Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. About how long will the Senator speak, so I know when to return.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have serious concerns about certain trade policy issues that the Bush administration inherited from its predecessor, but which remain unresolved. I refer to the steel crisis, the failure to formulate a coherent trade policy with respect to China, and the failure to recognize that ``fast-track'' trade negotiating authority represents both an unwarranted diminution of the Constitutional authority of Congress and an invitation to our trade partners to accelerate their attack on the framework of fair trade. As I have long maintained, U.S. trade policy cannot be complacent as America's manufacturing plants are moved to low-wage countries, a phenomenon that makes it increasingly difficult for American employers to stay competitive and, at the same time, pay good wages and provide good benefits to their workers. While American workers do benefit from lower prices for imported products, too many have been made worse off, on balance, by globalization. As the columnist Michael Kelly recently pointed out, ``What the unionists know is that globalization ultimately depends on driving manufacturing jobs out of the country in which they live.'' Indeed, in many historically high-wage and efficient industries, the inevitable result of complacent trade policy is bankruptcy. The inevitable result of complacent trade policy is bankruptcy. A case in point is the U.S. steel industry. The steel crisis--which is the direct result of an unprecedented surge in imports, particularly dumped and subsidized imports--began in late 1997 and continues to this day. The surge in imports has already led 18 American steel companies--18 companies--to declare bankruptcy. Hear them at the other end of the avenue. Over the past year alone, an estimated 5,000 U.S. steelworkers have lost their jobs. A great sage once said, ``Reflect upon three things and you will not come to sin: Know from where you came, and to where you are going, and before whom you are destined to give an accounting.'' Let's reflect again on those three things: Know from where you came, and to where you are going, and before whom you are destined to give an accounting. So, let me bring this issue a little closer to home, my home, that is. In 1996, Weirton Steel Corporation, of Weirton, West Virginia, in the very tip of the northern panhandle the eighth largest integrated steel producer in the United States, employed 5,375 of the most skilled workers and managers in the world, using the most up-to-date production technology. That was down from a few years ago. What is it today? Today, in 2001, Weirton employs only 4,111 workers and managers, a loss of over 25 percent from 1996. Weirton just reported that its first quarter sales this year were down 24 percent from last year and that it lost $75.3 million in the first quarter. Continuation of the status quo in the steel market will not mean continuation of the status quo for Weirton Steel, for it cannot stay in business over an extended period of time in the face of such losses. Now, by Ohio Valley steel industry standards, Weirton is the lucky one even with such losses. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., the ninth largest U.S. integrated steel producer, was forced last year to declare a Chapter 11 bankruptcy in order to avoid being picked apart by its creditors. I hope that it will soon emerge from bankruptcy with the help of a federally guaranteed loan. I could talk about the need for a section 201 investigation of ``serious injury'' to the American steel industry. Such an investigation is necessary, and it is necessary now--the administration should not tie its decision on a 201 investigation to any other trade policy initiative. But, I will save that discussion for another day. Rather, I wish to point out that the administration is sending a damaging signal on its approach to the steel crisis by proposing to rescind $10 million from the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program. Because the demands on that program will--in all likelihood--continue to increase, the proposed reduction in funding represents an unacceptable risk of harm to an industry that is vital both to our national defense and the way of life of communities across this Nation. The emergency guarantee program was made necessary because of the reaction of the financial community to the onset of the steel crisis. With no assurance that the injurious surge in steel imports would abate in the near future, financial institutions were--for the most part-- unwilling to restructure steel producers' debts. Thus, Congress acted to provide incentives for private-sector loans to the steel industry. The new program was signed into law on August 17, 1999, and was designed to give qualified U.S. steel producers access to a $1 billion revolving guaranteed loan fund. I say, parenthetically, that I was the author of that legislation. Now is simply the wrong time to be considering rescissions from the emergency guarantee program. There are many steel companies in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and several of them will undoubtedly request these federally guaranteed loans as a key element in their restructuring programs. The steel crisis takes us right into the issue of our trade policy toward China. Whatever else one might say about China, it is, without question, an economic behemoth. Our trade deficit with China in 2000 was nearly $84 billion. In that same year, imports from China totaled $100.1 billion, accounting for eight percent of total U.S. imports, making China the fourth largest exporter to the United States. Moreover, in February 2001, we imported 97 million tons of finished steel products from China, almost as much as the 100 million tons we imported from Japan! Even the quickest perusal of Commerce Department and International Trade Commission records demonstrates that China is engaged in dumping steel products in the United States. China has recently been found to be dumping steel wire rope, as well as--in preliminary determinations-- hot-rolled steel and steel concrete reinforcing bars. What I am trying to tell the Senate, and the administration--if the administration will listen, if the administration will hear--is that China may not intend to play the trade game by the traditional rules. Indeed, as we have seen in recent weeks, China does not play the international relations game by acceptable norms. The Weekly Standard opined at the height of the reconnaissance plane crisis that: The United States must respond in ways that directly affect China's interests. . . . The Chinese believe, with good reason, that the American business community has a hammerlock on American policy toward China. . . . Let us resolve to demonstrate that we can respond effectively to any Chinese attempt to push the envelope--not by indulging in angry overreaction, but by doing whatever is reasonable and practicable and according to the dictates of common sense, to restore Congressional authority to review China's trade status on an annual basis. The concept of ``Permanent Normal Trade Relations'' is premised on the assumption of normality in a bilateral relationship, and our bilateral relationship with China is anything but normal. This brings me, now, to the issue of ``fast-track.'' The President wants fast track. The administration wants fast track. The administration says it needs this deviation from the traditional prerogatives of Congress in order to negotiate multilateral trade agreements. Let me be clear: I am not in favor of attaching myriad amendments to trade agreements negotiated by the President. I am not for having the Congress hang up on every import of every toothbrush or violin string or piece of cloth. There may be, however, a few very important items--a few--that Congress will need to consider in detail before proceeding to a final vote on a multilateral trade agreement. Under the Constitution, which I hold in my hand, Congress has this responsibility. We ought to read it. Again, I say I am not for looking at every comma, semicolon, colon, hyphen--every little jot and tittle about trade agreements. Who wants to engage themselves in debate over minuscule matters that may appear in a trade agreement? But there are some very important items, limited to three or four or five huge questions. We have questions we need to debate. We have issues we need to debate in connection with these trade matters, and we should debate them. Congress has a responsibility to debate them before Congress considers a final vote on a multilateral trade agreement. We have a responsibility to do that. Fast track? Not for me. Let's not be in all that big a hurry. We don't need to be in such a hurry. What it means is shut Congress out of the debate. Just vote up or down. The people's representatives, the elected representatives of the people in this country--here, in this body, in this Chamber--shut them out. What we want is fast track, says the administration. I say no. No fast track. Let the people speak, through their elected representatives, to trade agreements. I don't mind limiting it to very few, a handful, a half dozen questions or issues to be voted on. It is important that the Senate debate these matters. Here is an example. A key objective of many of our trading partners in any multilateral negotiation is to weaken U.S. antidumping, countervailing duty, and safeguard laws. As a matter of fact, I read the other day that several of the Free Trade Area of the Americas countries are proposing elaborate changes to our antidumping and countervailing duty laws. Does anyone seriously believe that their objective is anything less than to gut the effectiveness of those laws? Now, why should we not debate that? Why should we not be able to offer an amendment or amendments? Does anyone seriously believe that their objective is anything less than to gut the effectiveness of those laws? Does anyone seriously believe that, in any full negotiating round, our hemispheric trading partners will not work in concert with Japan, Korea, and the European Union to eviscerate the framework of fair trade as we know it? Some of the FTAA countries undoubtedly also have in mind that our trade laws be interpreted and applied by multilateral tribunals--in other words, the chapter 19 model. Under Chapter 19 of NAFTA, persons who, in many instances, are not even trained in U.S. law, and who have a strong personal or professional interest in weakening our trade laws, are called to interpret and apply them. The result should have been predictable: enforcement of those laws has been compromised. Senators don't have to believe me. Just read retired U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Malcolm Wilkey's dissent in the Canadian softwood lumber extraordinary challenge determination! Judge Wilkey contrasts the promises that were made to Congress in connection with Chapter 19--particularly that it would lead to no change in U.S. law--with the frequent refusal of foreign panelists to apply basic concepts of American administrative law such as the standard of review. He also raises serious questions about whether Chapter 19 ignores conflicts of interest on the part of panelists that would be disqualifying under our rules of ethics. My conclusion from all of this is simple. If ``trade negotiating authority,'' to use the administration's term for fast-track, means that Congress agrees to surrender its responsibility to thoroughly evaluate--and refine, if necessary--those provisions of proposed international agreements that might necessitate changes to our trade laws and regulations, I want nothing of it. In considering these three issues--the steel crisis, trade with China, and fast-track--I am motivated by a deep and abiding concern for the hardworking men and women of my country, America. They have been hammered by deindustrialization and disinvestment. Both the public sector and the private sector are to blame for these trends, as well as politicians, which have been long in the making. But there is one thing we can say with certainty: the trade liberalization model that has been relied upon by recent administrations--Democratic and Republican--does not help. It limits the ability of the United States to use import restrictions to ensure fair trade in our markets while giving foreign countries such as China virtually a free hand in excluding selected U.S. exports from their markets. What is fair about that? What is free about that? That isn't free trade. In light of the current situation in many of our basic industries, this imbalance can no longer be tolerated. We must remember from whence we came. I happen to go back to the hills and the hollows and the Mountain State of West Virginia, which was born during the Civil War, to renew my love, to renew my recollection, and to reinvigorate my understanding of what the people deserve and what the people want. We must remember from whence we came and before whom we are destined to give an accounting. So remember from whence we came, remember where we are going, and remember before whom we must give an accounting. We must stand up for the working men and women of America, the people who have not forgotten God's edict that he delivered when he drove Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, to earn thy bread by the sweat of thy brow. Those are the people we must remember. We must stand up for them and stand against any initiative that would undermine the framework of ``fair trade.'' We must not allow anyone in the name of ``free trade'' or anyone in the name of ``fast track'' to destroy the way of life of communities across the Nation. No, Mr. President, we don't need fast track. We need to live by this Constitution which I hold in my hand. We swear an oath in this Senate to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Let's watch the enemies in our midst. They may be us. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for as long as is necessary, and it will not be all that long, but long enough.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, earlier this week, Vice President Cheney gave us a brief glimpse of the administration's soon-to-be-released energy plan that suggests that we need to take action to avert an impending energy crisis. He suggested that the plan will push for increasing fuel supplies from domestic sources. Still, the Vice President did not explain how domestic climate change programs will be reflected in the energy plan, nor did he discuss press reports that the administration is developing a plan to deal with the international aspects of climate change. I would like to focus on the latter, and discuss recent decisions by the administration regarding the international negotiations. Climate change cannot be discussed in complete isolation from the soon-to-be released energy plan, since the issue of climate change must be addressed both domestically and internationally. I wish to note, at the outset, that I applaud the administration's support for clean coal technologies and the administration's recognition that coal is one of our country's most important sources of energy. I recognize and strongly support this policy by the executive branch. A bill I have introduced this session, S. 60, the National Electricity and Environmental Technology Act, addresses the challenges faced by coal, and I would welcome the administration's active support to utilize coal in a cleaner, more efficient way. I also believe, however, that it would be a mistake to focus too heavily just on increasing fuel supplies from domestic sources. If that is where the administration is headed, it is not on exactly the right path. In order to solve the challenge of climate change, we must develop new domestic sources such as coal, using clean coal technologies, while also engaging in bold initiatives to develop new technologies in the area of energy conservation, energy efficiency, and renewable energy. I am concerned, based upon preliminary reports, that the administration's plan may not reflect such a balanced and farsighted perspective. Let me begin by noting the obvious--the primary, manmade cause of global warming is the burning of the very fossil fuels that power virtually the entire world. Here is part of the power just above us as we look up to the ceiling of the Senate Chamber and see these lights. What is required, then, is the equivalent of an industrial revolution. 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. Rarely has mankind been confronted with such a challenge--a challenge to improve how we power our economy. This is the greatest nation in the world when the issue is one of applying our engineering talents to push beyond the next incremental improvement, and, instead, visualize and then achieve major leaps forward. We can do this, if only we apply ourselves. The scale and the scope of the problem are enormous, as is the leadership that will be required by the current administration, and, for that matter, the next dozen administrations, if we are to confront and overcome this awesome challenge in our children's time and in our grandchildren's lifetime. But this takes visionary leadership. It would take extraordinary leadership. We need more than just small, incremental increases in our domestic oil supplies or in our existing research and development programs. This is an approach which only pays lip service to the challenge that we face. It is a huge challenge. I hope that the administration's plan will take a broader view. We must also recognize that the European Union, China, and other developing nations are quick to point the finger at us, at the world's largest contributor to global warming. We must demonstrate our resolve, and begin to get our own house in order by launching such a research and development effort, as well as continuing and expanding our current efforts to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. However, it should also be noted that China will soon surpass us as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. The Chinese Government must stop blocking all forward movement on the question of developing country participation. The developing world is poorly served by the current level of Chinese intransigence. The poorest nations in the developing world--which will be those that are hardest hit by global warming during this century--must demand leadership from within their own ranks, and especially from China. The Chinese leadership must join us in honestly discussing solutions to the problem of climate change. The United States can develop and provide the technological breakthroughs that can be deployed by all nations, as we move forward together to solve this common, global problem. However, I want to emphatically warn that new technologies and voluntary approaches will not by themselves solve this problem. We must also actively negotiate and ratify international agreements that include binding commitments for all of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, if we are to have any hope of solving one of the world's--one of humanity's--greatest challenges. This concern takes me back to the Senate's actions just 4 years ago. During the Senate floor debate over Senate Resolution 98 in July 1997, I expressed two fundamental beliefs that have guided my approach on the issue of climate change. First, while some scientific uncertainties remain, I believe that there is significant, mounting evidence that mankind is altering the world's climate. Second, the voluntary approach of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, commonly known as the Rio Convention, has failed, as almost all of the nations of the world, including the United States, have been unable to meet their obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels. With those points in mind, we must ask what needs to be done in a binding fashion to begin to address this global issue--the preeminent environmental challenge of our time. On July 25, 1997, the Senate passed, by a vote of 95-0, S. Res. 98 which stated that, first, developing nations, especially the largest emitters, must agree to binding emission reduction commitments at the same time as industrialized nations and, second, any international climate change agreement must not result in serious harm to the U.S. economy. That resolution served as guidance to U.S. negotiators as they prepared to hammer out the details of the Kyoto Protocol. Senator Hagel and I were the prime cosponsors of that resolution. The adoption of that resolution was perhaps, a dose of reality-- laying out, in advance of the completion of the Kyoto negotiations or the anticipated submission of a climate change treaty to the Senate, just what an administration--any administration--would need to win the Senate's advice and consent. Contrary to statements made by some in this administration, the Senate has never voted on the Kyoto Protocol, although the protocol, in its current form, does not meet the requirements of S. Res. 98. Since that vote in July 1997, international climate change negotiations have covered a wide range of topics in an attempt to craft a balanced treaty. While there have been some important gains and there have been some unfortunate setbacks from the U.S. perspective, I am concerned that, in the Bush administration's zeal to reject Kyoto for its failure to comply with S. Res. 98, the baby is being thrown out with the bath water through a complete abandonment of the negotiating process. Such an abandonment would be very costly to U.S. leadership and credibility and could force the international community to go back to ``square one'' on certain critical issues such as carbon sequestration and market-based mechanisms--areas which I believe are critical to any future binding climate change treaty. Still, an examination even of Kyoto's drawbacks can provide the basis for forward movement by the Bush administration. Let me say that again. An examination, even of Kyoto's drawbacks, can provide the basis for forward movement by the Bush administration. For example, U.S. negotiators should go back to the negotiating table with proposals that could be achieved internationally. In my opinion, an effective and binding international agreement must include several elements. First, the initial binding emission reduction targets and caps should be economically and environmentally achievable. Such an international agreement should specify increments by which the initial reduction could be racheted downward and made more stringent over time. This architecture could provide a realistic and obtainable target, and it would give U.S. industry more time to prepare to meet such requirements. Additionally, the inclusion of incremental reductions would encourage the development of a range of cleaner, more efficient technologies to meet the long-term goal, namely, the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Most important, these steps would give the United States a clearer path toward the goal of dealing seriously with a serious and growing problem. Recently, we have heard talk by the Bush administration to the effect that the United States should promote voluntary initiatives to meet our international treaty commitments. Well, that sounds good, but it will not work. I note that, in 1993, the former administration undertook an extensive assessment to formulate the U.S. Climate Change Action Plan, which subsequently developed a wide range of voluntary programs and technology strategies to help the United States reduce domestic emissions to 1990 levels. While these remain laudable and important programs, they have not put us on a path toward significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, rather than accomplishing that goal, by the late 1990s, U.S. emissions were at least 11 percent above those 1990 levels. Clearly then, the next global climate change treaty will have to include binding emission limits by industrialized nations, as well as developing nations, specifically the biggest emitters in the developing world. I am talking about China, India, Mexico, Brazil, and others. Additionally, as I explained at the time we were debating S. Res. 98, the initial commitment by developing countries could be modest, with the agreement specifying a more rigorous approach to growth and emissions over time. Recent press reports indicate that China, the big emitter, exceeding the emissions of the United States very soon, has already made progress in reducing the growth of its greenhouse gas emissions. That is good news. That is encouraging. A future binding climate change agreement could recognize these efforts and provide market-based mechanisms by which China could obtain technological assistance to expand upon its efforts over time. An international treaty with binding commitments can and should provide for the continued growth of the world's developing nations. The economic growth of Mexico or China, for example, need not be choked off by unrealistically stringent, inflexible emission reduction targets. The initial commitment could be relatively modest, pacing upwards depending upon various factors, with a specific goal to be achieved within a fixed time period. If properly designed, a binding international treaty can accommodate economic growth and environmental improvement in the developing world. This approach provides the means by which China and other key developing nations can grow in a more efficient, environmentally sound manner while also making commitments to reduce their fair share of this global climate change burden. Using this approach, the Bush administration has a historic opportunity to shape, rather than cripple, the international climate change debate by negotiating an agreement that includes all of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases on a global basis. It is a huge task no doubt, but it is a huge problem, and it confronts the world, not just he occidental but also the oriental--not just the West but also the East. Such an agreement must also include market mechanisms that are unencumbered by layers of bureaucracy; strong provisions for domestic and international sinks, sequestration, and projects that prevent deforestation; and tough enforcement and compliance requirements. But any such agreement must also be met by an honest effort on America's domestic front. I am, therefore, very concerned that the President's overall budget does not adequately provide the level of funding necessary to support programs and policies that would address U.S. energy and climate change challenges. So I urge the Bush Administration to include all relevant policy aspects in the energy needs assessment currently under review and to examine the total costs--both economic and environmental--in any national energy strategy. I hope the President will work with Congress on these critical issues to develop a constructive, long-term negotiating path for the future. America leads the world in so many important areas-- addressing our global climate change challenges should be front and center.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank both Senators. I hope we can adopt this amendment today. I would be willing to do it on a voice vote if the Senators find it possible. While I am on my feet, let me say, with the utmost sincerity and gratitude, that the words of my friend, Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts, are words I shall always recall as long as I live. These words coming from him, and also the words of the Senator from Vermont, are most gratifying. Senator Kennedy has led in the fight for better legislation and for more appropriations for the education of our young people. He has been doing this for a long time. When I was majority leader of the Senate several years ago, Senator Kennedy was one of those committee chairmen. He was almost unique, I would say, but there were one or two others: Scoop Jackson, who was a Senator, and when he came to the floor as chairman of the committee, he had done his homework; he was well prepared. He and Senator Kennedy were two I can think quickly of as being Senators who turned out legislation which later became the law of the land. I can remember those days when I would compliment Senator Kennedy on the work he was doing, and I, from time to time, commented that the legislation he brought from his committee usually became a statute. I can't remember today any Senator who exceeded or who equals the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, in developing language for statutes; I can't think of any Senator who exceeds or even equals Senator Kennedy in that respect. It might surprise some people around here to know that in the time I have served, I have yet to find a statute which bears the name of Webster; I have yet to find a statute which is the Clay law; I have yet to find a statute that was authored by John C. Calhoun. Some people judge Senators by the number of laws that bear the Senators' names. That is not the proper standard. When I think of the three greatest Senators of all time, I think of Webster, Calhoun, and Clay because they were great Senators for many reasons. But I find that they were not great Senators because of statutes or laws that bear their name. But I can find many statutes that became such because of Senator Kennedy's leadership. And in no area of legislation should one be more proud than that of being a leader in promoting and developing and managing legislation that becomes law. There is nothing better than doing this in the field of education. Those are the best resources for our children. I am going to accede to Senator Kennedy's request, if I can, and try to develop a few words that will respond to his magnificent accolades. I certainly salute him as my leader in the field of education. I thank him for what he said today. I thank him for his service. I thank both Senators for their acceptance of this amendment. I hope we can pass it in the Senate today by a voice vote.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the warm springtime weather brings to mind the words of Shakespeare: From you have I been absent in the spring, When proud-pied April, dress'd in all his trim, Hath put a spirit of youth in everything. But, unfortunately, all is not well with many of our youth. While most of them are shedding their winter coats and playing in the warm sunshine, a shocking number are engaging in some very dangerous behavior, dangerous both to themselves and others. I am speaking of alcohol abuse. When I say ``dangerous behavior,'' I am talking about alcohol abuse. According to a study by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, get this: The extent of alcohol consumption by children ages 9 to 15 is startling, and preventing it must become a national priority. Consider these facts. Three million children ages 14 through 17 are regular drinkers. Twenty-four percent of eighth graders have used alcohol in the last 30 days. Let me read that again. Three million children ages 14 through 17 are regular drinkers. Where are the parents? They aren't around. Twenty-four percent of eighth graders have used alcohol in the last 30 days. More than 100,000 12- to 13-year-olds binge drink every month. More than 100,000 youngsters 12 to 13 years old binge drink every month. Ninth graders who drink are almost twice as likely to attempt suicide than those who do not drink. Moreover, 40 percent of children who begin drinking before the age of 15 will become alcoholics at some point in their lives. Let me say that again. Forty percent of children who begin drinking before the age of 18 will become alcoholics at some point in their lives. America has taken elaborate measures to combat the scourge of drugs. We have financed police and military attacks on the drug problem. But the most favored drug for Americans is alcohol. That is the most favored drug--alcohol. The most commonly abused drug is widely available, and it is cowardly promoted--alcohol. Walk into any liquor store, show your ID card--sometimes you don't even have to do that, I am told--and buy your poison. It is for sale. On television, for those who watch it--I do very little of it. I watch television very seldomly. I watch it when public television has on a truly good informative movie, such as ``Napoleon,'' or ``The Ten Commandants.'' I believe I saw ``The Ten Commandments.'' I know I saw it. But I believe it was on one of those very good programs on some other network, or a station other than public television. Of course, I don't ask everyone to do what I do or to follow me as an example. I am just saying that as far as television is concerned, I select very carefully the programs that I watch on television. But on television, sports heroes debate whether a particular type of beer tastes great or less filling. On television, sports heroes debate whether a particular type of beer tastes great or is less filling. These commercials send a not-so-subtle message to our young people that drinking is what adults do, particularly adults who are popular-- athletes, for example. Drinking is what adults do. So why don't you do it? If it is all right for adults, it is all right for you young people. Comedians joke about drunks. But drinking is no joke. And we must make a greater effort to get the word out where it can have the greatest impact. Drinking is no joke. Don't think that the crisis of youth violence is not connected with alcohol. We talk about alcohol abuse. I will just say alcohol, plain old alcohol. We tippy-toe around about it and call it alcohol abuse. Of course, it is alcohol abuse. Let me say this in addition. There are many causes of youth violence. The people of this country are concerned about youth violence in the schools and elsewhere. There are many causes of youth violence. But judgment, which is not always very well developed in the young, is clearly impaired by alcohol. My amendment would authorize $25 million, which is a very small sum for this purpose, for competitive grants to be awarded to local educational agencies for the purpose of assisting them with the implementation of innovative and effective alcohol abuse prevention programs targeted at children and particularly teenagers. Out of this amendment, $5 million would be set aside for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to provide alcohol abuse resources to the local education agencies, as well as to assist them with the implementation of their program. The U.S. Department of Education would work jointly with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to develop the grant application with special attention to the low-income and rural educational agencies. This program is modeled on the National Awards Recognition Program. That program rewards colleges and universities for innovative and effective alcohol prevention initiatives. The difference, however, is that this amendment would create a program that gives funding to schools to create effective alcohol abuse prevention programs targeted towards high school students. Now, this is the beautiful month of May. We are heading right into the time when there will be high school commencements all over the country. And all too often we read in the newspapers about what happens after high school commencements in some instances: An automobile full of young people, who have just graduated, perhaps from high school, go out for a drive, they drink, they have beer in the car--may have whiskey in the war--and they end up with their automobile wrapped around a tree. Many of those high school youngsters die on those occasions. So let us take action now, so that springtimes for decades to come can be wholesomely enjoyed, and can orient our youth toward futures teeming with possibilities. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Before my colleagues respond, my good friend--and he is my good friend--and he is my favorite Senator on this side of the aisle. I will not say today who my favorite Senator is on the other side of the aisle, but I have no problem doing that when the occasion arises. I have several favorite Senators, but Senator Kennedy is my favorite of all favorites on this side of the aisle. Now, you do not win friends by saying things like that, selecting another individual and saying he is your favorite. I like all my colleagues on this side of the aisle, but Senator Kennedy and I have a long history and a long history of friendship. I have great admiration for him. But in connection with this amendment, Senator Kennedy asked me a few days ago, right out of the blue sky, to quote a certain poem. That tests your mettle when somebody asks you to quote a poem right in front of the television camera. And these poems are not easy to quote in situations like that. I am almost tempted, though, to quote that poem in connection with this amendment. Twas a dangerous cliff, as they freely confessed, Though to walk near its crest was so pleasant; But over its terrible edge there had slipped A duke and full many a peasant. So the people said something would have to be done, But their projects did not at all tally; Some said, ``Put a fence around the edge of the cliff,'' Some, ``An ambulance down in the valley.'' But the cry for the ambulance carried the day. For it spread through the neighboring city; A fence may be useful or not, it is true, But each heart became brimful of pity For those who slipped over that dangerous cliff; And the dwellers in highway and alley Gave pounds or gave pence, not to put up a fence, But an ambulance down in the valley. ``For the cliff is all right, if you're careful.'' they said, ``And, if folks even slip and are dropping, It isn't the slipping that hurts them so much. As the shock down below when they're stopping.'' So day after day, as these mishaps occurred, Quick forth would these rescuers sally To pick up the victims who fell off the cliff, With their ambulance down in the valley. Then an old sage remarked: ``It's a marvel to me That people give far more attention To repairing results than to stopping the cause, When they'd much better aim at prevention. Let us stop at its source all this mischief,'' cried he, ``Come, neighbors and friends, let us rally; If the cliff we will fence we might almost dispense With the ambulance down in the valley.'' ``Oh, he's a fanatic,'' the others rejoined, ``Dispense with the ambulance? Never! He'd dispense with all charities, too, if he could; No! No! We'll support them forever. Aren't we picking up folks just as fast as they fall? And shall this man dictate to us? Shall he? Why should people of sense stop to put up a fence, While the ambulance works down in the valley?'' But a sensible few, who are practical too. Will not bear with such nonsense much longer; They believe that prevention is better than cure. And their party will soon be the stronger. Encourage them then, with your purse, voice, and pen, And while other philanthropists dally, They will scorn all pretense and put up a stout fence On the cliff that hangs over the valley. Better guide well the young than reclaim them when old, For the voice of true wisdom is calling, ``To rescue the fallen is good, but 'tis best To prevent other people from falling.'' Better close up the source of temptation and crime Than deliver from dungeon or galley; Better put a strong fence round the top of the cliff Than an ambulance down in the valley.'' That is what this amendment does. It helps--it is not enough--but it helps, it begins a program of putting a fence around the edge of a cliff to rescue these people, prevent their going to the dungeon or galley. I hope that my colleagues will support this amendment, that we might put up a strong fence around the edge of the cliff and keep some of these young people, hopefully, from bringing disaster upon themselves. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent further reading of the amendment be waived.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment may be set aside temporarily and that I might offer an amendment and hopefully get it acted upon by voice vote.

Mr. BYRD. So there is an amendment before the Senate?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 361 To Amendment No. 358

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the leader. Mr. President, I am very much opposed to lining up votes, stacking votes, and I am constrained to object to stacking votes. I don't think that is a good way to do business in the Senate. I have bitten my tongue many times and did not object. I think I should put both leaders on notice, if I may use that kind of language, that I am going to be a little tougher to deal with when it comes to stacking votes in the future than I have been in the past. I don't think it is a good idea. I don't think Senators know what they are voting on. We ought to be here and be ready to vote. I know the problems of both leaders. I know them well. I am not going to object in this instance, but I want to put the Senate on notice that I will have a more difficult time in the future voting for sequential amendments in a stacked order. I will not object at this time.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Florida may have 3 additional minutes.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator for her efforts to accommodate me.

Mr. BYRD. May I suggest that I take that amount of time now and make a few remarks about Bob Schieffer. Then I will wait until 4:30. I could have more time at that point, as I understand it.

Mr. BYRD. If the distinguished Senator from Texas will yield, may I suggest that I only take--I think we have 5, 6 or 8 minutes----

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. And what about our Nation's infrastructure? Where will we get the money to restore the cuts proposed for clean water and safe drinking water, for the Corps of Engineers, and for school construction? Very often in this country, there seems to be nothing on our radar screen except the immediate, the here and now. We think no further than next week, next year or the next election. Where are we if our leaders fashion fiscal policy on such things, on such bases? Where are we as a Nation if the most vision we can muster is a colossal tax cut for the wealthy that may jeopardize such basics as our ability to ensure a clean water supply to all of our citizens? It is a hollow vision. It is a vision that appeals to greed. It is a vision that fails to ask us to pull together as Americans for the good of the whole country. It is a vision that sets up a patchwork quilt of a nation, with areas of prosperity next to areas of poverty. It is a vision that makes a hollow joke out of the word ``bipartisanship.'' It is a ``fold your hands,'' ``you do it'' vision, based on an ideology and an experiment that failed in the 1980's. Most people in West Virginia won't benefit from this tax cut, but they will suffer from the continued lack of investment in the basics. They are not by themselves. West Virginians won't be suffering alone. There will be others like them in every State of the Union. They don't want their money back. I am talking about my constituents. They don't want their money back; they want their money's worth. I implore this administration to take off the dark sunglasses and think about that word ``bipartisanship'' and lift its nose from the ideological bible of the tax cut religion. Let me say that again. I implore this administration to lift its nose from the ideological bible of the tax cut religion. There is much more to keeping faith with the American people than tax give-backs for the better off. Building a strong Nation does not just mean building another weapons system. Building a strong Nation means giving our people the basics, the education, the health, the opportunity to compete in an increasingly global economy. It means providing the roads, transportation, water and sewer facilities which support a thriving economy and allow the people to follow their dreams. This morning's newspapers reported that the Republican leadership had reached a tentative deal on the overall amount of tax cuts that can be passed by the Senate. I noted that no deal has yet been reached with regard to discretionary spending, although a consensus seems to be consolidating around a 5-percent figure. That is not bipartisanship. Where was I? Where were the ranking members? Where were the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee in this deal? Where is the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee in this deal? Does the White House call this bipartisanship? I hope the Senators will give due recognition to the real threats facing this country--the declining state of our infrastructure and our national debt--and not chase will-o'-the-wisp, pseudo-recessions, and money-back guarantees that cannot deliver the goods. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for 5 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, last Friday, the Commerce Department reported that the U.S. economy grew at a rate of 2 percent during the first 3 months of this year, January 2001 to March 2001. That is twice the rate that forecasters were projecting. It doubles the pace of late last year, October 2000 to December 2000. Saturday's Washington Post quoted economist Jim Glassman of J.P. Morgan Securities saying: These are great numbers. They suggest that the economy is not nearly as weak as was feared and that we are not close to being in a recession. This information stands in stark contrast to what the administration has been telling the American people in recent months. In presenting his budget and tax cut proposals to a joint session of Congress on February 28, President Bush declared: the long economic expansion that began almost 10 years ago is faltering. As recently as March, White House aides warned that $1.6 trillion in tax cuts were needed to avert an impending recession. Contrary to the administration's dire warnings, the economy has continued its unbroken 10-year expansion--the longest economic expansion in U.S. history. The Nation's unemployment rate is near historic lows at 4.3 percent. Consumer spending increased from a 2.8 percent rate in February to a 3.1 percent rate in March. Construction spending remains strong, business infrastructure investment is rising, manufacturing activity is inching up, and factory inventories are falling. Even the stock markets--and we have learned that the stock market is not the economy--but even the stock markets are rebounding from their recent lows. The Dow Jones increased from 9,500 in early March to almost 10,900 yesterday--10,898.34--a 15 percent increase. The Nasdaq increased from 1,619 in March to 2,168 yesterday--a 34 percent increase. In the midst of the Great Depression of 1932, which I lived through, President Franklin Roosevelt cautioned that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. In the midst of the pseudo-recession of 2001, the only thing that the Bush administration has to fear is stirring up public doubt. This administration has been walking a fine line between promoting the President's tax cut proposal on the one hand and alarming consumers and investors. The Bush administration has touted the President's tax cut plan as a possible ``second wind for economic growth,'' so that bad economic news becomes good news for the tax cut. That is the tune the administration plays. The problem is that, in attacking an illusory problem through the bogus cure of massive tax cuts, this Administration creates two very real problems. It threatens our debt repayment efforts and cuts back on our ability to address a backlog of infrastructure needs. Let's consider, for a moment, our national debt. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the national debt will increase from its current levels of $5.7 trillion to $6.7 trillion in FY 2011. The President's budget would set aside $2 trillion to retire the national debt over the next ten years, but that number is based on two highly unlikely assumptions: (1) that $5.6 trillion in budget surpluses will materialize in spite of CBO warnings that they might not, and (2) that discretionary spending should be limited to the unrealistically low numbers proposed by the President. If the massive-permanent tax cuts are enacted, our debt retirement efforts may be compromised and that could significantly disrupt the financial markets, resulting in higher interest rates and slower economic growth. An equally important concern is whether these tax cuts will allow us to adequately address this country's failing infrastructure. Roads, bridges, airport runways, mass transit systems, water and sewer systems, and energy delivery systems--we could go on and on--are vitally important to support thriving businesses. They enhance productivity. They provide jobs. They are basic to a strong economy. Yet, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE, one- third of the nation's major roads are in poor or mediocre condition, costing American drivers an estimated $5.8 billion a year. The latest ASCE survey revealed that 29 percent of the nation's bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Airport capacity has increased only 1 percent in the past 10 years. No wonder airport congestion delayed nearly 50,000 flights in one month alone last year. Due to aging, outdated facilities, and severe overcrowding, 75 percent of our nation's school buildings are inadequate to meet the needs of school children--to meet the needs of America's schoolchildren, tomorrow's citizens, and tomorrow's leaders. The nation's 54,000 drinking water systems face an annual shortfall of $11 billion to comply with federal water regulations. Some of the nation's 16,000 wastewater systems are 100 years old. More than one-third of U.S. surface waters do not meet water quality standards. These statistics show the infrastructure needs of a third-world nation, not the world's last remaining super power. Furthermore, these statistics only reflect the gap between federal funding and our nation's physical infrastructure needs. What about our human infrastructure needs? The Senate voted last month to set aside $225 billion in tax cuts to finance investments in education. The Senate also declared its intent to set aside $300 billion for a prescription drug benefit--twice the amount allotted in the President's budget. Medicare is estimated to have 45 million beneficiaries in 2015 (11 million more than 2000), yet the program will not have the resources to finance benefits after 2016, 15 years from now. Let me say that again. This should be of interest to everybody in this country. Medicare is estimated to have 45 million beneficiaries in 2015; yet the program will not have the resources to finance benefits after 2016. Likewise, the Social Security program provides a financial safety net for our Nation's seniors; yet it will not be able to rely on payroll tax revenues after 2016. Let me say that again, talking about the Social Security program. I can remember when we didn't have any Social Security program in this country. I can remember when Franklin Delano Roosevelt and a Democratic Congress provided the Social Security program in the country. Before that time, when people became too old to work, they either stood at the gates of their children with their hats in their hands hoping that their children would take them in, or, otherwise it was over the hill to the poorhouse. I can remember that. All through the years, the workpeople of America, the people who have labored and earned their bread by the sweat of their brow, paid into that Social Security program as did their employers, and looked forward to the time when they could retire in dignity, and not have to sit on the porch of the old county poor farm, and not have to call upon their children, who were already struggling, to take them in. What do we see happening? We see that the Social Security program provides the financial safety net for our Nation's seniors, yet it will not be able to rely on payroll tax revenues after 2016 just 15 years from now. Unless we plan now for this eventuality, where will the revenue come from to ensure that these retirement benefits are paid if the surpluses don't materialize? Federal dollars also support high-technology research which, in turn, is transferred to the private sector to help domestic businesses compete more efficiently in the international market place. Where will the money come from to finance these human infrastructure needs--if the kitty is blown--if the kitty is blown on tax cuts? The reality of this year's budget process is that if the Senate decides to approve 10-year tax cuts as large as $1.6 trillion, or even $1.35 trillion or $1.2 trillion, it is likely to do so at the expense of everything else that we owe to the American people. You, the people as I am looking right into your eyes through that electronic camera behind the Presiding Officer's chair. It is you. Yes, it is your money, but it is also your Social Security program, it is your Medicare program. Whether you are young or whether you are old, it is going to affect you, the American people. The administration is fond of saying that these projected surpluses are the people's money. And they are. Yes, it is the people's money. But what the American people expect for their tax dollars-- modern and safe roads--safe roads on which they can take their children to the childcare center, on which they can go to church, on which they can go to school, on which they can go to the bank, on which they can go to the grocery store, on which they can go to work--safe roads, modern roads, clean drinking water, adequate health care, reliable retirement benefits, access to higher education, and better public schools. The President's budget does not even allow for what the Congressional Budget Office says is necessary to maintain current services in such key areas as transportation, agriculture, and energy--we have an energy problem in this country, don't we?--and certainly does not provide what is necessary to address the backlog of infrastructure needs in education, health care, and a whole host of other areas. Consider the following: Highways, bridges and transit: The President proposes to divert--yes, you heard me exactly; divert--$430 million of TEA-21 funding in FY 2002 from highway construction to other transportation programs. Schools: The President proposes to terminate the $1.2 billion school construction program. How about that? Drinking Water/Wastewater: The President proposes to reduce funding for EPA clean and safe drinking water by $463 million and grant and loan levels for the rural water/wastewater by $100 million. I traveled around the world in 1955, 46 years ago. In most of the countries where I traveled, we did not find clean drinking water. We were told not to turn on the faucet, not to drink the tap water: Don't drink it. Boil it in advance. Oh, I saw many of the beautiful sights of the world--the Taj Mahal, the pyramids of Egypt, Angkor Wat in Cambodia--but the most beautiful sight I saw, after that 66 days of traveling around the world, were the two little lights, the two little red lights in the top of the Washington Monument when I flew back into National Airport at the end of that journey. And what a joy it was just to be able to go to the spigot in the kitchen and turn on the water and get a glass of fresh, clean, safe drinking water. There are millions of people in this country today who cannot go to the water faucet and turn it on and get safe drinking water--right in this country. One does not have to go to Kandahar, one does not have to go to Afghanistan or to Pakistan or to Vietnam or to Korea in order to experience what I am talking about. Just go to West Virginia. There are some places in West Virginia where the people do not have safe, clean drinking water. What about dams and navigable waterways? The President proposes to reduce funding for the Corps of Engineers from $4.5 billion to $3.9 billion. The President proposes no new starts despite a backlog of $38 billion of authorized but unfunded projects. Hazardous waste disposal, what about that? Despite a $13.6 billion backlog for cleaning up toxic sites on the national priority list, the administration proposes to freeze Superfund at the FY 2001 level. Freeze it. Do not increase it. Leave it at the 2001 level. Instead of addressing the Nation's infrastructure needs, this administration chooses to devote its resources to a so-called fiscal stimulus, even though the economy seems to be correcting itself without one. The President has said that the economic engine is beginning to sputter, and that tax cuts are needed to accelerate the economy. What good does it do to rev up the economic engine if the roads are in such a state of disrepair that they cannot be traveled? Even the fastest, most expensive, most shiny, glossy car in the world cannot travel over bridges that are dangerous, falling apart, and roads filled with potholes. And one does not have to travel very far to see potholes. Just drive around in the Nation's Capital. Potholes--one sees on television the pictures of automobiles hitting those potholes and then having to go to the nearest garage to have the axle replaced. The tires are blown. Right here, in the city of potholes, Washington, DC. One does not have to go to Mud, WV, or to Duck, WV, or to Sophia, WV. Just go to Washington, DC. The potholes are there. Most people expect to get something for the taxes they pay. They expect clean, safe water. The taxpayers expect to see, modern highways, and transportation systems. They expect to see food free of toxics, a sound education system, decent health care, and safe streets and neighborhoods. The frustration comes when the taxpayers don't see their tax dollars working for them. We tell them their tax dollars are collected to buy these things that will improve their lives. When we don't deliver, we break faith with our promise and we undermine the trust of the taxpayers. I say the people don't want their money back, they want their money's worth. We hear this refrain being sung. I can hear it now wafting its way in the refreshing air of May from the White House at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue: The people want their money back. No, I say; the people want their money's worth. If I go to the grocery store with my wife Erma to buy food for the weekend, I don't want the grocery man to smile at me and say: I won't fill up your shopping cart but I will give you your money back. I don't want my money back; I want my money's worth. When I hire a contractor to fix my roof if it is leaking, I don't want him to tell me he won't do the job but he will give me my money back. I want to be dry. I don't want the rain to come into my modest cottage. I don't want my money back; I want my money's worth. If I take my old Chevrolet to a mechanic because it won't run, I don't want to be told that the car can't be fixed but I will get my money back. I don't want my money back. I want my money's worth. Fix my car. That is what the American people want. They want us to get the most from the taxes we collect. They want us to plan ahead and invest in our country. They want us to exercise stewardship in their best interest. They don't want us to creep up to them with our head down and with a long face and say to them: Here, you gave us this tax money. I hid it in a napkin. Here is your money back. No. That is like the unfaithful steward in the Biblical proverb. The American people want to get the most from the taxes we collect. They want us to plan ahead and to invest in our country. They want us to do the basics that feed the economy, to allow for future growth and anticipate future change. We fail them if we don't do these things. We have failed them if we say: Here, just take your money back. The people can't repair highways. They can't build sewers and clean up water systems. They can't build new airports. They can't inspect the food supply. Government exists to take care of things that people cannot do on their own. It also exists to make intelligent choices about future trends and to anticipate needs. How can we do that if we squander our ability to make investments for the future because of huge tax cuts, huge tax give- backs now, based on projections which may not be real? The Associated Press is reporting today that President Bush has struck a deal with the Republican leadership on a so-called budget deal. Further, I understand that the House and Senate Budget Committee chairmen are rushing to file the budget resolution conference report this evening. This is another example, if it is true, of the President and the Republican leadership disregarding the President's promise to bring bipartisanship back to Washington. The House and Senate took up the budget resolution without a detailed President's budget. For the first time in its history, the Senate Budget Committee did not mark up the budget resolution. And now we hear we will have a budget resolution conference report that was produced without the involvement of the ranking members of the House and Senate Budget Committees, also without any input by the ranking members of the Senate and House Appropriations Committees. So what is in this conference report? We do not have the report, but according to the press reports, it contains $1.35 trillion for tax cuts over 11 years and it limits discretionary spending to a 5-percent increase for fiscal year 2002. Where is the bipartisanship? I am not in on such a deal. I am the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. Where is the bipartisanship? The Administration puts on a big show, having invited everybody down to the White House. Where is the bipartisanship in this budget conference report, if what we are reading in the press is true? I am also told that it contains budget process provisions, such as a defense firewall, that were in neither the House nor Senate resolutions. What will be the effect of a 5-percent increase for discretionary programs? That is what I hear: Discretionary will be 5 percent. At best, this level provides only enough of an increase for nondefense programs to maintain last year's funding levels, adjusted for inflation. This level will leave no resources for increases that we all know are necessary for education, for infrastructure, for research and development, and for promoting our energy independence. What about Social Security or Medicare? The increases being debated on the floor for elementary and secondary education this week could not be funded, to say nothing of other education programs such as Pell grants. During debate on the budget resolution in the Senate over twenty amendments were adopted to add discretionary spending. Almost half of those amendments were offered by Republicans. Where are we going to get the money to pay for increases for veterans' medical care, the Wellstone and Bond amendment, or for fossil fuel programs, or for the National Science Foundation, the Bond and Mikulski amendment, for food safety, the Clinton amendment, for conservation funding, the Murkowski amendment, for energy research, the Reid amendment, or for law enforcement, the Leahy amendment? The President proposes to cut State and local law enforcement by over $1 billion. Where will the money come from to restore those cuts? Where will the money come from to add funds for health centers, the Bond amendment?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this evening, politicians, celebrities, and newscasters alike will gather to honor one of the most trusted reporters in Washington; namely, Bob Schieffer of CBS News. Bob Schieffer has gained a reputation as a man of integrity, an honest man, a man who holds fairness and the truth in the highest regard. Nothing better can be said about a politician, and certainly nothing better can be said about a news reporter. I will say that again about Bob Schieffer. Mr. Schieffer has gained the reputation as a man of integrity, an honest man, a man who holds fairness and the truth in the highest regard. We will remember that Plato, while visiting with Hiero, was asked, ``Why have you come here?'' Plato said, ``I am looking for an honest man.'' So we have one here--a man of integrity, an honest man, a man who holds fairness and the truth in the highest regard. Now that is saying something in today's world. That is saying something about a news man. Bob Schieffer is a Texan who started in journalism as a reporter for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. He moved on to a local television station and then to CBS. For 20 years, Bob was the network's Saturday evening news anchor. For the past decade, he has hosted ``Face The Nation'' on Sunday mornings. He has called Sunday mornings the smartest time period on television, saying, ``It is the last place on television where people can lay out their ideas about things and discuss them at length.'' Well, if Sunday morning is the smartest time period on television-- that is what Bob Schieffer says it is--I say another reason for that would be that it is Bob Schieffer's time when he is reporting to the Nation. He decries--as do I--the 30-second sound bite that has replaced the true interaction between voters and public officials. One reason I decry it, of course, is I am not very good at it. A 30-second sound bite--it takes me about that long to say hello or good morning. Sitting in the anchor chair at CBS is a high responsibility, a high responsibility, an important responsibility. It was the chair from which Roger Mudd and Walter Cronkite would report every night. It was the chair in which Edward R. Murrow--perhaps the grandfather of in- depth, thorough television reporting--hosted ``CBS Reports'' and ``Person to Person'' and ``See It Now.'' Edward R. Murrow set the standard. Bob Schieffer excels at meeting that standard. There is no obstacle that cannot be overcome by the vigorous mind determined to follow truth. That seems to be the philosophy that guides the work of Bob Schieffer. He follows the truth. He has a vigorous mind, and he follows the truth, he keeps after it. He does not invent the truth. There is a difference in following and pursuing the truth and attempting to invent it. Bob Schieffer does not invent the truth, he asks the questions. He asks the questions, but he does not assume the answers. He listens and, from the answers he receives, we all then learn. Bob Schieffer once told an audience, ``Your trust is the greatest honor I can receive.'' Now that says it all. I am not a news man, but if I were a news reporter, it would seem to me that that would be the pith, the crux, the milk in the coconut. ``Your trust is the greatest honor I can receive.'' We know that, as a general rule, the people of America do not trust news people. They do not trust news reporters. They do not trust the news media. They do not trust politicians. So Bob Schieffer said it well when he said, ``Your trust is the greatest honor I can receive.'' He can speak for me as a politician on that line also. The trust of the people, he says, is the greatest honor he can receive. That trust is well earned. I congratulate Mr. Schieffer on his decade of service at ``Face the Nation,'' and I look forward to watching him for many years to come. He is a man I trust. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I, again, thank the Senator from Texas.