Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I appreciate that. I have discussed this with the sponsor, Mr. Helms, and two of his staff members.

Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 more minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the terminology which I read here includes this excerpt: . . . The Boy Scouts' or the youth group's oath of allegiance to God and country . . . Mr. President, as a former member of the Ku Klux Klan--and this is no secret to anybody; it has been known to the people of this country for at least 50 years, so I am not telling anything new. But there is no doubt that that organization purports to swear allegiance to God and country. I do not want to open this up to just any group--just any group that swears allegiance to God and country. That is why I raise the question. I think there must be a clarification of this. At least I am going to be on record by what I am saying here, that I am not, regardless of how I vote on this amendment--I hope this can be clarified, and I hope there can be some modification of the language. On the record, I am not supportive of letting just any ``youth group'' come under the canopy of the definition of that term.

Mr. BYRD. If I have time.

Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, I merely want to understand what the request is.

Mr. BYRD. Is there a request before the Senate?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I recognize that the issue of educating children with disabilities is complex. There are many factors to take into consideration as we try to determine the best possible policy to make sure that all children receive a quality education. I have no doubt that this amendment is intended to improve the educational opportunities for disabled students, but I have concerns that the amendment fails to provide protections to make sure that parents of children with disabilities are not pressured into removing their children from public schools. If a system of protections were included, I would likely support this amendment. Further, this bill is not the appropriate place to resolve this complicated issue. In view of the fact that this Congress will reauthorize the bill that guarantees an education to children with disabilities, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, I believe Congress should wait for that opportunity to make significant changes in policy concerning educating disabled children. That will allow us to fully debate these important issues, examine the alternatives, and come to a clearer understanding of how to best educate disabled children in this country. I am voting against this amendment today, but I look forward to revisiting this issue during the reauthorization of the IDEA.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. I prefer to use the Ku Klux Klan. We know what we are talking about there. If one wishes to look at the oath--I will say the oath of the Ku Klux Klan, and there are associate groups and affiliated groups. Women used to be in the Klan; maybe young people. I do not recall. When it comes to patriotism, to God, to country, the words of that organization are superlative in that respect. How closely the actions followed the words is something else. This language needs to be clarified. It needs to be modified. I do want to support the amendment. I am speaking only as a Senator from West Virginia. That is the way I see it. I hope there will be some modification of that language.

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

Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent to explain my vote. I ask unanimous consent for 3 minutes.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President: Hats off! Along the street there comes A blare of bugles, a ruffle of drums, A flash of color beneath the sky: Hats off! The flag is passing by! Blue and crimson and white it shines, Over the steel-tipped, ordered lines. Hats off! The colors before us fly; But more than the flag is passing by. Sea-fights and land-fights, grim and great, Fought to make and save the State: Weary marches and sinking ships; Cheers of victory on dying lips; Days of plenty and years of peace; March of a strong land's swift increase; Equal justice, right and law, Stately honor and reverend awe; Sign of a nation, great and strong To ward her people from foreign wrong; Pride and glory and honor, all Live in the colors to stand or fall. Hats off! Along the street there comes A blare of bugles, a ruffle of drums; And loyal hearts are beating high: Hats off! The flag is passing by! Mr. President, today is Flag Day. It is the birthday of our Stars and Stripes. It was on June 14, 1777, that the Second Continental Congress passed the resolution authorizing the creation of a flag to symbolize the new Nation, the United States of America. This is not a federal holiday, but to me it is one of the most important days of the year. Flag day is our nation's way of honoring, celebrating, and paying our respects to the very symbol of our nation. As the poem says: ``more than the flag is passing by.'' Henry Ward Beecher explained that ``a thoughtful mind when it sees our nation's flag, sees not the flag, but the nation itself.'' More than this, Old Glory represents the values and principles of our nation. It commemorates our nation's glorious past, and it offers hope for an even more glorious future. Born at the beginning of the American Revolution, the Stars and Stripes is a celebration of our independence and our freedom as well as our strength and our security. It was there, being raised and saluted during some of the proudest moments in our nation's history as in Iwo Jima in 1945 and on the Moon in 1969. And it has been there in every major conflict in American history as millions of young Americans have marched off to battle under the flag. It was at Fort McHenry during the War of 1812. It was there at Gettysburg, at San Juan Hill, and at Normandy. But more than soldiers have been inspired and guided by our Nation's colors. I can't begin to explain what a thrill it is for me to visit a school and see young children putting their chubby hands on their hearts and pledging allegiance to ``the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands.'' When I see such a sight, I feel confident for the future of our great land. Whatever our current troubles might be, I somehow know that everything will be all right. Our flag, as it has throughout our history, continues to transcend our differences, and affirm our common bond as a people and our solemn unity as a great Nation. The United States Senate now begins each morning by pledging allegiance to the flag. Speaking those few, but stirring, words, while looking at Old Glory, still inspires me and reminds me of how fortunate I am to be an American, to be a West Virginian, and to be a United States Senator. On Flag Day, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson noted: ``though silent it [our flag] speaks to us'' and indeed it does. It speaks to us of great events--of our liberty; of our history; of our future. It speaks to us of the freedom that is the basis, and the enduring promise, of our Republic. ``Hats off,'' Mr President, ``the colors before us fly; But more than the flag is passing by.'' I close by citing those memorable, moving lines from the second stanza of our national anthem: Tis the Star-Spangled Banner. O long may it wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, not long ago, I came across a letter from Thomas Jefferson to his nephew, Peter Carr, which discussed the elements of a good education. In his letter dated August 19, 1789, Jefferson advised his nephew to divide his studies into three main areas: Give the principal to History, the other two, which should be shorter, to Philosophy and Poetry. ``Begin [with] a course of ancient history,'' Jefferson wrote, ``First read Goldsmith's history of Greece. . . . Then take up ancient history in the detail, reading the following books, in the following order: Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophontis Anabasis, Arrian, Quintus Curtius, Diodorus Siculus, Justin.'' This, Jefferson wrote, would form his ``first stage of historical reading.'' Next, Jefferson wrote, he should read Roman history. I remind Senators, this is Thomas Jefferson speaking. He then recommended reading ``Greek and Latin poetry.'' He advised reading Virgil, Terence, Horace, Anacreon, Theocritus, Homer, Euripides, Sophocles, Milton's ``Paradise Lost,'' Shakespeare, Pope and Swift. Regarding the subject of morality, Jefferson advised, ``read Epictetus, Xenophontis Memorabilia, Plato's Socratic dialogues, Cicero's philosophies, Antoninus--I don't know whether he meant Pius Antoninus or Marcus Aurelius Antoninus; it could well have been both-- and ``Seneca.'' I was pleased to see what Jefferson found to constitute a quality education. Those of my colleagues who have heard me speak to any degree over the years are probably a bit amused by at least some of the readings suggested by Jefferson. I suppose, to some extent, it sounds like a list of books that might be in my own personal collection. But, lest anyone get the wrong impression, I do not consider myself to be on par with that master thinker, Thomas Jefferson. But I have these, and more. Although Jefferson did not have a degree as an educator, given his vast accomplishments, it seems foolhardy to argue with the merit of his advice to his nephew. As a contemporary wrote of the young Thomas Jefferson, he was ``a gentleman of 32 who could calculate an eclipse, survey an estate, tie an artery, plan an edifice, try a cause, break a horse, dance a minuet, and play the violin.'' May I also add, that he was the author of the Declaration of Independence and ``Notes on Virginia,'' the founder of the University of Virginia, an ambassador to France, a Secretary of State, a Vice President, and President of the United States. In his closing lines to his nephew, Jefferson said, ``I have nothing further to add for the present, but husband well your time, cherish your instructors, strive to make everybody your friend; and be assured that nothing will be so pleasing as your success.'' Do you hear what he said? ``Cherish your instructors, strive to make everybody your friend.'' These simple but fundamental guidelines are as appropriate today as they were when Jefferson wrote them. There is great wisdom in that letter. Wise council that I think we would do well to follow today. Jefferson obviously knew that a good education can make the difference in the life course of any individual. He knew the value of good teachers. I have spoken on this floor, many times before, about my early years as a student in a two-room schoolhouse. I imagine that to those much younger than I, the pictures I paint with my remarks about my school, my teachers, and what I think makes for a good, sound education must seem distant and archaic. Sadly my experiences are a world away from the usual classroom climate of today. Yet, I caution the skeptics to consider that there may be some advantages to accumulated years. I believe, for example, that our nation's experiences and experiments with education have taught at least one essential truth: the basic underpinnings of a solid education have been essentially the same throughout the history of civilized men and women. I readily concede that the environment in my old two-room schoolhouse was a good deal different from the environment of the overcrowded schools of today. But I believe that those things which made for a good education then, those things which contributed most to learning, are the same today as they were when I spent my weekdays in a tin-roofed wooden building, overheated by the pot-bellied stove, reading Muzzy's history, in the 1920's. In the school of my youth, we did not have computers, but we were plugged into our own imaginations. I had no television set. Parenthetically, I doubt that I am better off. I probably would have been much worse off by having a television set. But I had no television set with which to watch videos about distant, faraway lands, but I had the vision of my own mind's eye to see life beyond my own little corner of the world. Air conditioning? We opened the windows. Water fountains? We had waters from a nearby spring. I used to go out in the summertime and lie down in the old springhouse--lie down on my belly, let the damp, cool ground touch my breasts, put my face, as it were, into that spring, and drink that cool water that bubbled from the white sands of the spring. And in school, I was always hoping I would be one of the two boys who would be sent by the schoolteacher over the hill to the spring to bring back water in a bucket for all of the children in the room. We drank out of one dipper--all of us. We didn't think anything about sanitation so much in those days, although we did read ``Hygiene.'' That was one of the books we read in school. But I can remember in later years when my mom kept boarders in the coal camp, and we got our drinking water from a pump, one pump for every half dozen houses in a row of coal miners' homes. We would go out to the pump and bring up the water, pumping it up and down, and bring the water to the house. And the boarders, those coal miners who boarded at my mom's house, and I all drank from the same dipper. We didn't have hard drives, but we were driven hard, to work, to learn, to succeed. We had only two rooms in the little schoolhouses that I first attended, beginning in 1923, but those rooms were filled with students respectfully seeking to learn. We had dedicated teachers who expected the best from their students and they did not tolerate mediocrity nor did they tolerate bad behavior. There was a category on that report card that had a designation spelled D-E-P-O-R-T-M-E-N-T: Deportment. I always knew that in taking that grade card home to my coal miner dad, he would look it over carefully, and he would look at that designation: Deportment. It had better be good. In those modest two rooms, we were close to one another and we were close to our dear, dear teachers who loved us, who inspired us to learn, who inspired us to seek excellence. We sometimes had to share desks and rub elbows and actually touch--which meant that, whether we liked our classmates or not, we were forced to be civil to one another and to recognize our human bonds. Teachers got to know their students. And, my, how I swelled with pride when my teacher would pat me on the top of the head and say: Robert, you did a good job. You did well on your test. Teachers got to know their students, got to recognize their moods and individual needs. Teachers could see in the twinkle of their charges' eyes what motivated their charges, and they could hear in the collective groans of frustration what bewildered their charges. I had teachers who inspired me to learn. I wanted that pat on the head. I wanted that pat on the back. I wanted the other students to hear the teacher compliment me on having passed a hard test in spelling, doing a good job: 100 percent. Robert, you got 100 percent on your spelling test, and so on. And other boys and girls were likewise inspired. I had teachers who seemed to be truly fulfilling a calling. Teachers in my youth could give hugs, and did. Teachers in my youth could enforce the rules, and they did. Today, though crowded, distance seems to be the norm. Don't touch. Don't get too close. Don't get too involved. Don't spend too much time with one student. After school, students walk out of the schoolhouse door and into an apathetic culture where passers-by don't bother to say hello, where neighbors often don't bother to learn other neighbors' names. Young people are growing up in our society lacking respect for their elders, lacking respect for their peers, and lacking respect, all to often, even for themselves. And, in our world of two-parent working families and single mothers, it is harder than ever for parents to provide the discipline, the guidance, and the moral compass that our children so desperately need. Teachers are being led to feel that their place in a student's life ends at the last bell of the day. A well-meaning teacher, in our society today, can rarely take a real interest in a student's life beyond the schoolyard, without fear of being reprimanded by the school, without fear of being accused of some transgression, without fear even of being the subject of some lawsuit. There are plenty of well-meaning, talented, inspiring teachers in our schools today. But, they are up against a lot. Too often today, parents resent a teacher who disciplines their child. They put pressure on teachers to pass children who should fail, and they put pressure on principals to bestow honors on students who do not earn them. As a result, achievement is downgraded. Excellence is not encouraged. Expectations are lowered. In my youth, we were less sheltered from the responsibilities and the realities of life than are the children of today. I know that may seem hard to believe. But I think it is true. Particularly in the coal camps where I grew up, we saw, up close, the consequences of our actions. Chores left undone, meant hardships for the entire family. Death was always lingering around the entrance to the coal mines. Hunger was a regular visitor. Money was scarce and it had real value. We saw what it was to work hard for a day's wages, only to have those wages eaten up paying for the most basic of life's necessities. May I say to the youth of the country, and to the youth who sit in these Chambers on each side of the Presiding Officer's chair, my first job was in a gas station. They were not service stations in those days, they were gas stations. I remember the cold mornings of January and February 1935--my first job in a gas station. My pay? Fifty dollars a month. That is $600 a year. I walked 4 miles to work and 4 miles home, if I wasn't fortunate enough to be able to catch a ride on a milk truck or a bread truck. My parents demanded a lot of me. They did not accept excuses. I knew that if I got a whipping at school, another was waiting for me when I got home or as soon as my parents heard about the whipping at school. As much as my mom and dad may have wanted me to have a better life than they had known, they seemed to know that the path to a better life was also a rocky one. They didn't try to pave my way. They told me the truth. They taught me to cut through the brush, to work hard to push barriers out of my way, and to climb over the hurdles that circumstances erected. This is where I think we have failed, in many instances, our young people today. We shower them with material goods. We buy them a car to drive just around the corner to the schoolyard. We protect their egos like fine china. We encourage them to take the easy route. Books are dumbed down to make studies easier. Tests are abandoned or graded on a curve because too many students can't pass them. Our history books, so- called history books, are bland and inaccurate because we have changed the story, left out the heroes, and glossed over the ugly realities of our past. Make no mistake about it, this country has made its fair share of mistakes. We have had more than a helping or two of ugliness. But to pick up a history book today and read of the politically correct Shangri-La portrayed within, you would hardly know it. How can we possibly expect our children to learn from our mistakes if we hide the realities of our mistakes from them? Sugar-coated history cannot teach. My experiences have led me to conclude that for the sake of our children and for the future of our Nation we must insist upon a return to excellence. We need to teach the value of hard work. We ought not be afraid of it. I never knew anyone who died from hard work, except John Henry, the steel-driving man. We need to honor and reward real achievement. We need to temper reward with reality. We need to insist on civility. We could do a lot of that right here in this Chamber. We need to encourage understanding, not deny differences. We need less high tech and more high standards. Above all--we have heard it so many times, I will say it again because it is true--we need to get back to basics. We need to ensure that our children are provided a firm foundation in reading, in writing, in arithmetic, in science, in history. We need to ensure that our schools are places in which our students can learn. That is much of what we have been talking about for the last 8 weeks in this Chamber. That is much of what this legislation we passed today is about. We need to ensure that the schoolhouse is a place of study, of hard work, not revelry. We need more, not less, discipline. It is time for a return to the days when traditional values like respect, loyalty, honor, and integrity meant something. A lot of us could also learn these things anew. I truly believe that in our desire to find the cure to our educational problems, we have gone far afield. We have neglected perhaps the most important ingredient. High-tech gadgets, glossy textbooks filled with pictures but little narrative, costly frills, and bigger buildings are not the answer. The innate desire to learn that resides in the human spirit is the commodity that we are wasting. It is a precious commodity, indeed, and it will flow abundantly if given the attention, the direction, the encouragement that it needs to take firm root. Challenge is the component which we seem to fear: Let's don't have challenge; Let's don't have too much competition. Challenge a child to learn something difficult. Challenge a child to be the best in his class. I say that almost to every young person with whom I stop to talk: Be the best in your class; be the best. Make that child know that hard work pays off. Ask him for more, not less. Encourage him to find his unique talents. Then work with those youngsters who have a tougher time; don't lower the standards, lift the sights. Encourage our children to reach as high as they can. Don't tolerate less. Reward them, then, for achievement. Yet instead of challenging our children to do their best, I believe that all too often the focus of today's education system has become quite different. We have all been told that new theories and creative methods would bring new life to our failing public schools. We have put billions into almost every trendy remedy offered. We have tried everything from audio language labs to personal computers to team teaching to new math to teacher empowerment, and still we flounder. According to the testing, we still suffer from a pervasive inability to pass on the accumulated knowledge of civilization from one generation to the next. What is the problem? Well, the problems are legion. But the major problem, I suspect, is the systematic discarding of traditional scholarship as an agreed-upon goal. Instead many in the education establishment have opted for a strange form of psychological and social experiments in our schools and often with disastrous results that shortchange and even denigrate true academic achievement and excellence. The goals, the ideals, the practices, and curricula have been altered over the past three decades, usually without the clear awareness of parents. The result is inferior standards both for the teaching of students and for the training of teachers. The usual answer to such complaints is ``we need more money.'' Surely if we pour enough money into our education coffers, something of value will be produced. I used to firmly believe this golden rule of educational cause and effect. I am a little skeptical of it now. In 1959-60, we were spending, on average, $375 per student in our public elementary and secondary schools. That amounts to $2,065 per student adjusted for inflation. In 1997-98, we were spending $6,662 for every child, roughly three times the amount we spent in 1959-60. In inflation adjusted dollars, we are now spending three times more per child than in 1960, when in 1960 performance was generally higher than it is today. According to the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics, in the fall of 1959, there were a total of 35 million students enrolled in America's public elementary and secondary schools. In the fall of 1999, 40 years later, there were 46,800,000 students, an increase of 11 million students in 40 years. The pupil-to-teacher ratio in 1959-1960 was roughly 26 students for every teacher. In 1999, again, 40 years later, the student-to-teacher ratio had improved to roughly 16 students for every teacher. I am talking about full-time teachers. In other words, the data shows that there were fewer students for each teacher in 1999 than there were in 1959-1960. I remember in my high school graduation class, there were 28 students who ended up with diplomas. That was in 1934. We had 28 students in my class, not 90 or 100. But there was discipline. We paid attention. We had teachers who demanded that of us, teachers who could teach, teachers who loved us, teachers who were dedicated, and we learned from them. The growth of support personnel in the education area has mushroomed. Such things as reading specialists, guidance counselors, special ed teachers, clerical assistants, teacher's aides, have grown from 700,000 in 1960 to 2.5 million in 1999--almost a fourfold increase. And although America has one of the highest costs of education per student, it is not first in teacher salaries. What do our dollars buy? We had 2,826,146 teachers in our elementary and secondary schools in 1998, as opposed to 1,353,372 teachers in 1959-1960. So we have roughly doubled the number of teachers we had 40 years ago. But we had 93,058 guidance counselors in 1998 compared to 14,643 in 1959-1960, or more than 5 times the number of guidance counselors. We have poured money--and I have voted for it--we have poured money into title I funding. Yet we skimp on funding for the gifted and the talented. I got in on the ground floor when it comes to Federal education programs and funding for education. I was in the House of Representatives when there was a great debate as to whether or not we should spend Federal moneys on Federal programs for education. I have no problem with helping truly disadvantaged children gain good skills, but I fear that the definition of ``disadvantaged'' has been broadened to cover a variety of learning problems, and a good solid education is becoming less of a priority than identifying children for counseling or special help so that more title I funds will flow. Our children's failure to learn is not, I suspect, the fault of poverty always. In some of the most poverty-stricken families I have seen in my lifetime, many of the best students were nurtured. So our children's failure to learn is not, I suspect, the fault of poverty always, or of being emotionally damaged by their environment, as much as it is due, in many instances, to faddism, political correctness, and a general failure to teach with tried and true methods. I may be a bit vain--we are all vain--but I believe I could teach students. I don't know anything about the modern methods of teaching. I don't care about that. As far as I am concerned, I could teach those children. I am not a teacher, nor is every Senator in this body. A few Senators here have been schoolteachers. But I think most, if not all, of the Senators on both sides of the aisle could be good teachers-- certainly in some subjects. I am not saying I would be a good teacher in chemistry or physics. But put me in a classroom with children, give me a good text book, and I could teach history, reading, spelling, and so on. So perhaps we spend too much time on methodology. I speak as a layman today, but I have some perception of what is going on in this country and some opinion as to what ought to be done. One of my perceptions is that many teachers would have to spend a great deal of time on methodology, the newest method of teaching this or that subject. Just give me Muzzy's American History, and I am vain enough to think that I could teach. What I am saying is we probably expect too much of our teachers in many ways--teaching this new method and that new method--but not enough of substance, which has been here from the beginning. H2O was H2O when Adam and Eve were in the garden, you see. CO2 was CO2 way back yonder. So H2O hasn't changed since Adam and Eve were driven from the garden. It is still plain old water, drinking water; it tastes the same. It has not changed, much like human nature. That hasn't changed from the beginning, since Cane slew Abel. Men and women are still slaying one another. So, in my view, we need to take an entirely new look at the way we fund education, at the way we train teachers, and at the curricula and the methods used on our children. Our public school system has become top heavy with a whole host of people who are not directly involved with getting our kids to learn. We have more teachers, but fewer of them have degrees in the subjects they teach, and fewer of them see teaching as a lifelong career. We are turning our kids loose on the job market with too few tools and little or no appreciation for what a good education means for their futures. Children who fail to achieve a college education will lose some $20,000 a year in income as adults. The former CEO of Xerox, David Kearns, estimates that poor schooling costs businesses some $50 billion a year in remedial work. We are failing our kids and we are failing our kids in the most fundamental responsibility that we have to them--the responsibility to provide them with a good education. Children need to know what is expected of them. Then they need to be given the tools with which to achieve their goals. They need to be told that it is a tough old world out there--a tough old world--and that the competition is global--not just in Sophia, my hometown of 1,160 souls. The competition is global. There will be no dumbing down of standards out there in that world. There will be no grade inflation out there in the real world. There will be no social promotion out there in the real world of global competition. It is going to be rough. The consequences for a poor education will be lifelong, and the consequences will be harsh. And that is another thing that we should be teaching our children, namely, that there are consequences for one's actions and inactions. I do not view this bill through rose colored glasses as the definitive cure to what ails our educational system, but I think that bill that passed a little earlier today is at least a departure from the status quo. That legislation looks at education from new angles, and offers the chance--the chance--to get a better handle on the challenge before us. The public school choice provisions offer some degree of hope, though limited, to parents who are fighting failing schools and trying desperately to give their children a solid education. These are the most important people in the world: their children. These are the parents' most priceless possession: their children. No wonder people are searching for some other way. No wonder. They want their children to have the best. They want their children to have good teachers. Furthermore, this legislation we passed today puts our public schools on notice that they must improve. So we are saying to the public school system, we are saying to the administrators in that system, we are saying to the principals and the teachers in that system, we are saying to the teachers union they must improve. The bill also creates consequences if schools do not improve. So the time of reckoning is at hand. The legislation requires annual testing to track our children's progress in the areas of mathematics, science, reading, and history. Moreover, the legislation insists upon a national gauge to more accurately measure public schools and to help compare what works and what does not work. This bill also places an emphasis on teacher quality. When will we come to know in this country that no pricetag can be placed upon teacher quality? No pricetag. An emphasis is put on recruiting qualified teachers. When are we going to learn that a qualified, dedicated, conscientious teacher is worth far more than the finest athlete in this country, far more than the most clever, sharpest, most attractive network anchor man or woman? The teacher is worth far more-- the teacher. The teacher holds in his or her hands that most priceless resource possessed by this Nation. That teacher molds that child, its outlook, its attitude. I took a piece of plastic clay And idly fashioned it one day, And as my fingers pressed it still It moved and yielded to my will. I came again when days were past, The bit of clay was hard at last. The form I gave it, it still bore, And I could change that form no more. I took a piece of living clay And gently formed it day by day, And molded with my power and art A young child's soft and yielding heart. I came again when years were gone, He was a man I looked upon. He still that early impress wore, And I could change him nevermore. That is the teacher. The responsibilities placed on a good teacher are heavy in today's world certainly. How can we expect as a nation to continue to be a world leader with a population that is ignorant of the worth of a good teacher, a population that is ignorant of the basics in math, science, and history? I understand that in some States history is not a required course in the curricula of public schools. What a shame. What a mistake. Cicero said: To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child. I am not talking about social studies. Social studies are all right in their place. I am talking about history. It has been considerably garbled these days. We try to change the facts of history, but the facts are there, and they ought to be taught. We ought to be plain about it, upfront about it, and try to profit by our mistakes. Provisions that I supported in this bill are aimed at addressing the lack of qualified math and science teachers in this Nation. At this point, I should also say that whatever dollar figure emerges from the House-Senate conference on this bill will place a burden on the appropriators to fund, given the tight budget constraints under which we will be laboring and the behemoth tax cuts which siphoned off many of the dollars which could have been used to pay for this bill, but if the President signs the bill that emanates from the conference, then I will assume--and I think I will have a right to assume--that the Appropriations Committee will have the help of the White House and the help on both sides of the aisle to provide the money to fund the bill. I hope some of the new approaches contained in the bill will foster increased excellence among our Nation's schools, but I believe we are going to need further reform. While I can agree with the ``leave no child behind'' slogan which has characterized the President's education initiative and much of the debate on this legislation, I hope we also will endeavor to slow no child down if that child has extraordinary abilities. And the child does not have to come out of an affluent home to have extraordinary abilities. I fear that sometimes in our approach to education we concentrate so much on bringing the slower students up to speed that we fail the child who can and should race ahead. And while testing for achievement is a good idea, it will mean little if the focus is on manipulating scores in order to make parents feel good or in order to capture more education dollars from the Federal Government for the school. I don't believe in bumper sticker politics. I don't believe in bumper sticker education policy. It is time to look afresh at why we are failing our kids, regardless of whose flaws that fresh look may reveal. More money won't help if it is not properly used. More teachers won't help much if they are not properly trained. Our society has changed. There are more single-parent families and more families where both parents work today. Simple changes such as a 9-to-5 schoolday might do more to address some of the problems in our schools than all the counselors and afterschool programs we can fund. Look at the other industrial countries of this world. They don't make life quite so easy as we like to do here in this country, apparently. We spend gobs of money, train loads of money--and I have voted for it for more than 50 years, 49 years to be exact--yet today we are not turning out the quality of students with quality education that many of our industrial competitors are turning out. They go to school longer in those countries and so the work is harder. School uniforms might make students focus more on their heads and less on their bodies. The longer schoolday might do more to address some of the problems in our schools than all of the counselor and afterschool programs we can find. Better textbooks that utilize the tried and true methods of teaching could certainly go a long way toward shoring up basic skills. It might not be a bad idea to bring back the old McGuffy readers. An emphasis on classic literature and poetry could provide our youngsters with a glimpse of beauty and a sense of the spiritual side of human nature so absent in our empty, vulgar, popular culture. Clearly, there is much more to do in education than can be done in one single piece of legislation. We cannot afford to lose another generation of children to fads. James A. Garfield, a President of the United States, who was assassinated, said: Give me my old teacher, Mark Hopkins, on one end of the log and me, myself, on the other end, and there will be a university. So, it is the teacher, the child, and the attitude that count. We cannot afford to deafen our ears to all views except those in the education establishment. We must strive again for excellence in learning and to return to proven methods, no matter whose toes it may step on. The public is outraged. The survival of the public school system is at stake, not to mention the future of our children and our Nation. I think the education establishment--meaning the administrators, the principals, the teachers, the teachers unions, and all--had better read the handwriting on the wall. A good public school system is what this Nation needs. It is what we want. That is what we have been spending millions of dollars for. But it is time to wake up, time for an accounting, time to understand that all things are not well in this public school system. And if we don't shape up--you talk about vouchers, talk about private schools--you better be watching the handwriting on the wall. Some years ago I traveled down to the old Biblical city of Babylon by the side of the Euphrates River and I visited a place where it was said that Belshazzar feasted with 1,000 of his lords. And as he feasted, blind and dying, there appeared on the wall near the candlestick, a hand. That hand wrote on the wall. And Belshazzar summoned all of his magicians and his wise men and asked them to interpret the handwriting that appeared on the wall. It seems to me the handwriting said: mene, mene, tekel, upharsin. I hope that is right. It has been a while since I read it: Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin. And the queen said, this young man who can interpret that writing, his name is Daniel. And so the king who was trembling, his knees were shaking, summoned Daniel. Daniel was asked to interpret the writing. And he interpreted the writing to mean: God, thou art weighed in the balances and art found wanting. God hath numbered thy kingdom and finished it. That night, Belshazzar was slain and his kingdom was taken over by the Medes and Persians. So we should see the handwriting on the wall. We better learn that the public school system needs to shape up. We spend billions on it. Parents need to back up their teachers and participate in the PTAs, and we should pay teachers, good teachers, salaries that are commensurate with their worth. No football player was ever equal to the worth of a good teacher. No television anchorperson was ever worth more than a good teacher. That may sound like an extremist talking, but there is something to what I am saying. You better believe it. And I might say this, too. There is no politician who is ever worth more than a good teacher. When American students do so poorly in international mathematics assessments that they score 19th out of 21 nations, the handwriting should be on the wall. It is clear that it is not vouchers that threaten our public schools. It is the inadequate education that our public schools offer and parental frustration that threaten to undermine confidence in public education. And it is high time that we realize that. There are many public schools that are great schools. There are a lot of good schools in this country, and a lot of good teachers. But we need to lift the level of all the boats. According to the U.S. Department of Education, nearly 1 million children have been pulled out of public schools and are being educated at home by their parents. That number is sure to grow. Yes, parents are concerned by the violence that is occurring in the schools, concerned by the falling grades of their children, concerned by the lack of discipline in the public schools, concerned that for the money spent we are turning out worse students, generally speaking, than it used to be when we were spending far less money. It is up to us who do believe in public schooling to see what is happening and to do whatever it takes to restore confidence in public education. We owe that to our kids. We owe that to their parents. And we owe it to the country we all claim to love.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have been interested in the debate surrounding the teaching of evolution in our schools. I think that Senator Santorum's amendment will lead to a more thoughtful treatment of this topic in the classroom. It is important that students be exposed not only to the theory of evolution, but also to the context in which it is viewed by many in our society. I think, too often, we limit the best of our educators by directing them to avoid controversy and to try to remain politically correct. If students cannot learn to debate different viewpoints and to explore a range of theories in the classroom, what hope have we for civil discourse beyond the schoolhouse doors? Scientists today have numerous theories about our world and its beginnings. I, personally, have been greatly impressed by the many scientists who have probed and dissected scientific theory and concluded that some Divine force had to have played a role in the birth of our magnificent universe. These ideas align with my way of thinking. But I understand that they might not align with someone else's. That is the very point of this amendment--to support an airing of varying opinions, ideas, concepts, and theories. if education is truly a vehicle to broaden horizons and enhance thinking, varying viewpoints should be welcome as part of the school experience.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, while I support many of the provisions in this bill, and I support increased Federal aid for education, I think this amendment is premature. I did not vote for the previous amendment upon which the Senate just acted. At this time, appropriators have no idea what the conference report on this bill will resemble. We have no idea what the final dollar amount for this bill will be. We may not know that final amount for several weeks. It would be misleading to commit to any particular dollar figure before we see where the conference report on this bill shows us to be. To do otherwise is to ask the Appropriations Committee to buy a pig in a poke. I will not support this amendment. I did not support the previous amendment. To jump in now and to commit to an unknown funding level, I think, as an appropriator, is irresponsible. As an appropriator, I cannot do that. I will not do that. And if this continues, we will see more and more of these amendments that try to put the Senate on record and committing the Appropriations Committee to bind itself to a money figure before we really know all the facts. Resources are scarce this year and we will have to stretch and strain to meet this Nation's needs. Premature commitments will only make the difficult job of appropriating more difficult. To use an old West Virginia expression: I'll roll up my britches when I get to the creek. We will do the best we can when we have more information.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order. I hope the Chair will use that gavel vigorously. It will not crack. It only cracked once in the history of the Senate.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak out of order for not to exceed 30 minutes.

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, seeing the current Presiding Officer, the very distinguished senior Senator from Illinois, in the chair reminds me of the days when I first came to this Chamber. At that time, representing the great State of Illinois was the inimitable Everett Dirksen, with his unruly, one might say unkempt--at least in appearance--hair, his florid and flowery oratory, his mellifluous voice, a master at painting word pictures: Everett Dirksen. I can see him standing there. He was the minority leader. And then on this side of the aisle, in the next row behind me and across the aisle, sat the other Senator from the State of Illinois, Paul Douglas: Learned, also a great orator, very impressive--the two Senators from Illinois. Illinois is continuing in that tradition of Dirksen and Douglas. It sends to the Senate the Senator who presently presides, Richard Durbin, formerly a Member of the House of Representatives, who served there with distinction on the Appropriations Committee, who comes to the Senate Chamber very well equipped, indeed, well equipped by experience, well equipped by heredity, a factor never to be overlooked, a factor which in some ways lays out the destiny of each of us ahead of our years, who also is a very fine speaker, one who does his homework, who likes service to the people. Then there is Senator Fitzgerald. I believe he is the youngest Senator in today's Chamber, who came to the U.S. Senate, I believe, as a former member of the Senate of the State of Illinois. I hope I am correct. If I am not, I hope the Presiding Officer will indicate by nod that I am in error. In any event, I express appreciation to the Senator who presently presides for his patience in awaiting my tardy arrival. I sat in the chair earlier today as the President pro tempore of the Senate, having been elected to that honor by my colleagues, first of all, on this side of the aisle, and then all of my colleagues through a Senate resolution. Senators are not to speak from the chair. If compliments are to be directed to the Chair or criticism is to be directed to the Chair, the Chair is not supposed to respond. The Chair is only to respond when called upon by way of a parliamentary inquiry or, if necessary, to make a ruling on a point of order. And, of course, it is his or her responsibility to maintain order in the chair. The Chair has the responsibility to maintain, or to restore if necessary, order in the galleries, or in the Senate Chamber, without being called upon by a Senator from the floor. It is the Chair's responsibility to maintain order in the Senate, and the Chair should not await a call by a Senator from the floor for order and decorum; the Chair has that responsibility. As I sat there earlier today--we, of course, can't call attention to visitors in the galleries. But there are visitors in the galleries. And as I sat in the chair earlier today watching the visitors in the galleries, I reflected. It is a good time to reflect when one is in the chair and nothing is going on on the floor at a given moment and when no Senator is speaking. It is an excellent time for reflection. As I reflected on the silent audience that sits every day in these galleries--I reflected upon the fact that there in those galleries sit the people--our auditors--the people who send us here, the people who pay us our salaries. Silently they sit viewing the Senate, pondering what is said by Senators, watching over our shoulders. They are always there. Sometimes we may be prone to forget that the people are watching, but they are watching. There in the galleries rests the sovereignty of all that is the Government of this Republic.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I seek recognition for only a brief statement. I thank the distinguished Senator from Florida for his observations today. He comes to the Senate as one who is different from the rest of us--different in that his experiences include that of being a former astronaut. My name is Byrd, B-Y-R-D. I don't have the wings of a bird. But I have the imagination that can fly uninhibited through the unlimited bounds of space. As the Senator from Florida spoke, I found myself traveling with him and looking out of the windows of his spacecraft in wonder at what has happened to planet Earth, the planet that we call home. I thank him for taking the floor today to tell us about his thoughts and about his experiences in that regard. I think he has opened up a new window of understanding--certainly, to me. I thank him. I look forward to hearing from Senator Nelson on future occasions and to working with him as we attempt to attack this growing problem. It is one which is going to be costly. It is going to take money. We are severely limited at this time. But I welcome his remarks and always in association with my own. Mr. President, I send to the desk the bill and ask for its referral.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this past weekend I noted an article in the Washington Post that led with these lines: Administration officials preparing an alternative to the 1997 global warming agreement that President Bush disavowed in March are focusing on voluntary measures for reducing greenhouse gas emissions--an approach unacceptable to most U.S. allies in Europe and Japan. Mr. President, last month, I came to this floor to urge the Bush administration not to abandon the progress of the multiyear international negotiations on global climate change. In particular, I urged this administration not to endanger many of the gains that the United States has made in recent years as it has tried to forge a workable, responsible international climate change agreement. So I welcome the subsequent announcement by administration officials that they intend to participate in talks on the Kyoto Protocol scheduled to take place in Bonn, Germany, in July. But an insistence on the part of the United States strictly on voluntary measures would certainly place in jeopardy such gains and would, I believe, undermine the credibility of our Nation at the bargaining table in the future. I cannot agree with a strategy that abandons consideration of binding commitments in favor of voluntary efforts alone. I stand here as the chief author of Senate Resolution 98 in 1997, the measure that many on both sides of the debate paint as a fatal blow to ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. I beg to differ with that depiction. S. Res. 98, in 1997, was the voice of the Senate, the vox populi, the voice of the people through their elected Representatives, providing guidance to the previous administration--the administration at that time--as its negotiators labored to hammer out a climate change proposal among various international players. That resolution, which passed by a vote of 95-0, simply stated that any international treaty on climate change must include binding commitments by the developing nations, especially the largest emitters, and also that it must not result in serious harm to the U.S. economy. It also called upon the administration to inform the legislative branch, which under the Constitution of the United States is required to approve the ratification of treaties, as to the estimated costs of commitments by the United States. We want to know what these will cost. And to date, that information has not been forthcoming. That is what we were saying. Tell us what it will cost. Don't sign it; don't sign that protocol until the major emitters among the developing nations of the world have also signed on and have come into the boat with us. They need to sign on with respect to restricting the emissions of greenhouse gases. It must not be the United States alone; it must not be the United States and the developed nations, the industrial nations, alone. We all have a responsibility. So we said we want the developing nations to get into the same boat with us because they are going to be impacted by the pollution that is emitted into the air, into the atmosphere, because it circles the globe. We are not saying they have to sign up for precisely the same limits we place on ourselves, or to that same degree, but they do need to sign on and get into this boat. Also, we want to know what it is going to cost and what kind of an impact it is going to have on U.S. industries. We don't want our industries to go overseas as a result of an unwise signing of the protocol that would require us to continue to strongly limit ourselves in ways that would encourage manufacturers in this country to go abroad and to establish themselves in the developing countries. Let's all get into the same boat together. There must be a level field insofar as our industries are concerned. Let's don't drive American industries overseas. It is a little like smoking a cigar in a room. I used to smoke cigars. I smoked for 35 years. I gave up the habit. I said, ``I am quitting.'' The point is that, even though I might have been the only person in the room holding a lighted cigar in my hand, everybody else in the room was inhaling the fragrance of that cigar. And it is the same way with greenhouse gases. They do circle the globe. Everybody breathes the same air, not only the emitters, but also those who are not the emitters. Had the Senate merely sat on its hands in that instance and allowed an untenable treaty to be submitted for approval, it would have been rejected. That would have been the fatal blow. The effect of that Senate resolution was not to kill the negotiations--that was not my desire to kill the negotiations--but to help shape them, to strengthen the hand of our negotiators as they tried to reach an agreement that would be acceptable to the American people. No treaty of such magnitude stands any real chance of success in this Nation without the backing of the American people. Our friends in foreign nations surely understand that. There are also some who do not believe the proliferation of scientific reports that have been produced in recent years concerning climate change. But the body of evidence tells us that something is occurring in our atmosphere at a proportion that is changing our climate and that the human hand has played a role in affecting that change. ``I have lived a long time'', as Benjamin Franklin said when he stood before the Constitutional Convention, ``and the longer I live, the more convincing proof I see that God still governs in the affairs of men.'' And so the longer I live, I see that also. One of the ``affairs of men'' that I see changing is the atmosphere, the circumstances in which we live every day and every night. As one who has lived more than 83\1/2\ years, I have seen some changes taking place out there in the cosmos and around the globe. I cannot explain those changes. I am not a scientist. But I know that the changes are taking place. The storms are more violent. The storms are more frequent today than they were when I was a lad walking the hills of Wolf Creek in Mercer County, West Virginia. The floods are more frequent. The droughts are more severe, with far more costly results and more often. The forest fires are more frequent, more costly. The winters have changed. No longer do I experience the snows that I experienced as a boy in southern West Virginia in the mountains and hills. There is still a great deal of snow there, but not like it was 50 years ago, 60 years ago, 70 years ago. The rains are not as they were. There is something going on out there. The ice masses at the two poles to the north and to the south are diminishing. They are melting. As they melt, conditions change around the globe. The waters of the seas grow higher. There is something going on out there--I know, and I am concerned about it. We can waste valuable time debating and quibbling over measurements, methodology, findings, and conclusions, or we can accept the simple reality that is right before our eyes--we feel it, we see it, we hear it, we read about it, we appropriate more moneys because of it--the reality that global warming is occurring. Today, Mr. President, I am introducing the Climate Change Strategy and Technology Innovation Act of 2001. Senator Ted Stevens, the senior Senator from Alaska, a State that is almost halfway across the globe from where we stand today, has agreed to join me in this effort. This legislation calls for a comprehensive strategy underpinned by credible science and economics that will guide U.S. efforts to address the multifaceted problem of global climate change. This legislation also establishes a major research and development effort intended to develop the bold breakthrough technologies that our country will need to address the challenge of climate change. This legislation is intended to supplement, rather than replace, other complementary proposals to deal with climate change in the near term on both a national and international level. I also note that this bill is technology neutral. This is not a bill to carve out special benefits for coal or oil or gas or, for that matter, for nuclear, renewables, or any other energy resource or technology. This legislation provides the framework for addressing the climate challenge, reaffirms the ultimate goal of stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and leaves the technology decisions to energy experts and the marketplace. An understanding as to why this legislation is necessary must begin with an understanding of the fundamental causes of global climate change. It is virtually indisputable that atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, CO2, are rising and that mankind is contributing to this rise. CO2 has never changed. Like H2O, it never changes. H2O, two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen constitute water. Water was the same in the beginning when Adam and Eve strolled the paths of that Earthly paradise. Water was H2O, and carbon dioxide was the same, CO2. Neither has changed. There are some things that do not change. That is the reason why I say history repeats itself. Human nature does not change. Cain slew Abel in the heat of a sudden rage, and men are still slaying one another. These rising concentrations drive global climate change, and they are growing as a result of increasing emissions of greenhouse gases. I don't believe I need a scientist to tell me something is going on there. Disturbingly, most greenhouse gases have a very long life span in the atmosphere, ranging from decades to hundreds of years. This means that what is emitted today is added to what was emitted in the 20th century. For example, much of the CO2, much of the carbon dioxide, emitted during the Second World War is still with us today, and, with each passing year, the concentration is projected to grow to ever-higher levels. So, even if it were possible to stop emitting greenhouse gases today, that would amount to a very small chip in an iceberg of a problem. It is also important to note that as the concentrations of CO2 grow, the economic impact of the problem significantly increases. This is an extremely important point, because if we wait until every last bit of uncertainty is resolved, it may well be too late to prevent adverse consequences to the climate system, and it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to take cost-effective action. Conversely, taking action can be costly. Fossil fuels, such as coal, which emit carbon dioxide are the heart of our economic engine. Thus, as our economy grows, we use more fossil fuels. The President came into West Virginia in the election and advocated spending $2 billion, I believe, on clean coal technology. You are looking at the daddy of clean coal technology. I started that in 1985 with the authorization of $750 million. So I welcome the President's support of clean coal technology. But there is another side to that coin. I said to the President, I hear they may provide for the costs of additional clean coal technology research by taking it out of fossil fuel research. Please don't do that. That would be robbing Peter to pay Paul. Yet, that is exactly what happened. The President's budget provides that some of the moneys in fossil fuels research--which means coal, oil, and gas--will be redirected. ``Redirected'' is the word--that is the key word--redirected to clean coal technology. We are going to change that, however, and put those moneys back into fossil fuel research. As our economy grows, we use more fossil fuel. Stopping those emissions, even just limiting those emissions, can have the effect of putting the breaks on a purring economy. And that is not just true of the United States, but of other nations as well, particularly in developing nations where economic growth is steep. In order to solve the problem, we must develop new and cleaner technologies to burn fossil fuels as well as new methods to capture and sequester greenhouse gases, and we must develop renewable technology that is practical and cost-effective. Such an effort will require visionary leadership. Where there is no vision, the people perish. We need, therefore, to muster the strength and the political courage to tackle the climate change challenge in innovative ways. So the legislation I offer today, cosponsored by my friend, the erstwhile chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, calls for the creation of a national strategy to define how we can meet these objectives, and it organizes national research efforts and authorizes funding to accomplish these goals. Moreover, the legislation would establish a regime of responsibility and accountability in the Federal sector for the development of a national climate change response strategy. The strategy includes four key elements that collectively represent a new paradigm to deal with climate change. The first element defines a range of emission mitigation targets and implementation dates to achieve stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level and at a rate that would prevent dangerous interference with the climate system. The strategy would also evaluate how each of the range of targets could achieve reductions in an economically and environmentally sound manner. The second element calls for substantially increased private- and public-sector investment in bold, innovative energy technologies. The third element calls for greater research to understand how we may have already altered the climate and how we can adapt to these changes in the future. It would help us understand, for example, how the changing climate may be affecting farming, in Illinois, farming in Florida, farming on the verdant hills of West Virginia--where there might be flooding or drought and how we could best address it. The fourth element in the paradigm calls for continuing research on the science of climate change to resolve the remaining uncertainties. To carry out this strategy, this legislation provides for the creation of an administrative structure within the Federal government to accomplish these elements. It creates an office in the White House to coordinate and implement the strategy, and a new office in the Department of Energy that will work on long-term research and development of a type that is not pursued in more conventional research and development programs. The DOE office will focus on breakthrough technological solutions and work in cooperation with existing basic science and applied technology programs to bring an increased focus to the climate change problem. To ensure that these goals are achieved, this bill creates an independent review board that will report to the Congress. Finally, the bill authorizes appropriations for these goals. This is the greatest nation in the world, the greatest nation the world has ever seen. It is the greatest nation when it comes to putting our talents to the task of advancing revolutionary change. I am confident that the United States possesses the talent, the wisdom, the drive, and the courage to lead a global solution to the climate change challenge that we in Congress and those in the executive branch can rise to meet this challenge. It will task our courage, it will task our energy, it will task our determination, our foresight, and certainly our vision. We not only have the opportunity here, but we also have the responsibility to act now on behalf of those who live today, but even more important, on behalf of those of the unborn who are not even yet knocking at the gates. We hold their future in our hands, and we should understand that. We cannot wait until my children or my grandchildren are standing in these Chambers, standing in the offices of power in Washington or elsewhere. The responsibility is right in our hands now and the future is right in our faces. I am sure these are matters that will be of some controversy, but we must pause to think of those of our forefathers who responded to the needs of the hour when it was their time to act on behalf of their generation and their children. The responsibility is heavy, but it must be met. I take this opportunity to thank Senator Stevens for his support, for his cosponsorship, and for the very great strength which he will add to the effort. It will be a continuing effort. It is going to take a long time. It is a big, big problem, but we can't avoid it because of its bigness. We have to meet it. Mr. President, I will welcome, as well as Mr. Stevens, any cosponsors who wish to add their names to this legislation. I yield the floor.