Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator for his generous and overly charitable remarks. I thank him very much.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and thank the distinguished Senator from Florida for yielding. I thank him for the thoughtful remarks he has just made. I heard him as I was in my office, and I came to the floor because I knew I would hear something worth listening to. I gave some time to the Senator from Florida. I am very impressed with his dedication to his Senate duties, and I appreciate his love for the Senate. I am going to have a few remarks later concerning education and our schools and this legislation. I will want to scan very carefully--perhaps it would not be scanning--I will want to study very carefully the words of the Senator from Florida before I make my own remarks. I thank him for his contribution to the Senate and for his contribution to the debate on this extremely important subject. I look forward to reading his comments and hearing him from time to time. It is a pleasure to work with him. (Mrs. CLINTON assumed the chair.)

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this is entitled ``Looking Up At Him'': I asked the robin, as he sprang From branch to branch and sweetly sang, What made his breast so round and red; Twas ``looking at the sun,'' he said; I asked the violets, sweet and blue, Sparkling in the morning dew, Whence came their colors, then so shy; They answered, ``looking to the sky''; I saw the roses, one by one, Unfold their petals to the sun, I asked them what made their tints so bright, They answered, ``looking to the light''; I asked the thrush, whose silvery note Came like a song from angel's throat, Why he sang in the twilight dim; He answered, ``looking up at Him.'' Mr. President, this month, our nation recognizes National Poetry Month, a celebration of poetry and its place in American society. Like spring, poetry offers man a rebirth of his inner spirit. Poetry expresses our humanity, and, through meter, makes music of the spoken world as it rhythmically sways and floats through our imaginations. It is the laughter of children, the gentle rustle of an autumn breeze, and the pitter-patter of a sun shower. Poetry, simply put, is beauty defined. Man comes a pilgrim of the universe, Out of the mystery that was before The world, out of the wonder of old stars. Far roads have felt his feet, forgotten wells Have glassed his beauty bending down to drink. At altar-fires anterior to Earth His soul was lighted, and it will burn on After the suns have wasted on the void. His feet have felt the pressure of old worlds, And are to tread on others yet unnamed-- Worlds sleeping yet in some new dream of God. Whether constructed with long cadenced lines or intricate stanzas, conventional or openhanded sonnetry, light quatrains or heavy ballads, or the age-old epic yarns of Homer and Virgil, the power of poetry surrounds us. It tells of love, of death, of things temporal or spiritual, and of the hereafter. It speaks of the most common of occurrences and the most revealing of emotions, and it flows like a symphony, its meter enhancing the expressiveness of its words. These virtues can be seen in Alfred Tennyson's ``Crossing the Bar'': Sunset and evening star, And one clear call for me! And my there be no moaning of the bar, When I put out to sea, But such a tide as moving seems asleep, Too full for sound and foam, When that which drew from out the boundless deep Turns again home. Twilight and evening bell, And after that the dark! And may there be no sadness of farewell, When I embark; For tho' from out our bourne of Time and Place The flood may bear me far, I hope to see my Pilot face to face When I have crost the bar. I have often found that a good poet helps me to examine my inner self through the poet's use of words, meter, and rhyme. Such poets enable their readers to look within and to confront their own vexations and perplexities, and then sort out the wheat from the chaff and deal with the inevitable dilemmas of life. An example of this can be seen in Robert Frost's ageless masterpiece, ``The Road Not Taken:'' Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, And sorry I could not travel both And be one traveler, long I stood And looked down one as far as I could To where it bent in the undergrowth; Then took the other, as just as fair, And having perhaps the better claim, Because it was grassy and wanted wear; Though as for that, the passing there Had worn them really about the same, And both that morning equally lay In leaves no step had trodden black. Oh, I kept the first for another day! Yet knowing how way leads on to way, I doubted if I should ever come back. I shall be telling this with a sigh Somewhere ages and ages hence: Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-- I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference. Frost's words sing, and at the same time, as I reflect on his deft metaphor for the choices we all make in our lives, they burn in my mind. For 83 years I have encountered diverging roads, some in the beautiful woods of West Virginia and many here in this Chamber. The choices that I have made at these crossroads have, in fact, made all the difference. Speaking of roads, there are many bridges also that we have to cross in this great country of ours. It brings to my mind a poem by Will Dromgoole. One might think this is a man who wrote this poem--Will Dromgoole, but it is a female author: An old man going a lone highway Came at the evening, cold and gray, To a chasm vast and wide and steep, With waters rolling cold and deep. The old man crossed in the twilight dim, The sullen stream had no fears for him; But he turned when safe on the other side, And built a bridge to span the tide. ``Old man,'' said a fellow pilgrim near, ``You are wasting your strength with building here. Your journey will end with the ending day, You never again will pass this way. You've crossed the chasm, deep and wide, Why build you this bridge at eventide?'' The builder lifted his old gray head. ``Good friend, in the path I have come,'' he said, ``There followeth after me today A youth whose feet must pass this way. The chasm that was as nought to me To that fair-haired youth may a pitfall be; He, too, must cross in the twilight dim-- Good friend, I am building this bridge for him.'' The lines of a poem contain the timeless power of concentrated thought. Whether a poem is as ancient as the ``Aeneid'' by Virgil or as straightforward as the verses of Emily Dickinson or Ella Wheeler Cox, poetry can evoke the full range of human emotions from joy to sadness. Poems are, as William Butler Yeats once said, ``monuments of unaging intellect.'' Poems may also be monuments to historical eras--speaking for every man and woman of the time. One such poem, ``The Right to Labor in Joy,'' by Edwin Markham, captures the discord and tension of the era when the grasp of European despotism began to weaken: Out on the roads they have gathered, a hundred-thousand men, To ask for a hold on life as sure as the wolf's hold in his den. Their need lies close to the quick of life as rain to the furrow sown: It is as meat to the slender rib, as marrow to the bone. They ask but the leave to labor for a taste of life's delight, For a little salt to savor their bread, for houses water- tight. They ask but the right to labor, and to live by the strength of their hands-- They who have bodies like knotted oaks, and patience like sea-sands. And the right of a man to labor and his right to labor in joy-- Not all your laws can strangle that right, nor the gates of hell destroy. For it came with the making of man and was kneaded into his bones, And it will stand at the last of things on the dust of crumbled thrones. Whether introspective, political, or pastoral, all poetry is intended to elicit an emotional response. Some poems use free-flowing meter and cleverly crafted verse to bring a smile to the reader's face. But, very often such verses also embody simply universal truths which make us nod our heads in agreement. One such example is the poem, ``Trees,'' written by Joyce Kilmer. I think that I shall never see A poem lovely as a tree A tree whose hungry mouth is prest Against the earth's sweet flowing breast; A tree that looks at God all day, And lifts her leafy arms to pray; A tree that may in Summer wear A nest of robins in her hair; Upon whose bosom snow has lain; who intimately lives with rain. Poems are made by fools like me, But only God can make a tree. Other poems delve into more complex and profound regions of the human experience. These poems resonate deeply and touch the deep chords of our senses, echoing through our imaginations over and over again. Thomas Moore's ``The Scent of the Roses,'' comments on love, death, and poignant memories. Let fate do her worst, there are relics of joy, Bright dreams of the past that she cannot destroy, That come in the night-time of sorrow and care, And bring back the features that joy used to wear. Long, long be my heart with such memories filled, Like the vase in which roses have once been distilled, You may break, you may shatter the base if you will, But the scent of the roses will hang round it still. Nothing has the capacity of poetry to condense the pain and the beauty of living and to reach the spiritual side of our natures. A talented poet can elicit tears with only a few lines of verse, while the novelist must reach for plot twists and character development to garner a similar response. In no form of expression is the choice of each word so important. Listen to William Earnest Henley's ``Invictus'' and its description of the author's triumph over an infection that almost cost him his only leg and threatened his life. Out of the night that covers me Black as the Pit from pole to pole, I thank whatever gods may be For my unconquerable soul. In the fell clutch of circumstance I have not winced nor cried aloud; Under the bludgeonings of chance My head is bloody, but unbowed. Beyond this place of wrath and tears Looms but the Horror of the Shade, And Yet the menace of the years Finds, and shall find, me unafraid. It matters not how strait the gate, How charged with punishments the scroll, I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul. In plain and simple words, William Earnest Henley draws from courage and the depths of his soul a supreme strength of human will, while in the crucible of excruciating pain and under the shadow of death. Poetry has always been a passion of mine, and a form of art which I hold dear to my heart. Consequently, I have sought to discipline my mind through the memorization of lines and verses of poetry. Many people jog today in the exercising of their bodies. I do little of that. But I mostly try to jog my mind, jog my memory, give it exercise, keep it busy. I have memorized poem after poem, trying to capture the beauty and wisdom of each one. Poetry has been my consummate companion over the years, and the verses that I have committed to memory are not only a delight to my ears, but a balm to my soul as well. I try to be selective in the poems I memorize. It does take time. It takes effort. It takes energy. It takes determination. It takes discipline to memorize poetry. I frequently make use of these poems in my speeches, carefully choosing a verse that captures the essence of my message, always assured that its beauty will deliver in the keenest sense what I try to convey. One such poem which has served me well is by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow: ``The Building of The Ship.'' Thou, too, sail on, O Ship of State! Sail on, O Union, strong and great! Humanity with all its fears, With all the hopes of future years, Is hanging breathless on thy fate! We know what Master laid thy keel, What Workmen wrought thy ribs of steel, Who made each mast, and sail, and rope, What anvils rang, what hammers beat, In what a forge and what a heat Were shaped the anchors of thy hope! Fear not each sudden sound and shock, `Tis of the wave and not the rock; `Tis but the flapping of the sail, And not a rent made by the gale! In spite of rock and tempest's roar, In spite of false lights on the shore, Sail on, nor fear to breast the sea! Our hearts, our hopes, are all with thee, Our hearts, our hopes, our prayers, our tears. Our faith triumphant o'er our fears, Are all with thee, are all with thee! Can one think of a more beautiful description of the promise of America, and of what we as Senators have a duty to protect? We have nothing less than the hopes of mankind in our charge! Poetry is man's attempt to reach up and out of his human skin, and connect, just for a moment, with something perfect and eternal. Edwin Markham's, ``A Workman To The Gods,'' could be seen as a tribute to the perfection sought by the poet. Once Phidias stood, with hammer in his hand, Carving Minerva from the breathing stone, Tracing with love the winding of a hair, A single hair upon her head, Whereon a youth of Athens cried, ``O Phidias, why do you dally on a hidden hair? When she is lifted to the lofty front Of the Parthenon, no human eye will see.'' And Phidias thundered on him: ``Silence, slave: Men will not see, but the Immortals will!'' Like the carving of Minerva that Phidias so carefully chiseled into the relief of the Parthenon, a well crafted poem lifts all of humanity and is an undeniable testimony to the immortal nature and exceptional beauty of the human soul. A poem is a symphony of words just waiting to be played, and, like any good piece of music, it only improves with the playing. My own repertoire of poems has provided me with great spiritual enrichment and the special comfort of finding meaning in my own experiences which I might not otherwise have easily discerned. I applaud the efforts of the Academy of American Poets and the programs that they have organized for the sixth annual National Poetry Month. Through celebrations such as this, I hope that poetry will come to be appreciated by a new generation of Americans so that they might enjoy the deep spiritual enrichment that poetry has provided to so many. I should mention that great English novelist and poet, Rudyard Kipling, who received the Nobel Prize for literature in 1907 and about whom I was reading when I was yet in high school in the early 1930's In his ``Recessional'' and similar pieces, Kipling addressed himself to his fellow countryman in times of crises. Today I shall only quote from Kipling's ``The Heritage'': Our fathers in a wondrous age, Ere yet the earth was small, Ensured to us a heritage, And doubted not at all, That we, the children of their heart, Which then did beat so high, In later time should play like part For our posterity Then, fretful, murmur not they gave So great a charge to keep, Nor dream that awestruck time shall save Their labor while we sleep. Dear-bought and clear, a thousand year Our father's title runs. Make we likewise their sacrifice, Defrauding not our sons. I shall close with one of the poems by Henry Van Dyke, another poet and essayist popular in the closing days of the 19th century and the early decades of the 20th century. This poem, ``America For Me,'' has been very popular with my own constituents for whom I have quoted it so many, many times during my travels in the West Virginia hills. Tis fine to see the Old World, and travel up and down Among the famous palaces and cities of renown, To admire the crumply castles and the statues of the kings, But now I think I've had enough of antiquated things. So it's home again, and home again, America for me! My heart is turning home again, and there I long to be, In the land of youth and freedom beyond the ocean bars, Where the air is full of sunlight and the flag is full of stars. Oh, London is a man's town, there's power in the air; And Paris is a woman's town, with flowers in her hair; And it's sweet to dream in Venice, and it's great to study in Rome But when it comes to living there is just no place like home. I like the German fir-woods, in green battalions drilled, I like the gardens of Versailles with flashing fountains filled; But, oh, to take your hand, my dear, and ramble for a day In the friendly western woodland where Nature has her way! I know that Europe's wonderful, yet something seems to lack: The Past is too much with her, and the people looking back. But the glory of the Present is to make the Future free, We love our land for what she is and what she is to be. Oh, its's home again, and home again, America for me! I want a ship that's westward bound to plough the rolling sea, To the blessed Land of Room Enough beyond the ocean bars, Where the air is full of sunlight and the flag is full of stars. Mr. President, Senator Kennedy was planning to speak. While we are waiting for Senator Kennedy, I shall quote another poem: I saw them tearing a building down, A group of men in a busy town; With a ``Ho, heave, ho'' and a lusty yell. They swung a beam and the sidewall fell. I said to the foreman, ``Are these men skilled The type you'd hire if you had to build?'' He laughed, and then he said, ``No, indeed, Just common labor is all I need; I can easily wreck in a day or two, That which takes builders years to do.'' I said to myself as I walked away, ``Which of these roles am I trying to play? Am I a builder who works with care, Building my life by the rule and square? Am I shaping my deeds by a well-laid plan, Patiently building the best I can? Or am I a fellow who walks the town, Content with the labor of tearing down?'' Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I did not plan to include it, but I will be happy to try to do that.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kennedy. I really have enjoyed my long service with the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts. I have learned a great deal from him, and I prize that friendship.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. But I want to give him a second chance. I want to give my friend a second chance. I want to warn him that this is poetry month. I am all ready to talk about poetry, and I am ready to at least render my memorization of at least 8 or 10 or 12 poems. So I will give my colleague one more chance. If he would like to make his speech now before I start, I would be happy to yield.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to discuss an issue that I have addressed several times before on this floor--that is, the role of television in the lives of the American people. Today's television would have you believe that the television program ``How to Marry a Millionaire'' is a guide on how to find the perfect mate; that ``Temptation Island'' is a guide to stable relationships; that Al Bundy is a paragon of parental nurturing, while his wife, Peg Bundy is reflective of virtuous American womanhood; that ``Who Wants To Be a Millionaire?'' is educational television. I am ashamed and embarrassed that according to a survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, 70 percent of the parents surveyed regard ``Who Wants To Be a Millionaire?'' as educational television. I regret to say that the sorry state of television is becoming the sorry state of America: 59 percent of Americans can name the three Stooges, but only 17 percent of the American people can name three Supreme Court Justices; only about 50 percent of the American people could identify the Vice President of the United States, but 95 percent could identify Homer, Bart, and Marge Simpson. Three years ago, I came to this floor to express my shock and utter amazement at the details of a story in Time magazine entitled, ``Everything Your Children Already Know About Sex.'' The story told how our children are learning their sexual values from television programs like ``Dawson's Creek,'' which boasted of a character who lost her virginity at the age of 12 while drunk. There was ``Buffy the Vampire Slayer'' in which a male vampire turned bad after having sex with 17- year-old Buffy. ``Why are we letting our kids watch this morally degrading, thoroughly demeaning, junk on the airwaves?'' I asked. But from that low point, television has only continued to degenerate. It seems that many television programs are busily intent on answering the question, ``how low can you go?'' with the fare that they put before us. The land, the society, the country that once produced the works of James Fenimore Cooper, Herman Melville, and Nathaniel Hawthorne, now gives us the works of Howard Stern and Jerry Springer. No wonder the late Steve Allen, a pioneer in the television industry, complained that television had become a ``moral sewer.'' When I think of television today, I seriously wonder whether Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is being stood on its head by popular culture. Evolution implies progress. Going from the musical accomplishments of Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart to the groans and moans of HBO's ``Sex in the City'' is anything but progress. By the age of 18, the average American child will have viewed about 200,000 acts of violence on television. Before that child leaves elementary school, that child will have watched, on the average, about 20,000 murders and more than 80,000 other assaults. This means that during their most formative years, our children will witness approximately 100,000 acts of violence. But the problem with television is more than the content of the programs alone. It is the nature of the beast--or should I say, the nature of the boob tube. There are 102 million TV homes in the USA; 42 percent of them have three or more sets. The average American spends four hours of each day--that amounts to two full months of each year-- staring at the boob tube. Forty percent of the American people stare at the boob tube even while eating. The negative impact of too much television is becoming more and more apparent as more and more studies have demonstrated: the link between television violence and real violence; the link between television and increasing obesity among young people; the link between television and declining interest in the fine arts; the link between television viewing and low academic performance. To put it bluntly, Mr. President, television is helping to create a morally irresponsible, overweight, lazy, violent, and ill-informed society. Mr. President, this week, April 23-29, is national ``TV Turnoff Week.'' Turn it off! Let's have more turnoff weeks; make it 52 weeks of the year, national ``TV Turnoff Week.'' This is an effort sponsored by the TV-Turnoff Network, a grass-roots organization that has organized thousands of schools, clubs, community organizations, and religious groups to get the American people to turn off or limit their television viewing for one week to discover that there is actually life beyond the boob tube. The group has won the support and endorsements of dozens of powerful organizations, such as the American Medical Association. They have certainly won my support and my hearty endorsement. Hallelujah! Turn off that TV. The organization's motto is, ``Turn off TV. Turn on life.'' Their point is well taken. Life should be more rewarding and interesting than sitting in front of a box and becoming mesmerized with morally degrading, mind-numbing nonsense. That is what it is. Instead of sitting in front of the television for 4 hours a day, get some exercise! Get out-of-doors. Go for a walk, a hike, a bike ride, or swim. It will be far better for your health. Instead of sitting in front of the television for 4 hours a day, read a good book! Read Emerson's Essays, Carlyle's ``History of the French Revolution,'' read history, read the Bible, read Milton's ``Paradise Lost, Paradise Regained.'' Read ``Robinson Crusoe.'' Read something that is worth reading. I ask, which will make one a better person, spending hours watching ``Survivor,'' ``Big Brother,'' and ``The Weakest Link,'' or using the time to read a great literary work by Shakespeare, Dickens, or Goethe. Groucho Marx said that he found television to be very educational because, ``Every time somebody turns on a set, I go into the other room and read a book.'' I like that. I say, ``be like Groucho.'' Let's have more Groucho's. Simply turn off the television set and read a good book. Instead of sitting in front of the television for 4 hours a day, spend some time with the family. Family members can use the opportunity to take a trip together to the local museum or art gallery, or simply talk to each other during dinner. Make your family the center of home life, not the television set. Studies by professor Barbara Brock at Eastern Washington University found that in TV-free families, parents have about an hour of meaningful conversation with their children every day, compared with the national average of 38 minutes a week. Here would be an opportunity for parents to emphasize their values--not Hollywood's--to their most precious asset--their children. I don't want to leave the impression that all television is bad. I have seen some very educational, very informative, very uplifting, very good pictures, shows, and plays on television. There is much programming that is truly educational. I have been to one movie since I have been in Washington. I have been in Washington now 49 years. I have been to one movie. I left that movie. I didn't stay and watch it through. I became bored and I walked out. Yul Brynner was, I think, the main player in that movie. I walked out. But just within the last few weeks, I watched a picture in which Yul Brynner played. I believe it was--I am trying to remember now. I have watched some good pictures recently. I watched ``The Ten Commandments,'' which was a good picture. That may have been it. Yul Brynner plays in it and I liked him in it. He played well. So I don't want to leave the impression that all television is bad. I think that C-Span, PBS, and the History Channel provide worthwhile viewing to the audience. I also believe that programming like Ken Burns's series on the Civil War is quality programming that expands our knowledge and deepens understanding. But I do want to emphatically stress that there is much more to life than the boring, degrading, demeaning fare on the boob tube. I urge the American people to use this week to break your addiction to television. Just say no! As the TV-Turnoff Network urges, ``turn off TV, turn on life.'' In addition to becoming healthier, both mentally and physically, one might be able to name three Justices on the Supreme Court. One might even be able to name the Vice President of the United States. Mr. President, I applaud the efforts of the TV-Turnoff Network and urge them to keep up the good work. And I urge my colleagues and the American people to participate in national ``TV Turnoff Week.'' Mr. President, I have another statement I want to make. But I am very conscious of the fact that my favorite U.S. Senator on this side of the aisle has been on the floor waiting. I am very willing to set aside my speech and listen to my colleague before I proceed further. (Mr. ENZI assumed the chair.)

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. That is very thoughtful of him and very good of him. I appreciate his interest in that particular poem, among others. Let's do it this way. I will make my speech and do the poems that I have included, and then I will give the Senator a chance to make his speech, and if he is still interested in my giving that poem, I will be happy to, or I will be happy to wait until another day.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this morning's Washington Post contained a front page story on our distinguished colleague, Senator Strom Thurmond. I am the Senator in this body who has served longest with Senator Thurmond. I served with Senator Thurmond when Senator Thurmond was a member of the party on this side of the aisle. So, having served with Senator Thurmond all of these long years, I began reading the story, thinking how nice it was that the paper would devote time and space to take notice of the longest serving U.S. Senator in American history, Senator Thurmond, who has cast more than 15,800 votes. He is a man who loved his country so much that he gave up his draft exemption status during World War II in order to enlist in the U.S. military and take part in the invasion of Normandy and the liberation of Europe. I salute Senator Thurmond for his patriotism. He didn't have to do that, but he did it. As I read the story, I was filled with dismay, then revulsion. Contrary to my expectation, what I was reading was a demeaning drivel filled with denigrating language and insensitive images. As I read, I kept asking myself, what is the point of this story? Is there any purpose to be served by it? This is certainly not a news story. Yet, it is on the front page of a major national newspaper--a newspaper that is read around the world everyday, a newspaper that is a great newspaper. I can see neither a point nor a purpose to the story other than a pathetic attempt to demean an outstanding man and a long serving, distinguished federal lawmaker. Every senior citizen in America ought to be offended by this orgy of pejorative blather which aims only to viciously exploit something as normal as the human aging process. We are all going to be old one day, if we live long enough. We ought to be conscious of that fact. We should be conscious of it every day regardless of what pursuit we follow in life. Is there no decency anymore? Is there no respect for anything anymore? The people of South Carolina continue to place their confidence and their trust in Senator Thurmond. They elected Senator Thurmond to represent their State in the U.S. Senate. And they have elected him and reelected him many times. That is their judgment to make, and I respect their judgment, and so should everybody else. The Senate is a collective body of 100 men and women who have been elected by the people of their various States to make the Nation's laws. We are a unique body. One-thousand, eight hundred and sixty-four men and women have served in the Senate since the first day it met in 1789. We are a special body. While we may have our disagreements on this floor, I believe that the Members of this body for the most part respect each other off the Senate floor as well as on the Senate floor. However, midway through the story, the Post journalist quotes a Senator who ``agreed to speak candidly only if he was granted anonymity.'' I am speaking candidly today, and I don't do so with anonymity. At any rate, the story quotes the unnamed Senator as saying, in talking about Senator Thurmond, ``At what point do you draw the line?'' That is the question I kept asking myself as I read this inappropriate, tasteless, cheap-shot piece of journalism: At what point do you draw the line? That is the very question the Washington Post should have been asking before they chose to print their tabloid tripe: At what point do you draw the line? May I suggest that the real story here is not Senator Thurmond's age. The real story should be that he loves this institution so much and loves serving the people of South Carolina so much that he, at the age of 98, continues to serve and have the courage to carry on, and that he loves his country so much that he was willing to set aside his exempt status in World War II and participate in that dreadful landing on the beaches of Normandy and risk his life, as so many others risked their lives. And many of them never returned. Senator Thurmond continues to serve and have the courage to carry on, in spite of non- news, deeply offensive stories such as the one in today's Washington Post. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana. I share her enthusiasm for education. I am grateful that she is a Senator who is using her foresight and vision and talents to advance the cause of education.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I have three speeches. I am not noted for brevity in my speeches, but I do not worry about that too much because Cicero was once asked which of Demosthenes' speeches, he, Cicero, liked the best. Cicero's answer was, ``the longest.'' He liked the longest of Demosthenes' speeches the best. Of course his speech ``On the Crown'' was probably the greatest speech ever made. I wonder if the distinguished Senator will let me do my first speech, which will require less than 10 minutes. Then I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the Senator for her remarks, and that I retain the floor so I might complete my other two speeches.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I congratulate my colleague on his speech this afternoon. I share his thoughts, so beautifully and so eloquently expressed on this Senate floor. I salute him, and I will be working shoulder to shoulder with him to advance the education of our children. During a recent break, I read a book by Sir Francis Bacon. The book is entitled, ``The Advancement Of Learning.'' He was talking about some of the same things we are talking about today: the need for equipment in our educational institutions; the need to pay, the need to remunerate the people who teach in these schools. So I think we are--I was about to say ``walking in good footsteps.'' I hesitated because Sir Francis Bacon was impeached and went to the tower for a while. But anyway, I congratulate my friend. Mr. President, I understand my friend and colleague from Louisiana is also interested in speaking. May I ask her how much time she would need?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Fifteen at the most.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader and the distinguished minority whip for their kindness and courtesy to me.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Stevens for those remarks. In my judgment, having served on the Appropriations Committee longer than any other Senator serving, going on 43 years--and I have seen some good chairmen of the Appropriations Committee--I have no hesitancy in saying Senator Stevens is the best chairman of the Appropriations Committee--and that includes myself as chairman-- he is the best chairman the Senate Appropriations Committee has had during my long tenure in this body. I know that what he says brings pride to the heart of this man--Jim English--who is about to leave the employ of the Senate. Let me close with a few lines which I think are most fitting when we think of Jim English. It Will Show In Your Face You don't have to tell how you live each day You don't have to say if you work or play; For a tried and true barometer--right in its place, However you live, my friend, it will show in your face. The false, the deceit that you bear in your heart Won't stay down inside where it first got its start; For sinew and blood are a thin veil of lace What you carry in your heart will show in your face. If you have gambled and won in the great game of life If you feel you have conquered sorrow and strife; If you played the game square and you stand on first base, You won't have to tell it, it will show in your face. Then if you dissipate nights till the day is most nigh, There is only one teller, and one that won't lie; Since your facial barometer is right in its place, However you live, my friend, it will show in your face. Well, if your life is unselfish and for others you live, Not for what you can get but for what you can give, And if you live close to God in his infinite grace, You won't have to tell it, it will show in your face.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart. And I do not say that without justification. I measure my words in saying that I rise today with a heavy heart, for it will shortly be time for me to say goodbye, for now at least, to one of the most extraordinary men I have ever had the pleasure of knowing in my 83 years on God's footstool, this Earth. The minority staff director of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Mr. Jim English, has decided to retire this year. Jim English has been my right arm, figuratively speaking, since 1989, when I assumed the chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee of the Senate. We have been through so many battles together, that sometimes it seems as if Jim English has always been with me. I could almost say, I can never remember a time in my life when Jim was not beside me. In fact, I met Jim English in 1973, when he worked on the Transportation Subcommittee, but he did not actually work directly for me until 1989. Jim English was born on a farm near Homer, LA. That simple fact explains a great deal. Jim English has a head full of brains. And he knows how to use them. They do not go to waste. They are not dormant. They are always working. But while he has a head full of brains, he does not have a thimble full of arrogance or supercilious attitude. He is rock solid. He is honest. And he is full of good humor. He is the type of person whose values and character reflect the very best of America, and indeed the very best of human nature, and the preeminently best of nobility. Few persons have I seen in life that I would think of as being noble. Jim English is one. I do not recall ever having said this about anybody else. It does not mean that I have not seen other very noble people. The man who raised me, Titus Dalton Byrd, a man of little education, but with a big heart and a great soul, was a noble man. James English has had a working career which includes being an accounting clerk for the D.C. Government, revenue officer for the IRS, clerk of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, vice president for government affairs at Amtrak, Assistant Secretary of the Senate, staff director of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and minority staff director of the Appropriations Committee. I daresay that he has worn all of those many hats, those many badges with distinction. There is probably no position that Jim would not improve just by occupying it. He is without doubt--and I have had some extraordinarily fine staff people--he is without a doubt, overall, the finest staff member I have ever employed in my 48 years on Capitol Hill. I have employed some top-notch, very fine staff people. I say this about Jim English because of his versatility, for one. He is multitalented, he is supremely capable, and he is completely undaunted by any challenge. Jim English is also unrelentingly curious. He will dig and dig and dig until he gets an answer to a question. It has been said by someone that curiosity is one of the certain characteristics of a vigorous mind. When you stop and think about it, that is a very apt saying. Never was there a better example of the truth of that observation than we have seen in Jim English. Moreover, I have never met anyone so consistently good humored, even in the most stressful of situations. As my dear friend, Senator Ted Stevens, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, knows, there are certainly times when being on the Appropriations Committee staff can be dreadfully stressful and demanding. I cannot recall ever seeing Jim English angry in all of the years I have known him. I have rarely ever even seen him become impatient. Emerson once observed: It is easy in the world to live after the world's opinion; it is easy in solitude to live after our own; but the great man is he who in the midst of a crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude. That is Jim English. He is the epitome of Emerson's thoughts in that regard: Gentle with everyone, yet the toughest of adversaries when he must be tough. Jim English seems always to maintain perfect control and equanimity. In all the years I have worked with Jim English, I have never heard him tell an off-color joke. I have never heard him use profanity. If he had, he wouldn't stay on my staff. I don't use it in front of my staff. Not that I have never used it in my life, but I don't use it anymore. And Jim English doesn't use it. My staff people don't use it. He is just a good man. The Bible says no man is good, but Jim English comes as near to it as anyone I have ever met. Losing him will be like losing an arm. Jim has given over 30 years to Federal service, with 23 of those years spent with the Senate Appropriations Committee. Almost 13 of those 23 years he has spent working closely with me. I shall miss him professionally, and I shall miss him personally, but I know he wants to spend more time with his lovely and good wife Phyllis, with his daughters Kathleen Pfost and Elizabeth Arensdorf, and with his four grandchildren, Ashley, Alex, Evan, and Jimmy. As much as I regret losing Jim English--and I couldn't keep him if I wanted to--no one could begrudge him these desires. I wish for him all the best that life has to offer, and I want him to know I am grateful for the loyalty, the service, and the friendship he has offered to me for so many good years. My dear colleague--and I say ``dear colleague'' meaning it--Ted Stevens is on the floor. He wants to share his thoughts on this subject. I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to Senator Stevens, after which I be recognized again for just a few lines, and that the time be extended to whatever is necessary, which will not be very long but not more than 10 additional minutes.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record, all with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors of the resolution: Senators Stevens, Leahy, and Daschle.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have the approval of the distinguished majority leader and the distinguished minority leader to ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 73 submitted earlier today by Senator Leahy and myself.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, some years ago I read a story by Tolstoy titled, ``How Much Land Does A Man Need?'' Inasmuch as a considerable time has gone by since I last read this story, perhaps I shall say at the beginning that I am largely summarizing the story. The story told of a man who had land hunger. He had orchards and vast other properties, but he could never get enough land. One day there stood in his presence a stranger who promised him all the land that he could cover in a day for 1,000 rubles. The conditions were that he would have to start at sunrise and that he could travel all day and buy as much land as he could cover in a day for 1,000 rubles. He would be required to return to the starting point by sundown; otherwise he would lose both the land that he had covered and the 1,000 rubles. So the man started out at last to get enough land. He took off his jacket, and as he surveyed the land before him, he thought that this was certainly the richest soil that he had ever seen and the land was so level that he felt that never before had he seen such land. He tightened his belt, and with the flask of water that his wife had provided to him, he began his journey. At first he walked fast. His plan was to cover a plot of ground 3 miles square. After he covered the first 3 miles, he decided he would walk 3 more miles, and then he walked 3 more miles until at last he had covered 9 miles before he started upon the second side. As he went along, the land seemed to be ever, ever more level, and the soil ever more rich. He completed the second side just as the Sun crossed the meridian. He sat down and ate the bread and the cheese that had been prepared by his wife. He drank most of the water from the flask, and then turned upon the third side. He completed the third side when the Sun was fairly high still in the heavens, but he was becoming quite tired. He took off his boots, which were becoming heavy, and he pressed on. He turned upon the fourth side. But strangely enough, the land became less level and more hilly. His arms and legs were scratched by the briars, and his feet had been cut by the stones. The whole landscape had changed to the extent that it was very adverse to his being able to continue at the same pace as in the beginning. The Sun kept dropping closer and closer to the horizon. He kept his eye on the goal. He could see the stranger, waiting at the starting point. His servant had accompanied him and had placed a stake at each corner as a marker for the ground that had been covered. As the Sun was sinking low, the man had become very tired and no longer could he walk upright. He had to crawl on his hands and knees. He could see the dim face of the stranger waiting at the starting point, and upon that stranger's face was a cruel smile. The man reached the starting point just as the Sun went down, but he had overtaxed his strength and he fell dead on the spot. The stranger, who was called Death, said: ``I promised him all the land he could cover. You see how much it is: 6 feet long, 2 feet wide. I have kept my pledge.'' The servant dug the grave for him. The moral of the story is this: that the love of material things and the greed for gain shrivel the soul and leave the life a miserable failure at last. As we approach the blessed season of Easter, it seems to me to be appropriate to reflect a bit about these things which are pretty mundane when compared with discussions concerning budget resolutions, taxes, projected surpluses, and so on. But once in a while I think it is good to return to the mundane--to the things that perhaps really count most in our lives. Easter is a promise. Easter reminds each of us of the promise that we can live again, and that we can join our loved ones who have gone on before. To me it is the greatest of all religious days. I suppose that having attained the age of 83, it becomes even more meaningful. I didn't used to think about these things quite as much as I do now. But at the age of 83, one doesn't have much to look forward to in this life. But there is the hope and the promise that I can see my grandson again, whom I lost 19 years ago. My grandson was killed in a truck crash, and he died on the Monday morning after Easter Sunday in 1982. So the day itself has a particular significance to me. I remembered that Mary and Martha in the Scriptures went to the tomb subsequent to the crucifixion of Our Lord. When the tomb was opened, they saw an angel who said to them: ``He is risen.'' So, if we didn't have that promise to which we can look forward, life would be pretty bleak. I want to think that there will be another life. I believe it. That is what I was taught. As I say, if I didn't believe that, certainly at this late period in this earthly life the future would be pretty bleak indeed. We live now in a very materialistic age. Things are quite different than they were when I was a lad walking in the hills of Mercer County and Raleigh County, WV. Times have changed immensely. But there are some things that don't change. And one of the things that hasn't changed in my life is the belief, as I was taught in the beginning, that there is a Creator, and that there will come a time when each of us will have to meet the eternal judge and give an accounting for our stewardship during this earthly journey. I believe that. I find myself quite out of step from time to time in this materialistic age and this increasingly materialistic society, for to express one's belief in a Supreme Being who created the heavens and the Earth, who made man in his own image, and made provision for a life beyond the grave, is looked upon by some as a lack of cultural sophistication. One who adheres to traditional religious beliefs these days will quite often find himself the possessor of views that are incompatible with a modern outlook. Traditional religious beliefs are a thing of the past in some quarters. Our intellectual culture in this country, as we stand at the beginning of a new century, and at the beginning of a new millennium, appears to be dominated by skepticism, cynicism, agnosticism, and, alas, to some degree atheism. Not too long ago, a majority of the Kansas State Board of Education acted to ban the teachings of Darwin--Charles Robert Darwin, a great British naturalist, concerning evolution in the classroom. There was an aroused interest in the subject. A new Board of Education recently restored evolution to the state science curriculum. Several years ago, I read Charles Darwin's ``Origin of the Species.'' I also read his book ``The Descent of Man.'' I wanted to know what Darwin was saying. My intellectual curiosities were piqued. I wanted to read firsthand his theory about natural selection. But reading Darwin did not shake my faith in a Creator. Reading Darwin only strengthened my belief in God's word, and strengthened my belief in the Creator, strengthened my belief in the Bible as a book that was written by man, but written through the inspiration from God. Now, let me say, I do not claim to be good. My Bible says that no man is good. But I do claim to have been reared by two wonderful persons. They were not very well educated. They did not have much by way of this world's possessions. They could not give me much of anything. But they gave me their love, and they taught me to believe in the Scriptures. And so the chronological account of the Creation--and I hold it right here in this book--as related in the Book of Genesis, seems to confirm my understanding of the chronology of Creation as outlined by science. I have done considerable reading of both--these Scriptures, and books and theses and materials on science. I have three wonderful grandsons and two granddaughters remaining after the death of the oldest grandson. Two of those grandsons are physicists. They have their Ph.D.s in physics, not political science, which would be much easier, I suppose. I have two fine sons-in-law, one of whom came to this country from Iran, the old Biblical country of Persia, and who, by the way, is also a physicist. So my family is well equipped to help maintain this country's cutting edge in physics. I am not a physicist, and I am not a scientist, and I am not a minister. I do not consider myself to be worthy of standing behind any altar in a church. But I do steadfastly believe in the Bible. I believe in its teachings. And I believe that the account in Genesis is, in my way of looking at it, the greatest scientific essay that was ever written. That Book of Genesis seems to confirm my understanding, as limited as it may be, of the chronology of Creation, as outlined by the scientific articles that I have read. And, after all, how God made man is not so important; but what is important is that God, a superior intelligence, did make man. The doubters, the skeptics, the non-believers, all of these go out of their way to dispute the account of the Creation as presented in Genesis, but to the doubters and the skeptics and the cynics, I would refer them to that ancient man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job. And, there, we find the question: ``Canst thou by searching find out God?'' So, let the cynics, the doubters, and the skeptics answer God's challenge: ``Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding. ``Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? Or who hath stretched the line upon it? ``Whereupon are the foundations thereof? Or who laid the cornerstone thereof; ``When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?'' My reading of the theory promulgated by that great English naturalist, Darwin, leads me to conclude that there is something to what Darwin is saying, but let us not carry it too far. I have no problem in putting God's word as revealed in the Holy Bible right up against the teachings of evolution. I have no problem with that. So I have no problem with teaching the theory of natural selection, as suggested by Darwin, Huxley, and others. But I believe that if the Darwinian theory of evolution is to be taught in the classrooms of the Nation, the biblical account of Creation and other teachings of the Bible should likewise be presented so that the inquiring young man or woman may have a better understanding of both. Now, I understand the constitutional problem that might arise from such. True it is, that ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,'' but I take this first amendment prohibition also to mean that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of ``anti-religion''. If high school students are to be taught a theory, such as evolution--I have no problem with that--which may result in non belief concerning God, non belief in religion, it seems to me that if we are really interested in the search for truth, the search for knowledge, the search for wisdom, then the student should have equal access to the account of Creation as set forth in the Book of Genesis. I believe that, just as children should be taught the difference between right and wrong, they should also be exposed to the teachings of Holy Writ as well as the claims made by proponents of Darwin's theory of evolution. Now, I am not here today suggesting that anybody else needs to be a Baptist just because I am a Baptist, or be a Methodist or be a Presbyterian or be an Episcopalian or be a Catholic or be of the Jewish religion, or of the religion of Islam. I have already stated that one of my sons-in-law is an Iranian. His father was a devout--a devout--worshiper in the religion of Islam. I am like Samuel Adams. I am not a bigot. I can listen to anybody's prayer and will listen to anybody's prayer. But now, back to the subject. I personally find the theory of evolution as set forth in Darwin's book ``The Origin of Species'' to be an enormous piece of work, a marvelous, marvelous display of knowledge on the part of that great naturalist. It reflects great scholarship. It also contains--I am not hesitant about saying it at all--but it also contains a great, a huge number of guesses, hypotheses, conjectures, presumptions, assumptions, mere opinions, and considerable guesswork. For example, such phrases as the following are sprinkled throughout Darwin's Origin: ``We may infer,'' ``has probably played a more important part,'' ``it is extremely difficult to come to any conclusion,'' ``seems probable,'' ``this change may be safely attributed to the domestic duck flying much less and walking more, than its wild parents,'' ``I am fully convinced that the common opinion of naturalists is correct,'' ``hence, it must be assumed,'' ``appears to have played an important part,'' ``seems to have been the predominant power,'' ``something, but how much we do not know, may be attributed to the definite action of the conditions of life.'' ``Some, perhaps a great, effect may be attributed to the increased use or disuse of parts.'' Additional examples are these: ``It is probable that they were once thus connected;'' ``that certainly at first appears a highly remarkable fact,'' ``it may be suspected,'' ``we have good reason to believe,'' ``it may be believed,'' ``these facts alone incline me to believe that it is a general law of nature,'' ``I conclude that,'' ``we must infer,'' ``we may suppose,'' ``I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly,'' ``it is far more probable,'' ``nor do I suppose that the most divergent varieties are invariably preserved;'' ``if we suppose,'' ``but we have only to suppose the steps in the process,'' ``thus, as I believe, species are multiplied and genera are formed,'' ``may be attributed to disuse,'' ``we must suppose,'' ``we may conclude that habit, or use and disuse, have, in some cases, played a considerable part in the modification of the Constitution and structure;'' ``I suspect,'' ``it seems to be a rule that when any part or organ is repeated many times in the same individual, the number is variable, whereas the same part or organ, when it occurs in lesser numbers, is constant;'' ``the fair presumption is,'' ``it must have existed, according to our theory, for an immense period in nearly the same state;'' ``the most probable hypothesis to account for the reappearance of very ancient characters, is that there is a tendency in the young of each successive generation to produce the long lost character, and that this tendency, from unknown causes, sometimes prevails;'' ``by my theory, these allied species are descended from a common time;'' ``if my theory be true,'' ``must assuredly have existed;'' ``may we not believe . . .?'' I could go on and shall, indeed, go on for a brief moment. How long is a brief moment? Here are some more: ``it is inconceivable'', ``it is therefore highly probable'', ``it may be inferred,'' ``nor is it improbable,'' ``these organs must have been independently developed,'' and so on, and so on, and so on and on. Strange, isn't it, that, while many of the devotees of Darwinism are agnostics, or even outright atheists, their idol shows no compunctions with reference to a supreme being? Let me quote Darwin. I have been quoting Darwin, but I want to quote Darwin to show that he has no compunction with reference to a supreme being. He says: May we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of glass as the works of the creator are to those of man. Darwin himself poses the key question. This is the key question, and it is meant for all of us. It will make us stop and think. This is what Darwin asked: Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man? That is the question. That is where so many of us in this intellectual age, this cynical age, that is where so many of us trip over ourselves because we attempt to square God's intelligence with our own. And thus, we become unbelievers or doubters simply because we can't conceive of all of the marvels of creation and how they came about. Therefore, again, I cite this question by Darwin: Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man? Of course, with man's finite, limited intellectual powers, man finds it difficult to conceive of that which his own puny mind cannot embrace. Hence, while the skeptics doubt the Biblical account of creation, they seem to go out of their way to find alternative theories. The problem is that the alternatives they propose border on the absurd. Beyond all credulity is the credulousness of atheists who believe that chance could make a world, when it cannot build a house. Some scientists say that life, and man himself, was the outcome of random mechanisms operating over the ages. It is my belief that there is, and always has been, a super intelligence, an intelligence that foresaw the necessity of preplanning human life on earth. In order that life might be produced, everything had to be just right from the very start--everything from the fundamental forces, such as electromagnetism and gravity, to the relative masses of various subatomic particles. And I have read that the slightest tinkering with a single one of scores of basic relationships in nature would have resulted in a very different universe from that which we know. It would be a universe with no stars like our sun, or even no stars, period. Life was not accidental, but appeared to be a goal toward which the entire universe, from the very beginning nanosecond of its existence, had been orchestrated and fine-tuned. In other words, there never was a ``random universe.'' But before its origins in the Big Bang, life was preplanned from the very first nanosecond of the cosmos' coming into being. This is the cosmological anthropic principle, and it marks a turning point, in that it takes us toward, rather than away from, the idea that there is a God. I believe that the universe is the product of a vastly superior intelligence and that in the absence of such a superintelligence having provided guidance for millions of details, vast and small, this world would not exist, this universe would not exist, nor would we exist. The materialistic paradigm, which is the fundamental modern concept of the random, mechanical universe, is coming apart at the seams. It is not a universe that is random and mechanical; instead, it is a universe of intricate order that reflects an unimaginably vast and intricate master design. The laws of physics that undergird the universe had to be fine-tuned from the beginning and expressly designed for the emergence of human beings. Human life did not come about by accident, the byproduct of material forces randomly churning over the ages, the fundamental constants of gravitational force and electromagnetic force necessary for producing life in the universe. I have to believe that the evolution of the universe over many billions of years had, from the beginning, apparently been directed toward the creation of human life. From my very limited reading, I find that even the slightest tinkering with the value of gravity, or the slightest alteration in the strength of the electromagnetic force, would have resulted in the wrong kind of stars, or no stars at all. Any weakening of the nuclear ``strong'' force would have resulted in a universe consisting of hydrogen and not a single other element. That would mean no oxygen and no water--nothing but hydrogen. Even the most minuscule tinkering with the fundamental forces of physics--gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear strong force, or the nuclear weak force-- would have resulted in a universe consisting entirely of helium, without protons or atoms, a universe without stars, or a universe that collapsed back in upon itself before the first moments of its existence were up. Even such basics of life as carbon and water depend upon ``fine-tuning'' at the subatomic level. Think for a moment about the very nature of water, H2O, which is so vital to life. Unique among the molecules, water is lighter in its solid form than in its liquid form. Ice floats. Every country boy knows that--a country boy like Robert Byrd. I learned a long time ago that ice floats--not just Ivory soap, but ice floats. If it did not float, the oceans would freeze from the bottom up, killing all forms of life therein, and the Earth would now be covered with solid ice. Witness the vast order that pervades the universe! Could random variation have, even in the longest stretch of the imagination, created such magnificent order in the universe? Could chance have hit upon the order that we see all around us? To believe that it could is to believe that a monkey with a typewriter would eventually type the complete works of Shakespeare. But would he? Would he not more likely produce an infinity's worth of gibberish? Regardless of the number of days or the length of time available, what monkey could ever provide a single day's worth of typing Shakespeare--by random, by accident, by chance--let alone the complete works? The works of Shakespeare are complex enough, but they are small potatoes compared to the universe. Random selection is not the magic bullet that some biologists would hope. One cannot explain away the order in nature by reference to a purely random process. To pretend otherwise is the stuff of science fiction. Mr. President, as we depart this city for the holidays, let us remember the old, old story. Let us pause at Easter time and think on these things. I close with the reading of the 23rd psalm: The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: He leadeth me beside the still waters. He restoreth my soul: He leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever. Happy Easter! Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, allow me to express my appreciation to Mr. Domenici and Mr. Conrad for the excellent way in which they handled the concurrent resolution on the budget. They were fair, they were considerate, and they were very skillful in their performance. I also thank our two leaders, Mr. Lott and Mr. Daschle, for the excellent guidance they gave through their respective caucuses. I also thank my friend, the senior Senator from Alaska, who is presiding over the Senate, for his friendship and for his excellent leadership on the Senate Appropriations Committee. I wish him and his lovely wife and family, especially for Lily, a happy Easter holiday.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, over the past few days, we have heard a great deal of promises made regarding the FY 2002 budget resolution. As I have listened to the arguments made in support of this budget resolution, I am reminded of a scene from Jerome Lawrence's and Robert E. Lee's play, Inherit the Wind. On a sultry summer evening in a small town, two men sit in rocking chairs, reminiscing about their childhoods. One man tells the other of a beautiful rocking horse that he had longed for as a child. That rocking horse--Golden Dancer--shimmered in the sunlight that streamed through a storefront window. Knowing the rocking horse would cost his father a week's wages, he harbored little hope of ever owning that magnificent steed--expecting that it would always lie just beyond his reach, behind the storefront glass. But knowing of their son's dream, his father worked nights and his mother scrimped on groceries to buy that rocking horse. On the morning of his birthday, he awoke to find, at the foot of his bed, the rocking horse of his dreams, Golden Dancer. He hopped out of bed, jumped into the saddle, and began to rock. Almost in an instant, the rocking horse split in two. The wood was rotten. The whole thing had been put together ``with spit and ceiling wax. All shine and no substance . . . all glitter and glamour.'' That's how I feel about the promises made regarding this budget resolution and the approximately $1.5 trillion tax cut it authorizes. Mr. President, it was not too long ago that the American people were being enticed by the glittering promises of another Republican Administration. In 1981, President Reagan promised that massive tax cuts would balance the budget and reinvigorate an economy plagued by unemployment and inflation. Congress approved the Reagan economic plan. I even voted for it. I said at the time, President Reagan ``is the new President, give him a chance.'' But four years later, I stood on this floor and spoke of my regret at having cast that vote. That was in 1985, the year President Reagan had promised a balanced budget. In fact, according to the Reagan Administration's 1981 projections, our nation was supposed to be enjoying a $500 million surplus in FY 1984, a $6 billion surplus in FY 1985, and a $28 billion surplus in FY 1986. Instead, the nation recorded a $185 billion deficit in FY 1984, a $212 billion deficit in FY 1985, and a $221 billion deficit in FY 1986. As a result, President Reagan's deficit/surplus estimates for FY 1982-FY 1986 fell short of their targets by $921 billion. That golden promise of a bright fiscal reward turned out to be mere fool's gold. The American economy was in shambles. In 1982 and 1983, the annual unemployment rate was 9.7 and 9.6 percent, respectively, the highest rates recorded since 1950. In 1985, while America's wealthy were reaping the largest share of the national income since World War II, businesses and banks were failing at a record breaking pace. Our savings rate was the lowest in four decades, and our national trade deficit was ascending to a record high. There were record poverty rates in that year as well. Instead of beginning to pay off the federal debt, our debt obligations had more than doubled, soaring from $1 trillion in 1981 to $2.1 trillion in 1986. In 5 years, the Reagan Administration, with its sacred tax cuts, had accomplished what it took the previous 39 presidential administrations the entire history of the United States to do--increase the Federal debt by a trillion dollars. In 1981, then-Senate Republican Leader Howard Baker had called the Reagan economic plan a ``river boat gamble.'' It is clear that the country had lost the bet. It took the hard-nosed, realistic 1993 Democratic plan to put America's economic house back in order. That was a real budget, a budget of hard choices and hard decisions, including tax increases. Democrats understood the political fall out that would come from raising taxes. No one really wanted tax increases. No one ever does. But we put the country first, we did what was necessary to cut the deficit, and we paid for it in the 1994 congressional elections. I call that 1993 budget a Democratic budget because not one single Republican in either the House or the Senate, voted for it. The Republican Senate Leader at the time claimed that the budget did ``not tackle the deficit.'' Another Republican Senator said: ``the plan cannot help the economy.'' Another even used the dreaded ``R'' word, claiming that it was a ``one-way ticket to a recession.'' And yet another Republican Senator said of the tax increases in that budget: ``make no mistake, these higher rates will cost (American) jobs.'' Yet, no recession came. There were eight years of solid economic growth, eight years of job growth. We finally achieved a balanced budget, and we are paying off the national debt. Now, 20 years after the 1981 Reagan fiscal disaster, a new Republican Administration is making the same glittering promises to the American people. The Senate today was asked to buy another ``Golden Dancer.'' This budget resolution looks alluring sitting in the store window. But all that holds it together are the spit and ceiling wax of rosy ten- year surplus projections and unrealistic spending cuts. Mr. President, I have already spoken at length this week about how the Senate has considered this year's budget resolution with maximum hurry and minimal information, debate, and opportunity for amendment. First, the Budget Committee--for the first time ever--was not allowed to draft a budget resolution. Instead, one was presented to the Senate by the Chairman of the Budget Committee and his party's leadership. Second, the Senate considered this budget resolution without the benefit of the President's budget, which means that the Senate has no way of knowing what programs will be cut to make room for these massive tax cuts. The most egregious example of this can be found as a footnote on page 188 of the President's budget outline, A Blueprint For New Beginnings, at the bottom of Table S-4. The footnote reads: ``The final distribution of offsets has yet to be determined.'' Until April 9th, when the Congress receives a detailed copy of the President's budget, the Senate has no way of knowing what the specific reductions will be for $20 billion in spending cuts that are proposed on page 188 of the President's ``Blueprint'' for this year's budget. What we do know is based on what was presented to us by the Budget Committee Chairman and the Republican leadership in the form of this budget resolution. What we have here is a ten-year spending plan built on the Congressional Budget Office's ten-year surplus projections. But what of those projections? In testimony before the Senate Budget Committee, Deputy Director Barry Anderson repeatedly warned about the volatility of these projections. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office devoted an entire chapter in its Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2002-2011 to the uncertainties in forecasting economic and budget conditions. On page 93 of that document CBO cautions that there is only a 10 percent chance that budget surpluses will materialize as they have projected. On page 95 the CBO warns that, based on historical averages, its projections will be off by $52 billion in FY 2001, $120 billion in FY 2002, and $412 billion in FY 2006. To be considering a ten-year budget plan that includes permanent tax cuts, after the Congressional Budget Office has gone to such lengths to explain just what a crapshoot these projections are, is the pinnacle of fiscal irresponsibility. The Congressional Budget Office has put warning labels on everything this year. CBO officials say that this budget could be hazardous to the fiscal health of the nation. Yet, we hopped onto a ten-year budget plan without so much as blinking. Why? What was the hurry? Why couldn't we have waited until we saw a copy of the President's budget? Why couldn't we have waited until the Joint Tax Committee and the Congressional Budget Office had the details they needed to examine the President's budget and report back its findings to the Congress? We accepted these surplus projections based on little more than faith, without any real idea how these massive tax cuts would affect the overall budget. Fiscal prudence dictates that we should move slowly before enacting massive tax cuts based on these highly speculative surpluses. Does this budget resolution embrace that notion? No. In fact, it includes reconciliation instructions to expedite--not delay--but expedite consideration of these tax cuts. I have already spoken at length about reconciliation, and how using such a procedure to limit the Senate's consideration of the President's tax cut plan would ``break faith with the Senate's historical uniqueness as a forum for the exercise of minority and individual rights.'' This is my greatest concern. But reconciliation would also put us on the fast track for passing massive tax cuts without any room to reverse or correct our course later if these surplus projections turn out to be false. This train has us speeding through a long, dark tunnel with no lights and with no idea of what lies ahead. The only thing that we know for certain is that these tax cuts will prevent any substantial domestic investments over the next ten years, even if we accept these surplus projections at face value. This budget resolution barely keeps pace with what the Congressional Budget Office says is necessary to maintain current services. In addition, this budget contains no adjustment for the fact that we are a growing nation, with our population expected to increase by 8.9 percent over the next ten years. There will not be enough money to address the backlog of infrastructure needs that have built up over the past years. Our schools are crumbling, our roads need repair, our bridges are falling down, our drinking water is polluted, our sanitation systems are inadequate, our dams are unsafe. Are we expected to ignore these problems so that we can finance a tax cut for the wealthy! What about Social Security and Medicare reform? When the baby-boom generation begins to retire over the next ten years, financial pressure on the Social Security and Medicare trust funds will rise rapidly as payroll tax income falls short of what is needed to pay benefits. Both programs are expected to have expenditures in excess of receipts in 2016. Where will the federal government find the money to finance these benefits? In the absence of budget surpluses for the rest of the government's operations, policymakers would have three options: raise other taxes, curtail other spending, or borrow money from the financial markets. If we go along with these massive tax cuts, how will we honor our pledge to protect Social Security and Medicare? And, what about the unforseen disasters that will inevitably occur over the next ten years, or the increases in defense spending that ultimately be recommend by the President's advisory committee? How is Congress expected to pay for these needs if it has already frittered away available surpluses? Mr. President, 170 years ago, a frustrated German philosopher Friedrich Hegel pointed out that ``what experience and history teach is this--that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.'' What better way to reaffirm that opinion than by the Congress enacting a massive tax cut based on highly speculative surplus projections. By passing this budget resolution today, the Senate has ignored what history has tried to teach us. I say to my colleagues, we have taken this ride before. This budget is nothing more than spit-shined Reaganomics, and it deserved to be defeated.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am today offering an amendment to the Senate Budget Resolution for fiscal year 2002 that will increase domestic discretionary spending for rural water and wastewater programs. In all parts of the nation, there are men, women, and children who live every day without the basic necessities of clean, safe, drinking water or sanitary wastewater disposal. This is a great nation, and over the past decade we have witnessed tremendous gains in prosperity for much of our population. It would, therefore, surprise a great many of us to realize the poor living conditions with which many Americans have to face day-in and day-out. The United States Department of Agriculture administers a program through its Rural Utilities Service that provides loans and grants to rural communities with populations less than 10,000 to help establish, expand, or upgrade water and wastewater systems in all states. This program is one of the most successful of all federal programs. It has, perhaps, the best loan default rate within the federal government, it provides an essential catalyst for economic development, and it helps combat conditions which put the health of Americans at risk. But even more important than all those attributes, it would help erase the schism that separates the ``haves'' from the ``have-nots'' across our land. Consider for a moment how most of us take for granted the clean glass of water that we can draw from our nearest faucet. Consider how most of us expect our streets and waterways to be free from flows of raw sewage. Then imagine yourself in small communities and rural areas all across America where clean water means dipping a glass in a rain barrel and wastewater disposal means the nearest ditch. America is greater than that. In 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency released a report on unmet wastewater improvement needs in rural areas of this country. That document estimated that nearly $20 billion was needed to establish or upgrade systems necessary to avoid runoff of failed septic systems, or worse, from polluting our rivers and streams and posing serious threats to public health. The EPA is now working on a new report on this subject, due to be released in the coming year, and I fear that we will learn that the costs necessary to correct these sad conditions have seriously increased. In February of this year, the EPA issued a new report on the state of unmet drinking water needs across America. That document finds that for rural areas and communities of 10,000 or less, the total unmet need is nearly $48 billion. Of that total, $33.5 billion has been identified as an immediate need. Even with the surpluses now before the Congress, we may not be able to meet this entire need overnight, but we can, indeed, do better than we have. As of last month, the Rural Utilities Service at the Department of Agriculture had a backlog of applications awaiting funding totaling nearly $800 million in grants and $2.2 billion in loans. This backlog, which has skyrocketed in this fiscal year, includes applications from every state and I know every Senator is aware of the benefits of this program. My friend from Alaska, the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee knows how important this program is for rural Alaskan Native Villages. My friend from New Mexico, Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, knows how important this program is to the Colonias region of his state. I can provide many more from my home state of West Virginia. The amendment I am offering will provide a modest investment in the health and security of the American people. By increasing the total budget authority of this program by $1 billion--which is a mere 2 percent of the outstanding need identified in February by the EPA for drinking water systems alone--we can begin to help speed up services to rural families in every state. With an additional $1 billion, we can make gains in meeting the ever-increasing demands of unfunded applications at the Department of Agriculture. There are certain functions of government that go straight to the basic fabric of the social contract, and helping provide all Americans with the basic necessities of life is paramount among them. My amendment supports this noble role of government, and I ask all Senators to join me in its passage.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the State of California has been beset by an energy crisis. We see daily reports of rolling blackouts, epidemic shortages of electricity, and, most recently, utility rate hikes, which for some customers could mean a forty percent increase in their electric bill. And, as bad as things are now, it is only going to get worse this summer when the weather heats up and demand for electricity increases. Moreover, the problems being faced today in California are not limited to that state. On the contrary, this crisis threatens other parts of the country as well. Given that situation, one would think that policymakers here in Washington would be focused like a laser on the idea of increasing energy supplies while at the same time trying to stem demand. The Bush Administration is working to put together a national energy policy. But, until the President's Energy Task Force completes its work and reports to the American people, the only guidance we have from the Administration is that which can be gleaned from official statements and the sparse information contained in the so-called Budget Blueprint. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned with where this Administration is going, because what I hear with my ears is not the same as what I read with my eyes. When I listen to the President and his senior cabinet officials, I am at a loss to reconcile their verbal pronouncements with what the Administration has proposed by way of its budget. Let me give you some examples. On February 27, just five weeks ago, President Bush came up to Capitol Hill, and he spoke to the American people before a joint session of Congress. In that address, the President laid out several policy goals, not the least of which was the need for a national energy policy that would enhance this nation's energy security. During his speech, the President said: Our energy demand outstrips our supply. We can produce more energy at home while protecting our environment, and we must. We can produce more electricity to meet demand, and we must. We can promote alternative energy sources and conservation, and we must. America must become more energy independent, and we will. Little more than two weeks ago, on March 19, the Secretary of Energy reiterated the problems with supply when he spoke to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce here in Washington. At an event billed as a National Energy Summit, Secretary Abraham stated flat out that this nation had an energy supply crisis. He went on to say that that supply crisis was not the fault of depleted natural resources; the United States has not run out of coal, or natural gas, or oil. Rather, in the Secretary's opinion, it was ``political leadership that has been scarce.'' Consequently, when I hear these statements, I come away thinking that this administration is truly committed to increasing our supply of domestic energy. I was heartened by these comments because I believed they meant that the President and the Secretary would understand that the only way we were going to get more supply is through the use of newer and better technology. And, the only way we can get better technology is through the kind of investments in research and development being done by the Department of Energy. I regret to say, however, that I may have been wrong. I may have overestimated the administration's commitment to increasing domestic energy supplies, particularly, if those increases do not come easily or cheaply. The Budget Blueprint does not appear to include the increases in supply that the President and the Secretary say we need. Why? Because, in its budget plan, the White House has drastically pulled back from a whole-hearted dedication to research and development. The proposed budget for the Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy would underfund--severely underfund--many of our most important fossil energy research programs. It is true that the President will carry through on his promise of proposing $2 billion over the next ten years for the Clean Coal Technology program, a program I started in 1985 and one which has been one of the most successful public/private partnerships ever created. Unfortunately, while fulfilling his campaign promise related to clean coal, the President will do so at the expense of the other gas, oil, and coal research programs. Specifically, the Budget Blueprint states that Clean Coal funding, which the Secretary of Energy has said would amount to $150 million in FY 2002, ``. . . would come from a consolidated budget that redirects research funds from the current Fossil Energy research and development coal budget, matched with balances in the Clean Coal technology account. . . .'' However, the ``balances'' in the Clean Coal account the Blueprint talks about are only $33.7 million, less than 2 percent of the $2 billion commitment. Consequently, we must conclude that, for all intents and purposes, the entire cost of the Administration's Clean Coal proposal is going to come at the expense of basic research and development in the areas of coal, natural gas and oil. For Fiscal Year 2001, Congress provided $445 million in Fossil Energy Research and Development funding. Taking $150 million for Clean Coal funding out of that $445 million amounts to a 34 percent cut and would devastate the kind of research that is critical to this nation's energy security. How is one to reconcile this inconsistency? On the one hand, the Administration is adamant that our domestic energy supplies must be increased. Yet, at the same time, it fails to fund the research necessary to make that happen. The natural gas everyone wants to get their hands on is not going to rise from the ground by itself. Nor is the coal that currently supplies fifty-four percent of our nation's electricity. There may be those who wish it were not so, but the fact is that coal remains today--and will for the next several decades--our nation's cheapest and most abundant energy resource. But we cannot get to those domestic energy resources and we cannot get them out of the ground in an economical and environmentally sound manner unless we are willing to investment in the research that will make the technology possible. Thus, the amendment I am offering today will restore the $150 million in fossil energy research and development that is so important to this nation's energy independence. This amendment, which I urge my colleagues to support, would increase the budget authority allocations for Function 270, the Energy Function, by $150 million in Fiscal Year 2002. We do not need to wait for the Administration's Energy Task Force to tell us that we need more domestic energy. That is a fact we already know. The President knows it, the Secretary of Energy knows it, and, I suspect, the people of California now know it. Adopting my amendment will be the first step in ensuring that this nation has the energy it needs. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so that we can get about the task of ensuring that what is happening in California does not spread throughout the United States. Amendment No. 209