Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Thirty minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I thank him very much.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am very much concerned about our loss of direction with regard to Presidential trade negotiating authority. Many Members of the House, and some of my colleagues here in the Senate, advocate a wholesale surrender--a wholesale surrender--of Congress' constitutional authority over foreign commerce, as well as the evisceration of the normal rules of procedure for the consideration of Presidentially negotiated trade agreements. I am talking about what is commonly known as ``fast-track,''--fast track--though the administration has chosen the less informative moniker--the highfalutin, high sounding ``trade promotion authority.'' ``Trade promotion authority'' sounds good, doesn't it? ``Trade promotion authority,'' that is the euphemistic title, I would say-- ``trade promotion authority.'' The real title is ``fast-track.'' What is this fast-track? It means that Congress agrees to consider legislation to implement nontariff trade agreements under a procedure with mandatory deadlines, no amendments, and limited debate. No amendments. Get that. The President claims to need this deviation from the traditional prerogatives of Congress so that other countries will come to the table for future trade negotiations. Before I discuss this very questionable justification--which ignores almost the entire history of U.S. trade negotiating authority--I think we ought to pause and consider--what?--the Constitution of the United States. I hold it in my hand, the Constitution of the United States. That is my contract with America, the Constitution of the United States. Each of us swears allegiance; we put our hand on that Bible up there. I did, and swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Each of us swears allegiance to this magnificent document. As Justice Davis stated in 1866: The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866). This was the case that refused to uphold the wide-ranging use of martial law during the Civil War. Thus, Mr. President, let us review the Constitution to see what role Congress is given with respect to commerce with foreign nations. Article 1, section 8, says that ``The Congress shall have power to . . . regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes . . . .'' This Constitution also gives Congress the power ``to lay and collect . . . Duties, Imposts, and Excises.'' The President is not given these powers. Congress is given these powers. There it is. Read it. The President is not given these powers. These powers have been given to Congress on an exclusive basis. Nor is this the extent of Congress's involvement in matters of foreign trade. It scarcely needs to be pointed out that Congress's central function, as laid out in the first sentence of the first article of the Constitution, is to make the laws of the land. Were it not for that first sentence in this Constitution, I would not be here; the Presiding Officer would not be here; the Senator from the great State of Minnesota, Ohio, Florida, the great States, Alabama, we would not be here. Congress makes the laws of the land. Some people in this town need to be reminded of that. For example, Congress decides whether a particular trade practice in the U.S. market is unfair. Congress decides whether foreign steel companies can use the U.S. market as a dumping ground, which they have been doing, for their subsidized overcapacity. Are we to give this authority to the President and make Congress nothing more than a rubber stamp in the process of formulating important U.S. laws? As the great Chief Justice of the United States John Marshall might have asked: Are we ``mere surplusage''? Is the Senate mere surplusage? The Founding Fathers' memories were not short. Those memories were not occluded by real-time television news, nor were they occluded by the proliferation of ``info-tainment.'' The Founding Fathers had a vast reservoir of learning, particularly classical learning, to draw upon and a treasure trove of political experience. Our Founding Fathers were not enamored with the idea of a President of the United States who would gather authority unto himself, as had been experienced with King George III of England. Most of the administrations that have occurred--there have been at least 10 different Presidents with which I have served; I have never served under any President, nor would any of those framers of the Constitution think well of me if I thought I served under any President. The framers didn't think too much of handing out executive power. So this exclusive power to regulate foreign commerce was not centered upon the legislative branch by whim or fancy. There were weighty considerations of a system founded on carefully balanced powers. The U.S. Congress tried to give away some of its constitutional authority by granting the President line-item veto power a few years back. Fie on a weak-minded Congress that would do that, a Congress that didn't know enough and didn't think enough of its constitutional prerogatives and powers and duties to withhold that power over the purse which it did give the President of the United States. Mr. Clinton wanted that power. Most Presidents want that power. Congress was silly enough to give the President of the United States that power. It was giving away constitutional power that had been vested in this body of Government, in the legislative branch. Thank God, in that instance at least, for the Supreme Court of the United States. It said Congress can't do that. Congress can't give away that power that is vested in it, and it alone, by the Constitution of the United States. So the U.S. Congress tried to give away some of its power. But, ultimately, as I say, that serious error was corrected by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court saved us from ourselves. Hallelujah. Thank God for the Supreme Court. Boy, I was with the Supreme Court in that instance. Yes, sir. They saved us from ourselves. The ancient Roman Senate, on the other hand, was successful in giving away the power of the purse. And when it did that, when the ancient Roman Senate gave away the power of the purse, first to the dictators and then to the emperors, it gave away an important check on the executive. First, Sulla became dictator in 82 B.C. He was dictator from 82 to 80. Then he walked away from the dictatorship, and he became counsel in 79. He died in 78 B.C., probably of cancer of the colon. Then in 48 B.C., what did the Roman Senate do again? It lost its way, lost its memory, lost its nerve, and restored Caesar to the dictatorship, Julius Caesar, for a brief period. In 46 B.C., it made him dictator for 10 years. Then in 45 B.C., the year before he was assassinated, the Roman Senate lost its direction, lost its senses and made Caesar dictator for life. Well, I don't know whether or when we will ever reach that point. But we need to understand how extraordinary, how very extraordinary this fast-track authority is that President Bush is running around, over the country, asking for--fast-track authority, but he is not calling it that. He is calling it something else. From 1789 to 1974, Congress faithfully fulfilled the Founders' dictates. During those years, Congress showed that it was willing and able to supervise commerce with foreign countries. Congress also understood the need to be flexible. For example, starting with the 1934 Reciprocal Trade Act, as trade negotiations became increasingly frequent, Congress authorized the President to modify tariffs and duties based on negotiations with foreign powers. Such proclamation authority has been renewed at regular intervals. What happened in 1974? At that time we relegated ourselves to a thumb's up or thumb's down role with respect to agreements negotiated on the fast track. Stay off that track. Congress agreed to tie its hands and gag itself when the President sends up one of these trade agreements for consideration. Why on Earth, you might ask, would Congress do such a thing? What would convince Members of Congress to willingly relinquish a portion of our constitutional power and authority? What were Members thinking when they agreed to limits on the democratic processes by which our laws are made? And why, in light of the fact that extensive debate and the freedom to offer amendments are essential to effective lawmaking, would Congress decide that we can do without such fundamentally important procedures when it comes to trade agreements? The U.S. Senate is the foremost upper house in the world today. Why? There are many reasons. But two of the main reasons are these. The U.S. Senate has the power to amend, and the U.S. Senate is a forum in which men and women are able to debate in an unlimited way--they can limit themselves; otherwise, in this forum, I can stand on my feet as long as my feet will hold me and debate. And nobody--not the President of the United States, not the Chair--can take me off my feet, not in this body. Nobody. And I am not answerable to anybody for what I say here. Our British forebears took care of that when they provided in 1689 that there would be freedom of speech in the House of Commons. Well, we are doing it to ourselves when we pass fast track. We are saying: No amendments. You just either stamp up or down what the President sends up here. Again, why, in light of the fact that extensive debate and freedom to offer amendments are essential to effective lawmaking, would Congress decide that we can do without such fundamentally important procedures when it comes to trade agreements? I submit that, in 1974, we had no idea of what kind of Pandora's box we were opening. At that time, international agreements tended to be narrowly limited. Consider, for example, the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement of 1985. The implementing language of that agreement was all of four pages, and it dealt only with tariffs and rules on Government Procurement. Fast track began to show its true colors with the 1988 U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement which, despite its title, extended well beyond traditional trade issues to address farming, banking, food inspection, and other domestic matters. The U.S.-Canada agreement required substantial changes to U.S. law, addressing everything from local banking rules to telecommunications law, to regulations regarding the weight and the length of American trucks. These changes were bundled aboard a hefty bill and propelled down the fast track before many Members of Congress knew what had hit them. Most ominously, the U.S.-Canada agreement established the Chapter 19 dispute resolution procedure. This insidious mechanism, which was only supposed to be a stopgap until the U.S. and Canada harmonized their trade laws, gives the so-called trade ``experts'' from the two countries the authority to interpret the trade laws of the United States. We are not talking about judges now. We are not talking about persons trained in the laws of the United States. We are talking about trade ``experts,'' frequently hired hands for the industries whose disputes are under consideration. Moreover, unlike our domestic courts, there is no mechanism by which American companies that are adversely affected by Chapter 19 panel decisions might obtain appellate review. The system simply does not work. It goes against fundamental American principles of fairness and due process. In short, the U.S.-Canada agreement was nothing less than a dagger pointed at the heart of American sovereignty. That agreement--and the process by which it was concluded--undermined both the legislative and judicial authority of the United States. So where are we now? Today, American trade negotiators are faced with a completely different reality from what it was in 1974. Our trading partners know the game--shut out the people and appeal to the elite conceptions of a smoothly functioning global economy. In 1993, Lane Kirkland, then-president of the AFL-CIO, made an observation about NAFTA that is just as pertinent today as it was then, when I voted against it. Here is what he said: Make no mistake, NAFTA is an agreement conceived and drafted by and for privileged elites, with little genuine regard for how it will affect ordinary citizens on either side of the Mexican border . . . The agreement's 2,000 pages are loaded with trade-enforced protections for property, patents, and profits of multinational corporations, but there are no such protections for workers. In the new world of international trade negotiations, our trading partners, frequently assisted by their American trade lawyers, place on the table their ideas for elaborate changes to U.S. law. For example, our free trade area of the American trading partners propose dozens of pages of changes to our trade laws, modifications that are intended to eviscerate those laws. The American workers who would be displaced if those modifications were implemented are given no role in this process. None. We, their representatives, are given a minimal role, a little teeny-weeny portion. But we are not yet voiceless, not yet drowned out by the elite consensus on the virtues of free trade. Well, I am for free trade - who would not be--as long as it is fair, fair trade. But that is quite another matter. Let the free traders come to West Virginia. Come on down, Mr. President, and talk to those steelworkers over at Weirton. Come on down and talk to the steelworkers who are being laid off in Weirton, WV. Don't go over to Weirton and burn the flag. Those are patriotic citizens over there. But they are losing their jobs. Let the free traders come to West Virginia and talk to the steelworkers, talk to their families, talk to their neighbors. Let them talk to labor leaders from North America and Latin America. Let them try to explain why the disintegration of ways of life that give both opportunity and security is good ``in the long run.'' As John Maynard Keynes once wrote, ``Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run, we are all dead.'' I will add: dead, dead, dead. I am getting sick and tired of these administrations, Democratic and Republican, who run to West Virginia and want the votes there and turn around and fail to take a stand for American goods, American industries, and American men and women workers. John Maynard Keynes also wrote, ``Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.'' How many Washington Post editorialists will lose their jobs if our trade laws are eviscerated? How many libertarian think tanks will be shut down when the free trade dystopia is established? Shall we take their views--the views of some defunct economist--as gospel, or shall we listen to those who earn their living by the sweat of their brow? When God evicted Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, they were told to earn their bread from the sweat of their brow, and that is why we are still doing it. I say listen to those who earn their living by the sweat of their brow. Go to Weirton to the steel town; go to Wheeling to that steel town, at Wheeling-Pitt with over 4,000 workers. I believe that is right. Go over there. Say to them: Boys, get in touch with your Senator and get in touch with your House Members and tell them to vote for--they do not call it fast track. What is it they call it? It is a sugar-coated pill. Tell your Senator to vote for that, and actually they will not say it out loud, but that is fast track. Tell your Senator to vote for that. I am for expanding international trade. Who wouldn't be. But let the trade be fair. Let us have a level playing field, and let us not neglect our responsibility in this Senate to participate meaningfully in the formulation and implementation of U.S. trade policy. I am not saying the Senate ought to vote on every duty and every tariff on every little toothbrush and every little violin string that is sent into this country. I am saying there are some big questions this Senate ought to be able to speak to and to vote on. At least on 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6, let's have a vote by this Senate. One way we can reassert our constitutional role with respect to foreign trade is to create a Congressional Trade Office modeled after the Congressional Budget Office. My colleagues might recall this was one of the many ideas discussed in the report of the U.S. Trade Deficit Review Commission. Senator Baucus and I are working on legislation that would give us a trade office with the information resources and expertise necessary to permit us to properly discharge our oversight responsibilities. That is what we need. We need to exercise our oversight responsibility. We cannot do it if we gag ourselves, if we cannot speak, if we cannot amend. We cannot fulfill our responsibilities under the Constitution. We cannot fulfill our responsibilities to the people who sent us here. Can anyone guess how many trade agreements have been negotiated without fast track? The President is running around saying: Oh, I have to have this; I have to have this in order to enter into these trade agreements. Can anyone guess how many trade agreements have been negotiated without fast track since that extraordinary authority was first granted to the President in 1974? The answer is in the hundreds. We have had fast track on this Senate floor 5 times in the last 27 years, but in the meantime, hundreds of trade agreements have been negotiated, the most recent examples being the U.S.-Jordan agreement and the U.S.-Vietnam agreement. I think we need an analysis of all the trade agreements concluded over the past 27 years. Let us try to determine if the Founding Fathers were completely off the mark when they gave Congress authority over foreign commerce. I believe that any impartial study of this history will demonstrate that we can have trade agreements without surrendering our constitutional authority over foreign commerce. If negotiation of trade agreements is in the interests of other nations, they will be at the table. They will be at the table, in my judgment, Congress or no Congress. Is there any serious argument to the contrary? Let me be clear. I am thinking of a Presidential nominee some years ago who said this. For the moment I have forgotten his name. He said this: I didn't say that I didn't say it; I said that I didn't say that I said it. And then he said: Let me be clear. I didn't say that I didn't say it; I said that I didn't say that I said it. He said then: Let me be clear--after the audience had laughed. Let me be clear. I am not suggesting that we noodle away at a Presidentially negotiated trade agreement by considering myriad small amendments. No, Congress should not focus on the minutiae. There may, however, be a small number of big issues in such an agreement that go to the root of our constituents' interests. We must have the authority to subject those issues to full debate and, if necessary, amendment. In closing, I reiterate that we should put our trust in this document which I hold in my hand, the Constitution of the United States--not in fast track but in the Constitution of the United States and in the people for whom it was drafted and ratified: the people of America. Let us not give away even one piece of our national birthright, the Constitution, without at least demanding hard proof that its tried and true principles must be modified. Let us preserve our authority as Members of Congress to participate fully in the process of concluding international trade agreements. Let us not permit the globalization bandwagon to roll over us, to weaken our voices, to sap the vigor of our democratic institutions, and to blind us to our national interests and the needs of our communities. If we cannot uphold this banner--the Constitution of the United States which I hold in my hand--if we cannot uphold this banner, the banner of our more than 200-year-old constitutional Republic, if we cannot play a constructive role in taming the free-trade leviathan, then we are unworthy of our esteemed title. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer. I also thank the majority whip for his courtesy. Mr. President, I am speaking on a subject that is not germane to the debate this afternoon.

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Michigan wishes to speak. If I may be recognized, I would like to speak for not to exceed 20 minutes, but I yield to the Senator from Michigan for not to exceed 5 minutes, and not have that 5 minutes charged against my time.

Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order, notwithstanding the Pastore rule.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I withhold my suggestion.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the President has recently concluded his trip to Europe, where he attempted to convince European leaders of the need for the United States to deploy a national missile defense system. It seems that our friends in Europe still have the same reservations about this apparent rush to a missile shield, and I can understand why. While I support the deployment of an effective missile defense system, there are a number of reasons why I believe it is not as easy to build such a system as it is to declare the intent to build it. One cannot underestimate the scientific challenge of deploying an effective national missile defense system. The last two anti-missile tests, performed in January and July of 2000, were failures. In response to these failures, the Department of Defense did the right thing. The Department of Defense took a time-out to assess what went wrong, and to explore how it can be fixed. The next test, scheduled for July of this year of our Lord 2001, will be a crucial milestone for the national missile defense program. All eyes will be watching to see if the technological and engineering problems can be addressed, or if we have to go back to the drawing board once more. It must also be recognized that no matter how robust missile defense technology might become, it will always--now and forever--be of limited use. I fear that in the minds of some, a national missile defense system is the sine qua non of a safe and secure United States. But the most sophisticated radars or space-based sensors will never be able to detect the sabotage of our drinking water supplies by the use of a few vials--just a few vials--of a biological weapon, and no amount of anti- missile missiles will prevent the use of a nuclear bomb neatly packaged in a suitcase and carried to one of our major cities. We should not let the flashy idea of missile defense distract us from other, and perhaps more serious, threats to our national security. If deployment of a missile defense system were to be expedited, there is the question of how effective it could possibly be. Military officers involved in the project have called a 2004 deployment date ``high risk.'' That means that if we were to station a handful of interceptors in Alaska in 2004, there is no guarantee--none, no guarantee that they would provide any useful defense at all. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has downplayed this problem, saying that an early system does not have to be 100 percent effective. I believe that if we are going to pursue a robust missile shield, that is what we should pursue. I do not support the deployment of a multi-billion dollar scarecrow that will not be an effective defense if a missile is actually launched at the United States. The New York Times has printed an article that drives this point home. The newspaper reports on a study by the Pentagon's Office of Operational Test and Evaluation that details some of the problems that a National Missile Defense system must overcome before it can be considered effective. According to the New York Times, the authors of this internal Department of Defense report believe that the missile defense program has ``suffered too many failures to justify deploying the system in 2005, a year after the Bush administration is considering deploying one.'' The article goes on to state that system now being tested has benefitted from unrealistic tests, and that the computer system could attempt to shoot down inbound missiles that don't even exist. If the Department of Defense's own scientists and engineers don't trust the system that could be deployed in the next few years, this system might not even be a very good scarecrow. Let the scientists and engineers find the most effective system possible, and then go forward with its deployment. Let us also consider our international obligations under the Anti- Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty of 1972. The President has begun discussions with Russia, China, our European allies, and others on revising the ABM Treaty, but so far the responses have been mixed. I suggest that it is because our message is mixed. On one hand, there is the stated intent to consult with our allies before doing away with the ABM Treaty. On the other, the Administration has made clear its position that a missile defense system will be deployed as soon as possible. It is no wonder that Russia and our European allies are confused as to whether we are consulting with them on the future of the ABM Treaty, or we are simply informing them as to what the future of the ABM Treaty will be. We must listen to our allies, and take their comments seriously. The end result of the discussions with Russia, China, and our European allies should be an understanding of how to preserve our national security, not a scheme to gain acceptance from those countries of our plan to rush forward with the deployment of an anti-missile system at the earliest possible date. What's more, Secretary of State Colin Powell said this past weekend that the President may unilaterally abandon the ABM Treaty as soon as it conflicts with our testing activities. According to the recently released Pentagon report on missile defense, however, the currently scheduled tests on anti-missile systems will not conflict with the ABM Treaty in 2002, and there is no conflict anticipated in 2003. Why, therefore, is there a rush to amend or do away with the ABM Treaty? Who is to say that there will not be additional test failures in the next two and a half years that will further push back the test schedule, as well as potential conflicts with the ABM Treaty? There is also the issue of the high cost of building a national missile defense system. This year, the United States will spend $4.3 billion on all the various programs related to missile defense. From 1962 to today, the Brookings Institution estimated that we have spent $99 billion, and I do not believe that for all that money, our national security has been increased one bit. The Congressional Budget Office in an April 2000 report concluded that the most limited national missile defense system would cost $30 billion. This system could only hope to defend against a small number of unsophisticated missiles, such as a single missile launched from a rogue nation. If we hope to defend against the accidental launch of numerous, highly sophisticated missiles of the type that are now in Russia's arsenal, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost will almost double, to $60 billion. We have seen how these estimates work. They have only one way to go. That is always up. However, that number may even be too low. This is what the Congressional Budget Office had to say in March 2001: ``Those estimates from April 2000 may now be too low, however. A combination of delays in testing and efforts by the Clinton administration to reduce the program's technical risk (including a more challenging testing program) may have increased the funding requirements well beyond the levels included in this option [for national missile defense systems].'' Is it any wonder that some critics believe that a workable national missile defense system will cost more than $120 billion? Tell me. How does the Administration expect to finance this missile defense system? The $1.35 trillion tax cut that the President signed into law last month is projected to consume 72 percent of the non- Social Security, non-Medicare surpluses over the next five years. In fact, under the budget resolution that was passed earlier this year, the Senate Budget Committee shows that the Federal Government is already projected to dip into the Medicare trust fund in fiscal years 2003 and 2004. The missile defense system envisioned by the Administration would likely have us dipping into the Social Security trust funds as well--further jeopardizing the long-term solvency of both Federal retirement programs. This is no way to provide for our nation's defense. I must admit that I am also leery about committing additional vast sums to the Pentagon. I was the last man out of Vietnam--the last one. I mean to tell you, I supported President Johnson. I supported President Nixon to the hilt. I have spoken before about the serious management problems in the Department of Defense. I am a strong supporter of the Department of Defense. When it came to Vietnam, I was a hawk--not just a Byrd but a hawk. I am not a Johnny-come-lately when it comes to our national defense. As Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I find it profoundly disturbing that the Department of Defense cannot account for the money that it spends, and does not know with any certainty what is in its inventory. These problems have been exposed in detail by the Department's own Inspector General, as well as the General Accounting Office. Ten years after Congress passed the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, the Department of Defense has still not been able to pass an audit of its books. The Pentagon's books are in such disarray that outside experts cannot even begin an audit, much less reach a conclusion on one! Although it does not directly relate to this issue of national missile defense, I was shocked by a report issued by the General Accounting Office last week on the Department of Defense's use of emergency funds intended to buy spare parts in 1999. Out of $1.1 billion appropriated in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999 to buy urgently needed spare parts, the GAO reported that the Pentagon could not provide the financial information to show that 92 percent of those funds were used as intended. This is incredible. This Senate passed that legislation to provide that money for spare parts. That is what they said they needed it for. That is what we appropriated it for. Congress gave the Department of Defense over a billion dollars to buy spare parts, which we were told were urgently needed, and we cannot even see the receipt! If the Department of Defense cannot track $1 billion that it spent on an urgent need, I don't know how it could spend tens of billions of dollars on a missile defense system with any confidence that it is being spent wisely. As a member of the Armed Services Committee and the Administrative Co-Chairman of the National Security Working Group, along with my colleague, Senator Cochran, who was the author of the National Missile Defense Act of 1999, I understand that ballistic missiles are a threat to the United States. I voted for the National Missile Defense Act of 1999, which stated that it is the policy of the United States to deploy a national missile defense system as soon as it is technologically possible. Now, I still support that act. But I also understand that an effective national missile defense system cannot be established through intent alone. Someone has said that the road to Sheol is paved with good intentions. Good intentions are not enough. I think there might be a way toward an effective missile defense system, and it is based on common sense. Engage our friends, and listen to our critics. Learn from the past, and invest wisely. Test carefully, and assess constantly. But most of all, avoid haste. We cannot afford to embark on a folly that could, if improperly managed, damage our national security, while costing billions of dollars. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am here to wish a happy birthday to a celebrant near and dear to my heart. The thirty-fifth child in the family, grown from a difficult beginning as a child of war and conflict into a robust 138-year-old, the birthday girl is entering the new century with confidence and strength. The birthday party in question is, of course, for the wild and wonderful, great and beautiful State of West Virginia, celebrated this Thursday, June 20. In 1863, West Virginia was born by proclamation--the only state so created. Like Caesar Augustus, West Virginia was wrested from her mother, Virginia, at the point of a sword. Also like Caesar, I foresee greatness ahead for West Virginia. West Virginia is not a large State, ranking 41st at 24,231 square miles. But the stars shone on her birth, blessing her with natural riches, water, and a central location as the northernmost southern State and the southernmost northern State. I might wish for her more flat land, but, on the other hand, I would not trade a level plain for even a single glorious hillside blanketed by lush tangles of wild rhododendron bisected by a clear, cold stream tumbling over rocky drops amid dense stands of oak and maple. Her mountains are her crowning glory, molding her history and her character. They will continue to shape her future. The steep slopes that so complicate development preserve forests and wildlife. Nearly 75 percent of West Virginia is covered with forest. The slopes capture snow for great skiing. They shelter coursing whitewater rivers that attract kayakers, rafters, and fishermen from around the world. In a nation increasingly concerned with urban sprawl, West Virginia remains an oasis of serenity amid the surging tide of advancing humanity, an island of tranquil forest where eagles still soar and the crime rate is the lowest in the Nation. The mountains have also shaped the character of her people, reinforcing and sustaining the independence of character and the strong work ethic that are necessary in isolated and challenging environments. West Virginians are friendly, caring neighbors, meeting bad weather and hard times with a community spirit that is itself a force to be reckoned with. West Virginians are patriotic as well. The youngest soldier of World War I, Chester Merriman of Romney, enlisted at the tender age of 14. And West Virginians are close to the Creator, reminded daily of His presence by the natural cathedral of sky, wind, water, wood, and stone that is their environment. With a mean altitude of 1,500 feet, the highest average altitude east of the Mississippi, West Virginians are literally nearer to God, as well. Over the course of the last 138 years, West Virginia has had her share of firsts. In 1756, the first spa open to the public was established at Bath, VA, now Berkeley Springs. The Golden Delicious apple was first grown in Clay County. The Grimes Golden apple was first grown in Brooke County. In 1787, the first steam-powered motor boat was launched in the Potomac River by James Rumsey at New Mecklensburg, now known as Shepherdstown. One of the first papers in the nation devoted mainly to the interests of women was published in Harper's Ferry on February 14, 1824. One of the first suspension bridges in the world was completed in Wheeling in November 1849. The Civil War brought a number of ``firsts'' to West Virginia history books. The first major land battle fought between Union and Confederate forces in that conflict was the Battle of Philippi, on June 3, 1861. The first Union soldier had been killed a few days earlier, at Fetterman, Taylor County. West Virginia has had other notable ``firsts'' since achieving statehood. West Virginia was also the site of the first rural free mail delivery in the nation. It began in Charles Town on October 6, 1896, before spreading throughout the rest of the United States. About 1908, outdoor advertising had its start when the Block Brothers Tobacco Company painted bridges and barns around Wheeling with the words ``Treat Yourself To the Best, Chew Mail Pouch.'' Some people now spend their vacations hunting down and photographing those old barns. On the political front, in 1928, Mrs. Minnie Buckingham Harper became a member of the House of Delegates by appointment and was, according to the West Virginia Archives, the first black woman to become a member of a legislative body in America. A less popular political first for West Virginia is its place as the first state to enact a state sales tax, which took effect on July 1, 1921. As a final ``first,'' I would be remiss not to note here that Mother's Day was first observed at Andrews Church in Grafton, WV, on May 10, 1908. So West Virginia can claim motherhood and apple pie to offset that more sinister pair--death and taxes. We really do have it all. West Virginia has experienced great change over the last 138 years. She remains a great resource for the country. Her coal and natural gas will continue to fuel the nation, just as her forests will provide homes and paper that the electronic age still has not supplanted. She has greatness still in store, nurtured in the bright minds of her young people, encouraged by the wisdom and foresight of her elders, carried on the strong shoulders of her workers and innovators, who love the state and want not to leave it for greener economic shores but to carry that tide into the mountains. It has given me great pleasure over the years to help West Virginia grow. I may not have been born a West Virginian, but this transplant has taken well to the soil there. I have grafted. I hope that my efforts on her behalf have borne fruit that will help sustain her through the next 138 years. That is the best birthday gift that I can think to give her. West Virginia, how I love you! Every streamlet, shrub and stone, Even the clouds that flit above you Always seem to be my own. Your steep hillsides clad in grandeur, Always rugged, bold and free, Sing with ever swelling chorus: Montani, Semper, Liberi! Always free! The little streamlets, As they glide and race along, Join their music to the anthem And the zephyrs swell the song. Always free! The mountain torrent In its haste to reach the sea, Shouts its challenge to the hillsides And the echo answers ``FREE!'' Always free! Repeats the river In a deeper, fuller tone And the West wind in the treetops Adds a chorus all its own. Always Free! The crashing thunder, Madly flung from hill to hill, In a wild reverberation Makes our hearts with rapture fill. Always free! The Bob White whistles And the whippoorwill replies, Always free! The robin twitters As the sunset gilds the skies. Perched upon the tallest timber, Far above the sheltered lea, There the eagle screams defiance To a hostile world: ``I'm free!'' And two million happy people, Hearts attuned in holy glee, Add the hallelujah chorus: ``Mountaineers are always free!''

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I am glad to.

Mr. BYRD. Was there a vote in progress on that motion?

Mr. BYRD. Is the motion to table before the Senate?

Mr. BYRD. The Senator is correct.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have a question I would like to ask at some point to propound about the language of this amendment. When might I do that?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have no objection to the request.

Mr. BYRD. There was not. So the Chair has not ruled on the motion to table. Therefore, the vote is still to be had, whether it be by voice, by division, or by rollcall.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the majority whip and all Senators. I wish to get a clarification of a definition. I think it is well that I pose this question now. I don't intend to go into the background at this point, except to say that I have been concerned about some of the things that have been said and some of the actions that have been taken with respect to Boy Scouts. I was very disappointed when at the Democratic Convention there was a demonstration--not by all Democrats by any means, and I feel sure it wasn't a part of the convention plans. But I was embarrassed at the boos and the disrespect shown by some of the participants at that convention, which I did not attend; I was watching television. I have been concerned about other hostile actions that have since been directed at the Boy Scouts of America. Certainly, my intention up to this moment has been to vote for this amendment. I do have a question, however. The question deals with definitions. I would like a better definition or clarification of the term ``youth group.'' In paragraph 2 of section 2(a), I read the following: . . . denies equal access or a fair opportunity to meet to, or discriminates against, any group affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America or any other youth group . . . I will repeat that: ``. . . or any other youth group.'' . . . that wishes to conduct a meeting within that designated open forum, on the basis of the membership or leadership criteria of the Boy Scouts of America or of the youth group that prohibits the acceptance of homosexuals, or individuals who reject the Boy Scouts' or the youth group's oath of allegiance to God and country, as members or leaders. My problem with that is ``youth group'' could include skinheads, and it could include Ku Klux Klan youth groups or any other ``hate'' groups. That is what I am concerned about. I know what we are talking about--the Boy Scouts. That is one thing. But I hesitate to open the language up to just any ``youth'' group. That is my problem. I would like for someone to clarify the definition of ``youth group'', or perhaps offer a modification so that we will all know what we are talking about.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, the Senate is not in order. I will not proceed until it is in order. This was a very important vote. Madam President, I want Senators to get out of the well. I am entitled to be heard, and I want other Senators to have the same respect and same entitlement. This was not an easy vote for me. I believe just as strongly as any Senator on that side of the aisle about the rights of the Boy Scouts and about the respect we ought to show the Boy Scouts. I was ashamed and embarrassed by the actions of some people--not by the Democratic Party--by some people at the Democratic Convention who may or may not have been delegates, in showing disrespect for the Scouts. Having said that, I had some concerns about this language, and I took those concerns to the author of the amendment, Mr. Helms. He indicated he would try to have that language changed. Several other Members on that side of the aisle voiced their sentiments as being equal and square with mine: That the language needed to be clarified and modified. The language was this language: ``Any other youth group.'' Similar language is used in at least one other place in the amendment. My question was: What is the definition of ``youth group'' as it is being used in this amendment? The definition in the amendment reads as follows: Youth Group--the term ``youth group'' means any group or organization intended to serve young people under the age of 21. That can be a Black Panthers group. That can be a skinhead group. That can be a Ku Klux Klan group. I do not mind speaking on that subject. I detest the Klan. I have been a member of it. That is not news. Everybody in this Senate knows that, and I do not carry that badge with pride. But I do not want the Ku Klux Klan or any other hate group in our schools. So, I thought there ought to be a clarification and better definition of ``youth group.'' I came to the floor when the vote occurred. Nobody came to me and said: With regard to your concern, we have changed the language, or, we have not. Nobody said that. When I saw on the television screen that the vote on the amendment was in progress, I came to the floor, and I went to Senator Helms. I said: Was there a modification of that language? He said: No. He was in accord with having a modification but he said, ``they didn't want it modified.'' I do not know who ``they'' were. But in any event, faced with having to vote up or down on this amendment, I voted for it, but I am still concerned that the definition of ``youth group'' was not changed. I am concerned because that request, which I think was a reasonable request, was somehow rejected by somebody. I voted for the amendment. I take the floor now to say I hope that in conference that language will be changed. The distinguished Senator from Oregon, Mr. Smith, earlier suggested that it be changed to mean groups that have national charters. I believe I am correct in the way he stated it--groups that are nationally chartered. That would be fine with me. But that change was not made. I only take the floor now to explain my vote and to express my regrets that what I thought was a very reasonable request was apparently just rejected out of hand. I hope that attention will be given in conference to changing this language to make it clear that the term ``other groups'' pertains to groups that are nationally chartered.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, may we have order in the Senate? Madam President, in an effort to help the Senate to reach the best possible product of the amendment's status at this point, so that a consensus of minds in this body may come to a conclusion as to what in their judgment seems to be the best outcome, I ask unanimous consent that on page 2 of the amendment, section 2 titled ``equal access'' subsection (a), paragraph (2), line 12 thereof, be amended as follows: To insert the words, following the word ``group": ``listed in title 36 of the United States Code as a patriotic society,'' and I ask unanimous consent further that I may be allowed, additionally, to amend the amendment, as modified, which is presently pending, in a second place. The second place being on page 4 under section (C), titled ``Youth Group,'' on line 8 strike the comma following the numerals ``21'' and insert the following: ``and which is listed in title 36 of the United States Code as a patriotic society.'' So I am asking to amend the bill in two places with the amendment--I am asking to amend the pending amendment, as modified, in two places and as I have outlined.

Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BYRD. Why is the Senate voting again on that motion?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, this week, the attractions of retirement will claim another highly valued Senate staff member. With deeply mixed feelings, I note the departure of Wendy Wolff. Since 1987, Wendy Wolff has served the Senate as Historical Editor in the Office of the Secretary. Viewers on C-SPAN will not observe Wendy in the Senate chamber or at committee hearings. She fulfills her professional responsibilities away from public view in the offices of the Senate Historian. Yet, it would be accurate to conclude that she has significantly left her mark on Senate history; she has even shaped Senate history. I first met Wendy as she began to prepare the lengthy and complex index to Volume One of my four-volume history, The Senate, 1789-1989. Anyone who has consulted that first volume's index is likely to agree that it is most user-friendly. In 1989, Wendy assumed editorial responsibilities--as well as the indexing chores--for the remaining three volumes in that series. Over the next five years, she handled the countless tasks--many of them deeply challenging--that fall to editors and publishers of encyclopedia-length reference volumes. Ten years ago, in the preface to Volume Two, I offered the following assessment of Wendy's contributions to that project. Her strong editorial hand has skillfully shaped this work from a disparate collection of speeches to what I believe is a carefully balanced and finely coordinated reference book. Tirelessly dedicated to this project from its inception, Wendy Wolff has maintained herein the editorial standards of Volume One and has convincingly guided the author away from tempting side roads. Her indexes to both volumes display a rich and impressively detailed knowledge of the Senate's historical structure. Wendy's editorial hand and critical judgment have also shaped other Senate historical volumes. Among them are Senator Bob Dole's Historical Almanac of the United States Senate (1989); United States Senate Election, Expulsion and Censure Cases, 1793-1990 (1995); Senator Mark Hatfield's Vice Presidents of the United States, 1789-1993 (1997); Minutes of the U.S. Senate Republican Conference, 1911-1964 (1999); and Capitol Builder: The Shorthand Journals of Captain Montgomery C. Meigs, 1853-1861 (2001). I know that I speak for Wendy Wolff's colleagues and other admirers in wishing Wendy Wolff a most enjoyable retirement. We won't ever forget her. (Mr. BAYH assumed the chair.)

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, recently there has been a spate of articles regarding the increase in the number of single parent homes, based upon the latest census data. Last month, Newsweek's cover story was ``The New Single Mom: Why the Traditional Family is Fading Fast, What It Means for Our Kids.'' The number of families headed by single mothers has increased 25 percent since 1990, to more than 7.5 million households. Although divorce and widowhood certainly contribute to this figure, the number of out-of-wedlock births has run at about one third of all births for the last decade, compared to 3.8 percent of all births in 1940. Let me say that again. The number of out-of-wedlock births has run at about one-third of all births for the last decade, compared to 3.8 percent of all births in 1940. Not all single parent households are headed by women. The number of single fathers has also increased, to just over 2 million families. Nevertheless, what I found most striking about the articles I read was the apparently growing trend of women who choose for whatever reason to put off marriage, but who still decide to go ahead and have children, whether by birth or adoption. The thinking seems to be: Don't settle for less than Mr. Perfect, but if the biological alarm is ringing, don't put off having children, either. As Father's Day approaches, I do wish to say a few words in defense of men, particularly men in the role of father. Men are not perfect. I found that out at the beginning of the human race. Most will never be ``Mr. Perfect.'' I will be the first to admit that. Many men squeeze toothpaste from the middle of the tube and many men do not always put the cap back on the toothpast tube. Men have been known to drink from the milk carton before putting it back in the refrigerator. Some men cannot seem to find the dirty clothes basket for love nor money, and a few miscreants leave their dirty clothes tangled in inside-out knots. Men commonly are assigned the once-a-week `glory' jobs like taking out the trash and mowing the lawn, leaving the daily burden of cooking, cleaning, laundry, and getting kids ready for school to their wives. This I hear from women on my staff, and it can be readily verified by asking any married woman within earshot. Fathers do not do their fair share of changing diapers, getting up in the middle of the night, reading bedtime stories, helping with homework, driving kids to sports practices and games, or shopping for school clothes. From this litany, one might suppose that women who elect to have children without the burden of also caring for a husband are the smart ones. I do not advocate that, but in a sense they may be the smart ones. But in defense of fathers--and that is why I take the floor at this time--we are not simply a drag on the family. Of course, it is a little late for me to be referring to myself as a father, except I am one. I am a father and past that stage now. I am a grandfather, and beyond that I am a great grandfather, great in the other sense, the true sense of the term. I am a ``great'' grandfather. We are not as fathers simply a drag on the family, good only for bringing in our share of the family net worth. Fathers add a different dimension to child-rearing that, historically at least, has proven its value. Fathers are often forced to be the ``bad cop'' to mother's ``good cop'' routine. Mother gets to be understanding and sympathetic, leaving the tough calls to dad, as in ``you'll have to ask your father,'' or ``just wait until your father comes home.'' It is dad who must say ``no.'' It is dad who leads the miscreant to the figurative woodshed. Fathers are often accused of being demanding, but they are no more demanding than one's future boss or coach will be. And it is dads who come to the rescue, dads who arrive with toolboxes at the scene of the automotive failure or at the scene of a plumbing crisis. Dads investigate the noises in the night. Some fathers are overbearing, some are obnoxious sideline coaches, to be sure, but many more dads are patient teachers of baseball pitches and football catches. Some dads teach other skills, too, such as carpentry or plumbing, or working on the family car. Tiger Woods thanks his dad for encouraging him to play golf. Countless 16-year-olds have learned to drive with their father in the passenger seat, calmly saying, ``no, not this one but the other right turn'' while inwardly suppressing the desire to grab the wheel to make the turn. It was the man who reared me, that old coal miner dad. He was the only father I ever knew, really, having been left without the tender love of a mother at the age of barely 1-year-old. The man who then took me to raise was my uncle by marriage. I did not know the difference until I was 16 years old. So to me he was dad, really dad. It was he who nurtured me in a love of art and music. He didn't buy me a cowboy suit or a cap buster. As a matter of fact, he wasn't able to buy me very much of anything, but he bought for me watercolors; he bought drawing tablets; he bought pencils; he bought books--good books. He could hardly read himself, but as a coal miner he knew the worth of an education. He didn't want me to be a coal miner. He wanted me to have a better life. So he bought me a fiddle, a violin. It was my old dad. He was the best dad I ever knew. He was the best dad, as far as I was concerned, in the world. I never heard him use God's name in vain, never, in all the years I knew him. I never heard him speak ill of his neighbor. I never saw him sit down at the table and grumble at the fare that was on the table. Not once, never. I never heard him speak ill to the good woman who raised me--his wife, my aunt. When he died, he didn't owe any man a penny. He was as honest as the day is long; Humble, hard working, one of the truly few great men, in my opinion, that I ever knew. It was that man who used to meet me on his walk home from the coal mines. In the evening I would look up the railroad tracks. We used to refer to directions as up or down--up the railroad tracks. They were really up because there was a little incline on the railroad track. So I always, late in the afternoons, looked up the railroad track as far as I could see to watch for him, the greatest man in my life. I watched for him. I could see him coming from a long way off. I can see him now: tall, black hair, red mustache, slender, carrying a watch in his pocket on a watch chain. I would run to meet him. I knew that he had saved a cake for me. And so running along the railroad tracks, three or four crossties at a time, each time I would be running fast to meet him. He would set down that dinner bucket, he would lift off the lid, and then he would reach down and bring out a cake that he had put into his lunch pail. Here he had worked all day long in the black bowels of the Earth and the black dust of the coal mine heavy labor, but he had not eaten the cake; he kept it for me. So he reached down into that pail, pulled out that cake, a real 5- cent cake back in those days, a 5-cent cake--usually two little cakes, perhaps with coconut icing, wrapped in a piece of wax paper, two little cakes for 5 cents. How do I know? Because mother sent me to the store to purchase the groceries. She would tell me: Bring home the cake. I knew that cake was going into his dinner pail, but I knew he would save it for me. So he would greet me with the tired hello of a man who had spent his day in the mines and he would give me the cake that he had saved from his lunch. His work was demanding and physically draining. He probably could have used those extra calories, and the extra energy from that cake, but he always saved the cake for me. He wanted better for me than he had had. He encouraged me in school. He demanded my best work. I know he would have helped me to go to college if he could have helped me. He certainly didn't want me to go to work in the mines. I never heard him complain about going there day after day and coming home tired with coal dust still in his eyebrows, perhaps in his eyelashes. Dads like mine teach important values. They teach their sons to respect their mothers. They teach their sons to read the Biblical admonition, honor thy father and thy mother. They teach their daughters to expect and to demand that kind of respect from men. They teach the value of work, and of giving one's best effort at whatever task is at hand. Like the Bible admonishes us: ``Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might. . . .'' They reinforce the importance of family, and of teamwork. They push their children to achieve more than they did, and show their pride in their children's accomplishments. Dads like mine may not be flashy, as mine was not. They may not be demonstrative. But they are the solid backbone of the family, a refuge in times of trouble. They are enduring, much more so than networks of friends. They are enduring, meaning lasting, ever always the pillar of strength and refuge, much more so than networks of friends. And, finally, fathers kill bugs, which alone is reason enough to keep us around, I think. So, women, please, I urge you to reconsider. Most men make pretty good fathers. They love their children and they add value to their children's lives. Come Sunday, this Sunday, they will be delighted with the loud ties and cheap cologne--maybe cheap cologne--that are their due on Father's Day. Madam President, I close with a bit of poetry that always brings to mind the kind man who raised me, who always set a fine example for me. I often think, if I were the man that he was, I could really feel good about myself. The bit of poetry is called, ``The Little Chap Who Follows Me.'' Most Senators, I am sure, have already heard it. A careful man I ought to be; A little fellow follows me; I do not dare to go astray For fear he'll go the self-same way. I cannot once escape his eyes; Whatever he sees me do he tries-- Like me, he says, he's going to be; The little chap who follows me. He thinks that I am good and fine, Believes in every word of mine; The base in me he must not see, The little chap who follows me. I must remember as I go, Through summer's sun and winter's snow, I'm preparing for that man to be, A little fellow follows me. Madam President, this former little chap salutes his old Dad, who is watching from the diamond towers and the golden streets of Heaven, and all the other fellows who rise to the challenge of setting a good example for the children who look up to them.