Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I again thank both of the Senators.

Mr. BYRD. I thank my friend, Mr. Jeffords, for his recollections of teachers. I remember a Miss McCone who taught history. And she asked me a question one day. I said: Huh? And I kept on studying. I was paying attention to my reading, and Miss McCone had not said another word. Next thing I knew, she had walked around the room and she came up behind me and gave me a resounding slap on the cheek and said: Robert, don't you ever say ``huh'' to me again. I never said ``huh'' to Miss McCone again.

Mr. BYRD

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this Sunday is Mother's Day. In an annual tribute as old as the holiday itself, all across America, families will demonstrate just how essential mothers are to the smooth functioning of our families. How will they do this? They will serve mother breakfast in bed. Youngsters will rise early and attempt to sneak past their sleeping mother to reach the kitchen undetected. And despite the keenness of a mother's hearing--just ask any teenager who has been caught coming in too late how keen it is--a mother's soft heart will keep her breathing even and her eyes gently shut as this stealth attack on her kitchen is made. Toast will be burnt, eggs--well, they will be runny, coffee may be the consistency of tar, and the flowers freshly plucked from the prized beds outside the window may be presented in a juice glass because no one knows in what dark cupboard mother hides her nice vases. Why are these mealtime disasters met by smiles and nods of recognition? Simply because mothers do their many jobs so well. Day after day, week after week, month after month, the meals get cooked, the dishes done, the laundry folded, the house cleaned up, in a never- ending routine performed by loving, busy, efficient hands--mother's hands. Despite all the changes in American families, it is still the mother, whether or not she also works outside the home, who does most of the household chores. So, when other family members, particularly the younger ones, attempt to take over mom's role for even one meal, their inexperience shows, highlighting in its comedy mom's effortless mastery of her crowded schedule. Children who do not attempt to serve mother breakfast in bed may instead make reservations for brunch. That's another Mother's Day tradition. And on this day, long distance telephone circuits will be busier than usual. Florists, too, will be working overtime to deliver flowers, just as the postman will have carried more flowery cards and calorie-laden packages of sweets than bills in the leather bag slung over his shoulder. Mothers deserve far more recognition and far more applause than can be delivered on just one day. Even women who are not mothers in the traditional sense exercise their inborn mothering skills all around us--the co-worker whose desk serves as the office pharmacy for headaches, colds, and just plain sympathy--these coworkers are mothers. The neighbor who picks up the mail and newspapers when we are out of town, and who we know is watching over our house while we are away, these are mothers, really. The woman who feeds stray animals and birds--those women are mothers. Without them, we could not function and society would fray and tear just a bit more. Even in a world of automated teller machines and on-line banking, one still needs to know how to multiply and divide in one's head to be sure that the bank has not made a mistake in one's account. One still needs to be able to think, to analyze, to cogitate, to compute. It does not all need to be done in some glitzy new way in order to be effective. There is still a place for the tried and true, even for rote memorization. After all, what child does not learn the alphabet by memorizing the alphabet song? Of course, that simple tune was likely not taught by a teacher in a school but by a mother, perhaps in a nursery, using the same melody line as ``Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star.'' All parents are teachers, by deed as well as by example. When a mother and child bake cookies together, that mother effortlessly includes lessons in mathematics, chemistry, and reading, in addition to teaching order and discipline. And what sweeter way to take those lessons than by reading and following a spotted and time-worn family recipe, measuring out a half of a teaspoon of salt or a tablespoon and a half of vanilla, adding ingredients in the proper order and mixing long enough but not too long, then dropping even rows of dough on a baking sheet and waiting for the edges to crisp and turn brown. Taken separately, flour and egg, spices and chocolate, do not look especially mouth-watering, perhaps. But is there anything more sublime than warm chocolate chip cookies still tender from the oven, washed down with a glass of icy cold milk? ``Ah, how sweet it is,'' and Jackie Gleason used to say. Not when you are 10 years old, I suspect. Perhaps not ever. Those are the lessons, and the memories, that mothers give us every day. We learn life's essential lessons at our mother's side. They may not be life's greatest lessons, yet they may be. They may not be earth shattering new inventions may result, no cosmos-clarifying theorem be inspired--but they are essential nonetheless. When mothers read stories at night, and when they wash grimy hands and smeared faces, when they nag children to pick up their toys and put away the clean laundry, when they scold children for not sharing with a playmate or for perhaps hitting a playmate, they teach more than reading, more than cleanliness, more than tidiness, more than manners: they teach love. They teach respect for themselves, for oneself, and for others. These are lessons that last a lifetime. They are ingrained. They are what we teach our children. They are how we live our lives. Mothers--they are what make society work. Even as adults, in times of trouble, we may seek solace in a prayer learned in the dim bedrooms of an earlier time, when our mother's voice led us in ``Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to keep.'' For all that mothers have to do each day, for all the lessons they teach, setting aside one day each year to honor them is but a small down payment on the debt of love and gratitude that we owe. My own angel mother, having died when I was just a year old, left no memories for me. But to her, that angel mother whose prayers have followed me in all the days of my years, and to the kind woman, my aunt, who took me to raise as her own, I say on this day: Thank you. Thank you. I know--I know that they hear. They are in heaven today. And to my wife Erma, to whom I shall be married 64 years, 3 weeks from this past Tuesday, she has mothered me, too, my wife Erma, and she has continued my raising since I met her in the schoolyard long ago. To my wife Erma, who raised my two precious daughters to be the strong and resourceful women and mothers that they are, I say a heartfelt, ``Thank you!'' I have been in good hands, and I am grateful on this Mother's Day and every day. And to all the mothers in America who work so hard each day to keep our lives orderly and well fed, and who remind and nag and scold and coach and encourage and hug and mold their children into happy, loving, responsible people, I say on behalf of all mothers, ``Thank you!'' ``Thank you'', mothers. Mr. President, I would like to close with a poem that I learned a long time ago, and which illustrates nicely that combination of education that mothers provide, both practical and spiritual. I want to dedicate it to our pages today, these fine young people. They are all juniors in high school. They will be calling their mothers, I will bet. It is called ``A Pinch of This, A Pinch of That.'' Have you ever heard that said, ``a pinch of this, a pinch of that''? When Mother used to mix the dough, Or make a batter long ago; When I was only table high, I used to like just standing by And watching her, for all the while, She'd sing a little, maybe smile, And talk to me and tell me--What? Well, things I never have forgot. I'd ask her how to make a cake. ``Well, first,'' she'd say, ``Some sugar take Some butter and an egg or two, Some flour and milk, you always do, And then put in, to make it good--'' This part I never understood And often use to wonder at-- ``A pinch of this, a pinch of that.'' And then, she'd say, ``my little son, When you grow up, when childhood's done, And mother may be far away, Then just remember what I say, For life's a whole lot like a cake; Yes, life's a thing you have to make-- Much like a cake, or pie, or bread; You'll find it so,'' my Mother said. I did not understand her then, But how her words come back again; Before my eyes my life appears A life of laughter and of tears, For both the bitter and the sweet Have made this life of mine complete-- The things I have, the things I miss, A pinch of that, a pinch of this. And, now I think I know the way To make a life as she would say: ``Put in the wealth to serve your needs, But don't leave out the lovely deeds; Put in great things you mean to do, And don't leave out the good and true. Put in, whatever you are at, A pinch of this, a pinch of that.'' Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator and manager of this conference report, and I thank the distinguished Senator from Michigan.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the order was entered permitting me to speak out of order for not to exceed 15 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Is my understanding correct that by my speaking out of order the time is not charged against either side on the pending measure? That was what I had hoped.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate has just undergone an abrupt change in an office well known to all of us here in the Senate, but hardly visible, until lately, outside of the Senate--the office of the Senate Parliamentarian. I wish to make some comments on this matter. But first I would like to commend the outgoing Parliamentarian, Robert Dove, for his years of devoted service and to congratulate Alan Frumin on his assumption of the duties of the office. In my view, there are important institutional considerations that must guide the selection of any individual who aspires to become the Parliamentarian of the Senate. A long career in non-partisan service in the Senate offers the obvious benefit of experience, and fosters a detailed comprehension of the Senate's institutional role. An understanding of the Senate's unique constitutional role can best be developed by actually working on the floor of the Senate, and by close observation of Senate debate. A prospective parliamentarian should have little or no history of active partisan politics but instead should demonstrate an interest in the whole Senate as an institution. An individual with such a background can best represent the Senate's prerogatives in its dealings with the other departments of Government and with the other body, the House of Representatives. To date, each person who has served as Senate Parliamentarian has devoted a career to non-partisan service to the Senate. Every person who has become Senate Parliamentarian has served at least a decade as an assistant Senate parliamentarian before rising to the position of Senate Parliamentarian. Each person who has become Parliamentarian was promoted to that role from the status of most senior assistant parliamentarian. The five individuals who have been Senate Parliamentarian--and I have known them all--served an average of 12 years in the Secretary's Office before becoming Parliamentarian, with none less than 10 years. Each Parliamentarian served as an apprentice to his predecessor and progressed in sequence through the ranks following his predecessor. The first Parliamentarian, Charles Watkins, served in the office of the Secretary of the Senate as the Journal Clerk for 13 years before becoming Senate Parliamentarian. The second Parliamentarian, Dr. Floyd Riddick, who only recently passed from this life, served in the office of the Secretary of the Senate for 17 years, 13 as assistant parliamentarian, before becoming Senate Parliamentarian. The third Parliamentarian, Murray Zweben, who I believe only recently was deceased, served in the Parliamentarian's office for 16 years, 13 as assistant parliamentarian, before becoming Parliamentarian. The fourth Parliamentarian, Bob Dove, served as an assistant parliamentarian for 14\1/2\ years before becoming Parliamentarian. The fifth Parliamentarian, Alan Frumin, served as an assistant parliamentarian for 10 years and had a total of almost 13 years of non- partisan Congressional service before becoming Parliamentarian. Mr. President, trust is the basis of all fruitful human relationships. Loss of trust has poisoned many a well Kings have fallen, presidents have fallen, and Senators have fallen because the people lost their trust. Treaties have been abrogated because trust was compromised. Especially in a body like the Senate, where one's word is one's currency, trust makes the wheels turn. Trust and comity, I would say, are the twin pillars upon which this body really rests. The Parliamentarian is the keeper of the rules. He guards the precedents. He keeps the game fair. His advice about complicated procedural matters must be above suspicion. Both sides must view him as having no personal agenda--no goal but the goal of the best interests of the institution; no calling but the calling of doing his utmost to see that the Senate remains true to its constitutional mandate. He must be trusted by both sides. Such an individual must be steeped in the Senate's history and traditions. He or she must understand intuitively not only the rules and precedents but also the underlying principles which they seek to protect and the pitfalls they seek to avoid. His must be a calling and a commitment. His must be a labor of love. It is heavy, heavy lifting--not a job for a faint heart or a faint intellect. Benjamin Disraeli once observed that, ``Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.'' The Senate is the one institution in that constellation of institutional stars that comprise the universe of a Representative democracy which is designed to protect the rights of the minority. The right of unlimited debate and the right to amend are prima facie evidence of the Senate's raison d'etre. Unlike the House of Representatives, unlike the Judiciary, the Senate alone guarantees that the minority will be heard, and will have the opportunity to alter the course of events. In the Senate, when we speak of the minority of the membership, we also speak of the minority of the States. The Parliamentarian and his rulings are key to guarding those rights and preventing the Senate from losing its purpose. Remember, majorities change, and it is in the interests of both political parties to have an independent, experienced keeper of the Senate's historical and constitutional mandate. There must never, ever be a majority or a minority parliamentarian. As difficult as it may be in such times as these, we must all work together to strive to avoid the crass politicization of that critical office. Such an event, were it ever to occur, would be a nail in the coffin of the United States Senate. We must not travel down that road, no matter how tempting such a path may be. Expediency must never become the watchword of the Parliamentarian. I have given most of my life to this institution of the Senate. To me this is hallowed ground. This Chamber is a sanctuary. To me the protection of the liberty of the people rests squarely on these old floors. I speak not as a member of any political party today. I speak only, as I hope I am, as a faithful steward of this grand and glorious institution. I hope that we all can come together in a spirit of true bipartisanship to reject any tendency to use the office of Parliamentarian as a tool for partisan advantage. To guard against such a possibility, I urge that any decision to remove or replace a Parliamentarian be the joint decision of both Leaders. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, my friend.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Sixteen and a half minutes on a 10-minute rollcall. We are doing better. Amendment No. 375, As Modified

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 3 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I support what the distinguished Senator is trying to accomplish. I think it is about time we let the States know they are going to have to do better; that they are going to have to measure up. I cannot, however, coming from a poor State, summarily cut this off. When I use the word ``summarily,'' I realize we have had 35, 36 years in which to accomplish these things. But I do think they ought to be warned ahead of time.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, at some future time, I may support what this amendment is trying to accomplish. I think that we should have more accountability by the states. I also believe that we may need to reevaluate how Title I funds are used in the states. That being said, I do not think that this amendment is the proper way to tie funding to achievement. I represent a low-income state where Title I funds make up $76.5 million of the money spent on education. By threatening to freeze funding until the schools improve, I fear we may be taking away the very tools necessary to achieve the improvement that we all seek both in our schools and our students. I like what the Senator is saying, but I am going to vote against his amendment at this time. Basically, I have not heard enough of this debate. And this is one thing that is wrong. Let me underline that. This is one thing that is wrong with the stacking of the amendments. I have already stated my opposition to the stacking of the amendments. Sometimes there is justification for stacking votes, and sometimes I will not object to it. But in the future, I am going to object more than I have in the past. It is demeaning to the Senator who offers the amendment. It is demeaning to the amendment itself to be limited to 2 minutes before we vote on it. And it is demeaning to the Senate. When it comes to stacking votes so as to allow Senators to be away on a Monday or be away on Fridays, I am going to be hard to get along with in that regard. I hope that what I am saying will let every Senator know that in the future I will frequently object to the stacking of votes. This is a bad way to legislate. This particular amendment ought to have more debate than it is getting. It may have had some debate--I don't know--on Friday. I am not sure. I had to take my wife on Friday to a pulmonary expert. I couldn't be here. But other Senators weren't here either. It is demeaning to come out here and offer an amendment on Friday with a shirttailful of Senators present, maybe two, maybe three, and few press people.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I will have to vote against the Senator's amendment today, but I compliment him for trying to do something. Let's do it later.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how many minutes were required for that rollcall?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I want the Senate to know that I voted twice on the previous vote. I was standing here by Mr. Kennedy when I raised my hand, which I usually do. I was not behind my desk, as I usually am. I am not complaining about anything. I am not criticizing anybody. I just want the Senate to know that I voted. Normally, I do not hold up the Senate. I thank the Senate. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. BYRD. May we have order.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may I have the attention of the Senators.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, a unanimous consent request is before the Senate to limit each of the next two votes to 10 minutes each.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, with all due respect to the Senator who propounds this request, every Senator knows nobody is going to pay any attention whatsoever to that request if it is granted--nobody. I have seen this happen too many times. I would love to see some 10-minute rollcall votes here, but it is a joke. It is a joke to agree to 10- minute votes, and then forget about them, and go on and have 20 minutes, or 25 minutes, or 37 minutes, as was the case in the previous vote. Now, I am not going to object in this case. Perhaps it will work this time. I hope it will. But I am going to pay close attention. I remove my reservation.