Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I remember that day. I am glad we three were blessed, among others, in our being able to attend that celebration in the City of Brotherly Love, on that august occasion. The Senator's reference to David McCullough reminds me of what a great part women have played in the creation of this country. Senator Reid has mentioned John Adams. John Adams' best friend, his most trusted confident--and that is the way it should have been--was his wife, Abigail. Walt Whitman said: A man is a great thing upon the earth, and through eternity--but every jot of the greatness of man is unfolded out of woman. I am reading the book also. I have had three copies given to me, three copies of this new book by David McCullough, the book titled ``John Adams.'' He is, to a very considerable extent, in the shadows. Some years ago I read his ``Thoughts On Government.'' He distributed these writings to the Framers at the convention in those critical days, and the Framers, I think, were wise in reading the words by Adams and I think their work, their work product, reflected the thoughts of John Adams. One of the great books I have read in my lifetime was ``The Path Between The Seas'' by David McCullough, about the Panama Canal. David McCullough was kind enough to send me a copy of the book. The Senator who delivered it to me also autographed it. That Senator was Ted Kennedy. So I prize that book. But I thank the distinguished Senator from Nevada.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, 214 years ago today, on July 16, 1787, the members of the Constitutional Convention agreed to what is known as the Great Compromise. Edmund Randolph, on May 29, 1787, had introduced the ``Virginia Plan'', drafted by James Madison, which provided for a Senate and a House of Representatives and would replace the unicameral legislature under the Articles of Confederation. Randolph had described the plan as designed to promote ``peace, harmony, happiness, and liberty.'' Under the Virginia plan, both Houses of Congress would be apportioned by population, an arrangement that would favor larger states like Virginia, the State of Pennsylvania, the State of Massachusetts. On June 15, William Patterson had countered with the ``New Jersey'' plan, which was really a series of amendments designed to strengthen rather than replace the Articles of Confederation. Its supporters, representing the smaller States, worried that the Virginia Plan went too far in creating a central government and that it would diminish the power of the individual States. However, the Delegates rejected the New Jersey Plan and committed themselves to the creation of a new form of government. The smaller States had lost the first battle, but they had enough votes to keep the Convention from succeeding, unless it was agreed that the new government would firmly protect their rights, the rights of the smaller States. They demanded the same equality of the States that had existed under the Articles of Confederation. On July 1, the Convention split 5 to 5 on the issue. The Georgia Delegates were split and did not vote. This tie represented a deadlock between the conflicting demands of the larger and smaller States. When the Convention recessed to celebrate the Fourth of July, the Delegates appointed a special Committee to solve the dispute. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts chaired the Committee which devised a compromise that apportioned the House by population and gave the states equality in the Senate. Inasmuch as the idea for the special Committee had been proposed by Roger Sherman, a Connecticut Delegate, the ``Great Compromise'' is also known as the ``Connecticut Compromise.'' In promoting the plan, William Samuel Johnson of Connecticut explained that under this arrangement the two Houses of Congress would be ``halves of a unique whole.'' The Great Compromise is one of the more momentous events in our country's history. Most people are probably unaware of it or have forgotten their high school days during which they should have learned about it. But for the Great Compromise, the course of our country's history might have been forever altered. Fortunately for us, the men who attended the Philadelphia Convention were some of the ablest and brightest leaders of the time, in fact, of any time. What a gathering that was. Never before, since the Last Supper at which our Lord sat and broke bread with those about the table, was there a gathering like ths one in Philadelphia, 214 years ago today. What a gathering that was! Never before had there been such an abundance of wisdom and learning, grace and dignity--not since the Roman Senate had gathered and been observed by Cineas, the Ambassador of Pyrrhus, King of Epirus, who visited the Roman Senate at the behest of Pyrrhus. Cineas, the philosopher, was charged by Pyrrhus to present a peace proposal to the Roman Senate. Cineas had brought with him bribes for Roman Senators. He had brought with him rich robes for the wives of Senators. But he had found no takers--none. Cineas was impressed. The sight of this great city, the city of Rome of the seven hills, its austere manner, and its patriotic zeal, struck Cineas with admiration. When he had heard the deliberations of the Roman Senate and he had observed its men, he reported to Pyrrhus that here was no mere gathering of venal politicians, here was no haphazard council of mediocre minds, but, in dignity and statesmanship, veritably ``an assemblage of kings.'' How fortunate to have been one of the members of the Constitutional Convention. Never before or after, since conclaves on Mount Olympus, attended by the ``gods of Greece'' in Rome, has there been a gathering like it. From Virginia alone, there were George Washington, James Madison, George Mason, Edmund Randolph. From Massachusetts, there were Elbridge Gerry and Rufus King. From Pennsylvania, there were James Wilson, Benjamin Franklin, and the man with the peg leg, Gouverneur Morris. And from New York, there was the great Alexander Hamilton-- small in stature but large in wisdom. Here was a constitutional ``dream team'' for the ages. Fifty-five men, in all, presented their credentials at the Convention, representing every State, save one-- Rhode Island. And with passion and gusto, they had set about devising a plan that would create a new nation. In our own time, in these sometimes disgustingly partisan days, many of us are prone to overlook the tremendous physical and mental effort expended in drafting the Constitution. In reading this short document-- here it is, the Constitution of the United States. I hold it in my hand. In reading this short document with its precise and careful phrases, it is easy to forget the toil, the sweat, the prayers, the concerns, the frustrations, the shouting, and the argumentation and the thinking and the pleading and the speeches that went into its creation during that hot Philadelphia summer. Progress was so slow that upon one occasion, we will remember that Benjamin Franklin, the oldest man in the gathering, stood to his feet and addressed the chair in which sat Gen. George Washington. He said: Sir, I have lived a long time, and the longer I live the more convincing proof I see that God still governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without our Father's notice, is it possible that we can build an empire without our Father's aid? The greatest sticking point, and the most threatening that was encountered in framing the Constitution, according to Madison, was the question of whether States should be represented in Congress equally or on the basis of population. The question was far from academic. The small States feared that they would be swallowed up in a more centralized union; The Constitution must be acceptable to the small States, as well as to the large States. The large States of Virginia, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania were looked upon by the smaller States with fear and distress. The small States feared that a Congress based on population would be dominated by the large States. Virginia would have 16 times as many votes as would Delaware. And this fact led New Jersey's Delegates to declare that they would not be safe to allow Virginia to have such power. They rejected the Virginia Plan, which had been presented by Gov. Edmund Randolph, and they proposed a Congress with a single legislative chamber in which the States had an equal vote, as had been the case with the Congress under the Articles of Confederation. The Continental Congress had been a single chamber. It was followed by the Congress under the Articles of Confederation in 1781, again a unilateral legislative branch. It was the legislative, it was the executive, and to a degree it was the judicial--all in one. There was no chief executive, no president, no king, in the form of an individual. Congress was the executive under the Confederation. There had been days and weeks of prolonged and acrimonious debate, but the issue had not been resolved. There were suggestions that the State boundaries should be redrawn so that the States would all be of roughly the same size. Connecticut advanced a proposal, initially made by Roger Sherman, calling for equal representation of States in the Senate. This had failed to win support, with James Madison, surprisingly, labeling it as unjust. Can you hear the rafters ring? The doors were closed. Sentries were at the door. Nobody outside knew what was going on. Rufus King of Massachusetts had angrily announced that he would not listen to any talk of equal representation in the Senate. James Wilson of Pennsylvania maintained that the small States had nothing to fear from the larger States. Whereupon, Gunning Bedford of Delaware retorted, ``I do not, gentlemen, trust you.'' And he warned his colleagues that the small States might form a confederation among themselves, or even find ``some foreign ally of more honor and good faith who will take them by the hand and do them justice.'' Can't you sense the tense feeling of the moment? Of course, Bedford was roundly rebuked for his words, but the threat of foreign alliances hovered above the Convention in the stale and sticky summer air. There was no air-conditioning, much like it was in this Chamber until 1929. That was the year of the great stock market crash--1929. That same year, though, air-conditioning came to the Senate Chamber. Ah, how great it is--air-conditioning. Efforts to resolve this question, this nettlesome question ``nearly terminated in a dissolution of the Convention''--it came just that close. Washington, who kept his thoughts mostly to himself, confided to Alexander Hamilton in July that he ``almost despaired'' of success. Roger Sherman of Connecticut lamented that ``it seems we have got to a point that we cannot move one way or another.'' But the Delegates finally did settle the question on Monday, July 16, 1787--there it was--Monday, just as today--on Monday, July 16, some 2 months after the Convention began. The matter was finally resolved. It may have been a fear of failure that led the delegates to settle the matter, because they knew that the country's future was in their hands. Exhaustion may have played a part, for the members had already spent many long days and nights in heated debate in this vert heated, small Chamber. It may have been because of the heat that had tormented them for so long. Or perhaps the open exchange of opinions in that wrenching but vital process of debating and questioning and argumentation. Franklin had described the Convention as ``groping . . . in the dark to find political truth''; perhaps they had at last stumbled upon it. In any event, on that great day, 214 years ago, the Delegates agreed that Congress would be composed of a Senate with equal representation for each state and a House based on proportional representation. This was the Great Compromise. That is what it was called then, and that is what it has been called ever since--the Great Compromise. Thank God for the Great Compromise. The Senator from New Mexico, who is now presiding over this Senate, would not be here were it not for the Great Compromise. The people who sit at the bar, the officers of the Senate, the pages of the Senate, the galleries of the Senate, the Democratic whip, Senator Reid of Nevada, would not be here were it not for the Great Compromise. I would not be here. None of us would be here. Think of that. The outcome of the Convention had for so many days held by a single thread. At the very first session of the Convention, when the Delegates presented their credentials, it had been noted that the members from Delaware were prohibited from changing the Article in the Confederation which declared that ``in determining questions in the United States in Congress assembled, each state shall have one vote.'' Delegates from the small states had declared that ``no modification whatever could reconcile the smaller States to the least diminution of their equal sovereignty.'' They would have left Philadelphia without accomplishing their goal. After weeks of anxious debate, it had been voted that the ``rule of suffrage in the first branch ought not to be according to that established in the Articles of Confederation''. In other words, the Delegates from the large states succeeded in defeating equal representation in the lower branch--Ellsworth moved that ``the rule of suffrage in the second branch be the same with that established by the Articles of Confederation.'' In supporting this motion he declared that he was ``not sorry on the whole that the vote just passed, had determined against this rule in the first branch. He hoped it would become a ground of compromise with regard to the second branch.'' Ellsworth later said: ``We were partly national; partly federal. The proportional representation in the first branch was conformable to the national principle and would secure the large states against the small. An equality of votes was conformable to the federal principle and was necessary to secure the small States against the large.'' This conciliatory proposal formed the basis of the most important compromise in the history of this Republic--the Great Compromise, probably the greatest single compromise ever reached in the history of the human race. The Great Compromise. Its acceptance was not easily attained. Wilson feared minority rule when one-third of the population in seven States might dominate two- thirds in six States. Ellsworth insisted that this fear of minority rule was groundless--groundless. Madison had considered suggesting that representation in one branch should be computed according to the number of free inhabitants only and in the other branch according to the whole number, counting the slaves as if free. When Ellsworth's motion for allowing each State an equal vote in the second branch was brought to a vote, it was lost by a tie. This deadlock gave rise to tense debate. Can you imagine the tension in that Chamber? We have seen tensions in this Chamber during the great debate, the great civil rights debate, the Civil Rights Act of 1964--tension-- the North and the South pitted against each other, and the great tensions during the Panama Canal debates. The result was the adoption of a proposal that a special committee consisting of one member from each State should be appointed to devise and report some compromise. Three days later, on July 5, the committee presented two recommendations ``on the condition that both shall be generally adopted.'' The first recommendation, in effect, provided that in the first branch of the legislature each state would have one Representative for every 40,000 inhabitants, counting three-fifths of the slaves; and that all bills for raising or appropriating money should originate in the lower branch and not be altered or amended by the second branch; and that no money should be drawn from the public treasury but in pursuance of appropriations to be originated in the first branch. According to the second recommendation, each State was to have an equal vote in the second branch. This compromise proposal was under debate for 10 days. And you know what? Madison hoped for its rejection. But on the morning of July 16, today, 214 years ago, God be thanked for the rising of the sun that morning 214 years ago--the whole compromise was adopted. But the vote was close. Five states--Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and North Carolina--had voted ``aye''; four states--Pennsylvania, Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia--had voted ``no''; while Massachusetts' four votes were equally divided. Thus, this momentous question had been decided by one vote! Without the Great Compromise, it is hard to see how the Federal Convention could have proceeded; since the beginning it had been cause for battle. The effort to resolve it, Luther Martin had written later, ``nearly terminated in a dissolution of the Convention.'' Swords stacked upon swords and shields upon shields. The small states were jubilant over the compromise; the large states, alarmed, tried to reorganize, recover their position. The rules of the Convention would have let them reconsider the subject, but it was hopeless. The large states knew that they were beaten, and, after July 17, they let the question die. From then on, matters moved more easily, the little states were more ready to meet the big states and were willing to yield on many questions. They felt safe, and they were no longer threatened by Virginia, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, to them, the towering bullies. Caleb Strong told his colleagues in Boston that the federal Convention had been ``nigh breaking up,'' but for the compromise. Luther Martin declared in Annapolis that even Dr. Franklin had only conceded to equality in the Senate when he found that no other terms would be accepted. Catherine Drinker Bowen, in her book, ``Miracle at Philadelphia,'' states that Madison ``in his old age sat down a clear testimony in letters to his friends. The threatened contest in the federal Convention, he said, had not turned, as most men supposed, on the degree of power to be granted to the central government but rather on `the rule by which the states should be represented and vote in the government'. They questioned `the most threatening that was encountered in framing the Constitution.' '' Those were Madison's words. Mr. President, we should thank Providence for this miraculous document. Let me hold it again in my hand. There it is, the Constitution of the United States. We should thank Providence because Providence had to smile upon this gathering of illustrious men. Never had such a gathering of men, a gathering of superior minds, taken place anywhere in the world. We should thank Providence for this document. One thing is clear: Without the Great Compromise, the Senate of the United States would not exist, for this body was conceived on that day 214 years ago. In Philadelphia, when the Framers agreed to an upper house of Congress in which each State--small, like West Virginia, which did not exist then but very surely exists now--would have an equal number of votes, each State would have equal representation. The Senate is the forum that was born on that day. But for the Great Compromise, this beloved institution--the Senate--to which so many of us have dedicated our lives and our hopes and our reputations, our strength and our talents and our visions--might never have seen the light of day, let alone played an often pivotal and dramatic role in our national history over the course of more than two centuries. The Chamber in which we sit today owes its existence to that remarkable instance of compromise and conciliation. But for that Compromise, no Senator could wear the great title of Senator. It recalls to my mind Majorian, who, in the year 457 A.D. when he was made emperor of the west, said he was ``A prince who still glories in the name of `Senator.' '' None of us would be here today--the pages who are here, the Presiding Officer, the officers of the Senate--none of us would be here today. Thank God for the United States Senate. Thank God for the Great Compromise that was reached by the Framers on that day so long ago in Philadelphia. The Romans spoke of the SPQR--Senatus Populusque Romanus: The Senate and the Roman people. Let us today, looking back on that great victory of our Framers 214 years ago, think in those Roman terms about our own Republic--Senatus Populusque Americanus.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my friend for his observations. He might well have sat in that gallery of men who debated, who disagreed, who compromised, who agreed, and who wrote that document. He cherishes it. He carries it in his pocket. Yes, I very well remember that occasion when we went to Philadelphia. Our friend, Senator Domenici, the Senator from New Mexico, was there that same day.

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I am happy to yield.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, a long time ago, I was a boy in the coal fields of southern West Virginia. My coal miner dad bought a fiddle for me. There was a lad in that coal mining community named Emanuel Manchini. I remember that little boy and his family. In those coal camps were Hungarian families, Czechoslovakians, Germans, Scotch, Italians, and Greeks. This little boy, Emanuel Manchini, also had a fiddle. We took lessons together at the high school. So I have often listened to and looked at my friend here--this man of Roman stock. My, what a heritage he has. I don't know where his forbears may have originated--whether it was in the Apennines Mountains, or along the shore of the Tyrrhenian Sea, or the Adriatic or the Po Valleys, or on the boot of Italy. But there were stalwart people in that Roman Senate. I often speak to Senator Domenici about the Roman Senate; what a great Senate. Again, I refer to Majorian, the Emperor of the West in 457 A.D. As he was being made Emperor, he said he was ``a prince who still glories in the name of `Senator'.'' I thank the Senator for his reminiscing time. I also thank the Senator from Nevada. I have been blessed by serving with both of these Senators.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, roughly 2 years ago, we passed legislation to create the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program, Public Law 106- 51. The President signed the legislation on August 17, 1999. At that time, we were alarmed by a growing crisis in the steel industry. Therefore, Congress found that the U.S. steel industry had been severely harmed by a record surge of more than 40 million tons of steel imports in 1998. In addition, we found that the surge had resulted in the loss of more than 10,000 steelworker jobs in 1998 and was the proximate cause of bankruptcy for three steel companies; that the imports had damaged the financial viability of the American steel industry and had affected the willingness of private lenders to make loans to the industry; that all of these developments were having serious negative effects on communities across the country; and that: a strong steel industry is necessary to the adequate defense preparedness of the United States in order to have sufficient steel available to build the ships, tanks, planes, and armaments necessary for the national defense. In response to this growing crisis, I offered an amendment during an appropriations conference to create a loan guarantee fund for domestic steel companies that have experienced layoffs, production losses, or financial losses since the beginning of the steel import crisis. The program was intended to provide guarantees of up to 85 percent of the principal amount of loans to qualified domestic steel companies for whom credit is not otherwise available at reasonable rates, provided there is reasonable assurance of repayment. The legislation provided budget authority of $140 million to support $1 billion in guaranteed loans. Since we took that action, the import crisis has deepened. During the last 6 months, the number of steelworkers who have lost their jobs as a result of the crisis has reached 23,500. The number of companies filing for bankruptcy has reached 18. Current import levels remain well above pre-crisis levels. Moreover, prices for finished steel products have fallen below the levels that prevailed during the depths of the 1998 crisis. The U.S. industry has been driven into this state of crisis by foreign producers who are generally less efficient and less productive, and who in many cases could not compete in the U.S. market or even survive without Government support. Since 1980, steel producers outside of North America have received well over $100 billion in direct Government subsidies. This does not include the costs incurred by communist governments in the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and China in establishing steel industries that would not have existed without government involvement. Enormous market distortions abroad have led to the creation and retention for over a quarter of a century of massive foreign overcapacity--an estimated 275 million tons of excess crude steel capacity, or more than twice the annual steel consumption of the United States. The U.S. steel industry, on the other hand, restructured itself in the 1980s and early 1990s, emerging by the mid- 1990s as the most productive in the world in terms of man-hours expended per ton of steel produced. Unfortunately, the emergency steel loan guarantee program has not been able to fulfill its mission. By February 28, 2000, the governing board of the program had received 13 loan guarantee applications. Of that number, three were rejected for failure to comply with statutory or regulatory requirements and three others were rejected because the board did not find that there was a reasonable assurance of repayment. The board approved the other seven applications, totaling $550,525,500 and issued offers of guarantee to the applicant lenders during Fiscal Year 2000. Nevertheless, no guaranteed loans were closed and funded during Fiscal Year 2000, and only one guaranteed steel loan--$110 million to Geneva Steel Company of Vineyard, UT--has closed this year. So, it is time to consider whether we can make changes to the program that will increase its effectiveness without imposing significant additional costs on the Federal Government. I have offered an amendment that has three key features: No. 1, for $100 million worth of guarantee authority, the amendment increases the federal guarantee from 85 percent of principal to as much as 95 percent of principal, provided that no steel company gets more than $50 million of these more favorable guarantees. Similarly, for another $100 million worth of guarantee authority, the amendment increases the federal guarantee from 85 percent to as much as 90 percent, with a $50 million limit for any single company. No. 2, loans approved after the effective date of the amendment could be structured so that repayment is not completed until 2015--extended from 2005 under current law. No. 3, the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Board would have guarantee authority until December 31, 2003--extended from December 31, 2001, under current law. The current balance of budget authority is $127.2 million for $890 million of unused guarantee authority. The Office of Management and Budget has estimated that the existing $127.2 million budget authority balance will be adequate to support the more generous terms and conditions contained in my amendment. The amendment, therefore, does not need to provide any additional budget authority. If we do not take every action we can to support this vital industry, I am afraid the wave of bankruptcies will continue. By the end of the year, we may not have much of a steel industry to speak of. What will we then say to those who question our defense preparedness? What will we say to the steelworkers of America, to their families, and to the communities and consuming industries that depend upon a vital American steel industry? What will we say to the industries that are next on the hit lists of foreign predators? Let us stand up for steel in its time of need, as the industry has stood up for us in times of war and times of peace. Let us not allow imports to eviscerate this efficient and productive industry, an industry that has provided quality jobs to generations of hardworking Americans. I would like to thank several Senators who helped in crafting this amendment. Senators Gramm of Texas and Nickles of Oklahoma, as well as Senators Voinovich of Ohio and Specter of Pennsylvania, all of whom demonstrated their creativity and flexibility--as well as good humor-- in coming to agreement. I also wish to thank our distinguished majority whip for his very considerable help and encouragement to all of us. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I am aware of the devastating storm that affected my colleague's state in 1999, and I was pleased to assist the Senator from Minnesota at that time. The recovery efforts begun with that funding should certainly continued as needed, and I believe the subcommittee intends that this bill will provide adequate resources to complete scheduled work in the Superior and Chippewa National Forests.

Mr. BYRD. Please proceed.

Mr. BYRD. I appreciate the comments of my colleagues from Maine and commend them for the hard work they have done to secure resources to help with the Atlantic salmon recovery efforts in their State.

Mr. BYRD. I agree with my distinguished colleague from California that UPARR is a worthy program. If additional funds become available in conference, I shall be glad to consider a higher level of funding for UPARR. sewall-belmont house

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank my colleague and share her commitment to preserving Sewall-Belmont House. As my distinguished colleague from Texas is undoubtedly aware, it will be difficult to address the funding needs of all the worthy requests before us. Nevertheless, I look forward to working with her in conference to address the funding needs of this unique historic site. auxiliary power units and portable power in the DOE transportation fuel cell program

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that any statements by Senators in connection with the bill be printed in the Record as though spoken.

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

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I express my heartfelt gratitude to my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Montana, who is the ranking member on the subcommittee of the Department of the Interior. I thank him for his very able representation of his people. I thank him for the consideration he has accorded to all other Senators as we have developed this bill, brought it to the floor and managed it together. I thank him for his equanimity, his very friendly and accommodating spirit. I thank him for being Conrad Burns. I thank him for the contribution he has made in the development of this bill in working with me as we have attempted to manage the bill and bring it to a conclusion. I thank our respective staffs on both sides of the aisle for their courtesies to us and to our colleagues. I thank our colleagues for their cooperation and understanding. I thank the leaders on both sides for the assistance they have given to us. I particularly thank our Democratic whip. I believe that Members will remember my taking the floor on many occasions to speak on the theme that the dog is man's best friend. Harry Truman said, ``If you want a friend in Washington, you better go buy a dog.'' Well, I believe that. Members often hear me extol the virtues of the dog. Not only can we say that a dog is man's great friend, but for those of us who have to manage bills on the floor, it has been my experience that the majority whip is the best friend that a manager of a bill can have. I have seen a goodly number of whips in my time on the Senate floor. The Office of Whip goes back a long way, into the 1600s, as a matter of fact, when it was said in the British Parliament that the whipper-in--the individual who kept the hounds from straying from the field during the fox chase. In those days, whips were sent in the form of circular letters to members of the opposition, members of the King's party to northern England, and sent as far away as Paris, France, to tell members to come in on a certain day and be prepared to vote on a certain matter. That was the whip's job. The whip's position here has grown into an institution. During the early 1900s, during the first quarter of the 20th century, the offices known as majority whip, majority leader, minority leader, minority whip came into being. They are not constitutional offices, but these are offices that have been developed over the years. The whip system in the House is much more refined and more highly developed than it is in the Senate, not quite so highly developed as it is in the British Parliament. In our body, we do not have the whip system they have in the House, but we have an extraordinarily good whip in Harry Reid from Nevada. I was what I consider a good whip here for a good many years. I served with Mike Mansfield when he was majority leader. I was the majority whip, and I sat on the floor all the time. I never left the floor but a few minutes at a time. This whip, Harry Reid, performs that same function. He is on the floor. He is helping Senators with their needs. He is helping the managers of the bills to arrive at agreements. He is helping the managers of the bills to reach time agreements on amendments once they have been offered. He does an extraordinarily good job. I express those compliments concerning Harry Reid. I think he is a better whip than Robert Byrd was. He has more patience than Robert Byrd had. I would say he has more political gumption than Robert Byrd probably had. He is a great whip. I salute him. I have no hesitancy at all in saying if somebody does a better job than I can do, I salute them for it. He does an excellent job. I thank him. He helped me and Senator Stevens on the supplemental bill. He has helped Senator Burns and myself on this bill. I thank him again. Madam President, we will be going to conference next week on this bill, and Senator Conrad Burns and I will, again, stand shoulder to shoulder with the other members of our team on both sides of the aisle, and we will be working with the House Members in an effort to bring from the conference a bill the President will sign into law. I merely wanted to express those few compliments, those few expressions of gratitude, and to say I am very glad that the Senate has reached the point now of finalizing the action on this bill prior to it being sent to conference. The Senate has now approved the fiscal year 2001 Supplemental appropriations bill and the first fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill, the fiscal year 2002 Interior and related agencies appropriations bill. We have scheduled nine bills for action in the Senate Appropriations Committee during July and we hope to have Senate action on those bills before the August recess. We have a long tradition on the Senate Appropriations Committee of working together on a bipartisan basis to produce fiscally responsible and balanced appropriations bills. Working together with my distinguished colleague and good friend Ted Stevens, we have gotten off to a good start this year. The fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations bill passed the Senate on Tuesday by a vote of 98-1. It totaled $6.5 billion, not one thin dime over the President's request. It is a balanced bill that approved most of the President's request for defense and included a number of other priority programs such as funding for Education for the Disadvantaged, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and the Global AIDS program. It included no emergency funding. All unrequested items were fully offset so that we remain under the statutory cap on spending for fiscal year 2001. Today, we have approved the fiscal year 2002 Interior appropriations bill by a voice vote. We have exercised discipline. The budget resolution sets very tight limits on overall discretionary spending. And this bill stays within the 302(b) allocation that the Appropriations Committee approved pursuant to the budget resolution. In both bills we held the line. We stayed within our budgetary boundaries. We took a deep breath and were able to squeeze in between those narrow walls. But the walls are getting tighter. We have been given a difficult task. Much has been asked of us; a tremendous amount is expected when it comes to providing for the national need. We are attempting to conduct the people's business--to pass the thirteen bills that fund government in a timely fashion. The clock is ticking. We hope to go to conference soon so that this bill can be sent to the President before the August recess. The House and Senate Budget Committee are now projecting that we will be dipping into the Medicare surplus in fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002 and that this trend is likely to continue for several years. This is taking place before a single appropriations bill has been sent to the President. I believe that this change in our budget outlook will result in very tight limits on discretionary spending over the next few years. I don't like it, it won't be good for America, but it is a reality. As we consider the fiscal year 2002 bills, it will be very important that we understand the long term consequences of our actions. We should not be taking actions this year that will lock us into long term costs. We have a long tradition on this committee for working together on a bipartisan basis to produce responsible bills, one year at a time. There will be a strong temptation to approve provisions this year that will mandate costs for specific programs in future years. We simply can not go down that road when we know that we are facing tight spending limits over the next few years. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that during the pendency of H.R. 2217, the managers be permitted to offer a managers' amendment; that once the amendment is reported, it be considered agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any amendments laid aside be modified and agreed to, as modified; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that no further amendments be in order; that the bill be advanced to third reading; that the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill with no intervening action; that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House of Representatives, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.

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

Mr. BYRD. Yes. The committee recognizes that vehicle auxiliary power units and portable power systems may be early commercial uses of fuel cells that would also develop infrastructure and experience needed for fuel cell vehicles, and considers these applications to be within the scope of the Office of Transportation Technologies fuel cell program.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I have had the opportunity to discuss this project with Senator DeWine, and I rise today to assure him that I appreciate and understand his interest in this important project and will give it serious consideration during further consideration of the fiscal year 1902 Interior appropriations bill.

Mr. BYRD. I would be pleased to engage in such a colloquy.

Mr. BYRD. I will work with Mr. Craig to see that these funds are used for monitoring of the central Idaho wolf population.

Mr. BYRD. I support the training of these judges and would be pleased to encourage the Secretary to support this effort as well.

Mr. BYRD. I am familiar with this project. As I understand it, the owner of the land is asking for $300 million in Federal and State funds for the 13,000 acres. While, this may be a worthwhile endeavor, I question whether it will be possible to allocate such a large sum.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator from California for this statement. With these assurances, I will support the reduction of funds at the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge and the San Joaquin National Wildlife Refuge, and the increase of funds at the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge. jacob riis park

Mr. BYRD. I thank my colleague for his kind words and will be happy to engage in a colloquy with the Senators from New York.

Mr. BYRD

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