Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have listened to my distinguished friend from New Mexico with great interest. May I compliment him on the broad range of testimony that his Budget Committee has been acquiring through expert witnesses. I am a new member of the committee. I am very impressed with the well-organized, well-focused hearings that are being conducted in that committee. Mr. President, our Nation is facing a fork in the road. The Congressional Budget Office is projecting a 10-year surplus of $2.7 trillion, excluding the Social Security and Medicare surpluses. These surpluses provide us with the opportunity to invest in our future and to deal with the long-term threats to the budget, such as the retirement of the baby boom generation. The administration is proposing large and ballooning tax cuts which, if enacted, would have a significant impact on the Federal budget for decades to come. It falls to the Congress to decide how much to allocate to tax cuts, how much to spending increases, and how much to reserve for debt reduction. Before we make these decisions, we must first decide whether we have sufficient confidence in the surplus estimates to use them to make long-term budget decisions. In his recent testimony before the Senate Budget Committee, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan--and his name has been referred to already by my dear colleague, Mr. Domenici--expressed his hope that we use caution. He said: In recognition of the uncertainties in the economic and budget outlook, it is important that any long-term tax plan or spending initiative, for that matter, be phased in. Conceivably, (the long-term tax plan) could include provisions that, in some way, would limit surplus-reducing actions if specified targets for the budget surplus and federal debt were not satisfied. Now, while we all rely on the professional estimates provided by the Congressional Budget Office, we must recognize that long-term budget projections often have proved to be wrong. In its own report, entitled ``The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2002-2011,'' released last week, CBO characterizes its estimates as uncertain. On page 95 of that report, CBO States that the estimated surplus could be off in one direction or the other, on average, by about $52 billion in fiscal year 2001, by $120 billion in fiscal year 2002, and by $412 billion in fiscal year 2006. CBO confirmed in testimony before the Senate Budget Committee last week that this uncertainty would grow even larger for fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2011. Further evidence of the volatility of these estimates can be found on page XV of the summary of the CBO report. In summary table 2, entitled ``Changes in CBO's Projections of the Surplus Since July 2000,'' CBO changes its 10-year revenue estimate by $919 billion. In just 6 months, therefore, from July of 2000 to January of 2001, CBO changed its revenue estimate, I repeat, by $919 billion and its 10-year estimate of the surplus by over $1 trillion for economic and technical reasons alone. In its report, CBO concludes that there is ``some significant probability'' that the surpluses will be quite different from the CBO baseline projections. Let me now use this chart, entitled ``Uncertainty in CBO's Projections of the Surplus Under Current Policies, in Trillions of Dollars.'' In fact, CBO indicates that, ``there is some probability, albeit small, that the budget might fall into deficit in the year 2006, even without policy changes.'' So on page xviii of the report, CBO indicates that the probability that actual surpluses will fall--we can see that in the darkest area on the chart--is only 10 percent. The probability that the surplus will fall in the shaded area is 90 percent. Imagine that after some 15 years of crawling and scratching to get out of the deficit hole, the ``d'' word just might reappear in our national vocabulary in a scant 5 years even if we stay the course. The ``d'' word of course, is ``deficit.'' Yet we are now being asked by President Bush and the Republican leadership to use these extremely tenuous 10-year budget estimates as the baseline for considering a tax cut that could cost $2 trillion or more over the next 10 years. We have been down this road before, and sadly I went along for the ride. In 1981, as my good friend, the senior Senator from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, well knows, President Reagan proposed a large tax cut over 5 years. There are not many in this town who remember that his 5-year budget plan projected a surplus for fiscal year 1984 of $1 billion; for fiscal year 1985, a surplus of $6 billion; and for fiscal year 1986, a surplus of $28 billion. Congress passed the tax cut bill that reduced revenues by over $1 trillion from fiscal year 1982 to fiscal year 1987. Did the Reagan administration's projected surpluses come to pass? No. In fact, precisely the opposite occurred. The fiscal year 1984 deficit was not a surplus of $1 billion as projected. The fiscal year 1984 deficit was $185 billion--using the ``d'' word, ``deficit.'' The fiscal year 1985 deficit was $212 billion. The fiscal year 1986 deficit was $221 billion.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Yes. That is remarkable.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I daresay that each of us has received an enormous amount of correspondence about the nomination of Senator John Ashcroft to be Attorney General of the United States. The favorable correspondence tends to emphasize support for the Senator's policy priorities and appreciation of his reputation for honesty and integrity. The unfavorable correspondence tends to emphasize concern about the Senator's policy priorities and disapproval of the standards he applied, as Senator, to the disposition of Presidential nominations. We must begin by deliberating on the standard to be applied to confirmation decisions. The Constitution merely states that the President shall appoint public ministers with the ``advice and consent'' of the Senate. This is not a specific standard, nor even a mandate to review particular features of a nominee's background or capabilities. Rather, we are enjoined to employ our judgment, a faculty which--however much we may lament it--focuses on different factors in considering nominees for different public offices and varies its approach in response to the needs of the times. Thus, when it comes to our duty to provide advice and consent on cabinet nominations, we are plainly in an area where reasonable minds can differ, not only about the criteria, but even about the proper result given particular criteria. No amount of pressure politics--and no slickly packaged talking points--can alter this fundamental fact. I do not subscribe to the view that, barring the taint of criminality or dishonesty, the President is entitled to have his nominations confirmed. I do subscribe to the view that law enforcement officials of good will and ability can separate their policy preferences from the performance of their official duties. There is a distinct difference between the role of a Senator as the drafter of laws and the role of the Attorney General as the enforcer of laws. Once Senator Ashcroft places his left hand on the Bible and swears to uphold the laws of the United States, he will be required to enforce even those laws about which he harbors serious reservations. Not only that, but given the fact that John Ashcroft is a deeply religious man, that solemn vow, I am sure, will not be taken lightly by him. Let me quote Senator Ashcroft's own words on that subject: ``As a man of faith, I take my word and my integrity seriously,'' he said. ``So, when I swear to uphold the law, I will keep my oath, so help me God.'' Further, during his confirmation hearings, he stated that he understands this obligation and fully intends to honor it. For example, he indicated that he ``will vigorously enforce and defend the constitutionality'' of the law barring harassment of patients entering abortion clinics, despite any misgivings he might have about that law. I take him at his word. Although, I do not agree with all of Senator Ashcroft's views, I have no cause to doubt Senator Ashcroft's word or his sincerity regarding his fealty to an oath he will swear before God Almighty. It would be an act of supreme arrogance on my part to doubt his intention to honor such an oath. I will not prejudge him in such a manner. Given Senator Ashcroft's background, the position to which he has been nominated, and his assurances to the Senate that he will faithfully uphold the laws of the United States, I believe he should be confirmed.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I daresay that each of us has received an enormous amount of correspondence and a plethora of phone calls about the nomination of Senator John Ashcroft to be Attorney General of the United States. The favorable correspondence tends to emphasize support for the Senator's policy priorities and appreciation of his reputation for honesty and integrity. The unfavorable correspondence tends to emphasize concern about the Senator's policy priorities and disapproval of the standards that he applied as a United States Senator and in previous offices that he held, but particularly to the standards he applied with regard to the disposition of Presidential nominations. Mr. President, I speak today for myself as a Senator from the State of West Virginia, as one who has sworn an oath 16 times to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. I have heard arguments pro and con with respect to this nomination. I am not here to argue the case at all. I am here merely to express my support for the nomination of John Ashcroft to be Attorney General of the United States. I will not fall out with anyone else who differs from my views. As I say, I am not here to debate my views. I know what my views are. I am going to state them, and they will be on the record. I do not fault anyone else on either side of the aisle or on either side of the question. This is for each Senator to resolve in his or her own heart and in accordance with his or her own conscience. With respect to that provision in the U.S. Constitution, investing in the U.S. Senate the prerogative, the right, and the duty of advising and consenting to nominations, I find no mandate as to what a standard may be. I am not told in that Constitution that I can or cannot apply a standard that is ideological in nature. I have no particular guidance set forth in that Constitution except exactly what it says. And I am confident, without any semblance of doubt, that as far as ability is concerned to conduct the office of Attorney General, there can be no question about Senator John Ashcroft's ability to conduct that office. He has held many offices. He has been a Governor of the State of Missouri. He has been a United States Senator. He has been an attorney general of the State of Missouri and, as I understand it, he has been the chairman--I may not have the title exactly right--of the National Association of Attorneys General of the United States. These are very important offices. They are high offices. They are offices that reflect honor upon the holder thereof. To have been selected for these high offices, John Ashcroft must have enjoyed the respect and the confidence of the people of Missouri and of his colleagues, other Attorneys General throughout the United States. I, myself, do consider ideology when I consider a nominee, for this office, Attorney General, and in particular for the offices of Federal district judgeships or appellate judgeships, and U.S. Supreme Court Judgeships; yes, I do. I apply my own standards of ideology, and lay them down beside the record, if there be such, of a nominee. And I may reach a judgment based on ideology. I have no problem with others who want to apply the criterion of ideology. I have no problem with those who say it should not be applied. This is for each Senator to determine. It is our understanding, based on Senator Ashcroft's record, certainly based on news reports, and other sources from which we might reach a judgment, that Senator Ashcroft is a conservative. I personally have no problem with that. I consider myself a conservative in many ways; in some ways a liberal. This nomination has been heatedly debated. There have been great and strong passions exhibited. That is all right. I do not have any problem with that. I am glad that Members of the Senate take a matter such as this so seriously. We can feel strongly about these things I happen to be a Senator who believes that when it comes to judges, they ought to be conservative. I think that if there is going to be a department of our Government that wishes to be liberal, then that is up to the people, if they wish to elect persons with liberal outlooks, liberal philosophies, to the U.S. Senate or to the House of Representatives--the legislative branch. It is up to the people. The Chief Executive may be a liberal; he may be a conservative; or he may be both liberal in one instance, conservative in another. Who knows what liberal is and what conservative is? The beauty is in the eye of the beholder-- in many instances, certainly. But in my own eye, looking at Robert Byrd--and who can see Robert Byrd from within? There is a poem--``Just stand aside and see yourself go by.'' I try to look at myself every now and then, especially as I pass the mirror. When you get all you want in your struggle for pelf And the world makes you ``King'' for a day Then go to a mirror and look at yourself And see what that guy has to say. For it isn't your father, or mother, or wife Whose judgment upon you must pass The fellow whose verdict counts most in your life Is the [man looking] back from the glass. But as I see myself, I consider myself to be a liberal on economic matters, generally; and a conservative on social matters. Newspapers indicate that the vehemence of the opposition to this nomination is, in a measure, for the purpose of sending a ``shot across the bow'' of the Executive, so that in the future when it comes to Supreme Court nominations, the President will be very careful not to send up a conservative. I do not have a very big gun, but my little shot across the bow would be: Mr. President, send us conservative judges. That is the one department of the Government that I think should be conservative. It should not make the laws. It should not consider itself a perpetual and traveling constitutional convention. It should construe the Constitution and the laws that the legislature makes. The President was elected as a conservative. He did not get my vote, but he was elected as a conservative. I think that when it comes to the appointment of Federal judges, I hope he will nominate conservatives. That is what he ought to do. He told the people he was conservative; and they should expect that of him. But entirely aside from that--and this Senator speaks only for himself in this regard--I think appointments to the Federal bench should be of a conservative bent. Judges have no business trying to make the laws. As far as I am concerned, any other Senator may apply his own standards and say whatever he wants to. I only have to answer for one person, and that is the old boy looking back from the glass when I pause in front of the mirror. I have heard no Senator indicate opposition to the nominee on the basis of the nominee's religion. I have heard none. But there have been a few little insinuations in some newspapers, in the columns, to the extent that part of the opposition to this nominee may be on the basis of his being a Christian, his adhering to the Christian religion. Mr. President, I salute the nominee for being someone who has a religion. I think more public officials should have a strong religious bent, and should be willing to enunciate their faith, whether it be Methodist, Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, Baptist, whatever. That is fine. I am glad that there are people who bring to the realms of government a religious faith. We need more of that. One does not need to be driven into the closet because he has religious faith. One should not allow himself to be driven in the closet. I do not attempt to foist my faith on others, but I can listen to any of them when it comes to their prayers. I can listen--listen--with respect, and I can hear what they say. I have a son-in-law who is from Iran. He grew up in a family of devout Muslims. Five times a day did my son-in-law's father look toward Mecca and pray. I could have no better son-in-law, none better. I am proud of him. It does not matter to me what a man's religion is. It matters more that he has a religion. It is like the rules of the Senate. It does not matter so much what a rule of the Senate is. What matters most is that there be a rule to go by. In this regard, I remember the beginning days of the Continental Congress in 1774. That First Continental Congress met on September 5, 1774. The next day, one of the members--it may have been Cushing or Clark, Cushing of Massachusetts or Clark of New Jersey--stood to his feet and moved that there be prayer at the beginning of each session. John Jay, who was an orthodox Congregationalist, objected, as did, I believe, John Rutledge of South Carolina, objected on the basis that this might cause some dissension, some argumentation, so on. Whereupon Samuel Adams--the real firebrand of the Revolution, along with Patrick Henry--stood to his feet and said: I am no bigot. I can hear a prayer by any of them. He, too, was a Congregationalist. I could listen to any of them, Adams said. ``I move that Mr. Duche, an Episcopalian clergyman, desired to rend prayers to the Congress tomorrow morning.'' I feel the same as did Samuel Adams. I can listen to any of them. We all stand before one God, and he will be our judge. Whether I am a Methodist or Baptist or Episcopalian or Catholic or Jew won't put me at the head of the line. It is my belief in that Creator, the use of my talents as he gave them to me, and my own conscience that will count. I am for Mr. Ashcroft. I praise him, if he has a religion that he is willing to stand up for. I am not suggesting that he is going to use that in one way or the other as he has to deal with problems that will come before him as Attorney General, but I would much rather believe a man who puts his hand on that Bible and swears to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, I would feel safer believing that that individual will adhere to his oath than I will have faith in an individual who has no manifestation of religion whatsoever or who has no religion. Here is a man who puts his hand on the Bible, the book our fathers and mothers read, and swears an oath before Almighty God and man. When he says that while he was a Senator he enacted laws but when he becomes Attorney General he won't enact laws any longer, he will enforce the laws, I should think that it would be cynical not to take that man at his word. What else can we demand? A pound of flesh? I take him at his word. He is a conservative. I am a conservative. He may be to my right on some issues. That is neither here nor there. He will have sworn that he will uphold, support, and defend the Constitution, that he will enforce the law as he found it. I shall believe him. I wonder if Hugo Black would be confirmed by the Senate in today's political environment. He was confirmed by the United States Senate prior to the revelation that he had been a member of the Ku Klux Klan. He had already been confirmed before that revelation appeared in the Hearst papers in 1937. That is the year in which I married my wife, Erma, 1937. He had already been confirmed. But there was an effort to have the Supreme Court reject him after that information came to light, but the Supreme Court denied that petition. I am sure that in light of his past, had it been known when the Senate confirmed him, Hugo Black may never have had the opportunity to be the great jurist that he became. So we cannot always look at a person's past and make an accurate judgment. And who am I to look at anybody's past? Look at my own. Someone has said that no man's past will bear looking into. I think it is probably true. We are talking here in regard to Mr. Ashcroft's past positions on various issues. But when he took those positions, he took them not as Attorney General of the United States, not as one who enforces the laws of the United States. As a legislator now for 54 years, going on 55, I have taken many controversial positions on issues. I think I would be constitutionally capable of putting aside my opinions, as I have expressed them in the past--and many of mine have been very strongly expressed--I would be capable, I would like to think, of putting those aside and enforcing the laws of the land without fear or favor, hewing to the line, if called upon to be the Attorney General of the United States. It was never a job I would want. I think Mr. Ashcroft can do that. The Constitution merely states that the President shall appoint public ministers with the advice and consent of the Senate. As I say, this is not a specific standard, nor even a mandate to review particular features of the nominee's background or capabilities. Rather, we are enjoined to employ our judgment, a faculty which--however much we may lament it--focuses on different factors in considering nominees for different public offices and varies its approach in response to the needs of the times. Thus, when it comes to our duty to provide advice and consent on Cabinet nominations, we are plainly in an area where reasonable minds can differ, not only about the criteria, but even about the proper result given particular criteria. No amount of pressure politics--and no slickly packaged talking points--can alter this fundamental fact. I do not subscribe to the view that, barring the taint of criminality or dishonesty, the President is entitled to have his nominations confirmed. I do not subscribe to that view. That is not what the Constitution says. I do subscribe to the view that law enforcement officials of good will and ability can separate their policy preferences from the performance of their official duties. There is a distinct difference between the role of a Senator as the drafter of laws and the role of the Attorney General as the enforcer of laws. Once Senator Ashcroft places his left hand on the Bible and swears to uphold the laws of the United States, he will be required to enforce even those laws about which he harbors serious reservations. Not only that, but given the fact that John Ashcroft is as I said, is reputed to be a deeply religious man. I know not whether he is or isn't. I have never been one who has been close to Mr. Ashcroft. I never served on any committee with him. My conversations with him have been very, very few. He and I have not voted alike on many occasions. So I don't come here today supporting Mr. Ashcroft because I know him well, or because we have been bosom friends, or because we served on committees together, or even because he is a U.S. Senator. But I believe that that solemn vow will be taken seriously by him. I am attempting to discharge my duty under the Constitution. That is the way I see it. Let me quote Senator Ashcroft's own words on that subject: ``As a man of faith, I take my word and my integrity seriously,'' he said. ``So, when I swear to uphold the law, I will keep my oath, so help me God.'' What more can I ask? Shall I go behind these words and dig up what he might have written on this subject or that subject? Those who feel differently may do so. But in this case, all things being considered, I have reason to believe that when he says he is a man of strong religious faith, he means what he says when he takes the oath. I believe him. During his confirmation hearings, he stated that he understands this obligation and fully intends to honor it. For example, he indicated that he ``will vigorously enforce and defend the constitutionality'' of the law barring harassment of patients entering abortion clinics, despite any misgivings he might have about that law. I take him at his word. Although, I do not agree with all of Senator Ashcroft's views, as I have already indicated, I have no cause to doubt Senator Ashcroft's word or his sincerity regarding his fealty to an oath he will swear before God and man. As far as I am personally concerned, it would be an act of supreme arrogance on my part to doubt his intention to honor such an oath. I will not prejudge him in such a manner. Given Senator Ashcroft's background, the position to which he has been nominated, and his assurances to the Senate that he will faithfully uphold the laws of the United States, I believe he should be confirmed. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. I have no objection.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. What are the terms of the adjournment resolution?

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I was sitting at my desk poring over my mail, watching for grammatical errors, errors in sentence construction, and, lo and behold, I heard this voice coming to me. I heard the voice saying this was a maiden speech, so I just stopped everything, and I said to the other staff people in the office: That man says this is his maiden speech. I am going to go up and listen to him. This is a reminder to me of the old days when Senators gathered around close to hear a new Senator's maiden speech. The word would go out, and we came. We did not have the public address system. We gathered close by so that we could clearly understand the words that were being spoken, and we looked the speaker eye in the eye and he looked us eye in the eye. This reminds me of those days when Senators gathered together to listen to a new Senator. This Senator has greatly impressed me. He serves on the Budget Committee with me. We are both newcomers on that committee. I have had the chance to talk on very few occasions with Senator Nelson. I have been impressed by his straightforwardness, his high sense of purpose in service. He comes to us from Florida. My wife and I lived in Florida for 7 months during the last days of the war-- the Second World War, that is, not the Civil War. I was a welder in the shipyard at the McClosky shipyard in Tampa. Spessard Holland was the Governor of the State of Florida. I later came to this body, and, lo and behold, here was Spessard Holland in this body. I went right over there, about the second or third seat in the front row, and I sat down and talked with Spessard Holland the day I was sworn in. I said: Well, Governor, I lived in your State. I was a welder down in your State while you were Governor. I am proud to be here serving with you. Spessard Holland was a very fine Senator. He was always courteous to a fault and made up his own mind. I think this Senator from Florida will be one who will make up his own mind. That is something we need to be very careful of here. I do not count myself being in a particular ideological group of Senators. I am an independent Senator--not an Independent but an independent Democrat. Sometimes I differ with my other Democratic friends. That is not the point here. I think we have a fine Senator in Senator Nelson who will be his own man, who will make up his own mind. He will study things carefully, and he will try to reach a reasoned, balanced-- I use his word ``balanced'' there--disciplined--he used that word, too--judgment. I am proud we have such a man coming into the Senate. I predict he will be a power in the Senate, and I consider myself very fortunate in having the opportunity to serve with Senator Nelson. I was trying to think of a bit of poetry that I wanted to recall for this particular occasion. But aside from that--I may get back to it later--I like what the Senator said. He intends to weigh very carefully this proposed tax cut which is in the nature of $1.6 trillion. That is $1,600 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. That is a good way to gauge the size of this tax cut: $1,600 for every 60 seconds since the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. That is a lot of money, and I am going to weigh it very carefully with him. Yes, we need to think carefully about education. We also must remember that the 7 percent contribution we make to the education budgets in the States is not a great deal. And I am not sure how much good what we contribute really does. Probably, we will never be really sure. But education is at the local level. We need good teachers, teachers who know the subjects, teachers who are dedicated. We need parents who will back up the teachers. And we need students who want to learn. I was fortunate, coming up in the Great Depression, to have good teachers. They didn't make much money, and many times they had to give 20 to 25 percent of their check in order to get it cashed in the days of the Great Depression. But they were dedicated teachers. I started out in a two-room schoolhouse; I am proud of it. I thank God for it. I thank God for the fact that I came through the Great Depression. It left some very vivid memories with me. I was born in 1917, and so my recollections of the Great Depression are as they were only of yesterday. I remember that little two-room schoolhouse at Algonquin in Mercer County. And I remember a little two- room schoolhouse up on Nubbins Ridge where I attended. There were two teachers in that little school. One was a man; one was a lady. The man walked, I expect, 4 miles every morning to school. He came from far down the creek, and he came up, walked by my house, and I fell in line when he came by the house, and I walked on to school with him. I learned in those days. My heroes were the great patriots of the American Revolution. And they were men such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Francis Marion, the ``Swamp Fox,'' Daniel Morgan, and men who lived during the formation of this Republic. Now, I wanted to learn. And the man who raised me never told me he would ever go up and whip the teacher if I came home with a bad report card. He wouldn't go up. And if the teacher gave me a whipping--which he didn't--I was told that I would get another one when I got home. And I knew that was the case. I wanted to please the two old people who raised me. They were not my father and mother, but I wanted to please them. I wanted to please the teacher, just to get a pat on the back, just to get a little pat on the top of my head from the teacher. I remember I took violin lessons beginning in the seventh grade. And at this particular school--it was in a coal mining camp--the principal was a tough disciplinarian, the kind we need in our schools, if they would let teachers discipline children. I don't think they will let them do that anymore. Too bad. But the principal's wife was a music teacher, and an excellent one. She talked me into asking the people who raised me if they would buy a violin for me so I could take music lessons. She thought I might grow up to be a violinist. So I remember one Saturday night when we all piled into the back of a big truck and went to Beckley 10 or 12 miles away. And there--I always called him my dad; he was the only dad I ever knew--he bought a violin and a case and a fiddle bow. Now I am talking about a fiddle, but it is all the same thing. But this whole kit and caboodle cost about $26 or $28. That was big money in a coal camp. Anyhow, I went home that night carrying that fiddle case under my arm and with visions--old men dream dreams, and young men have visions--of myself being a Fritz Chrysler or a great violinist. Well, I took lessons. And in this high school orchestra, I was the first violinist. It so happens, I was the first violinist. I was the first one. I got to the point where I thought I had all the lessons down pat, that I didn't have to practice as hard anymore. So one day I went to school, and the teacher had a little tryout. And lo and behold, she demoted me to the second chair. I went home a crushed lad, crushed because I had been demoted. I liked that music teacher. In all my years of 83, I have lost I think four teeth. It was on one of those occasions when I had an abscessed tooth that this music teacher said to her husband: Now, you take this boy to Sophia. That was 3 miles away. This was in the wintertime. It was up a steep mountain. She said: You take him up to the dentist. And he took me. I was crushed that night because I had been demoted. But it was my fault. I got just a little too overly confident. So that night I practiced and I practiced and I practiced and I practiced; and the next day I recovered my first chair in that orchestra. Those are the kinds of teachers we had. We can put all the money we want into education, but the teachers have to be dedicated teachers. I had dedicated. They didn't make much money. As I say, they had to give a fourth or a fifth of it away in order to get a check cashed in the days of the Depression. But we can't pay enough money to a good teacher. And it is very disappointing to me when I see athletes draw down millions of dollars every year. Of course, I admire good athletes, but I think this country has gone all wild over athletes, and it is standing its values on its head. A lot of these athletes go out here and they commit crimes. They are not very good models. Of course, there are people outside athletics who are not good models, too. There have been a few in politics, especially in recent years, perhaps not altogether recent years. Look at some of the anchors on the TV from the networks. They are drawing down $5 million, $6 million, $7 million, $8 million a year. They aren't worth it. They aren't worth it. But we need to stimulate a love and a search for excellence in this country. Most of that can be done, most of the stimulation of that, the motivation of that; some of it will come from within; some of it starts in here. But it also comes from a good teacher, a good parent, who sets the example for that young person and encourages them to study, and study, and make something out of themselves--to use the words of my own people who raised me, try to make something out of themselves, try to continue learning. I try to continue learning. I am always trying to learn. Solon, one of the seven wise men of Greece, said: ``I grow old in the pursuit of learning.'' We can pour out all the money from the Treasury, but it can be poured down a rat hole. The motivation has to be there. The good teacher has to be there. We ought to pay those good teachers. After all, they are dealing with our most precious resource. They ought to be paid well. But they ought to be held accountable for the work they do. And the parents, as I say, ought to strive to stimulate in the child a motivation, a desire to learn, learn, learn. I have gone a long way in my desultory ramblings here, but this matter of education is one that is overly, overly, overly important. As I often say to young people, no ball game ever changed the course of history, not one. And when you have seen one, you have seen them all. When you have seen one ball game, you have seen them all. I can play every position on the team. I can go through all the motions. I don't say this now in derogation of athletics. I don't do that at all. But we have our values standing on their heads. We have a job to do. We do need to think about education, as we think about the so-called surpluses. These surpluses, I have seen them on paper. I haven't seen one yet that really glitters because we don't have them in hand, and we may never have them in hand. If we go for this big tax cut, $1.6 trillion, once we write that law and the President signs it, that money goes out. It is gone. The surpluses won't be in hand, if ever, for some years. It will take a while. So we need to proceed with great caution. I hope the Senator will forgive me for imposing on his time. I felt so proud to see Senator Nelson come to the floor. I have lived more than 83 years. I have been fooled by a few people in my lifetime. My mom used to keep boarders, and I would go to her when we had a new boarder, and I would say: Mom, that man is going to cheat you out of your board payment. I didn't do that often, but I think I was about right in every one I selected. That man will cheat you out of your board bill; there is something about him. I think there is something about this man. In any case, he is going to be a good Senator, a hard-working one. I am proud to listen to him in his maiden speech, and I am delighted to work with him. I thank him for what he has said today.

Mr. BYRD. Will the distinguished Senator yield to me briefly?

Mr. BYRD. I did not know that Senator Allard was a doctor. He has gone up in stature with me since I have learned that. I have a little dog, a little Maltese dog, Billy Byrd. He is approaching his 14th birthday. If I ever saw in this world anything that was made by the Creator's hand that is more dedicated, more true, more undeviant, more faithful than this little dog, I am at a loss to state what it is. I take my hat off. My wife and I pay some pretty high bills to some of these veterinarians, but we gladly pay them. We love that little dog. I take my hat off. I wish I could say that I had been a veterinarian. It must be a joy to work with animals, especially with dogs. I believe it was Truman who said: If you want a friend in Washington, buy a dog. Well, I have a friend in McLean, and I take my hat off to the veterinarians, the two of them, the one in the Chair as well. I am glad we have two here. I did not know this about Senator Allard. I have served with him a while. I am pleased to hear this. Thank you for the services you perform on creatures that make us happy and that show us God's love and show us how to be honest and true and faithful and guileless.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I supported the nomination of Senator Spencer Abraham as the next Secretary of Energy, and I look forward to working with him in his new position. While I know that Senator Abraham will be facing a host of new issues at the Department of Energy, I welcome his appointment. I believe that Senator Abraham has a commitment to address the many complicated, intertwining energy, environmental, and economic questions that he will be faced with on a daily basis as Energy Secretary. In recent years, the Department of Energy has been rocked by high profile scandals and security breaches and criticism for failing to address compounding energy policy problems. The Department of Energy has longstanding internal problems regarding agency morale, a complicated system of laboratories, the cleanup of DOE's nuclear complex, and competition between fuel and industry interests. Secretary Abraham will have a defining role in determining the needs and priorities for our national security, energy policy, science and technology, and environmental management. First and foremost, he will need to work with Congress in the development of a balanced, comprehensive national energy policy. If our ultimate national interests are ever to be achieved, we must address the overarching concerns witnessed by the current price hikes in gasoline, home heating oil, electricity, and natural gas. Though I am certain that, in time, these crises will pass as most crises do, I fear that, as a nation, we will sink back into energy somnolence. The alarm bells are ringing loudly today, and it is time to wake up and address our need for a serious comprehensive national energy strategy. At the same time, a comprehensive energy strategy must also incorporate a strong environmental policy and economic incentives to benefit our nation as a whole. The new Energy Secretary agreed with me that coal is integral to any national energy strategy. When I met with him, we discussed Clean Coal Technologies and other research that can utilize many of our domestic energy resources in economically and environmentally sound ways. Since 1985, when I established the Clean Coal Technology initiative with a Congressional authorization of $750 million, more than $2.4 billion has been invested in this successful program. Secretary Abraham voiced Administration support for these efforts. By utilizing our nation's knowledge and resources, we can meet our energy demands while also improving the environment. Additionally, I urged the new Energy Secretary to find ways to address the global climate change challenge. I hope he will continue to support longstanding initiatives that can address climate change as well as find more ways to deploy our advanced technologies in the market, both domestically and internationally. These new technologies and ideas have been paid for by the American people, tested in our laboratories, and demonstrated with the support and assistance of the private sector, and must be deployed if the global community is ever going to seriously tackle the problem of global climate change. In the coming months, there certainly will be debate over how best to protect the environment, without risking the economic security of our own country. Adopting a commonsense national energy policy that takes advantage of our advanced technologies, while also utilizing our vast energy resources, can be a win-win situation for the environment and the economy.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleagues today in supporting the president's nomination of Mrs. Gale Norton to be the next Secretary of the Department of the Interior. As the ranking minority member on the appropriations subcommittee which provides funding for the Interior department, I have a particular interest in this Cabinet position. I know that effectively managing this department--an organization of 69,000 employees and an $8.4 billion budget--is not an easy task. The Interior Secretary is charged with overseeing the 379 parks of the National Park System, the 521 refuges and the 66 national fish hatcheries of the Fish and Wildlife Service, the 264 million acres of land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, and serving the needs of 1.4 million American Indians. Clearly, with a portfolio that broad, it is easy to see that the programs under the jurisdiction of the Secretary have a direct impact on every state in the union and nearly every American citizen. I am aware of the controversy that has surrounded this nomination. I know that there are those who do not see Mrs. Norton as an ally. There have been many accusations made concerning the nominee's public policy positions, and she has been, in my opinion, unfairly derided as a result of certain past working relationships. Despite this, I remain confident that, as Secretary, Gale Norton will be responsive to the concerns of the American people, particularly those concerns expressed by the Congress. I have personally talked with Mrs. Norton, and while I will not say that we had an in-depth discussion of all the issues which come before the Interior Department, I can say that, with respect to those subject matters we did discuss, I found Gale Norton to be well informed. More importantly, I found her willing to consider various points of view. Obviously, Senators cannot expect a Cabinet Secretary to agree with us on all things at all times. But what we should expect is to have an opportunity to present our views, or present the case of those we represent, and to have those views heard in a fair and unbiased manner. I believe Mrs. Norton will deliver quite well on that expectation. Madam President, I wish Gale Norton well as she embarks on a difficult assignment, and she will work with the Congress to ensure that we fulfill our land management and trust responsibilities to the American people in a fair, economical, and efficient manner.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I strongly support the nomination of Norman Mineta to be the next Secretary of Transportation. Throughout his very lengthy career in public service, Norman Mineta has demonstrated a true commitment to improving the quality of life for all Americans and a strong understanding of the elemental role that transportation plays in our national prosperity. Mr. Mineta began his public career in 1967 as the Mayor of the San Jose City Council in California. In 1971, he was elected Mayor of San Jose. Most of us know Mr. Mineta, however, from his very distinguished career in the House of Representatives, where he served for 21 years representing the Silicon Valley area. At the culmination of his career in the House, Mr. Mineta served as the Chairman of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation--the committee we now know as the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Once we succeed in confirming Norman Mineta today, we will usher in a Secretary with a very extensive grounding in both politics and transportation policy. Many of Mr. Mineta's most significant legislative accomplishments in the House were in the area of transportation. During the drafting of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Mr. Mineta served as Chairman of the Public Works Subcommittee on Ground Transportation. He has also been very involved in aviation policy, both during and after his career in Congress. President Clinton asked him to chair the National Civil Aviation Review Commission. This ``Mineta Commission'' made several significant recommendations for revamping the Federal Aviation Administration. At the request of Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater, Mr. Mineta also chaired an ad hoc advisory committee on truck safety. Much has been accomplished in these two areas, but so much more remains to be done. Aviation delays have reached an all-time high. Secretary Mineta was quite frank with the members of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee during his confirmation hearing in telling them that they should not expect to see these delays diminish any time soon. Many of us have read some frightening revelations regarding the inadequate enforcement efforts made by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration in maintaining truck safety. These are two areas where Secretary Mineta has committed himself to moving out quickly to implement a comprehensive series of improvements, and I support him in these efforts. When President-elect Bush announced his selection of Norman Mineta to be his Transportation Secretary, then-Commerce Secretary Mineta stated ``Inadequate infrastructure is one of the chief threats to a thriving economy.'' This is a point that I have sought to make on the floor of the United States Senate numerous times, and Members can expect me to continue to make this case time and time again. I am glad that I will have an ally in Secretary Mineta in convincing my colleagues that we need to reverse the overall disinvestment in our nation's infrastructure that we have experienced over the last two decades. We have begun to make some progress by honoring the funding guarantees that I and other Senators included in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. However, much more needs to be done, and I look forward to working with Norman Mineta to see to it that we take a more aggressive approach in investing in America.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. To say that these are historic times would be hackneyed and trite. To say that the leaders of the Senate have risen to new heights and are acting and speaking as statesmen would be something other than trite. I first want to congratulate my leader on this side of the aisle and my leader on that side of the aisle. I know they have gone through some excruciating moments. I know, without asking, that they have lost some sleep. I know, without inquiring, that they have rolled and tossed on their pillows, having been in their shoes myself. When I came to the Senate, Lyndon Johnson was the majority leader. Politics did not prevail over statesmanship. He worked with a Republican President, President Eisenhower, in the best interests of the Nation. When the great civil rights debate of 1964 occurred, Everett Dirksen did not play politics. Had Everett Dirksen not worked with Lyndon Johnson and with Mike Mansfield, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would never have been written. Had Everett Dirksen played politics instead of acting the part of statesman, cloture would never have been invoked on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. When the Panama Canal treaties were before the Senate in 1977, had Howard Baker chose to play the part of a politician and not worked with Robert Byrd in the interests of the Nation as we saw those interests, the Panama Canal treaties would not have been approved. More lives would have been lost. Howard Baker acted the part of statesman. We both were swimming uphill. The Nation's polls showed that the people generally were much opposed to the Panama Canal treaties. We came together. Even in this past election, I still lost the votes of some West Virginians because of my support of the Panama Canal treaties in 1977. We saw on those occasions the separation aisle here become a passageway to the best interests of the Nation; Senators from both sides joining hands and marching together. On the Appropriations Committee, we do not need a resolution of this kind. We have always worked together, Republicans and Democrats, on that committee. The longer I work on that committee, the better our members of both parties seem to work together. We have worked well throughout all the years I have been on that committee, when Senator Russell was chairman, when Senator McClellan was chairman, when Senator Ellender was chairman, and when Senator Hatfield was chairman, when Senator Stennis was the chairman. I say here today and now that the paradigm of cooperation, of statesmanship, of bipartisanship has occurred during the chairmanship of Ted Stevens. I am one Democrat who has absolutely no compunction when it comes to stating the truth about a colleague. If I have to say that the chairman is a better chairman than I have been, I have no compunctions about that. I said that several times about Slade Gorton, the former chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on the Department of the Interior. He was a superb chairman. He was a better chairman of that subcommittee than I ever was. That is a westerner's subcommittee in the main. Ted Stevens has been a chairman par excellence. We don't need any resolution. Whatever problem there is, he and I can settle it. There is no rivalry, none, between these two Senators. There is no party between these two Senators. There is only friendship and respect and trust. That is the way it has always been, and that is the way it is always going to be. That is the secret to getting things done in this evenly membered Senate in these times, a 50/50 tie: trust, mutual respect and trust. I am not going to go to heaven if I hate Republicans. My old mom used to say: ``You can't go to heaven and hate anybody, Robert.'' Now, there are some people on both sides of the aisle who are extremely partisan. There are many others who are only moderately partisan. I think for the most part we can say that most Members on both sides are moderately partisan. This agreement is a real accomplishment. I don't think I would have accomplished this, if I had been majority leader. That leader on the Republican side had an extremely tough way to go. Today he has risen to a new stature. I thought he did himself well during the impeachment trial. I thought my own leader set a fine example. Today these two leaders have set a wonderful example. But the example of statesmanship goes beyond these two leaders. I know it has been difficult for Members, particularly on the Republican side, to come to an agreement such as has been reached here. But they have been willing to give up their partisanship for the moment in the better interests of the Nation. Also, it is exceedingly important--I have already mentioned it here-- to George Bush, who will become the President of the United States on January 20. It is vitally important to him, if he is to expect to see his programs considered and adopted. And hopefully, from his standpoint, certainly, and from the standpoint of many others, if he is to see those programs succeed, he is going to have to have help. He can't depend on all of its coming just from his side of the aisle. He is going to have some help over here. Who knows, I may be one who will vote with him from time to time. There will be others on this side. This agreement is exceedingly important to him. It sets the right example. It should give heart and encouragement to the people of the Nation. I view it as a pact which will make it possible for us to rise above the interests of party, rise above even ourselves from time to time, and enable us to accomplish something worthy of remembrance in the pages of history. This can be the most difficult situation that could ever confront the U.S. Senate. We could just tie ourselves in knots. But there is a spirit of goodwill that I see emanating here that has brought about this agreement, which I hope will be agreed upon soon, and it is a unique agreement. I personally express my deep gratitude to Mr. Lott and to Mr. Daschle. I would never have thought it could be done. I viewed the future with a great deal of dread, but I am encouraged to believe that we can, indeed, accomplish something that will be in the best interests of both parties, be in the best interests of the Nation, and be in the best interests of this Senate and make this Senate, once again, the beacon that it has so many times shown itself to be in times of peril, in times of stress in the history of this great Nation.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, let me express my appreciation to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. He is a Senator of enormous ability and great talents. One of those talents is the capability of elocution in such an impressive and persuasive manner. I want to thank him for his words today. The President-elect can be very grateful to the two leaders of this body today and to the Senators who have acceded to the needs and the requirements of the moment to give up a little; everyone gives up a little. We are waiving some rules; we are temporarily changing some rules in this resolution. In the interests of going forward in the Nation and in the interests of making it possible for this institution to rise to the expectations of the American people and accede to their will, this resolution is really a unique instrument. As the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has just said, this resolution makes it possible for the Senate to work its will; and achieve legislative goals; it only makes it possible. We, the Members on both sides of the aisle, have to make it work. I am constrained to hope--yea, even believe--that we are going to make it work. The things I have heard said on this floor today make me believe that. I thank the distinguished Senator. I have known him for a long time. I thank him for his contribution today. Mr. President, if I may speak just for a few minutes, I ask unanimous consent I may address the Senate on another matter for not to exceed 10 minutes.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on December 31st the Nation lost a remarkable man. At his home in Los Altos, California, lands-end of the Nation and State he served, Alan Cranston did not witness the beginning of the new millennium. It has been said that death is the great leveler. But Alan Cranston's accomplishments in life have clearly set him apart. Nearly seven decades ago, a young American journalist from California published an unexpurgated version of Adolf Hitler's ``Mein Kampf'' ``My Struggle''--revealing, as few had previously done, the true depth of the danger and the evil that Hitler embodied. Hitler successfully sued for copyright violation, and Alan Cranston wore that loss as a proud badge throughout his life. After a career in journalism, service in the U.S. Army during World War II, business, and local politics, Alan Cranston joined the members of this U.S. Senate in 1969 by virtue of his election in the previous November. Here, Senator Cranston's vision and rich composition of experiences, talents, and wisdom enriched our Senate deliberations. In 1977, when I was elected Senate Democratic Leader, Senator Cranston won election as Assistant Democratic Leader, or ``whip.'' In all his years of working, first as my proverbial ``right hand'' and, subsequently, as a close colleague in the Senate leadership when I became President pro tempore, Senator Cranston was a conscientious adjutant and a congenial friend and partner in numerous legislative efforts. Unfortunately, words alone cannot adequately convey the respect in which I held Senator Cranston, nor the solid appreciation that I felt for Senator Cranston and for his loyalty, his supreme dedication, his high purpose, his contributions to the Senate's work through many years. He was a fine lieutenant, if I may use that term. He was always there when I needed him. And many times I said that he was absolutely the best nose counter that I had ever seen in the Senate. But friendship and respect are not always easily forged. Tragedy makes a bond. In 1980, Senator Cranston was dealt Fate's glancing blow with the death of a child, a loss of a promise to the future, when, his son, Robin Cranston, died in a traffic accident in 1980, at the age of 33. Two years later, my wife, Erma, and I were dealt a similar blow with the death of our grandson, John Michael Moore, in a traffic accident. Mr. President, a valedictory is not always sad and it is fitting that Senator Cranston's final words on this Floor regarding his career be repeated here. On October 8, 1992, he made these short and poignant remarks: Mr. President, a Senator from California gets involved in myriad issues. Just about every issue that exists has an impact, somehow, in the remarkable State of 30 million people that I represent. So I have been involved in countless issues over my time in the Senate. Most of all, I have dedicated myself to the cause of peace, and to the environment. In many a sense I believe that my work on the environment is probably the longest-lasting work I have accomplished here. When you deal with a social issue, or a war and peace issue, or an economic issue, or whatever the results, the consequences are fleeting. Whatever you accomplish is soon changed, and often what you have done leads to new problems that then have to be dealt with. But when you preserve a wild river, or a wilderness, or help create a national park, that is forever. That part of your State, our Nation, is then destined to be there forever after, as God created it. I worked with particular dedication over these years, too, on issues of justice, equal rights, human rights, civil rights, voting rights, equal opportunity. I worked for democracy and freedom in my country and in all countries. I focused particularly on housing, and transportation, and veterans. I thank the people of California for the remarkable opportunity I have had to serve them in the Senate for almost a quarter of a century. Today, I along with millions of Americans, thank my friend, Alan Cranston, for his work, his life, and his vision. No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the distinguished majority leader will yield further.

Mr. BYRD. I presume to offer the majority leader a suggestion, what I would do if I were in his place. I would write to the President and urge that no such recess appointment be made, and put it in writing, make a record of it. Furthermore, if I were the majority leader, I would talk with the administration.

Mr. BYRD. I can only see through my own eyes, but I don't consider that to be too long a time to await the appointment of a Federal judgeship or any other office, unless it should be Secretary of Defense or perhaps Secretary of State. But it is certain that there is no need to fill judgeships during this 2 weeks, or whatever it is. We will be back here. I will not support any administration, Democratic or Republican, that attempts to fill Federal judgeships while the Senate is in recess. I think that is playing politics. We all play politics some, but we are fooling around a little too deeply with the fountain of politics. I hope we don't poison that well by attempting to pull a fast one here. Is that what the Senator is talking about?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I will not speak long. Mr. President, the distinguished majority leader has made reference to recess appointments. Let me read what is in the Constitution. I read from section 2 of article II of the Constitution: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. Having been the majority leader in the Senate earlier in my years here, I have been very careful to caution Presidents not to make recess appointments during the recess of the Senate unless there is indeed an emergency that arises. That is the purpose of this. That provision in the United States Constitution is not put in there to enable any President, Republican or Democrat, to play games with the Senate, or to attempt to do a one- upmanship simply because the Senate is out of session. I hope that Presidents, Democratic and Republican, will be very careful in filling a vacancy that ``may happen'' during a recess. That is the way the Constitution reads. I hope there is no effort to take advantage of those words by appointing someone to fill vacancies that have been in existence for some time. I especially hope that no administration will attempt to fill a Federal judgeship during the recess of the Senate. After all, a Federal judgeship is an appointment for life. That is not an appointment just until the end of the next session. Federal judgeships are, through the Constitution, for life tenure if they conduct themselves appropriately while in office. I want to say this: I am opposed to judgeship appointments during a recess. I hope that any President will proceed very cautiously and not attempt to take advantage of the situation by appointing judgeships during the recess of the Senate. How long will this Senate be in recess?