Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I think we are all aware of the monstrous hoax that has been pulled upon the American people, the hoax that this year was the opening year of the 21st century. This year is the closing year of the 20th century. That is according to the old math as well as the new math. I hope it won't be said that the Senate dabbled and dabbled and waited until the 21st century, which begins on January 1, to complete the appropriations bills of the 20th century. Let's be about our work.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I understand Senator Harkin wishes to make a few remarks before the Senate recesses and before the meetings of the two parties. I hope someone will indicate to Senator Harkin that the floor is now available, if he would come at this time. I understand he is on his way. If the Chair would just momentarily desist from using the gavel.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, If the Senator will yield, the two independent Senators on that occasion came from the State of Illinois. One was David Davis, a former Member of the Supreme Court. The other was William Mahone who hailed from the great State of Virginia, the mother of Presidents.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the great success and continuing strength of the United States as a republic is due in no small part to the willingness of our citizens to be soldiers and, no less important, of our soldiers to be citizens. One such soldier-citizen is General Richard L. Lawson, late of the Air Force of the United States, now on the verge of a second retirement, this time from a productive career in public life. On active duty as General Lawson, he held positions of trust at the highest levels of responsibility in planning and executing the military elements of U.S. foreign policy during times of great tension. As Dick Lawson, the envoy plenipotentiary from the most basic of America's basic industries to the councils of government that include this Senate, he has made useful and durable contributions to policies that make the Nation more secure and energy independent. Richard Lawson is, in fundamental ways, exceptional, if not unique. He is one of few individuals to hold every enlisted and commissioned rank in the military structure from enlistee of bottom rank to the four-star grade that signifies overall command. He may well be the only one to have done this between two services--to rise step-by-step from buck private to regimental sergeant major in the Army National Guard of Iowa; and then, when commissioned into the Air Force, from second lieutenant to general. Highlights of General Lawson's Air Force career include the following: military assistant at the White House under two Presidents; Commander, Eighth Air Force; Director of Plans and Policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff; U.S. representative to the military committee of the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance; Chief of staff at Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Powers in Europe; and, finally, command of the day-to-day activities and deployments of all services in the U.S. European Command, the deputy commander-in-chief. During his span of service, some important national and international developments included the following: the making of plans and the acquisition of means to re-establish U.S. strength and flexibility and deterrence; the restoration of cordiality among the NATO allies. General Lawson left active service in 1986. Early the next year, while figuratively behind the plow, like Cincinnatus, he was approached by a delegation of coal industry leaders. They found him, in fact, clearing undergrowth on his acreage in the Virginia countryside. They called him again into service, and he again responded. In the 14 years since then, Dick Lawson has presided over the unification of what once was both a profusion and a confusion of voices that sought to speak for mining. He first blended together within the National Coal Association all elements of the coal industry. More recently, he joined the many elements of mining represented by coal, metals and minerals producers. With the union of the coal association and the American Mining Congress to form the National Mining Association, two voices became one. It has been America's good fortune to have leaders which exhibit true faith and allegiance to the general welfare and the blessings of liberty. One such leader is Richard L. Lawson. I personally thank him for his efforts, for his patriotism, and for his vision. His 40 years of combined military duty is rich with decorations and honors. It includes the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, the Air Force Distinguished Service Medal with oak leaf cluster, and the Legion of Merit. On the level of personal service, it includes the Soldier's Medal that recognizes an act of courage not involving an armed enemy; and the Air Medal and the Bronze Star that reflect combat duty in the Vietnam War. We owe a debt of gratitude to men like General Lawson, who give so freely and so much to this great nation. May this nation always be blessed with such citizens. God give us men! A time like this demands strong minds, great hearts, true faith, and ready hands. Men whom the lust of office does not kill; Men whom the spoils of office cannot buy; Men who possess opinions and a will; Men who have honor; men who will not lie. Men who can stand before a demagogue And brave his treacherous flatteries without winking. Tall men, sun--crowned; Who live above the fog, In public duty and in private thinking. For while the rabble with its thumbworn creeds, It's large professions and its little deeds, mingles in selfish strife, Lo! Freedom weeps! Wrong rules the land and waiting justice sleeps. God give us men! Men who serve not for selfish booty; But real men, courageous, who flinch not at duty. Men of dependable character; Men of sterling worth; Then wrongs will be redressed, and right will rule the earth. God Give us Men!

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the Senator only has that much time, I do not want to take his time.

Mr. BYRD. OK. As I say, I blame nobody. I am not complaining, except I think this is cramping us a little bit. I am going to vote against this amnesty provision. I would like to speak a little on it. Maybe I will not be able to. At some point today, I will be able to speak, I am sure of that.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I need 15 minutes. I do not know why we have to be out at 3:15.

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have been involved in some discussions concerning one of the appropriations bills that remains to be acted on. I was listening to the debate here. I find that we are discussing, are we, the amnesty provision?

Mr. BYRD. I would like to have a few minutes to talk on that.

Mr. BYRD. No, that will not be enough. Let me say, it is nobody's fault but mine. I could not help being in the appropriations meeting. I have been over to the House side twice, and both times the House Members were not ready, not ready to sit down and discuss it. We are talking about the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. I am not complaining, not blaming anybody.

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield to me without his losing any of his time?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. All right. I thank the Senator. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. I believe that is right.

Mr. BYRD. I believe that was 28 years, 2 months, and 19 days.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, earlier today I voted for the conference report on the Commerce-Justice-State bill, which was included with the D.C. appropriations bill. Both those bills were in the same conference report. I voted in favor of those measures. But the CJS measure was, in actuality, a seriously flawed piece of legislation with a number of problems attendant to it. The first problem that I had with it was that it was a conference report, and thus it was not subject to amendment. The underlying appropriations bills went straight from the Senate Appropriations Committee to the conference committee, totally bypassing the Senate floor. The full Senate was afforded no opportunity to debate or amend these two appropriations bills. These are not the first appropriations bills to be herded through Congress in this fashion this year, but that fact does not make the practice any less objectionable. It is a simple case of cutting corners in the name of political expediency, a practice in which the United States Senate should not engage. Second, the Commerce, Justice, State bill includes a controversial immigration rider, the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act, a scaled down spinoff of the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act. The Senate dealt with this issue last month during consideration of the H-1B visa bill, when it refused to consider the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act. I opposed suspending the rules to allow that measure to be offered as an amendment to the H-1B visa bill because I believe that such legislation sends the wrong message to those who might consider entering this country illegally. I believed then, as I believe today, that granting amnesty to aliens who are in this country illegally simply encourages others to enter the country illegally. Although the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act would grant amnesty to a smaller group of illegal aliens, it creates the same problems as the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act by rewarding illegal aliens for breaking U.S. law. It should make no difference whether we grant amnesty to one million illegal aliens or only a handful of that number. The principle is the same. Amnesty for illegal immigration sends the wrong message, period. Worse, these bills are an affront to those immigrants who have played by the rules, often waiting many years before being allowed to settle here legally. I am opposed to the sending of these mixed signals by Congress. It is counterproductive for the United States to vigorously protect its long and porous borders from illegal aliens--at great expense to the taxpayers, I might add--while at the same time granting amnesty to selected groups of those aliens who manage to cross the border undetected or otherwise enter the country under false pretenses. The Senate should not endorse an immigration policy that rewards aliens who violate the law. I realize that my views are at odds with a number of my colleagues, and I respect their position. I respect their viewpoints, and I would be very happy to debate the merits of new immigration legislation with them at the proper time and on the proper vehicle. This was not the proper time, and this conference report was not the proper vehicle. Neither the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act nor the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act has been considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over immigration issues. No hearings have been held. No report has been issued by the Committee so that other senators can better understand the implication of these bills. No full scale debate has been aired. The Commerce-Justice-State conference report could not be amended. It was a take-it-or-leave-it-package. Controversial immigration legislation that the Senate refused to consider once this year as an amendment to an immigration bill should not be resurrected under any guise as a legislative rider on an unamendable appropriations conference report. Finally, I am concerned with executive branch meddling on this conference report. The President has said he will veto the conference report because the immigration rider does not go far enough. He wants the broader Latino and Immigrant Fairness legislation on this appropriations bill. This is the same President who has been complaining bitterly about legislative riders on other appropriations bills. This is the same President who vetoed the Energy and Water appropriations conference report because it contained an environmental rider to which he objected. This is the same President who berated Congress for including legislative riders along with supplemental funding provisions attached to the Military Construction appropriations bill. This is a President who has made it clear time and again that he objects to legislative riders on appropriations bill, and yet he has vowed to veto this conference report because the legislative rider it contains does not go far enough to suit him. Mr. President, the Senate has a responsibility to complete its work-- not avoid its work or compromise its work, but complete its work. This conference report is an example of how not to complete the Senate's business. The Commerce-Justice-State bill funds many vitally important programs, and that is why I voted for it. It is a bill that can and should stand on its own merits. It should not be hamstrung by legislative riders or election year politics. Mr. President, the problems that I have cited with this conference report are not a reflection on the Senate Appropriations Committee. Chairman Ted Stevens has done yeoman's work this year to shield the appropriations process from both the Democratic and Republican political agendas. I can compliment equally all of the members of the Appropriations Committee in this respect--the Republicans who chaired the subcommittees and the Democrats who were the ranking members. They all worked together, as they always do. There is no partisanship when it comes to the Appropriations Committee. Republicans and Democrats work together and politics is off the table. That was the case when I was chairman of that committee, and that has been the case since when former Senator Hatfield was chairman and now Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. Senator Stevens and I resisted mightily the sledgehammer approach that was used to bring this and other appropriations conference reports to the floor. Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings, the chairman and ranking member of the Commerce-Justice-State Subcommittee, labored diligently to complete work on their bill and bring it to the floor under its own steam. No, the problem with this conference report is not the fault of the Committee but is the result of a breakdown in the legislative system that has seeped--seeped-- through the appropriations process this year. The appropriations bills are the victims of this breakdown, not the cause of it. It does not have to be this way, and it should not be this way. The Senate is fully capable of doing its work in an orderly and disciplined manner, capable of drafting, debating, and passing 13 individual appropriations bills, and of completing a separate legislative agenda. Sadly, that is not to be the case this year. Congress is limping slowly toward a long overdue adjournment, leaving behind a trail of unfinished business and the wreckage of the appropriations process. Mr. President, I hope this sorry spectacle will never be repeated. I hope that the clean slate of a new Congress will bring a fresh perspective to next year's appropriations process. I hope and I pray that next year will be different. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished minority whip, Mr. Reid, for his never-failing attendance to the business of the Senate. The Bible says: ``Seest now a man diligent in his business? He will stand before kings.'' Senator Reid is always diligent in his business. I appreciate his arranging for me to have this time. He is thoroughly dependable and always courteous and considerate to me and to all other Senators. I commend him for it. The people of his State have every right to be proud of him as their senior Senator. And we on our side of the aisle have every right to be proud of him as the minority whip.

Mr. BYRD. I believe that was September 30, 1927. And I believe it was on the 22nd of September 1927 that Jack Dempsey and Gene Tunney fought a fight in which--we who lived in the coalfields hoped Jack Dempsey would win back his title, but he did not win it back. That was the occasion of the ``long count.'' It was in May of that year that Lindbergh flew across the ocean in the Spirit of St. Louis. Sometimes he was 10 feet above the water; sometimes he was 10,000 feet above the water. And his plane had a load, which I remember, of about 500 pounds. He carried five sandwiches, and ate one-half of a sandwich. I remember reading in the New York Times about that historic flight. He said he flew over, I believe, what was Newfoundland, at the great speed of 100 miles per hour--at a great speed, 1927.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Mark Twain said he could live for 2 weeks on a good compliment. The compliment that the distinguished Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, has just paid me can help me to survive for quite a long time. I shall not forget it. His words are a bit embellished, but I am deeply appreciative of what he has said. I appreciate it very much. I thank him again for his good work every day on the floor of the Senate. Having been whip, I know when we have a good one. And Senator Reid is here, looking after the Senate's business, and always very attendant upon our every need. I am ready to vote for him again any time. He does not have to look me up and find out if I am still for him. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I remember that letter.

Mr. BYRD. Yes. I believe it was September, in 1927, when Babe Ruth beat his own former record of 59 home runs. In 1927, he swatted 60 home runs.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I also agree with these comments. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has jurisdiction over ``Extraction of minerals from oceans and Outer Continental Shelf lands'' under Rule XXV(g)(1)6. of the Standing Rules of the Senate. Pursuant to that authority, it has jurisdiction over the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation continues to have jurisdiction under Rule XXV(f)(1) over ``Transportation and commerce aspects of Outer Continental Shelf lands''. The Coastal Impact Assistance program, which will now be section 31 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, is an important and necessary component of our leasing program on the Outer Continental Shelf and is certainly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. How we choose to route the funding for this program is incidental and has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. As the minority leader noted, it is immaterial whether the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce or some other officer is responsible, the program remains exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I will be glad to.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I support H.R. 782, the Older Americans Act Amendments of 1999. This legislation, of which I am a cosponsor, has been a long time coming. For five long years, senior citizens have been anxiously awaiting the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act, and seniors in my home state of West Virginia have felt betrayed by the failure of Congress to reauthorize this bill. Betrayed, Mr. President. That is why I am so pleased that, in the final days of the 106th Congress, the Senate has the opportunity to vote on this much-needed legislation. According to the West Virginia Bureau of Senior Services, in Fiscal Year 1999, the Older Americans Act made it possible for approximately 50,459 seniors in West Virginia to have access to vital services like transportation, congregate and home delivered meals, adult day care, and health screenings. In addition, 676 seniors in West Virginia were able to move into the work force through Title V, the Senior Community Service Employment Program. These programs have surely helped many, many seniors, Mr. President, and I am pleased that the Senate is demonstrating how important our nation's oldest citizens are by reauthorizing the Older Americans Act. I am also pleased that this legislation would establish a new National Family Caregiver Support program, which would include respite, adult day care, and home care services for individuals with the greatest social and economic needs. With West Virginia having the country's oldest population for the second year in a row, and with more than fifteen percent of West Virginia's seniors who are age sixty and older considered to be living in a state of poverty, the National Family Caregiver Support program will offer much-needed assistance for home-bound seniors and their families, who are struggling to cope with the emotional and financial burdens placed on them. In June of this year, I was fortunate to attend, and speak at, the first-ever International Conference on Rural Aging, held in my home state of West Virginia. This conference was an historic opportunity for global leaders in the aging community to converge and explore the various challenges facing the exploding senior population, both in the United States and across the globe. Of the many issues that were addressed at the conference, including the lack of access to quality health care and vital services, loss of independence and autonomy, and lack of proper elderly nutrition, I am proud to say that the Older Americans Act offers seniors programs that support their desire to remain in their own homes and live independently. The Older Americans Act gives seniors, in both urban and rural areas, the opportunity to maintain a high-quality of life and the opportunity to feel like active participants in their communities. Among the highest concerns of the elderly in the United States, the need for reauthorization of the Older Americans Act has been labeled a critical priority for keeping pace with the rapidly growing aging population. I would like to point out, Mr. President, that Copernicus was 70 when he argued that the sun, not the Earth, is the center of the cosmos. Grandma Moses was in her 70s when she started painting. Claude Monet painted his famous water lilies at the age of 74. My friend from Ohio, former Senator John Glenn, ventured back into space at the age of 76. Benjamin Franklin was 79 when he invented bifocals. These remarkable individuals were most certainly contributing to society well into what society would consider the ``Golden Years.'' By reauthorizing the Older Americans Act, we are not only giving many other ``golden seniors'' the opportunity to contribute to society, but we are acknowledging the sense that we value them and we are proud to invest in them. I am proud to support this legislation, and I encourage all of my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. BYRD

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