? We are not one thin dime above the White House request. I think that is something to ponder upon. This bill is within the statutory spending limits. It is a responsible bill. I urge Members to support it. We had planned to have this matter before the Senate on Monday, but the administration has indicated its need for action on this bill today. Senator Stevens has responded. He is here at his post of duty. We are working with the leaders on both sides of the aisle who also have implored us to move on this, and we are doing that. Mr. President, I shall shortly turn to my colleague Senator Stevens, but first, we are moving just a little bit ahead of calling up the conference report. Let me do that now. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the conference report to accompany H.R. 2216, the supplemental appropriations bill; that once Senator Stevens has concluded his remarks, the conference report be adopted; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. Upon his completing his statement, the Senate will have acted on this conference report. Let me refer to some things I inadvertently overlooked. One is the splendid staff work that was demonstrated in bringing this conference report to the floor and bringing the meeting of the minds of conferees in both Houses, the meeting of the minds together. It was the most remarkable display of statecraft that I have seen in my service on committees in the Senate, the way our staffs worked. The Senate appropriations staff on both sides is a class act, a class act. I thank Terry Sauvain and Chuck Kieffer and Steve Cortese. These are remarkable men in the way they worked together and the way they worked in the House. I want to extend the same expressions of thanks and admiration to the House staff, Jim Dyer and Scott Lily. It is remarkable. This is a real class act to watch. I also want to thank our ranking members, Mr. Stevens and others on that side of the aisle, Thad Cochran and the other Members on the Republican side of the aisle in committee. These are fine people to work with, never a hint of partisanship. None. In closing, I also inadvertently omitted the name of Senator Bingaman when I spoke about the authority to make payments during fiscal year 2001 from the reparation exposure trust fund. I mentioned the leadership of Senator Stevens and Senator Domenici in this area. I inadvertently overlooked the name of Senator Bingaman. He was an original Senate sponsor of this effort. He is not on the committee, but he certainly attends to his duties and responsibilities toward the people of New Mexico. In this instance they can be proud of him, likewise. Madam President, I thank the Chair. My, ``how sweet it is,'' as Jackie Gleason used to say, how sweet it is to serve with men and women like we have on our Appropriations Committee. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield. Forgive me for asking him to yield one more time. In speaking of our ranking member, I must not overlook the splendid work of the paradigm of patriotism that is constantly and consistently and always and never-endingly shown by Danny Inouye, the ranking member of our committee on this side of the aisle, and how fortunate we are to have, in this particular bill which deals mostly with defense, how fortunate we are to have the guidance and the leadership of the chairman, Ted Stevens, and the ranking member, Danny Inouye of the Defense Appropriations Committee subcommittee.

Mr. BYRD. Yes. OK.

Mr. BYRD. The Senator is correct. But those two, Ted Stevens and Danny Inouye, are just like Ted Stevens and Robert Byrd. It really doesn't make a difference. If it weren't for the fact that I am expected, if I leave the Chair momentarily, to call on a Democrat, I would just be as sure and as confident and secure if I turned it over to Ted Stevens. It would not make a bit of difference to me personally. I would say: Ted, I have to go out for a moment to see some constituents. Would you take over? We are fortunate, though, in having Ted Stevens and Danny as the two key members on national defense, active at the helm in our development and managing of this supplemental. I thank the Senator.

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

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I would not want this beautiful July afternoon to pass without my paying compliments to the Senator who is presiding over the Senate at this point. She presides with a dignity and bearing and manner and presence that are so rare as a day in June. Just look at that smile. I have never seen a more beautiful smile than that the Presiding Officer today constantly wears. Walt Whitman said: A man is a great thing upon the earth and throughout eternity, but every jot of the greatness of man is unfolded out of woman. . . . How fortunate we are to have had a degree of presiding professionalism as we see in the new Members of this Senate as they are called upon to preside every day. It is a chore. They have to take their valuable time away from their office and desk where they may be reading letters from constituents, signing letters to constituents, dictating letters to constituents, or working in a hundred other ways every day in the service of the Nation, the service of the people of their State. Yet they give their time to come here and preside. This group of Presiding Officers in this new class of Senators is the best overall group I have seen in my 43 years of service in the foremost upper body in the world today. This is a good example. The Presiding Officer, Debbie Stabenow from Michigan, is not reading a magazine. She is not sitting up there reading the newspapers. She is not sitting up there signing mail. There used to be a telephone up there. When I became majority leader, I yanked that telephone out so people who are presiding cannot sit there and talk on the telephone. I urge all new Members when they sit up there and preside to pay attention to the Senate. Please don't be signing your mail up there. Please don't be reading a magazine. Please don't be reading newspapers. Be alert to what is being done on the Senate floor. It is a suggestion that goes over very well at first, but then so many times I have noticed they lapse into the same old habit of reading and signing their mail. It just kind of makes my spirit fall. But I do not see these new Senators doing that. They do not bring their mail up there. They sit there, very alert. And when they ask for order, they get it. I will have more to say about this on Monday, I promise you. But I just couldn't let this occasion pass or this fleeting moment go by without complimenting the Senator from Michigan, Debbie Stabenow, who sets a fine example as a Senator and as a Presiding Officer. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Washington Post publisher Katharine Graham, who passed away today, was a towering figure in the world of journalism. Her courageous stance during the publication of the Pentagon Papers in 1971 and during the Watergate saga, and her steadfast support for her editors and reporters during those trying times, left an unalterable mark upon American journalism and earned her a place in history. With Mrs. Graham at the helm, the Post became one of the leading newspapers in the United States and a veritable American institution. During her three decades at the helm of the Post she became one of the most influential and admired women in the business world. She was the first woman to head a Fortune 500 company and the first woman to serve as a director of the Associated Press. Mrs. Graham was an accomplished scribe in her own right. She began her career as a newspaper reporter in San Francisco. After her many successful years in the business end of journalism, she returned to writing and in 1997, at the age of 80, earned a Pulitzer Prize for her autobiography, ``Personal History.'' Despite the Post's success under her leadership, Mrs. Graham remained modest about her own role. In words that could serve as a guide to future publishers, or even to United States Senators, she said: You inherit something and you do what you can. And so the person who succeeds you inherits something different, and you add to it or you subtract from it . . . . But you never totally control it. Katharine Graham certainly added ``something'' to the world of American journalism--a mark of professionalism and integrity that time cannot erase. Personally, I shall recall her as gracious, elegant, and extremely dignified. She had a bearing one did not forget. She will serve as an example of journalism at its best for many, many years to come. Erma and I extend our condolences to Mrs. Graham's family and her host of friends.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as one who has served with Elizabeth for these long years now, I will have something to say on another day about that service and about my feeling toward her.