Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Elizabeth Hanahan Oliver was born in Rocky Mount, NC and grew up in Washington, DC where she graduated from George Washington University. ``Beth'' Shotwell, as she was known during much of the time that she worked on Capitol Hill, began her employment in the office of Representative Horace R. Kornegay of North Carolina in the early 1960's. She then joined the staff of Senator Mike Mansfield, later becoming Chief Clerk of the Democratic Policy Committee. She served in that post through the terms of three Democratic Majority Leaders, Senator Mansfield, myself, and Senator George Mitchell. After her marriage to G. Scott Shotwell ended in divorce, she married former Secretary of the Senate, Francis R. ``Frank'' Valeo, in 1985. In 1989, after 27 years of service to the Congress, Beth Shotwell retired. This year on September 22, she passed away at her home in Chevy Chase, Maryland. She had been battling cancer for several years. ``Beth'' Shotwell Valeo was an excellent employee of the Senate. She was a dependable, reliable asset to the members of this body. Her staff loved her and worked hard under her direction. ``Beth'' relished her work and she revered the Senate. She was probably proudest of her contribution to the Commission on the Operation of the Senate, and the efficiency that the recommendations of that Commission brought to this institution. Beth also had a large hand in computerizing the compilation of members' voting records, an innovation which has helped Members and staff immeasurably. On the personal side, Beth was a lover of life with varied interests and a curious intellect. She appreciated music. She liked to needlepoint. She often rescued homeless animals. What a noble person. She enjoyed boating. She liked scuba diving, and she delighted in travel. I shall always remember her as a tall, attractive woman, who seemed disciplined, polite, and very dedicated to her work in the Senate. In her life and in her work she was the best of the best. I was shocked and saddened to hear of her passing at far too young an age. My wife and I extend our deepest condolences to her daughters Rebecca and Abigail, her two sisters Abbie Smith and Ann Duskin, her brother Skip Oliver, Jr. of Fairfax Station, and her husband Frank. In this autumn time of falling leaves, some words from Robert Frost come to mind: Nature's first green is gold, Her hardest hue to hold. Her early leaf's a flower; But only so an hour. Then leaf subsides to leaf. So Eden sank to grief, So dawn goes down to day. Nothing gold can stay. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, now before the Senate is the conference report on H.R. 4461, the Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriations bill for Agriculture, Rural Development, the Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. This conference report includes many items important to West Virginia, and to all states, relating to agricultural research and production, conservation, rural development, food assistance, human health, and many other priority areas. I congratulate Senator Thad Cochran, Chairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee, and Senator Herb Kohl, Ranking Member, for their hard work in finalizing this very important conference agreement. This conference report provides a total of $74.458 billion in new non-emergency budget authority. This total includes $34.691 billion for agricultural programs (including reimbursement to the Commodity Credit Corporation for net realized losses); $873 million for conservation programs; $2.487 billion for rural development programs; $34.117 billion for domestic food programs; $1.091 billion for international trade assistance programs; and $1.168 billion for related agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration. It is important to note that this conference report includes more than the annual Fiscal Year 2001 appropriations for programs under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Subcommittee. This conference report also includes $3.642 billion in emergency spending. This funding is related, in large part, to action taken by the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 9, 2000, when the Committee approved Fiscal Year 2000 Supplemental Appropriations. The House of Representatives approved a similar FY-2000 Supplemental Appropriations bill on March 30, 2000. Included in the $3.642 billion in emergency spending are provisions to provide assistance to those who have suffered from natural disasters which have occurred this year and to partially offset certain market losses suffered by the agriculture sector. When the Appropriations Committee considered supplemental spending more than five months ago, I offered a number of amendments, which were adopted, to provide a timely response to predicted summer drought conditions. One of those provisions would provide $450 million for livestock- related losses, more than double the amount available last year. Another item provided an additional $50 million in loans and grants to provide water supply in rural communities, especially those suffering from drought conditions. I am happy to report that this conference report includes these two items and levels of $490 million and $70 million, respectively. One other item included in this conference report is a provision which I proposed on the subject of compensation to U.S. industries for losses sustained as a result of unfair foreign trade practices. The U.S. agriculture and manufacturing sectors have been able to avail themselves of legal remedies to challenge foreign actions, but have not had adequate means to recover from the losses resulting from those actions. Now, such a mechanism will be in place and U.S. farmers and workers of all trades affected by unfair trade practices will be able, in essence, to recover monetarily rather than simply having the right to file a complaint. This extra step is necessary. Current law has simply not been strong enough to deter unfair trading practices, whether in the agriculture or manufacturing industries. Continued foreign dumping and subsidy practices have reduced the ability of our injured domestic industries to reinvest in their workers, equipment, or technology. My provision simply provides a mechanism to help injured U.S. industries recover from the harmful effects of illegal foreign dumping and subsidies. And, most importantly, if our foreign trading partners play by the rules, my provision will never have to be used. Mr. President, this conference report includes many items important to all Americans, and I am happy to support it. Action on this measure is long overdue. Disaster assistance is badly needed to help people all across the nation who are suffering from drought, storms, floods, and crop loss due to infestations of pests and disease. I urge all my colleagues to join me in support of this conference agreement.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the division be shown by raising of hands rather than standing.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I would object.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that further actions under the quorum call be waived.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Americans are rightfully horrified and alarmed at the news reports and stories about so-called ``child soldiers'' pressed into service in paramilitary armies around the world. In Cambodia, the Sudan, Lebanon, and elsewhere, we gaze into the hard-eyed stares of barefoot ten-year-olds cradling well-worn rifles and machine guns. These children have known nothing but violence. It is hard to imagine how they will ever be able to move beyond such violence, should peace ever be established in their homelands. They do not know how to live under the rule of law, only under the rule of might makes right. They have a very casual attitude about killing other human beings. We certainly would not want our own children to experience such a life, and we would not want such a generation of casual killers to grow up amongst us. Yet, in the midst of all of our affluence, we are rearing a generation that is appallingly casual about violence, a generation that is appallingly self-centered about getting--or taking-- what they want. Too many of our children live lives heavily influenced by a completely unrealistic set of expectations and examples. In the movies, when something bad happens to someone, does he or she turn to the police for help and then retire to the background while the police deal with the problem? No, of course not. Our hero grabs a gun and gives chase. Bullets fly, explosions and car crashes ensue, and the audience is treated to every gory detail. There is no fading to black anymore to let our imaginations fill in the details. No, our hero leaves a bloody trail of death and destruction in his wake and goes home with the girl--and none of those details are left to our imagination, either. Now, instead of the aforementioned action-adventure, one could opt instead for some other movie genre but many are worse. Horror movies have taken violence against the innocent to new, ever-more-squeamish lows. The realistic and grisly visuals are, no doubt, a tribute to the talents of makeup and special-effects artists, but, nevertheless, I remain unconvinced that putting these nightmares on the silver screen does anything but tarnish the screen and the imaginations of the viewers. Some of the subject matter in these films is so misogynistic, so filled with contempt for societal order, and so filled with invective and hate, that it should set the alarm bells ringing in peaceable folks and incite them to demand greater responsibility from the entertainment industry. I have always instinctively, intuitively felt that people who can look with equanimity on this kind of violence, even on screen or on the radio, might themselves be open to such action. In fact, this does seem to be the case in practice. We surround our children with these so- called ``role models,'' and then, for amusement--and I use that term lightly--we let our children play games in which they get to act out this lifestyle. What are we doing? We send our children the message that real life is dull, and that this is what we do for fun. We allow them to watch so- called movie stars create mayhem without ever facing the consequences. Then we allow our children to listen to music that may also be filled with violent lyrics. Then we let our children amuse themselves by play- acting that they are the killers. We allow them to have hours, sometimes, of simulated target practice--and we pay for the privilege. Should we then be surprised when our children come to believe that violence against others is just one stop along the continuum of acceptable behavior? Our children may go to school every day. They may have a roof over their heads at night. Perhaps they have nice clothes to wear. They may have parents who love them. They may have, in short, everything, but they have, in too many cases, developed the same hard-eyed stare that those Cambodian child soldiers have. They have developed the same casual attitude about violence and in far too many cases, they act out these violent impulses, with tragic results. I have long shared the concerns of many parents and grandparents that young people are being exposed to far too much violence through the media--through the movies, through television, rock music--if you can call it music--and video games. The entertainment industry, however, has generally rebuffed criticism about the content of its programs and products, and about concerns that too much exposure to violence is harmful to our young people. The industry, in fact, has repeatedly claimed to be making efforts to reduce the exposure of young people to violence, including instituting a system of labeling program content so that parents are supposedly better able to evaluate the programs, and video games and what goes for music that their children watch and play. Now it seems as though the entertainment industry has been caught with its hand in the cookie jar. Just a few days ago, the Federal Trade Commission--the agency responsible for enforcing consumer protection laws--released a report finding that the entertainment industry aggressively markets violence- ridden materials directly to young people. This report details how companies, on the one hand, stamp ``mature audience'' ratings on their products that contain violent material, while on the other hand, these same companies peddle these ``mature''-rated products to young people. Let me just read a passage of the FTC report: ``Two plans for games developed in 1998 described its target audience as `Males 17-34 due to M rating. The true target is males 12-34.' '' In other words, not 17 to 34, but 12 to 34. There it is--in black and white! Video game marketers acknowledge that they are giving a quick wink to their own standards and then they state their true target. This is especially significant since only the electronic game industry has adopted a rule prohibiting its marketers from targeting advertising for games to children below the age designations indicated by their rating. So the FTC has knocked a huge hole in the industry's pious statements of concern by highlighting its hypocritical marketing practices. You may recall to memory the story of Hansel and Gretel--a story that is not without its own share of violence. Just as Hansel and Gretel were enchanted by the evil witch's gingerbread house, our children are dazzled by the entertainment industry's lurid images. The industry beckons our children with advertising and once they are in the industry's clutches, the children are fattened up with more violent material. Of course, in the story of Hansel and Gretel, the children realize they are about to be cooked and eaten, and they trick the witch and shove her into the oven. Would we could do that with the entertainment industry. But I am not suggesting that we shove the entertainment industry into the oven--but perhaps we do need to turn up the heat! The impact of media violence on our children is of great concern. Numerous studies conducted by the nation's top universities in the past three decades have come to the same conclusion: namely, there is at least some demonstrable link between watching violent acts in movies, television shows, or video games and acting aggressively in life. As parents, policymakers, and citizens and legislators, we should all be worried about this. The amount of entertainment violence witnessed by American children is alarming. Film makers, striving to turn profits in the competitive film industry, display more and more explicit violence, and programmers devise increasingly violent computer and video games that have children take on roles in which they are rewarded for the number of enemies they kill. Is it any wonder, then, that children become numb to the horrors they witness daily in their entertainment? Is it a surprise that these same children have a world view that incorporates violence as an acceptable means for settling conflict? Of course not. If the industry is unwilling to address the concerns of parents by continuing to market inappropriate material to children, and then to broadcast that material at times when children are most likely to be watching, then I think it is incumbent upon Congress to act. We cannot be passive about this issue. We cannot say how awful it is--``How awful''--but then fail to take action. If the entertainment industry will not act responsibly, if the industry will not work with parents to craft commonsense approaches to curbing inappropriate programming, then it will fall to Congress to address the situation. Will it? Reducing the violence placed before America's children in the guise of entertainment is an important task. Images seen in childhood help to shape attitudes for a lifetime. I know that I am not alone in recognizing the threat to our society created by producing our own generation of child soldiers, of young people indifferent to the suffering they cause by their violent acts. This FTC report merely provides evidence that, like the tobacco companies, the violent entertainment industry is targeting our children to build a nation, not of addicts, but of indifference to excessive violence. We cannot let this continue. But will we? If the entertainment industry cannot abide by, and will not enforce, voluntary guidelines to regulate media violence, then it is time for the rest of us to insist that those guidelines be enforced. That might be a good question for tonight's debate. I wonder if all the questions have already been determined. Why not some questions of this nature? I realize that legislation to address this issue is unlikely to see action in the very few days remaining in this Congress. In fact, I would not like to rush such legislation and risk doing it poorly. Of course, it will not be done and cannot be done in the few days that remain. I would rather finish the critical appropriations work that still remains. But I do hope that this report will not be lost in Olympic and election hoopla. I intend to revisit this issue next year, and I hope that other Members will join me in a sincere and bipartisan effort to find a way to protect our children and our society. It is the same old story, Mr. President, the same old story. We talk about it. We wring our hands. We wail and gnash our teeth and moan and groan about the entertainment industry. But we welcome those contributions from the entertainment industry. They are great. They are great. But we are paying for it with the denigration of our children. When will America awaken? When will the candidates be asked piercing questions about their stands on matters such as this? I would like to hear their answers. Tonight, in that townhall meeting, would be a good place for those, wouldn't it? What are you going to do, Mr. Candidate, about the entertainment industry? How much money have you already accepted? Are you going to accept money from the entertainment industry? If you do, then how can you turn around and do something in the interests of our children? A good question. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. It carries the Senate number.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I do not intend to take the time of the Senate at this point. I thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask for a division.

Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I heard the number, but what is the bill? What does it do?

Mr. BYRD. Is this the language of the Senate, of the bill that was reported from the committee?

Mr. BYRD. So it is the Senate-reported bill and carries the Senate title?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Virginia was a sterling and very steadfast advocate of this legislation. I am deeply in debt to him for his leadership in the committee, and also to my friend, Mr. Levin, for his support of this commission.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, consideration of the annual Defense Authorization conference report is generally an occasion for celebration and congratulation in the Senate as we reflect on the strength and superiority of America's armed forces. The report that we are considering today is indeed a solid achievement in our efforts to keep this nation on the right track as we work to bolster America's military readiness and national security. Unfortunately, the circumstances under which we are taking up this report offer no cause to celebrate. The United States today is mourning the loss of at least five American sailors, a death toll likely to rise, and the injury of dozens more in an apparent terrorist attack on the destroyer U.S.S. Cole in Aden, Yemen. At the same time, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are in chaos as the escalating violence between the Israelis and the Palestinians threatens to erupt into all-out war. Our thoughts and our prayers are with the crew of the Cole and their families, and with the entire Navy family. The attack on the Cole was a vile and contemptible act. We must leave no stone unturned in working to determine the origins of this attack, to bring those responsible to justice, and to redouble our efforts to protect our forces overseas. And we must renew our calls to the Palestinian and Israeli leaders to quell the violence in the Middle East, to stop the fighting between the two sides from spiraling out of control. Too many lives have been lost already in this latest round of violence, too many children have been sacrificed to the disputes of their governments. It is time for the Israelis and Palestinians to each accept responsibility for their actions, to stop the fighting, and to resume talking. These grave crises are a stark reminder of the importance of maintaining a strong and ready U.S. military, and the FY 2001 Defense Authorization conference report that we considering today does a good job in meeting that goal. Like the Defense Appropriations conference report that was passed earlier this year, this authorization measure provides needed funding increases and policy directives to meet the changing nature of our national security challenges and to respond to crises affecting our national security as they arise. With the current focus on the readiness of America's military, this is a timely package that makes a clear statement about the Senate's commitment to our men and women in uniform. There is no question that this is a big bill, topping out at $309.9 billion--$4.6 billion over the President's budget request. It is a broad and complex measure, affecting virtually every facet of our nation's military forces and readiness capabilities. It has not been an easy task to finalize the conference and reach this point. Many controversial issues had to be confronted and resolved along the way. Conferees began their work before the August recess, and have labored intensely over the past several weeks to complete the conference. I commend our Chairman, Senator Warner, and Ranking Member, Senator Levin, for their guidance, skill, and leadership during the conference. While not every Senator may agree with every provision of this conference report, all Senators can be assured, thanks to the leadership of Senators Warner and Levin, that the conferees never lost sight of the essential purpose of this legislation, which is to provide for America's national security and military readiness. I am particularly pleased that the authorizers concurred with the appropriators in funding a 3.7 percent pay raise for military personnel. We can never adequately compensate our men and women in uniform for their dedication and service to this nation, but we must always strive to provide the best pay and benefits package that we can. In that regard, I also welcome the comprehensive package of improved health benefits for Medicare-eligible military retirees, although I understand the concern that has been raised over the cost of the so- called ``TRICARE for life'' provision that was included in this conference report. The cost of health care for aging Americans, be they military or civilian retirees, is an issue that this nation is going to have to confront, and that Congress will have to provide for in future budgets. I have no doubt that whatever we do, as we have seen in this measure, the price tag will be steep. I am also pleased that the conferees agreed to accept the provision that I offered on behalf of myself, Senator Warner and Senator Levin establishing a United States-China Security Review Commission to monitor and assess the national security implications of the U.S.-China trade relationship. In the wake of the recent enactment of legislation to extend Permanent Normal Trade Relations to China, this Commission can play a key role in assuring that an enhanced economic relationship between the United States and China does not undermine our national security interests. The purpose of the U.S. China Security Review Commission is to determine whether China, which is working hard to gain entry to the World Trade Organization, or WTO, and to extend its economic dominance throughout the hemisphere, will use its enhanced trade status within the WTO and income from increased international trade to compromise the national security of the United States. Given the circumstances-- including the fact that the Chinese Central Committee just this week approved an economic plan that calls for doubling China's economy over the next decade--this is a timely and serious issue to address. Mr. President, we have good reason to be wary. I think it is significant that even before the President signed the PNTR legislation into law, the Chinese started waffling on promises they had made to secure entry to the World Trade Organization. I note that the President's top trade negotiator was dispatched to Beijing this week, shortly after the PNTR signing ceremony, to attempt to nail down China's commitment to reduce tariffs on imports and open markets to foreign companies. Let me read from an item in Wednesday's New York Times, entitled ``Clinton Warns China to Abide by Trade Rules.'' I will read from the article. Mr. Clinton sent Charlene Barshefsky, the United States trade representative, on her mission on the same day that he signed into law the legislation to grant China permanent normal trade relations, the culmination of 14 years of negotiations and a protracted struggle on Capital Hill. But even as administration officials and bipartisan Congressional leaders gathered on the White House lawn to hail what they called China's integration into the world economy, American officials acknowledged that China was slipping on pledges to open its markets that it had made as part of its efforts to join the World Trade Organization. I wish I could say I was surprised by China's apparent backing away from its WTO commitments, but I was not. I predicted this. China's record on trade agreements is abysmal. Since 1992, six trade agreements have been made, and broken, by China. In addition to its record of broken promises on trade agreements, China also has a history of weapons proliferation, religious repression, poor labor protections, and aggressive foreign policy postures. Is this the kind of behavior we want to reward with permanent normal trade relations? I opposed PNTR for China, and I have grave reservations over the impact of China's membership in the WTO. We are entering uncharted waters in our economic relationship with China, and it is absolutely essential that we do so with our eyes open. We gave away our only means to bring the issue of trade with China before the Congress on an annual basis when we passed PNTR. I believe there were 13 Senators who had their eyes open when they voted on that matter and they voted against it. I was one of the 13. This U.S.-China Security Review Commission will restore a vital measure of scrutiny to the economic relationship between the United States and China. It is a fundamental safeguard, and I am glad that we are moving forward with it. It is not a trade commission. It is a national security commission. Let's have some group that will advise the Congress as to what impact the trade engaged in by China with the United States might have on our national security. We are not depending upon the administration. We are not depending upon the executive branch. We have a commission that will advise the Congress so that we will know, we will have some idea as to what the impact on national security is of this permanent normal trade relations legislation. So it is a fundamental safeguard, and I am glad that we are moving forward with it. Once again, we stand at a time when tensions throughout the world are high. In the span of only a few days, we have ricocheted from the euphoria of democracy--this is the way of making China a democratic nation. We will have great influence upon China. It is laughable that we, the people of 212 years, will have influence upon the people of 5,000 years. No. We have ricocheted from the euphoria of democracy sweeping through Yugoslavia, to the despair of escalating violence in the Mideast, to the horrific images of dead and injured American soldiers on the U.S.S. Cole, the victims of an apparent anti-American terrorist attack. We are reminded that peace remains an elusive goal, and that America must remain vigilant. The first order of business is to ensure that the United States maintains the finest, the best equipped, the best protected, and the best managed military in the world; a military force--but we will have to make it all of these things--a military force suited for the emerging challenges of the 21st century. This conference report goes a long way to meet that test. It is a good package. I urge its adoption, and I again commend Senators Warner and Levin for having led the way for others of the conferees to the final development of this package. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as all Senators are aware, I have taken the floor on a number of occasions, not only this year, but over the past several years, to express my concern about the manner in which the Senate was disposing of certain appropriation bills. This year--as in three previous fiscal years, fiscal years 1997, 1999, and 2000--the Senate has, until today, again been unable to take up and debate and amend several fiscal year 2001 appropriations bills; namely, Treasury/ General Government, VA/HUD, and Commerce/Justice/State appropriations bills. I have been deeply concerned that the Senate is in danger of becoming a mere adjunct of the House, when it comes to consideration of appropriations bills. In light of the circumstances in which we find ourselves, so near the end of the 106th Congress, I was pleased to support the unanimous consent agreement entered into yesterday. Under that agreement, the Senate has before it this morning the Fiscal Year 2001 VA/HUD Appropriations bill, as amended by the Senate Appropriations Committee. That Committee-reported bill has been amended by a Committee substitute offered by Senators Bond and Mikulski. Despite the fact that the Senate has not taken up the VA/HUD Appropriations bill until today, the fact is that Chairman Bond and Ranking Member Mikulski have worked tirelessly on the substitute before the Senate today. They have worked with the Administration and the other body to pound out an agreement that is acceptable to all parties involved in those negotiations. So, I am pleased that the many hours that they have devoted to this effort have resulted in the agreement now about to be adopted by the Senate. As is always the case, when it comes to appropriations bills, no one is fully satisfied with the final agreements that are reached. I am sure that there are areas where members would prefer to see changes made, but the time has come and gone for us to complete our work on the Fiscal Year 2001 appropriations bills--a fiscal year which began some 12 days ago. Mr. President, as I explained earlier in my remarks, the Senate, until today, had not taken up the VA/HUD bill, or the Treasury/General Government bill, or the Commerce/Justice/State bill. The amendment at the desk places before the Senate the Committee-reported FY-2001 Treasury/General Government Appropriations bill. This is the only opportunity that the Senate has had to consider the Treasury/General Government Appropriations bill, other than its being presented to the Senate on September 14th in a combined Legislative Branch and Treasury/General Government conference report, which was unamendable. The inclusion of the Treasury/General Government appropriations in the Legislative Branch conference report was not amendable and precluded the Senate's opportunity to debate and amend the Treasury/General Government bill on the Senate floor. Instead, on September 14th, Senators were asked to vote on the unamendable conference report, which contained not only the Legislative Branch Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2001, but also the Treasury/General Government Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2001. The vote on that combined conference report was 28 yeas and 69 nays. The motion to reconsider that vote is still pending. Mr. President, it is my understanding that several adjustments to that Legislative Branch and Treasury/General Government conference report have been made in the form of amendments to the Transportation Appropriations bill, which were adopted in conference and were included as part of the Transportation conference report, which has now passed both Houses of Congress and is awaiting the President's signature. I do not intend to discuss those amendments in detail at this time, but instead will point out that a concern by Senator Reid regarding the selection of a chief administrative officer for the Capitol Police has been resolved in that Transportation conference, together with substantial increases in funding for the IRS and certain other matters pertaining to the Treasury/General Government portion of that combined conference report. As a result of these amendments regarding the Legislative Branch and Treasury/General Government conference report, it is my understanding that that conference report is now acceptable to the Chairmen and Ranking Members of those two Subcommittees, and I believe it is the intention of the Leadership to bring up and dispose of that combined Legislative Branch and Treasury/General Government conference report immediately following completion of consideration of the VA/HUD Appropriations conference report, which is currently before the Senate. Mr. President, I urged the Leaders to allow for the amendment to put before the Senate the Treasury/General Government Appropriations bill, as reported by the Appropriations Committee, in order to preserve, at least to some extent, the Senate's right to take up appropriations bills prior to their being inserted into unamendable conference reports. I appreciate that the Leaders accommodated my request. Although, under the unanimous consent agreement, there will be no opportunity to amend the Treasury/General Government Appropriations bill, at least we have preserved the Senate's right to consider it. I am encouraged by the fact that the Majority Leader, at this late hour of the session, has attempted, as best he could, to allow some semblance of Senate consideration of the VA/HUD and the Treasury/ General Government appropriations bills. I am hopeful that a similar agreement can be reached on the one remaining appropriations bill which the Senate has not yet acted upon--the Commerce/Justice/State Appropriations bill. I am also very hopeful that we can find a way to ensure that the Senate can return to the regular appropriations process in the next Congress and all congresses thereafter, whereby appropriations bills are reported by the Committee and taken up in the Senate for debate and amendment prior to their being inserted into unamendable conference reports.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, my State of West Virginia has provided to our Nation numerous individuals who have dedicated their lives to public service. Some have appeared, for a time, in the national spotlight. Others have labored quietly behind the scenes. One such individual, who has for more than 50 years contributed to the betterment of his community, his State, and his country, sits among us today in this Senate Chamber. Arthur Malan St. Clair, the senior Doorkeeper of the Senate, caught me by surprise recently when he handed me a letter informing me of his decision to retire from his post after serving this body since 1979. Arthur St. Clair, better known to us Senators as ``Tinker,'' has served the Senate with distinction for 21 years. But that is just a small part of his remarkable story. Now, speculation as to the age of another person is always something to be approached with some temerity, and not often approached, as a matter of fact. But there has been speculation as to Tinker's age. It has been a hot topic of debate among some Senators and Senator's staffs for a number of years. I understand, however, that Tinker is finally willing to let that particular cat out of the bag. So, for the benefit of the curious, I shall start at the beginning: Tinker St. Clair was born in Pageton, McDowell County, West Virginia, in 1916. As his colleagues on the doors may be quickly calculating, that will make Tinker 85 years come next January. Tinker was the son of a coal miner, small businessman, and local school board member. He was reared in what he is often heard to call the ``free State of McDowell.'' It is a county located in southern West Virginia right on the borderline there. It used to have a population of about right at 100,000 people. Today it has probably 30,000. It was a great coal mining county. When the mines took on mechanization and huge mining machines took the place of men, the population dropped. Many of the mines are worked out and are no longer mining coal. So it has become a county that, unfortunately, has many unemployed people who still live there. That county is represented by Nick Joe Rahall, who claims to be my Congressman because my voting residence is still at Sophia, WV, which is located in the congressional district represented by Nick Rahall. Nick Rahall has a lot of friends in those counties, and they are very proud of him as their representative. Nick and I often talk about Tinker St. Clair. Tinker is from that great free state of McDowell. Back in those days, when McDowell County had almost 100,000 people, West Virginia had 97,600 farms and had 90,000 horses. The State of West Virginia had 90,000 horses and 6,000 mules. That was back in the days when Tinker was younger, I was younger, and McDowell County was more highly populated. Many of those 6,000 mules were used in the mines to pull the cars of coal. I was trying to remember how much money was required to build that first capitol in West Virginia--not the first capitol; the first capitol burned down, but the capitol that replaced the capitol that burned down had gold leaf put upon it. That capitol was completed in February 1932. I will tell you what that capitol cost in 1932. Pay close attention: $9,491,180.03. That was the total cost of that capitol. Any person traveling in West Virginia must stop and see that beautiful capitol. It would cost many times that much to build it today. It was completed in the heart of the Great Depression: $9,491,180.03. That was a real bargain. Well, McDowell County is in the heart of a region that is rich in coal and, more importantly, rich in the old values. It was in that environment that Tinker grew up. That was the environment in which he was raised. That was the environment in which he was instilled with patriotism and loyalty, honesty and determination and drive, and a strong sense of community. Tinker graduated in 1937. That was the year in which I married. That was the year in which Erma and I married. I paid a hard-shell preacher $10 to marry her and me. We have been married ever since, 63 years ago. Nineteen hundred and thirty-seven was the year Tinker graduated from Gary High School where he played football and baseball. Upon graduation, Tinker worked as a schoolbus driver and later worked as a driver for the Consolidated Bus Lines. He came to own a taxi business that operated in the towns of Welch, Oceana, and Pineville. For anyone unfamiliar with those communities, I should note that driving a bus or a taxi along those particular local roads, around the winding hills and in the gulches and the valleys and the hollows, requires a real talent, courage, and certainly a strong stomach. It was at about that time in his life--in fact, on May 25, 1940--that Tinker married Elnora J. Hall and they later became the proud parents of two daughters, Patty and Linda. As we have all observed in the Senate, and as I have known for many years, Tinker is always cheerful--always cheerful. He always has a nice smile on his face. He is always a very personable individual. He is just down to Earth, a plain, honest, hard-working, fine Christian gentleman. He is a ``people person.'' We hear a lot of talk these days about ``people persons.'' Well, he is a ``people person.'' His entrance into the realm of politics and public service, therefore, was just plain natural. Beginning in 1948, Tinker's career included service as a deputy sheriff. When Tinker came to get you, you better go--you better go. He had that big .45 slung on his hip and he was an excellent marksman. You just better go; better get ready. That fellow, the smiles, was the real Matt Dillon of McDowell County--Matt Dillon. And he was a court bailiff, criminal investigator for the prosecuting attorney, and justice of the peace. In 1968, Tinker was elected county clerk, and he has held all the offices at the county level. That is where government starts, you know, at the county level. And he was overwhelmingly reelected in 1974, with 89 percent of the vote; 89 percent of the votes in a county that never, ever heard of a political machine. Well, I better take that back, the part about a political machine; If there ever was a political machine, that was it, in McDowell County. Well, anyhow, Tinker didn't need any machine. He had the votes--89 percent of the vote while running on the slogan, ``The man to give the office back to the people.'' How about that for a slogan? If I had my political career to start over again, that is the slogan I would use, ``The man to give the office back to the people.'' It was in 1979, after serving 4 years of a 6-year term as county clerk, I received a telephone call. I will never forget that call. It came from Tinker. Over the phone, Tinker related to me a conversation that he had just had with Elnora. Elnora, as I recall it, had told Tinker that she was coming to Washington to visit their daughters and their grandchildren. ``Fine,'' said Tinker. ``When will you be coming back?'' ``I'm not,'' was the answer. ``I'm not.'' She went on to say, ``I miss the girls and the grandchildren and I'm going to Washington to stay.'' Well, Tinker and I both knew that she meant business. And so I said to Tinker, ``Well, you just come on up to Washington with Elnora, and we'll find work in my office somewhere for you.'' That conversation took place during the first week of July, 1979. And on July 9, 1979, the Senate employed Tinker St. Clair as the newest member of our Senate family, and he has been a member of the Senate family ever since. During his career, Tinker has played an important role in escorting leaders of this Nation throughout southern West Virginia. Nobody can escort one through southern West Virginia quite like Tinker. He walked with President Truman through the coal fields. He stood with candidate John F. Kennedy and campaigned with him in the hills and the hollows of West Virginia. And one time back home, he greeted a helicopter that was landing and he welcomed its passenger, Lyndon Baines Johnson. He was with another Kennedy--Bobby Kennedy--in 1968. He traveled with another West Virginian, many times, day and night: Robert C. Byrd. He traveled with Jay Rockefeller. And Jay can tell of trips to Welch where he was greeted by the dapper and dedicated Tinker. And the late Senator Jennings Randolph often found at Elnora's supper table some fine pastries and goodies. And so was Nick Rahall there, from time to time, in Tinker's house. Many a campaign strategy was cooked up at Elnora's supper table. Tinker and Elnora, in fact, serve as proof that anyone with the determination and the desire to make a difference in this Nation can play a valuable role in the political arena. It was on April 24, 1996, that Tinker lost his beloved Elnora. I was concerned for my friend. The sudden loss of his dear wife had to have been quite a blow. Yet Tinker handled that difficult personal tragedy with tremendous inner strength that is so indicative of people who have come up the hard way in West Virginia's coal mining communities. So now it has come to pass, Mr. President, that Tinker St. Clair will be retiring, and I am glad for him that he will be able to spend more time with his daughters, Patty and Linda; and with his grandchildren, Kimberly and Eddie and Mack; and with his two great-grandsons, Nicholas and Jack. But I must admit, it does sadden me to think of our daily labors in this Chamber without Tinker; He has given so much. We will all miss Tinker's ready smile, his warm handshake, his full head of white hair, and his warm and reassuring presence in the Senate Chamber. He won't be leaving for a while yet, but the day will come when Tinker will walk out of the door for his last time. So I say goodbye to my fellow West Virginian, and my dear friend, with these words of verse: Word to the Living It isn't enough that we say in our hearts That we like a man for his ways; And it isn't enough that we fill our minds With psalms of silent praise; Nor is it enough that we honor a man As our confidence upward mounts; It's going right up to the man himself And telling him so that counts. Then when a man does a deed that you really admire, Don't leave a kind word unsaid, For fear to do so might make him vain Or cause him to lose his head; But reach out your hand and tell him, ``Well done'', And see how his gratitude swells; It isn't the flowers we strew on the grave, It's the word to the living that tells. I will say this to Tinker. I hope to serve 6 years more after this year in this Senate, but the sight of him back there on that bench will never fade from my view. I will always see him there. I will always see him returning my gaze and always with a smile. We will never, never forget him because he is the true symbol of service. And as the old saying goes: Service with a smile. Thank you.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as the 106th Congress winds to a close, I want to take just a moment, as it were, to say farewell and to pay tribute to my friend and colleague, Senator Frank Lautenberg, who, after serving three terms, will be retiring from the United States Senate. He has dutifully served the people of New Jersey, and served them well, for 18 years, and he has often been outspoken about the value of government and its ability to improve people's lives. This belief stems from personal experience. As the son of immigrants who fled poverty and religious persecution, he raised himself from poverty to become a world leader in computer services. Frank did well. He well understood the words of Thomas H. Huxley, who said, ``The rung of a ladder was never meant to rest upon, but only to hold a man's foot long enough to enable him to put the other somewhat higher.'' Senator Frank Lautenberg has never rested, and I am sure that, for him, retirement from the Senate simply means that he is moving on to the next rung on his life's ladder. Frank Lautenberg was born in Paterson, NJ, on January 23, 1924, and during his childhood moved about a dozen times with his parents in their pursuit of work in New Jersey. After graduating high school, Frank enlisted and served in the Army Signal Corps in Europe during World War II. Benefitting from the GI bill following the war, he attended the Columbia University School of Business, where he earned an economics degree in 1949. In 1952 he cofounded a company called Automatic Data Processing and, by 1982, when he was elected to the U.S. Senate, his company employed 16,000 people. Think of that. His company employed more people than today work in the coal mines of West Virginia. And it was a company that processed the payroll for one of every 14 non-Government workers in the entire country. It had become one of the largest computing services companies in the world. Because of his working-class roots and the values instilled in him by his parents, Senator Lautenberg came to realize that America really was the land of opportunity. America had provided him with many opportunities, and Senator Lautenberg decided that it was time to give something back to this wonderful country. He therefore launched his career in public service, and during his tenure of three terms, Frank Lautenberg has fought hard to protect the health, safety, and security of American families. Senator Lautenberg has an appreciation of the Senate and its special place in our Nation. He has fought to preserve the prerogatives of the Senate and of the Congress as a whole. As the senior member of the Budget Committee, he actively resisted the so-called balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Senator Lautenberg was also one of a minority of Senators to oppose the Line Item Veto Act. As ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Lautenberg helped to craft the 1997 balanced budget agreement that helped to put our national finances in order. His work helped to demonstrate that the Constitution did not have to be amended to balance the budget and that hard work and hard choices are what is needed in budgets, as in life. Senator Lautenberg and I share a commitment to our transportation infrastructure and we have made it one of our top priorities. He is the ranking member of the Transportation Appropriations subcommittee. I have worked very closely with my friend from New Jersey, who serves with me on that subcommittee. We have toiled together on a wide variety of projects important to West Virginia and the Nation. And we have been doing this for a long time. When we were in the majority, when I was chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Frank Lautenberg was the chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee. For too long, the Federal Government has underinvested in our Nation's highways. As a key member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Frank Lautenberg played an active role in crafting TEA-21, the historic transportation bill that was enacted last Congress which is an important step toward fixing past mistakes and assuring Americans of safer, more modern highways and improved public transit. We share the belief that a strong infrastructure is vital and makes a profound and positive difference for hundreds of millions of Americans by saving lives, reducing injuries, increasing business investment, expanding employment opportunities, and producing savings to the public and to the private sectors. Senator Lautenberg has also worked to make transportation safer. He championed laws to make 21 the national drinking age, which has saved an estimated 12,000 lives since 1984. And he has sponsored legislation--and I have been proud to cosponsor it with him--to make .08 blood alcohol content the national standard for the illegal operation of a vehicle. In addition, Senator Lautenberg and I have worked together on efforts to combat underage drinking. Senator Lautenberg is a strong environmental leader who helped to write the Superfund, Clean Air, and Safe Drinking Water Acts. Most Americans take safe drinking water for granted; however, the sad fact is that, in this, the most prosperous Nation in the world, millions of people rely on possibly contaminated water supplies. Frank Lautenberg understands that. He understands that like improved highways and bridges, effective and efficient and clean water systems are vital to the continued economic expansion of our Nation and the health and safety of our people. In his statement on February 17, 1999, announcing his plans for retirement, Frank Lautenberg cited as one of the main factors of his decision his frustration with the overwhelming amount of financial resources needed for his upcoming reelection campaign. That is a shame; that is a shame. He believes--and has so stated--that without meaningful campaign finance reform, special interest funding will grow substantially, and even larger amounts of money will be necessary. That is a shame and a disgrace. I regret that we have not been able to address campaign financing in a meaningful way. I regret that the deplorable influence of money--filthy lucre--in politics has had such a detrimental impact on the Senate. Senator Lautenberg knows what it is like to start from nothing and less than nothing and make the most of every opportunity. He has worked to make the lives of his constituents, and all Americans, better. From building up our country's infrastructure, to battling those who would attack our constitutional liberties, to protecting our environment, Senator Lautenberg has worked to provide a brighter future for our Nation. He has worked to improve our public schools. I have no doubt that my good friend and colleague will not rest on his laurels after he leaves the halls of Congress. Frank Lautenberg will continue to serve so that others will have the opportunities that have lifted him to a place where he could serve the greatest Nation on Earth. I thank Senator Lautenberg for his service to the Senate and to the Nation. I tried to talk him out of retirement. I urged him to think again, change his mind, change his decision for the good of the Senate and for the good of the country and, I am sure, for the good of New Jersey, but I know that it would be for the good of the Senate. I wish he could still change his mind. I am sorry he made that decision, but he had his reasons. He did what he thought was best, I am sure. I thank him for his service to the Senate. He won't be leaving this afternoon or tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, but the time for him with us is all too short. The Senate will have lost a good man and a fine, fine Member. America will have lost a good servant. But, as I said, it may be that he will serve elsewhere. In any event, I wish him good health and happiness in his retirement. As I say farewell to him, I recall these words from the great American author of the 19th century, Ralph Waldo Emerson. It is entitled ``A Nation's Strength.'' What makes a nation's pillars high And its foundations strong? What makes it mighty to defy The foes that round it throng? It is not gold. Its kingdoms grand Go down in battle shock; Its shafts are laid on sinking sand, Not on abiding rock. It is the sword? Ask the red dust Of empires passed away; The blood has turned their stones to rust, Their glory to decay. And is it pride? Ah, that bright crown Has seemed to nations sweet; But God has struck its luster down In ashes at His feet. Not gold but only men can make A people great and strong; Men who for truth and honor's sake Stand fast and suffer long. Brave men who work while others sleep, Who dare while others fly-- They build a nation's pillars deep And lift them to the sky. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will be glad to yield the floor with the understanding that I retain the floor when the distinguished Senator has completed his remarks.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, we have all heard the phrase that in this world--especially in this body--there are workhorses and there are show horses. That is very true. I would like to reflect on one of the workhorses of the Senate who will be retiring at the end of this Congress, someone who has served his State, served his country, and served in this body with distinction. Theodore Roosevelt once said, ``Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing.'' Senator Bryan, one of the workhorses of the Senate, has made the most of his chance to work hard at work worth doing. In addition to serving his constituents well, Senator Bryan also has served the Senate well. He was asked to serve on the ad hoc committee that took testimony in the impeachment trial of U.S. District Judge Alcee L. Hastings in 1989. In 1991, in the aftermath of the Keating Five scandal, Senate leaders named Senator Bryan to a new task force to decide where to draw the line of propriety in such situations. His steady service helped to restore public confidence in the Senate, shaken by that troubling incident. During the 103rd Congress, he was chairman of the Ethics Committee when the committee began an investigation into charges of sexual harassment leveled against former Senator Bob Packwood. Serving on the Ethics Committee is a thankless task. No Senator ever asks to serve on that committee. It does not generate the appreciation of constituents, nor does it particularly endear a Senator to his colleagues. This is important work, however--work that protects the integrity of this body. And as one who has great respect for this institution, I appreciate the exemplary job that Senator Bryan did in steering the Senate through some tumultuous times. Senator Bryan has used his position in the U.S. Senate not only to advocate for his constituents in the great State of Nevada but also to protect consumers across the Nation. Ten years ago, as the chairman of the Commerce Committee's Consumer Subcommittee, Senator Bryan oversaw the first stand-alone reauthorization of the Consumer Product Safety Commission since 1981. This was a hard-earned victory for consumers nationwide. Senator Bryan was also successful in securing passage of legislation that he authored requiring the installation of passenger-side airbags in all automobiles sold in this country, a safety feature responsible for saving hundreds of lives. Senator Richard Bryan's career has been one of true and diligent public service. I am told that his experience in elected office began when he was chosen to be president of his eighth grade class at John S. Park Elementary School. He served in the U.S. Army, completing his military service in the Army Reserves as a captain. Upon completion of law school, Richard Bryan returned to Nevada and began a career in public service that has spanned more than three decades. In 1964, Mr. Bryan became a deputy district attorney in the Clark County District Attorney's Office. Two years later, he was appointed Clark County's first public defender. His legislative service to Nevada began in 1968 when he was elected to the Nevada State Assembly. Following a second term in the State Assembly, he was elected to the Nevada State Senate in 1972 and was reelected in 1976. Senator Bryan won his first statewide election to become Nevada's attorney general in 1978. He served as the State's chief law enforcement officer until 1982, when he was elected to the first of two terms as Nevada's 26th Governor. In 1988, Senator Bryan ran for the U.S. Senate, defeating the incumbent Senator, and went on to be reelected to the Senate in 1994. That is a very respected and impressive record, Mr. President--a life devoted to public service at virtually every level of our government. Senator Bryan leaves the Senate as a young man--youth being relative. As I look back on his many years of public service, I am confident that in whatever endeavor he chooses next, we can expect more fine work-- work worth doing--from Senator Bryan. He is a man who can always be proud to look at himself in the mirror each morning. He will see a reflection of fine work in the past, as well as the great opportunity to do well each day. Mr. President, I wish Richard Bryan and his lovely wife every good thing in the years ahead. I hope he will come back to see us often. Mr. President, before I was recognized, I saw another Senator on the floor and I think he was about to seek recognition. I suggested that he go ahead and get recognition. But he suggested that I get recognition. So I did. If my friend, the Senator from Wyoming, wishes to be recognized, I will be very glad to yield the floor. I have a couple of other speeches, but I will be happy to listen to him before I continue.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate has lost an honored and esteemed friend. I rise to pay tribute to Murray Zweben, former Senate Parliamentarian, Senate Parliamentarian Emeritus, who passed away on a Sunday recently. A few years before his own death, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to John Adams: It is of some comfort to us both that the term is not very distant at which we are to deposit in the same cerement our sorrows and suffering bodies, and to ascend in essence to an ecstatic meeting with the friends we have loved and lost, and whom we shall still love and never lose again. As we reflect upon and mourn the passing of Murray Zweben, these words remind us that death is but a temporary separation between this life and the next life. While we regret the loss of dear friends, and especially one who so ably served this body for many years, we can contemplate with assurance that there is the promise that we can be reunited. A Parliamentarian emeritus of the Senate, Murray Zweben served this body as Assistant Senate Parliamentarian from 1963 to 1975. He served as the Senate Parliamentarian from 1975 until 1981, a position he held when I became majority leader. Murray Zweben first came to the Parliamentarian's office as Secretary to Parliamentarian Charles L. Watkins. He served 3 years as communications officer in the Communications Office of the Chief of Naval Operations following his graduation from naval officer candidate school in September 1953. While serving as Secretary to the Parliamentarian, Murray Zweben attended the George Washington University Law School and achieved the honor of being on the Law Review there. After clerking for Judge Laramore of the U.S. Court of Claims, and practicing law, he was called again to the Senate to fill the newly created position of Second Assistant Parliamentarian in January 1963. He was promoted to Assistant Parliamentarian in December 1964 where he served for 10 years under the tutelage of Dr. Floyd Riddick. In 1974, Mr. Zweben was appointed Parliamentarian of the Senate, and he served in that post with distinction. He served as Parliamentarian during some turbulent years in the Senate. In his first year, Nelson Rockefeller, then Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate, relied heavily upon the advice of the Parliamentarian as he presided over the fight to amend the rules of the Senate. Also during Mr. Zweben's first year as Parliamentarian, the Senate was faced with the unprecedented debate over the rightful claim to a Senate seat from New Hampshire, which required great skill to resolve. The Senate saw other battles during Murray Zweben's tenure as Parliamentarian. Through all of those encounters, Mr. Zweben was fair, impartial, and judicious in the conduct of his duties. His unfailing good humor, even under stressful circumstances, will be remembered by all who knew him. Murray was unflappable in a post where a cool head is essential. He was a shining example of public service. Although public service in general and public service careers in Washington have in some quarters fallen out of favor, I believe Murray Zweben's work represents a compelling case against the cynicism about the many fine people who serve in the Senate in various capacities. Their names are never in the papers, they experience few public kudos, and yet they work as many long hours--probably more so--than we Members do. They are dedicated, capable, patriotic individuals who represent the best that America produces from all over this Nation. Murray Zweben served this institution and his country well. His love of the institution, and his zest for politics, and for life made him a pleasure to know. My thoughts and prayers are with Murray's family. When we lose friends and loved ones, we may lose the mortal companion, but this is but a temporary--but a temporary--one. For as the rolling seasons bring The hour of fate to those we love, Each pearl that leaves the broken string Is set in Friendship's crown above. As narrower grows the earthly chain, The circle widens in the sky; These are our treasures that remain, But those are stars that beam on high. Those words were penned by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.