Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask for order.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask that the well be cleared. That includes everyone.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order in the Well?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. Will the Chair call for order in the Well?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I don't believe all the Senators heard the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, again, I thank the Senator from Kansas who is a model Presiding Officer, and there are a few others in this body.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I think it would be appropriate at this moment for me to say that this Presiding Officer, Senator Pat Roberts, is one of the best among the Presiding Officers in the Senate today. He pays attention to what is going on on the floor. Even though there may not be much going on, he is alert to what is happening on the floor. This is the premier upper Chamber in the world today. There are 61 nations in the world that have bicameral legislative bodies today. All the others have unicameral legislative bodies. But the U.S. Senate and the Italian Senate are the only bicameral legislative bodies in the world today in which the upper Chamber is not dominated by the lower Chamber. It is so important that this Senate be seen as a model, as a Senate in which there is decorum and order, a Senate which reveres the Chair and respects the Chair. This is one reason why I have been, of late, urging the Chair to maintain order in the well of the Senate. Now, 59 Senators out of 100 Senators today came to this body after I was majority leader of the Senate. Almost 60 percent of the Senators here today were not Members of this body when I was last majority leader of the body. Now, what I look upon as some disorder in the Senate is when Senators get into the well and mill around. It really looks like the floor of the stock exchange, and it does not bring credit upon the Senate. I am sure that many senates throughout the States of this Nation look at this Senate as the model, look at this Senate as the body from which all senates should learn. But I fear that they see just the opposite. I have been in the State legislature in my own State, and I have been in both houses. I have to say, frankly, that the decorum, the order within the House of Delegates in West Virginia and in the West Virginia Senate is far more to be desired than we find in that U.S. Senate. This is a situation that has really developed only during the last 10 or 12 years. I am sure that as the 59 out of the 100 Senators who came here following my last turn at the wheel as majority leader see this disorder in the Senate, where so many Senators gather in the well and they talk and they laugh and make a great deal of noise, these newest Senators probably believe that is the way it has always been. They may believe that is just normal for the Senate. But it is not. I cannot imagine Senator Wallace Bennett, Senator George Aiken, Senator Norris Cotton, Senator Everett Dirksen, Senator Richard Russell, Senator Stuart Symington, Senator John Pastore, or Senator Joseph O'Mahoney going into the well. These were the Senators who were in this body when I came here. Senators didn't go down into the well and mill around in those days. Oh, they walked through the well, or they might walk up to the table and ask something about the vote, or they might walk up to the Parliamentarian and make some inquiry; but they didn't gather in the well and carry on long conversations. They sat in their seats. Most of them knew how they were going to vote before they came to the floor. They had already been advised by their staffs or they studied the legislation. So they didn't go into the well. I think that looks bad upon the Senate. I don't think the Senate sets a good example when we are so oblivious to how the Senate appears to the people who are watching their televisions sets or to the people in the galleries. Hundreds of thousands of people come to Washington every year, and many of them sit in the Senate galleries and watch the Senate. I wonder what is going through their minds when they see these Senators come in here and gather in the well and carry on loud conversations. How different it is when Senators, upon occasion, sit in their seats. How very impressive it is when the U.S. Senate acts in accordance with the standing orders and rules of the Senate. It is the duty of the Chair to maintain order in the Senate and, of course, when there is confusion that arises in the galleries, it is the duty of the Chair--without being asked from the floor, without a point of order being made from the floor--to maintain order and decorum in the Senate. I am trying to get the Senate to think about this and go back to the old ways, wherein Senators voted and then went to their chairs, or they voted from their desks. There is a standing order of the Senate that requires Senators to vote from their desks. I don't intend to be set- jawed about it, and if Senators want to walk through the well to see what it is we are voting on, or if they want to vote from someplace other than their own desks, I have no quarrel with that. But I think they ought to sit down. There are plenty of places where Senators can converse. We can go to the respective Cloakrooms, or we can walk outside the Chamber. So it isn't that Senators are required to avoid speaking to one another in the Chamber. We ought to be conscious that this Senate is the model--or it should be. I hope Senators will read what I have said. They see me insist on the well's being cleared and they may think I am trying to run the Senate. Of course, I am not. I want people to revere the Senate and respect the Senate. If they respect this body, they will have more respect for the laws that we enact. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time I have taken not be charged against my request thus far.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the strength of this Nation lies in its people. Throughout our Nation's history, American men and women have been called upon time and time again to serve the Nation in times of peril. These men and women, at great risk to themselves and without regard to their personal safety, have given their all for their Country. These are the true heroes of America. We have some of such heroes in this body who have given so very much for their country--Senator Max Cleland, Senator Bob Kerrey; there are others. But today I speak of one such American hero, our esteemed colleague, Daniel Inouye. Like many others in this body, I have always thought of Senator Inouye as a national hero. I know of his wartime heroics in France and Italy during World War II. I know of how he fought to protect the troops with whom he served, without regard for his own life. Even though gravely wounded, Lieutenant Daniel Inouye continued to fight, advancing alone against a machine-gun nest that had his men pinned down. I know that, upon returning home, Dan Inouye spent twenty months in Army hospitals after losing his right arm. He came home as a Captain, with a Distinguished Service Cross, a Bronze Star, a Purple Heart with cluster, and twelve other medals and citations. After receiving his law degree at George Washington University Law School, Danny broke into politics in 1954 with his election to the Territorial House of Representatives. After Hawaii became a State on August 21, 1959, Danny Inouye won election to the United States House of Representatives as Hawaii's first Congressman, and was re-elected to a full term in 1960. In 1962, he was elected to represent Hawaii in the United States Senate. I am proud to say that I am one who voted for statehood on behalf of both Alaska and Hawaii. I believe that I am the only Senator still serving here today who voted for statehood for both of these states. I am very proud of having done that. I believe that I am also one of only three members of today's Senate who were here when Dan Inouye joined this body in 1963. I have had the pleasure of working with Danny Inouye on many, many occasions over the years. He is a man of utmost integrity, who works tirelessly on behalf of his constituents and on behalf of the Nation. He is one Senator who was extremely supportive of me during my service as Majority Leader, as Minority Leader, as Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and now as the Committee's Ranking Member. He is a Senator on whom I have relied for truth, for integrity, for steadfastness, for forthrightness, and as one who is highly dedicated to his work here in the Senate. Danny Inouye is a man who is modest about his many accomplishments here in the Senate, as well as his wartime heroics. He is not one to talk much about those things. He is a quiet, self-effacing Senator. But we are all aware of his great service to this Country throughout his adult life. I am immensely proud of this outstanding American in our midst, and we are deeply moved that, this week, Danny Inouye was awarded the highest military honor that can be bestowed upon any American citizen-- the Congressional Medal of Honor. He has joined the ranks of the six other United States Senators who have received the Congressional Medal of Honor, namely, Senator Adelbert Ames of Mississippi, Senator Matthew S. Quay of Pennsylvania, Senator William J. Sewell of New Jersey, Senator Francis E. Warren of Wyoming, Senator Henry A. du Pont of Delaware, and Senator J. Robert Kerrey of Nebraska. Senator Inouye is the only United States Senator in history to receive the Medal of Honor for service in World War II. A bit of verse comes to mind. This I beheld, or dreamed it in a dream: There spread a cloud of dust along a plain; And underneath the cloud, or in it, raged A furious battle, and men yelled, and swords Shocked upon swords and shields. A prince's banner Wavered, then staggered backward, hemmed by foes. A craven hung along the battle's edge And thought, ``Had I a sword of keener steel-- That blue blade that the king's son bears--but this Blunt thing!'' He snapt and flung it from his hand, And lowering, crept away and left the field. Then came the king's son, wounded, sore bestead, And weaponless, and saw the broken sword, Hilt-buried in the dry and trodden sand, And ran and snatched it; and with battle shout Lifted afresh, he hewed his enemy down, And saved a great cause that heroic day. Danny Inouye has this same bravery as described of the king's son in Edward Rowland Sill's poem. Danny Inouye is the kind of man who sees beyond the hilt-buried sword in the dry and trodden sand. He is a man who sees opportunity in the worst of situations, rather than despair. And, seizing every opportunity to advance a good cause, he acts swiftly and courageously to meet adversity head-on. I thank the Chair again, and express to Danny Inouye and his lovely wife, on behalf of my wife Erma and me, our congratulations, our best wishes, and our thankfulness to the Almighty for giving us two such wonderful friends--Senator and Mrs. Daniel Inouye. I thank the people of Hawaii for repeatedly sending Danny Inouye to the Senate. I express this hope, and I am sure Daniel Inouye would say the same if he were here: May God, the Almighty Creator, always watch over and keep the Senate of the United States, and may God always bless the United States of America. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for not to exceed 15 minutes.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the foreign operations appropriations bill that the Senate completed debate on today contains $934 million to launch a major counter-narcotics initiative in Colombia. Other financing attached to the Military Construction and Defense Appropriations bills boosts that total to well over a billion dollars. This funding will enable the United States to embark on a massive ramping up of its counter-narcotics offensive in Colombia. But curiously enough, the bulk of this program is being implemented through a series of supplemental funding measures. A major anti-narcotics program in Central America, anchored on the provision of U.S. military equipment and U.S. military and State Department advisers, seems to me to be a policy issue that begs for in depth Congressional discussion and consideration. And yet, we are effectively creating it through supplemental appropriations. This may be an expedient way to deal with a difficult problem, but I question its efficacy. I wholeheartedly support aggressive counter-narcotics efforts. Illegal drugs and drug abuse are scourges on our society, and we cannot pretend that the problem will go away if we simply ignore it. But I am concerned about the large number of unanswered questions surrounding the President's plan. I understand where the money is to be spent, and what it is to be spent on, but I am unclear as to what the results are expected to be. What precise impact is the U.S. assistance expected to have on the production of cocaine and heroin into the United States? What impact will massive U.S. assistance to Colombia have on drug production in other Andean Ridge nations? What impact will intensified U.S. assistance to the government of Colombia's have on Colombia's internal politics and simmering civil war? And, most importantly, what impact will this initiative have on reducing drug abuse and the toll of the illegal drug trade within the United States. Providing answers to those, and other questions, is the primary intent of a provision that I added in Committee to the foreign operations appropriations bill. My provision requires the Administration to seek and receive congressional authorization before spending any money on U.S. support for the counter-narcotics program in Colombia, called Plan Colombia, beyond the funding contained in this and other relevant spending bills. If this funding is sufficient, all well and good. But if more money is needed to prolong or expand the anti-drug effort, then Congress has a responsibility to reevaluate the entire program. The purpose of my provision is to prevent the U.S. government from slowly but steadily increasing its participation in the anti-narcotics effort in Colombia until it finds itself embroiled in, at best, a costly and open-ended anti-drug campaign throughout the Andean Ridge, or, at worst, a bloody civil war in Colombia. A secondary goal of my provision is to limit the number of U.S. personnel engaged in the counter-narcotics offensive in Colombia to specific levels unless Congress approves higher levels of U.S. personnel. The provision, which I modified to address concerns raised by the Defense Department, imposes a ceiling of 500 U.S. military personnel and 300 U.S. civilian contractors working on Plan Colombia in Colombia unless Congress authorizes higher levels. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Defense Department indicated that it would not be opposed to troop caps. This is a prudent measure that Congress should endorse to ensure that U.S. involvement does not unwittingly spiral out of control in Colombia. In an effort to ensure that my provision does not impede ongoing counter-narcotics operations in Colombia, I amended it to address concerns raised by the Administration regarding the availability of funds provided in the FY 2001 Defense Appropriations Bill, and the availability of relevant unobligated balances in other spending bills. My amendment protects ongoing programs without giving the Administration the green light to begin empire building in Colombia. There are those, I am sure, who will say that my provision is too cumbersome, that we should simply handle this huge counter-narcotics offensive in the normal course of business. That, I believe, would be a dangerous course of action, one that would invite mission creep and deep entanglement in the internal affairs of Colombia. U.S. assistance to Plan Colombia is not, and should not be, business as usual. If the Administration is sincere in its commitment to launch a major, coordinated, inter-agency offensive against the burgeoning drug industry in Colombia, then the Administration should welcome the spotlight that my provision will shine on its efforts. The Administration should welcome the extra safeguards that this language provides against unintended consequences. Mr. President, winning the war against illegal drugs is vitally important to the future of our nation and to the future of our neighbors, but it is the responsibility of Congress to ensure that we are allocating U.S. taxpayers dollars in the most effective manner possible. Congress cannot make that determination without fully exploring the goals and potential ramifications of this effort to provide assistance to Colombia. My provision provides the minimum necessary safeguards to ensure congressional oversight of Plan Colombia. I commend the Senate for maintaining the integrity and the intent of this provision.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the amendment I am proposing would provide $8.5 million to the Department of Defense under the heading ``Military Construction, Defense-wide'' for classified activities, to remain available until expended. The entire amount would be designated as an emergency requirement and would be available only to the extent that an official budget request for $8.5 million is transmitted by the President to the Congress. These funds would be used for the conduct of a utility and feasibility study referenced under the heading of ``Management of MASINT'' in Senate Report 106-279. I am constrained from speaking further about this matter due to the nature of the classification of the amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I have an amendment on the list. I would like to call this amendment up tomorrow. I ask unanimous consent that I may be authorized to call up one of my amendments on the list tomorrow.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish the Senators would respect the Chair. The chair has asked for order.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Sec. 576 of S. 2522 contains language regarding implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. I would like to ask the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee two questions to clarify their understanding of this provision. The United States is currently engaged in climate change negotiations to ensure meaningful participation of developing countries and to ensure that greenhouse gas emissions reductions are achieved in the most cost-effective manner. Is my understanding correct that this provision is not intended to restrict the Administration from engaging in these international negotiations related to both the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), which was ratified by the Senate in 1992, and the Kyoto Protocol to that Convention? As you also know, the Senate has clearly expressed its views regarding the Kyoto Protocol in S. Res. 98, adopted unanimously by the Senate on July 25, 1997. That resolution calls on the Administration to support an approach to climate change that protects the economic interests of the United States and seeks commitments from developing countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Administration is aggressively engaging developing countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through international projects and activities emphasizing market-based mechanisms and environmental technology. It is my understanding that this provision is not intended to restrict international programs or activities to encourage commitments by developing countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Is my understanding correct?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I urge there be order in the Senate.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Senators should show respect to the Chair. When the Chair asks that the well be cleared, Senators should listen and clear the well.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment offered by Senator Kennedy to expand the definitions of federally protected hate crimes. I am concerned that this amendment would be challenged on Constitutional grounds and would not stand up to the scrutiny. I believe that categorizing hate crimes based on race, religion, or ethnicity as ``badges and incidents'' of slavery and relying on the Thirteenth Amendment is a tenuous argument. Furthermore, recent Supreme Court decisions finding that legislation federalizing what are traditionally State crimes exceeded Congress' powers under the Fourteenth Amendment, raise Constitutional concerns about the Kennedy amendment. The Kennedy amendment seeks to criminalize private conduct under the Fourteenth Amendment. In United States v. Morrison, the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed that legislation enacted by Congress under the Fourteenth Amendment may only criminalize State action, not individual action. I fear the Kennedy amendment will not survive a court challenge. I further oppose the Kennedy amendment because I feel it did not go far enough in providing penalties for hate crimes. It did not include the death penalty for the newly created federal hate crimes. I support Senator Hatch's amendment that will allow for study and analysis of this important issue and provide additional resources for state and local entities in investigating and prosecuting existing hate crime statutes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I hope the Chair is watching for Senators who are trying to get order. I have asked for order here six or eight times, and it has not been noticed. I hope they will be more alert. Second, I hope the Chair will clear the well.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I learned a long time ago that a good Boy Scout should do a good deed every day. I want to do my good deed at this moment. I am very happy for the Senator to speak as long as he wishes, and then I will follow him.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today, on June 20, 2000, the 35th star on the American flag--the star on the third row up from the bottom, second from the left--glows just a little bit brighter than the rest, at least for me and my fellow West Virginians. For today is the 137th anniversary of West Virginia's statehood in 1863. And like the star, I think that I, too, glow just a bit with pride, basking in the reflected beauty of my home State of West Virginia. I am especially glad that West Virginia's birthday falls in June. While every month has its special joys, June is an exceptionally beautiful month in West Virginia, full of wildflowers and birdsong, of neat gardens laid out in orderly rows, of trees still fresh and richly green. June is a month of optimism, of outdoor weddings and picnics, of fresh corn still just a promise on the stalk, of children learning to fish along quiet streams, and of knobby-kneed colts and calves peeking shyly from between their mother's legs in meadows lush with grass. June is a month for celebrating. We celebrate a fairly young State laid over a very old foundation. The history of West Virginia as a State has lasted for but an instant in the geologic scale of the steeply curving mountains that comprise most of the State's landmass. The soil and the rock of these mountains was first mounded up some 900 million years ago in the Precambrian era. Over time, this first Appalachian mountain chain eroded to form a seabed during the shifting movement of the continents. Then, about 500 million years ago, during the Ordovician period, the continents drifted back together, and these titanic forces pushed that sea floor up, creating the multiple parallel ridges that form the Appalachian mountains today. During the subsequent Triassic and Jurassic periods, known to every schoolchild as the age of dinosaurs, the continents settled into the configuration we know today. They are still settling. In the most recent period, 200 million years of wind and rain and snow and ice have eroded the Appalachian mountains to about half of their original height--a happenstance that I am sure West Virginia's early settlers appreciated as they hauled their belongings over rough tracks in wooden-wheeled carts. West Virginia's topography has always been important. It shaped the kind of agriculture still seen today--smaller family farms carved out of sheltered hollows, small valleys, and steep hillsides. It shaped the kind of industry that developed, favoring resource extraction of fine timber, rich coal deposits, and chemicals over land-intensive, large- scale manufacturing. It shaped the politics of West Virginia's history, creating a divide between the independent mountaineers who settled these hills and the rest of what was then the Commonwealth of Virginia. And the mountains have always served as a kind of fortress wall around the hidden beauty of the State. Before the advent of modern highways--which came late to the State of West Virginia, and which are still coming--it took a special determination to make one's way into our mountain fastnesses. A child of war, West Virginia has the somewhat dubious honor of hosting the first major land battle of the Revolutionary War, at Point Pleasant, as well as the last skirmish of that war, at Fort Henry in Wheeling, in 1782. Now, this information I came upon in a history of West Virginia, written by a West Virginian. West Virginia gained her statehood during the Civil War, and her hills are dotted with battlefields from that conflict. Many historians, in fact, consider the clash at Philippi between Union Colonel Benjamin F. Kelly and his First Virginia Provisional Regiment and the forces under Confederate Colonel George A. Porterfield on the morning of June 3, 1861, to be the first land battle of the Civil War. So, from these violent beginnings, West Virginia has come a long way in just 137 years to host an international peace conference earlier this year in Shepherdstown. West Virginia has come a long way, as well, from her early days as a resource-rich provider of building-block essentials like coal, and chemicals, and timber to a diversified economy of old staples and leading-edge, information-age high technology. And West Virginia has come a long way from being a quiet backwater region of narrow, winding, gravel and dirt roads that kept people isolated and insular to a State traversed by modern, safe, business-attracting highways. I have seen these changes happen. I can remember the old dirt roads, the old gravel roads. I can remember when there were only 4 miles of divided four-lane highways in my State. And I can remember prior to that. When I was in the State legislature, in 1947, West Virginia only had 4 miles of divided four-lane highways. Let me say that again. In 1947--53 years ago--when I was in the West Virginia Legislature, West Virginia only had 4 miles of divided four- lane highways. It is much different now. West Virginia has at least between 900 and 1,000 miles of four-lane divided highways. Now there are some people who would like to see us go back to the time when we only had 4 miles of divided four-lane highways. In some ways I would like to go back to that time, too. But certainly I do not want to go back to that circumstance. West Virginia has blossomed as she has matured, reaching out gracefully to the future while preserving and honoring the rich history of her past. As a State, West Virginia is aging, and her population is aging, as well. West Virginia boasts the oldest median age in the Nation. I like to think that this statistic, in part, proves that West Virginia is as attractive a place in which to retire as are some of the more steamy States in the Nation. Of course, West Virginia's bracing climate, with its breathtaking seasonal changes, may be responsible for keeping West Virginia's elders active long after retirement. There is always a garden to plant, or leaves to rake, or simply beautiful walks to take, activities that keep the joints--joints of the arms and legs--agile and the mind busy. Age, and the wisdom that can only be accumulated with experience, is respected in the Mountaineer state. Just two weeks ago, the State hosted the first-ever United Nations International Conference on Rural Aging, taking its place at the forefront of efforts to keep the 60 percent of seniors around the world who live in rural areas healthy, active, and independent. Yet despite all the changes, one thing has remained constant in West Virginia; namely, the down to earth, faith-in-God values of her people. We have no hesitancy in using that word and not using it in vain. There is a tendency these days to kind of put the lid on using the word ``God.'' No, don't use his name; don't use God's name. I am against using his name in vain. I can't say that I have not done that in my time, but I am very much opposed to that. But I am not opposed to using God's name in schools and anywhere else. I am for that. I will have no hesitancy to do it myself, no hesitancy whatsoever. West Virginians are taught to honor their mother and father and to do what is right, even if that is not the easiest path. In West Virginia, we try to live by the Golden Rule, and always remember to give thanks to the Creator for the many blessings he has bestowed upon us. We ought to go back and read the Mayflower Compact and see how those men and women felt about God. In a time when society is focused on speed and instant gratification, West Virginians know the value of taking time to enjoy the beauty around them. Those values, which have survived for 137 years, I expect will be around for another 137, at least. So, at age 137, the 137th birthday, West Virginia is a youngster on the geologic time scale and just entering her middle age on the political scale. In terms of her population's age, well, let us be polite and say only that she is ``of a certain age,'' still at least a few steps way from becoming, a grand dame. All that I will say is, she certainly is grand! West Virginia, how I love you! Every streamlet, shrub and stone, Even the clouds that flit above you Always seem to be my own. Your steep hillsides clad in grandeur, Always rugged, bold and free, Sing with ever swelling chorus: Montani, Semper, Liberi! Always free! The little streamlets, As they glide and race along, Join their music to the anthem And the zephyrs swell the song. Always free! The mountain torrent In its haste to reach the sea, Shouts its challenge to the hillsides And the echo answers ``FREE!'' Always free! Repeat the river In a deeper, fuller tone And the West wind in the treetops Adds a chorus all its own. Always Free! The crashing thunder Madly flung from hill to hill, In a wild reverberation Adds a mighty, ringing thrill. Always free! The Bob White whistles And the whippoorwill replies, Always free! The robin twitters As the sunset gilds the skies. Perched upon the tallest timber, Far above the sheltered lea, There the eagle screams defiance To a hostile world: ``I'm free!'' And two million happy people, Hearts attuned in holy glee, Add the hallelujah chorus: ``Mountaineers are always free!''

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.