Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank our very distinguished Democratic whip, Mr. Reid, for his accommodation. I thank the distinguished manager of the bill, Mr. Shelby, for his characteristic kindness and consideration. Mr. President, this Sunday, June 18, is Father's Day. The Bible tells us to ``honor thy father and thy mother.'' I would like to take just a few minutes to pay tribute to fathers and to call particular attention to this coming Sunday, that day of special significance. An old English proverb tells us that ``one father is more than 100 schoolmasters.'' Fatherhood is the most compelling, the most profound responsibility in a man's life. For those of us who are fathers, there is nothing that we can do here in this Chamber that is more important than our commitment to our children. And, of course, with the greatest responsibilities, come the greatest joys and the greatest challenges. For those of us who are blessed with a long life, we learn that existence is an intricate mosaic of tranquility and difficulty. Struggles, along with blessings, are an inevitable, and instructive, part of life. A caring father prepares us for this reality. He teaches us that, in human nature, there is no perfection, there is simply the obligation to do one's best. My foster father, Titus Dalton Byrd, my aunt's husband, gave me my name and to a great extent the best aspects--and there are a few, I suppose--of my character. His was not an easy life. He struggled to support his wife and his little foster son during the depths of the Great Depression. This Nation is today blessed with the greatest economy the world has ever known. But, for those of us who remember the terrible poverty that gripped this Nation during the 1930's, prosperity, at one time in our lives, seemed a very, very long time in coming. It seemed far, far away. The test of character, the real test of character in a nation is how that nation responds to adversity, and the same with regard to a person, how that person responds to adversity, not only in his own life but in the lives of others. The Roman philosopher Seneca said that ``fire is the test of gold; adversity, of strong men.'' In this respect, Titus Dalton Byrd was a great teacher. He easily could have been a bitter man, a despairing man. He could have raged at his lot in life. He could have forsaken his family. He could have forsaken his faith. I remember as clear as if it were yesterday watching for that man, that tall black-haired man with a red mustache coming down the railroad tracks. I recall watching for him as I looked far up the tracks that led ultimately to the mine, the East Five Mine in Stotesbury where he worked. I would see him coming from afar, and I would run to meet him. As I neared him, he would always set his dinner bucket down on a cross tie. He would lift off the top of that dinner bucket, and as I came to him, he would reach in and he would bring out a cake, a little 5-cent cake that had been bought at the coal company store. He would reach down into that dinner bucket. He would pull out that cake and give it to me, after he had worked all day, from early morning to quitting time. And in the early days, quitting time was when the coal miner loaded the coal, loaded the slate, the rock, and cleaned up his ``place'' for the next day. He had gone through those hours with the timbers to the right and the timbers to the left, cracking under the weight of millions of tons of earth overhead. He had sweated. He had worked on his knees, many times working in water holes because the roof of the mine was perhaps only 4 feet or 3 feet above the ground. He toiled there with a shovel, with a pick, and his calloused hands showed the result of that daily hard toil. Of course, he wore gloves and he wore kneepads so that he could make his way on the ground, on his knees, lifting the coal by the shovelful and dumping it over into the mine car. There he worked in the darkness except for a carbide lamp. It was a very hazardous and dangerous job. But when he had his lunch, he ate the rest of the food but always saved the cake. When I ran to meet him, he would set down the dinner pail and lift off the cover and reach in and get that cake and give it to me. He always saved the cake for me. He was an unassuming man. Unlike me, he never said very much. He took the hard licks as they came. I never heard him use God's name in vain in all the years I lived with him. Never. He never complained. When he sat down to eat at the table, he never complained at the humble fare. I never heard him complain. He was as honest as the day was long. When he died, he did not owe any man a penny. He always represented a triumph of the human spirit to me. He honored his responsibilities. He did his duty. He could not be characterized as a literate man. He never read Emerson's essays or Milton's ``Paradise Lost'' or Bocaccio's ``Decameron,'' or the ``History of Rome.'' He could hardly read at all. I suppose the only book he ever read was the Bible. His formal education was in the school of hard knocks, but he was a wise man. He knew right from wrong. That sounds simple, even quaint, in these sophisticated times, but it surely is not. Cicero said, ``The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil.'' To genuinely know right from wrong and to honor that as the guiding force in one's life--that is not always simple. That is not always easy. Brilliant theologians of every faith on Earth will tell you that such moral discernment is a central spiritual challenge of a human life. But my dad knew right from wrong. He read his Bible, the King James' version of the Bible. When the burdens of my dad's life were almost too heavy to bear during the desperate poverty of the Great Depression, his faith never wavered that the Creator would give him the strength he needed. Abraham Lincoln, as he contended with the overwhelming agonies of a nation torn apart by a great civil war, said of the Bible: This great Book . . . is the best gift God has given to man. Mr. President, this is a lesson that great men, whether mighty or humble, have learned, and it is the lesson my dad taught me. We live now in what has been termed the age of information. But, as we salute our fathers on this coming Sunday, this is an opportune time to again sound a note of caution for our children. Information is not the same as wisdom. Our society, including our children and our grandchildren, and our great grandchildren, is bombarded with information and entertainment, such as it is, useless, tasteless, and bewildering, much of which is geared to our basest instincts and our tawdriest impulses. It is a parade of the lowest common denominator all too often. This is the more complicated world with which parents today must contend. Parents need to instill wisdom in their children, a moral sense that will enable their children to navigate through a volatile sea of uplifting and distressing images. My dad, like most rural people, who was not used to much, never had much, found solace and understanding in nature. He understood the generous and bountiful delights of nature. The flowers of spring, this blessed season which officially gives way to summer on June 21, call us back to the beauty and sweetness of the world, and perhaps hint at what is best within ourselves as well. Spring is the season of rebirth, the season of replenishment. I defy any cluttered, tumultuous, cacophonous television program to compete with the simple, quiet drama of the forsythias, the dogwoods, the roses, and the azaleas, to compete with a single miraculous bud. James Russell Lowell wrote: And what is so rare as a day in June? Then, if ever, come perfect days; Then Heaven tries earth if it be in tune, And over it softly her warm ear lays: Whether we look, or whether we listen; We hear life murmur, or see it glisten. As I have said, my dad was not himself a formally educated man. But, he understood and he appreciated nature, and he knew the tremendous value of an education. That is why he wanted me to go on to school. He did not want me to be a coal miner. He did not want me to earn my living in that way. He encouraged, indeed, he demanded that I study hard. He looked at that report card. He looked at that category denominated ``deportment.'' And he always said: If you get a whipping at school, I'll give you a whipping when you get home. And I knew that that one would be the worst of the two. But he loved me. I knew he loved me. That is why he threatened to whip me; it was because he loved me. He encouraged me to study hard and to develop my mind. He wanted something better for me. He knew that education was the key that I would need to unlock the potential in my own life. So, Titus Dalton Byrd was a model for me not only of the virtuous individual life, but of married life as well. He and my mom, my Aunt Vlurma, were married for 53 years. I do not recall ever witnessing either of them raise a voice in anger against the other. And I heard them say from time to time: We have made it a pledge that both of us would not be angry at the same time. I have always counted myself as truly fortunate--truly fortunate-- even though my life's ladder had the bottom rungs taken away. You ought to see where I lived, Mr. President. You ought some time to go with me down Mercer County and see where I lived--3 miles up the hollow, with no electricity, with no running water, the nearest hospital 15, 20 miles away, the nearest doctor the same. That was back in the days of the 2-cent stamp, the penny postcard. Some things were better; some things were not. But I have always counted myself as truly fortunate in having such exemplary role models. A lot of people say today there are no role models anymore. Well, I had two role models in the good old man and woman who reared me. They set the standard to which I have not always succeeded but I have always aspired. And, on May 29, my beloved wife Erma and I celebrated our 63rd wedding anniversary. We both came from families, from mothers and fathers, who tried to bring us up right. And they inculcated into us a dedication to one's oath. Like, I suspect, many fathers whose jobs consume so much of their time and energy, I regret the times away from my daughters when they were children. I am grateful for the capable and loving efforts of Erma who has shouldered so much of the responsibilities at my home. To the extent, limited though it may be, that I have been a good father, I am humbly indebted to Erma's having been such a wonderful mother. Our journey as a family has been a more tranquil one thanks to her patience, her understanding, and her strength. Of course, the roles of fathers--and mothers--in some ways have changed a great deal over the course of my lifetime. Parents today are confronted with far more choices at home and work than my wife and I ever encountered when we began our family. But, one thing has not changed. One thing has, in my opinion, remained constant. Parenthood is, ideally, a partnership, a collaboration. It is a vitally important, lifelong responsibility, and best experienced, whenever possible, in the shared, balanced efforts of both parents. No mortal soul is perfect or without fault. That is the reality of being human. We are all prey to losing our way at difficult times in our lives. But, a good father will provide his child with a map, a path to follow. The hallmark of that path, throughout life, is conscience. It is that inner moral compass that has been so essential to the greatness of our Nation, and that is, I fear, so buffeted now by an aimless, hedonistic popular culture. The ancient truths of our fathers are perhaps more obscure in this noisy, materialistic society, but they are still there--still there-- gleaming and bright. John Adams, one of the great Founding Fathers of this Nation, said: All sober inquiries after truth, ancient and modern, divines, moralists and philosophers, have agreed that the happiness of mankind, as well as the real dignity of human nature, consists in virtue. The material things, with all their appeal and their comfort, are, in the end, fleeting. They are all transient. I remember not so much the tangible things--other than a piece of cake perhaps--that my dad gave me, as the values that he taught me. It is the treasured, if fleeting, moments together, the lessons learned, that endure. I can say now, from the perspective of a long and full and eventful life, that that is what matters. That is the greatest gift we can receive as children, and that is the greatest gift that we can bequest as parents. A caring father is a lifelong comfort. I remember the stoic and kindly face of Titus Dalton Byrd. He encouraged me, he protected me, and his memory still guides me. Mr. President, I have met with Kings in my lifetime, with Shahs, with Princes, with Presidents, with Princesses, with Queens, with Senators, with Governors, but I am here to say today that the greatest man that I ever knew in my long life, the really great man that I really knew in my long life, was my dad, Titus Dalton Byrd. He taught me, in word and in deed, to work hard, to do my absolute best. I close with this bit of verse: That Dad of Mine He's slowing down, as some folks say With the burden of years from day to day; His brow bears many a furrowed line; He's growing old--that dad of mine. His shoulders droop, and his step is slow; And his hair is white, as white as snow; But his kind eyes sparkle with a friendly light; His smile is warm, and his heart is right. He's old? Oh, yes. But only in years, For his spirit soars as the sunset nears. And blest I've been, and wealth I've had, In knowing a man like my old dad. And proud I am to stand by him, As he stood by me when the way was dim; I've found him worthy and just as fine, A prince of men--that dad of mine. 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. I thank the Chair. I hope Senators heard the Chair. For those who are not here, I hope they will read it. I urge that the joint leadership insist on that regulation. Otherwise, I am going to insist on it. One Senator can insist on it. As I understand from what the Chair has said in his response to my parliamentary inquiry of the Chair, it is the Chair's duty to enforce the regulations. I don't say this with any animus, but I am concerned about how the Senate appears to visitors during roll call votes. Perhaps other Senators may not be quite so concerned, but I am because it seems to be getting worse. I thank the Chair. I thank all Senators.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: If I or another Senator insists on that regulation being enforced, is it the Chair's intention--and I am not being personal about this, but will the Chair enforce that regulation, if a Senator asks that it be done?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am going to increasingly call attention to the disorder that prevails in this Senate. As I sat here and listened to this crowd in the well, I wondered to myself: Can you imagine Norris Cotton being in that well? Can you imagine George Aiken being in the well at that time? Can you imagine Senator Dick Russell being in the well? Can you imagine Lister Hill being there? I don't know what the people who visit as our guests in the galleries think of this institution. It resembles the floor of a stock exchange. I can understand that once in a while people have to go in the well and ask a question. But we are supposed to vote from our seats. I do not know how many Senators know that, but there is a regulation providing that Senators shall vote from their seats. I urge the leadership on both sides to insist that that be done. I always try to vote from my seat. It doesn't present any problem for me, voting from my seat. I realize that some Senators don't get an opportunity to talk to one another until they come to the rollcalls, but we have a vast area outside the Chamber or in the Cloakrooms where they can do that. So I am going to urge the joint leadership to insist that Senators vote from their desks. If Senators will look on page 158 of the Senate Manual under ``Senate regulations'', they will find this regulation. May I ask the Chair to read that regulation to the Senate.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today is a very special anniversary. One will not find it noted on most calendars. Although it lacks the familiarity of the anniversary of the writing of the Constitution, for example, it is a day well worth remembering. The 15th day of this month deserves our attention for one very fundamental reason which is quite important to this Republic and to those of us in this Chamber. It marks the birth of the idea that ours is a government of laws and not of men, and that no man, no man is above the law. Seven hundred and eighty-five years ago, on June 15, 1215, English barons met on the plains of Runnymede, on the Thames River near Windsor Castle, to present a list of demands to their king. King John had recently engaged in a series of costly and disastrous military adventures against France. These operations had drained the royal treasury and forced King John to receive the barons' list of demands. These demands--known as the Articles of the Barons--were intended as a restatement of ancient baronial liberties, as a limitation on the king's power to raise funds, and as a reassertion of the principle of due process under law, at that time referred to in these words, ``law of the land.'' Under great pressure, King John accepted the barons' demands on June 15 and set his royal seal to their set of stipulations. Four days later, the king and barons agreed on a formal version of that document. It is that version that we know today as Magna Carta. Thirteen copies were made and distributed to every English county to be read to all freemen. Four of those copies survive today. Several of this ancient document's sixty-three clauses are of towering importance to our system of government. The thirty-ninth clause, evident in the U.S. Constitution's Fifth and Fourteenth amendments, underscores the vital importance of the rule of law and due process of law. It reads ``No freeman shall be captured or imprisoned . . . except by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.'' Beginning with Henry III, the nine-year-old who succeeded King John in 1216, English kings reaffirmed Magna Carta many times, and in 1297 under Edward I it became a fundamental part of English law in the confirmation of the charters. (An original of the 1297 edition is on indefinite loan from the Perot Foundation and is displayed in the rotunda of the National Archives.) In 1368, that would have been under the reign of Edward III, a statute of Edward III established the supremacy of Magna Carta by requiring that it ``be holden and kept in all Points; and if there be any Statute made to the contrary, it shall be holden for none.'' In the early 1600s, the jurist and parliamentary leader Sir Edward Coke interpreted Magna Carta as an instrument of human liberty, and in doing so, made it a weapon in the parliamentary struggle against the gathering absolutism of the Stuart monarchy. As he proclaimed to Parliament in 1628, ``Magna Carta will have no sovereign.'' Unless Englishmen insist on their rights, another observed, ``then farewell Parliaments and farewell England.'' By the end of that century, through the course of civil war and the Glorious Revolution, the rights of self-government, first acknowledged in 1215, became firmly secured. As settlers began their migration to England's colonies throughout the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, they took with them an understanding of their laws and liberties as Englishmen. Magna Carta inspired William Penn as he shaped Pennsylvania's charter of government. Members of the colonial Stamp Act Congress in 1765 interpreted Magna Carta to secure the right to jury trials. After the colonies declared their independence of Great Britain, many of their new state constitutions carried bills of rights derived from the 1215 charter, Magna Carta. As University of Virginia law professor A.E. Dick Howard notes in his classic study of the subject, by the twentieth century, Magna Carta had become ``irrevocably embedded into the fabric of American constitutionalism, both by contributing specific concepts such as due process of law and by being the ultimate symbol of constitutional government under a rule of law.'' In 1975, the British Parliament offered Congress and the American people a most generous gift. To celebrate two hundred years of American independence from Great Britain, Parliament offered to loan one of Magna Carta's four surviving copies to the United States Congress for a year. The document they selected is known as the Wymes copy and is regularly displayed in the British Library. Parliament also made a permanent gift of a magnificent display case bearing a gold replica of Magna Carta. A delegation of Senators and Representatives traveled to London in May 1976 to receive that document at a colorful and thronged ceremony in Westminster Hall. On June 3, 1976, a distinguished delegation of parliamentary officials joined their American counterparts for a gala ceremony in the Capitol Rotunda. The display case containing Magna Carta was placed near the Rotunda's center, where, over the following year, more than five million visitors had the rare opportunity to view this fundamental charter at close range. At a June 13, 1977, ceremony concluding the exhibit, I offered brief remarks in my capacity as Senate Majority Leader. I noted that nothing during the previous bicentennial year had meant more to the nation than this gift. I recalled the Lord Chancellor's diplomatic interpretation, during the 1976 ceremony, of the reasons for the bicentennial celebrations. This is what he said: What happened two hundred years ago, we learned, was not a victory by the American colonies over Britain but rather a joint victory for freedom by the English-speaking world. Today, the magnificent display case remains in the Capitol Rotunda as a reminder of our two nations' joint political heritage. I encourage my colleagues to visit this case in the rotunda and examine its panel with raised gold text duplicating that of Magna Carta. What better way could we choose to observe this very special anniversary day?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Fiscal Year 2001 Transportation Appropriations bill, and I compliment the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Senator Shelby, and the Ranking Member, Senator Lautenberg, for the outstanding job that they have done on this measure. Their recommendations, which were approved by a unanimous vote of the Appropriations Committee, are the best that could be done within the very tight 302(b) allocation that was provided to the Subcommittee. I am hopeful that we will be able to provide increased funding for the Transportation Subcommittee, as the bill proceeds through the Senate and its conference with the House. As is usual for the Transportation Subcommittee, the programs and activities contained in this bill are funded in as fair and balanced a way as one could expect. I am proud of the work of the managers of this bill. Very importantly, the bill continues to fully fund the highway spending levels set forth in the Transportation Equity Act for the Twenty-First Century, TEA-21. As members will recall, when that landmark legislation was debated and enacted two years ago, I joined with Senator Gramm of Texas as well as Senators Warner and Baucus, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the Environment and Public Works Committee, to provide some $26 billion in additional highway spending over the six-year life of that measure. In so doing, we put the ``trust'' back into the Highway Trust Fund. We assured the American people that the full amount of the gasoline taxes that they pay at the gas pump, and which go into the highway account of the Highway Trust Fund, will be spent on construction and rehabilitation of our Nation's highway and transit systems. Unfortunately, for the second year in a row, the Administration's budget proposed that a large portion of these Highway Trust Funds be used for non-highway purposes. Fortunately, the managers of this bill, Senators Shelby and Lautenberg, found a way to reject the Administration's proposal and to continue, in full, the commitments made to the American people; namely, that all of the gasoline taxes that they pay will be fully spent, each year, for the purposes for which those taxes were collected. I am grateful to the managers of the bill for having the wisdom and the courage to reject the Administration's ill-conceived proposal for a second year in a row. I hope the Administration will get the message that this Congress is not interested in going back on the commitments it made and that the President signed into law in TEA-21, to keep the ``trust'' in the Highway Trust Fund. Mr. President, I note that this will mark the last occasion upon which Senator Lautenberg will serve as the Ranking Member of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee. During his tenure as Chairman and Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, Senator Lautenberg has always been very cooperative with me in my role as Chairman and Ranking Member of the Appropriations Committee. He was no less cooperative when I served as Majority and Minority Leader of the Senate. He has demonstrated the courage to take a stand for what he believes in, throughout his Senate career, even when the votes were not there. He has performed a tremendous service to his State, as well as to his Country on many critical issues. He has worked tirelessly on a broad range of transportation issues throughout his service on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation. These accomplishments range from improvements in Amtrak service, to ensuring that there are sufficient resources for the FAA, Coast Guard, mass transit and highway safety programs. When it comes to transportation issues, Senator Lautenberg has always been in the forefront. He has always fought valiantly to protect the lives of the American people. He was the author of the smoking ban on airplanes. He was the author of the Minimum Drinking Age Act. His tireless battle against drunk-driving, which began with that Act, has now brought us to this appropriations bill, which includes a provision establishing a national intoxication threshold of point-zero-eight (.08) blood alcohol content. The Senate will miss Frank Lautenberg. We will remember him with great fondness. The one disservice, however, that he performed for his Nation, and for the Senate, and for the Appropriations Committee, was his decision not to run again. I am sorry that he made that decision. I talked with him about the matter several times. I told him that it was simply not good for the Country. I don't say that because he is a Democrat--I say that because this man is a Senate man. This man has rendered great service. I greatly regret his decision--and I told him so, and I urged him to rethink it, because he renders the kind of service that our Country needs. I salute him for his Senate service. And, I say again, we are going to miss this man--Frank Lautenberg. Mr. President, I urge all Members to support the Fiscal Year 2001 Transportation Appropriations Bill now before the Senate.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on Friday, June 9, I noted with particular interest the headline in The Washington Post which read, ``Bush Aims at `Discord' in Capital.'' Not surprisingly, candidate Bush's solution to too much partisanship in Washington is to increase the power of the Presidency. We have heard that before. We have heard it from the current President, and we have heard it from previous Presidents. But now we hear it again. Imagine that. The solution to too much partisanship in Washington is to increase the power of the President. Now imagine that! Among the ``power grabs'' the candidate advocates are biennial budgeting, a congressional budget resolution which would have to be signed by the President--get that--a version of the line- item veto--how preposterous--and a commission to recommend ``pork- barrel projects for elimination.'' What a joke. While I readily agree with candidate Bush that there is too much partisanship in Washington, and have said so repeatedly for years, the solutions candidate Bush proposes will do absolutely nothing to eliminate partisanship. In the highly unlikely event that any of these proposals will ever be enacted, their most likely impact would be to hand the next President a club with which to beat into submission members of Congress who might not be leaning the President's way on key issues of importance to him. None of these reported Bush solutions to disharmony in Washington are new, nor are they ``news.'' Every President in recent history has tried to wrest more power from the people's duly elected representatives and transfer it to the executive branch. The net effect of all such transfers would be that unelected executive-branch bureaucrats, and, the President, who is not directly elected by the people either, would enjoy an increased advantage in forcing their agenda on this Nation. Make no mistake about it. The carefully crafted constitutional checks and balances between the branches of Government can slowly be subverted over time by just such proposals as these, which candidate Bush has made. While I agree that the climate in Washington these days is less than inspiring, the cure must never be to advocate a weakening of the constitutional checks and balances under the false colors of constructive reform. Take, for instance, Mr. Bush's proposal to have a commission recommend certain pork-barrel projects for elimination. This is an idea which, conceptually, goes straight at the heart of representative democracy and at its most important tool, the power of the purse. It is a proposal which exposes an absolute ignorance and disregard of the constitutional grant of spending power to the representatives--and I am one of them--of the 50 States. Moreover, when examined closely, the arrogance of such an approach is close to appalling. To suggest that an appointed commission could somehow understand the needs of the 50 States in terms of public works better than the men and women who are sent here to represent those States, defies logic and denigrates the people's judgment in the choice of their own Members of Congress. Imagine a commission that would be set up to make judgments about appropriations concerning infrastructure, about bridges, roads, highways, canals, harbors, rivers in this country. That is why the people sent us here; that is our responsibility. No member of a commission can possibly understand the needs of the State I represent-- I defy anyone to contend otherwise--and have been proud to represent for 54 years, better than I, and others in the West Virginia delegation. No commission can tell me or tell the people of West Virginia what they need by way of infrastructure, so-called ``pork barrel'' projects. The same can be said about the Members from other States. I defy anyone to claim that sort of wisdom to the satisfaction of myself or the citizens of my State. Such a claim would be sheer and utter nonsense! I realize that the term ``pork-barrel'' has become symbolic in modern parlance of everything that is wrong with Government. But, in fact, one man's ``pork-barrel'' project is another man's essential road, another constituency's essential road or bridge or dam. What is totally forgotten is that many of these so-called ``pork barrel'' projects are the sort of infrastructure improvements which, State by State, combine to help to make this country the economic power house that it has become. Now, Webster debated with Hayne in 1830. That has all been plowed over by Webster at that time. It is easy to oppose infrastructure projects in another Member's state. I wouldn't do it unless there was outright fraud involved. It is easy to claim that if a project does not benefit me or my State, then it must be wasteful. Of course, when it comes down to it, they don't benefit me personally. They benefit the people I represent. But, the Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle generally grant each other the expertise to know what is essential for their own State's well-being. I believe that I would be a poor judge, indeed, of what is good for California or New Mexico or Arizona, and so I generally rely on the Members of those States when it comes to projects which they deem important. I also assume that the elected representatives of those states have the wisdom and integrity not to advocate foolish or wasteful endeavors. Federal dollars are and have been scarce for years. Congressional spending is watched closely by representatives of the media and by the voters who send us here. What is not watched so closely by the media or the voters who send us here or the voters who indirectly send the topmost occupant of the White House to his position is executive branch spending. Although the voters may be only dimly aware of waste and duplication vigorously advocated and defended each year by the executive branch, I can assure everyone within the sound of my voice and everyone watching through the electronic eye that it exists in the executive branch. Talk about pork barrel; take a look at the executive branch! A more useful commission might be one that is charged to look at executive branch excesses and report yearly to the Congress. How about that? Let the candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency take that on. Let both candidates, Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore, take that on. Look at the executive branch, see what the excesses are there, weed out the pork barrel. As for any attempt to negate the decisions of the people's duly elected representatives through any form of line-item veto process, I assure the new President--and I don't know who will be the new President just yet, but I can assure the new President, whether he be a Republican or a Democrat, whether he be Mr. Bush or Mr. Gore--it doesn't make any difference to me in this respect--whichever party he may represent, that that proposal concerning a line-item veto will encounter a solid stonewall from this Senate, as it has always encountered such a wall. We slew that dragon once in the courts, didn't we? Yes, we slew that dragon in the courts. Thank God for the Supreme Court of the United States, certainly in that incidence. We slew that dragon once in the courts, and it will raise its ugly head again only with very great difficulty. Any proposal which seeks to bury a dagger in the heart of the most powerful check which the Constitution provides on an overreaching President will encounter serious opposition right here on this floor, and right here at this desk. Amen! May God continue to give me the voice with which to speak and the legs on which to stand to fight this dragon, wherever it may appear. The power over the purse--a power derived through centuries of struggle and bloodshed--a power that protects the people of this Nation from the whims of a fool or knave in the White House--has been bequeathed to the people's branch in our national charter. It is not there through any accident. It is there through no luck of the draw. It is there because the framers understood the lessons of history and had the wisdom to know that a King or a President must be made controllable by the people in this most fundamental, this most basic way. By its very nature, any proposal which hands to the President an easy means by which to threaten a Member with the cancellation or redirection of moneys for that Member's State, after those moneys have been appropriated in law by the Congress, gives the President undue and unwise leverage over Members of Congress in a way that completely alters the nature of the separation of powers. Ask any Governor or former Governor who has had the tool of a line- item veto at his disposal what he found to be its principal value. You will probably get an answer that indicates that the major usefulness of the line-item veto is a means to bully certain uncooperative members of the State legislature. I urge candidate Bush and I urge candidate Gore and all of their advisers to read afresh article I of the U.S. Constitution. Read it again. Pay particular attention to it. The intent of the framers is crystal clear. As for biennial budgeting, at the moment, I am not so sure about that. With respect to biennial appropriations, however, I am very sure. I would be very opposed to that. I fear that with biennial budgeting there may be some unintended consequences. With respect to biennial appropriations, I still fear that the consequences of such a change might ultimately mean massive supplemental appropriations bills to cover contingencies which no human mind can predict, such as earthquakes, floods, droughts, wars, or recessions. While biennial appropriations are always touted for their supposed natural byproduct--more oversight--I believe that, in the real world, the kind of massive supplemental appropriations bills which will likely occur as a result of any such biennial appropriations, if we ever reach that point, will receive very little in the way of thorough oversight. In truth, most of our serious budget problems derive not from yearly appropriations, but from the ever-growing mandatory spending and entitlement programs. Dealing with politically difficult entitlement and mandatory spending reform demands the kind of study, analysis, consensus, leadership, and courage that no process tinkering can replace. One thing I have learned after 48 years in this town is that when hard decisions press down on politicians, process reform often becomes the solution of choice. I also noted in the same Post article--and I must admit with some amusement--that while candidate Bush decries polling, he appears to have been paying at least some modicum of attention to the polls, else how would he know that ``Americans look upon the spectacle in Washington and they do not like what they see''? I am quoting from the reported story. Perhaps he has found some direct way to channel the viewpoints of the people, but I rather think he has been doing a little poll watching of his own. The trouble with election year poll watching is that it makes us politicians think we have to instantly respond, either to get a headline or get a vote. As one might expect, these quickie candidate responses are often neither very responsive nor very wise. No, the climate in Washington today cannot be improved by any such commission, as has been recommended, or any budget process change, or any power grab by the executive branch. The problems here have to do in part with this being an election year and in part with more fundamental matters. If we in this body could just begin to do away with the simplicity of labeling each other as devils, and each other's proposals as ruinous to the Republic and, instead, worked to promote a freer, less rancorous exchange of debate and discussion on this floor, I believe that much of the pointless partisanship might begin to dissipate. The partisanship we all complain about is born, at least partially, from the frustration of not being permitted to adequately and openly debate issues and ideas important to our constituencies and to the Nation. I believe that once we begin to do what our people sent us here to do, which is grapple with the nation's challenges, exchange views, and learn and profit from those exchanges, we will see a return of most of the lost public confidence which may have been reflected in somebody's polls. Legislating in a Republic--and it is a republic, not a democracy. I want to say that again. We pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic--not to the democracy. Well, legislating in a republic can never be a totally neat, efficient, and tidy endeavor. In a nation as large and diverse as our own, which bears heavy responsibilities both domestically and internationally, the way to wisdom usually lies in the often tedious, rarely orderly, free flow of informed debate. Consensus is what we need to aim for, and consensus is best built by an airing of views. The Framers knew this and gave the Congress the power to legislate, tax and appropriate because of that fundamental understanding. But, absolutely basic to that kind of informed discussion and debate is respect among those of us charged with conducting it, for the motives, experience, expertise, and opinions of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Regrettably no shop-worn set of budget process changes can mandate that. And the American people should view with an especially jaundiced eye any finger wagging presidential candidate with an agenda all his own who wants to transfer power to himself in order to quiet congressional ``discord.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the June 9, 2000 Washington Post article.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank Mr. Warner, the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia, and Mr. Harry Reid, the distinguished Senator from Nevada, for accommodating the President pro tempore, Mr. Thurmond, and me at this time.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Did not the clerk read ``a bill making appropriations''? Did not the clerk read ``a bill making appropriations'' being the business before the Senate?

Mr. BYRD. Parliamentary inquiry: What is the business before the Senate?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today is the 223rd anniversary of the adoption, by the Continental Congress meeting in Philadelphia, of a resolution establishing a new symbol for the new nation that was then in its birth throes. The resolution, passed on June 14, 1777, was a model of simplicity, specifying only ``that the flag be 13 stripes alternate red and white; that the union be 13 stars, white in a blue field, representing a new constellation.'' Although the flag reputedly stitched by Betsy Ross arranged the stars in a full circle, other versions of this first flag placed the stars in a half circle or in rows, as the resolution did not state how the new constellation was to be configured. This first flag, like the Constitution to follow it in 1787, was not entirely new, but rather predicated on flags that had come before it. An English flag, known as the Red Ensign, flew over the thirteen colonies from 1707 until the Revolution. The body of this flag was red, with a Union Jack design in the upper left corner composed of the combined red-on-white Cross of St. George, patron of England, and the white-on-blue diagonal cross of St. Andrew, patron of Scotland. The Red Ensign was the merchant flag of England, reinforcing for the colonists and their status as an unequal and lesser partner in their relationship with Mother England. The Grand Union flag that first succeeded the Red Ensign was raised on January 1, 1776, approximately a year after the American Revolution had begun, over George Washington's headquarters in the outskirts of Boston. The Grand Union flag retained the Union Jack in the upper left corner, but the solid red body of the English trade flag was now broken by six white stripes. However, the stripes alone did not represent enough of a separation from England, and, a year later, the patron saints of England and Scotland were removed from the flag, to be replaced by the ``new constellation,'' more representative of the new nation which was then decisively vying for freedom. In the ensuing years, stars and stripes were added to the flag, reflecting the growth of the young nation. The flag flying over Fort McHenry during the naval bombardment of September 13 and 14, 1814, that inspired Francis Scott Key to compose the immortal words that became our national anthem, contained fifteen stars and fifteen stripes. By 1818, the number of stars had climbed to twenty, while the number of stripes had shrunk back to the more manageable thirteen. On April 4, 1818, Congress adopted another resolution to specify that the number of stripes on the flag would forever remain at thirteen, representing the original thirteen colonies, while a star would be added to the flag for each new state to join the union. Henry Ward Beecher once said: A thoughtful mind, when it sees a Nation's flag, sees not the flag only, but the Nation itself; and whatever may be its symbols, its insignia, he reads chiefly in the flag the Government, the principles, the truths, the history which belongs to the Nation that sets if forth. Certainly, knowing the history and evolution of the American flag from the Red Ensign, through the Grand Union flag, to the Stars and Stripes, one can see clearly into the early history of our nation. The symbolism of the flag also echoes the principles of our government, with each state represented by its own star in the constellation, equal to all the other stars, and each one a vital part of the constellation as a whole. I think that it is also reflective of our nation of free people that the idea for Flag Day arose, not from a Governmental decree, but from the people. The idea of an annual day to celebrate the Flag is believed to have originated in 1885, when B.J. Cigrand, a school teacher from Fredonia, WI, arranged for pupils of Fredonia's Public School District 6 to celebrate June 14 as ``Flag Birthday.'' Over the following years, Mr. Cigrand advocated the observance of June 14 as ``Flag Birthday'' or ``Flag Day'' in magazine and newspaper articles, as well as public addresses. In 1889, George Balach, a kindergarten teacher in New York City, planned Flag Day ceremonies for the children in his school. His idea of observing Flag Day was subsequently adopted by the State Board of Education of New York. In 1891, the Betsy Ross House in Philadelphia held a Flag Day celebration, and in 1892, the New York Society of the Sons of the Revolution held similar festivities. The Sons of the Revolution in Philadelphia, and the Pennsylvania Society of Colonial Dames of America, further encouraged the widespread adoption of Flag Day, and on June 14, 1893, in Independence Square in Philadelphia, Flag Day exercises were conducted for Philadelphia public school children. The following year, the Governor of New York directed that American flags be flown on all public buildings on June 14, while in Chicago, more than 300,000 children participated in that city's first Flag Day celebration. On May 30, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson established by proclamation the first official Federal Flag Day on June 14. On August 3, 1949, President Harry S Truman signed an Act of Congress designating June 14 of each year as National Flag Day. So now, thanks to the inspiration of a pair of elementary school teachers who had the vision to bring to life a vivid bit of history for their young students, we are reminded to look out our windows for a bright bit of cloth floating on the breeze, and to recall the struggle that created it, and the great country which it represents so ably and so proudly. There is just nothing like it, nothing like the Stars and Stripes. For in that couple of yards of fabric, we can see the origin of our Nation, its beginnings. We can see the bit of British history that we all share, whether or not any English blood actually flows in our veins. It is in the very shape of our flag, with its red field split by white stripes of separation, in the white stars on a blue field supplanting the British crosses. We can sense the oppression of that unequal partnership. We can feel the frustration of being a subject colony in those white stripes that separate and break up the red field of the British trade flag. And, we can sense the purpose and optimism of the new nation, so eloquently portrayed by the ``new constellation'' of white stars against a deep blue sky. I am proud to follow in the footsteps of B.J. Cigrand and George Balach, and pay homage to this anniversary date. I hope that my colleagues and those who are listening and watching through those electronic eyes, might offer their own salutes to the flag today, and resolve to celebrate today or future Flag Days by unfurling their own flags and flying them proudly. In my own house, over in McLean, I fly the flag when I am there and can watch the flag and take it down if raindrops start to fall. I hope that more Americans, and more American children, might be inspired by the sight of that flag and might do likewise, and that they might learn the history of their flag, and learn to honor and cherish and respect it, on Flag Day and every day. I close with the stirring words of Henry Holcomb Bennett, who wrote ``The Flag Goes By:'' Hats off! Along the street there comes A blare of bugles, a ruffle of drums, A flash of color beneath the sky: Hats off! The flag is passing by! Blue and crimson and white it shines, Over the steel-tipped, ordered lines. Hats off! The colors before us fly; But more than the flag is passing by: Sea-fights and land-fights, grim and great, Fought to make and to save the State; Weary marches and sinking ships; Cheers of victory on dying lips: Days of plenty and years of peace; March of a strong land's swift increase; Equal justice, right and law, Stately honor and reverend awe; Sign of a nation great and strong To ward her people from foreign wrong: Pride and glory and honor, all Live in the colors to stand or fall. Hats off! Along the street there comes A blare of bugles, a ruffle of drums; And loyal hearts are beating high: Hats off! The flag is passing by! Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I am hopeful that my amendment will provide that analysis. It is my intent, and I hope the Chairman would agree, that the findings of this analysis should be provided to Congress in an unclassified report prior to next April, when the next budget will be considered, so that we will have the necessary information on which to base our decisions.

Mr. BYRD. Given the current attrition rate of U-2 aircraft, approximately one a year, the situation will only worsen. Moreover, I understand that the research and development effort to develop unmanned aerial vehicles such as Global Hawk, while promising, is still immature. Yet we do not now have a U-2 production line in place to replace the aircraft that we lose through attrition. In the interests of ensuring that we have an adequate inventory of reconnaissance aircraft to meet the needs of the commanders-in-chief, would the Chairman agree that it would be prudent for the Defense Department to keep its options open and, at a minimum, prepare an analysis of the cost and feasibility of restarting the U-2 production line?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the managers for accepting my amendment making up to $3 million available to analyze the cost and feasibility of restarting the production line for the U-2 aircraft at a production rate of two aircraft per year. The U-2 has proven itself to be the workhorse of our airborne intelligence reconnaissance system. We saw the value of its capabilities graphically demonstrated during the Kosovo air operation, where it was an integral part of the air strike mission. Unfortunately, the Kosovo air operation also revealed how bare the cupboard is in terms of U-2 aircraft. The scarcity of U-2 aircraft in our inventory-- fewer than three dozen operational aircraft--was sharply accentuated by the Kosovo crisis. To move our U-2 assets into Kosovo, we were forced into the difficult position of drawing down our U-2 capabilities in other theatres. Would the Chairman agree that U.S. commanders-in-chief around the world, including the Southern Command, which is in charge of intelligence relating to the drug war in Colombia, rely extensively on the U-2 and yet lack the assets needed to completely fulfill their requirements, so that even in the absence of a regional crisis such as Kosovo, our U-2 resources are thinly stretched?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the chairman for his attention and his support. amendment no. 3340, as modified (Purpose: To provide for the operation of current Tethered Aerostat Radar System (TARS) sites) On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following: Sec. 8126. (a) Congress makes the following findings: (1) Failure to operate and standardize the current Tethered Aerostat Radar System (TARS) sites along the Southwest border of the United States and the Gulf of Mexico will result in a degradation of the counterdrug capability of the United States. (2) Most of the illicit drugs consumed in the United States enter the United States through the Southwest border, the Gulf of Mexico, and Florida. (3) The Tethered Aerostat Radar System is a critical component of the counterdrug mission of the United States relating to the detection and apprehension of drug traffickers. (4) Preservation of the current Tethered Aerostat Radar System network compels drug traffickers to transport illicit narcotics into the United States by more risky and hazardous routes. (b) Of the funds appropriated in title VI under the heading ``Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense'', up to $23,000,000 may be made available to Drug Enforcement Policy Support (DEP&S) for purposes of maintaining operations of the 11 current Tethered Aerostat Radar System (TARS) sites and completing the standardization of such sites located along the Southwest border of the United States and in the States bordering the Gulf of Mexico.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator.

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I have sought recognition at this time to address some remarks to the Department of Defense appropriations bill. I commend the managers of the bill, Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye, for their work on this measure. These two Senators have a vast knowledge, and it goes all across the areas of the Defense Department. They have been at this work a long time. Their hearts are in it, and they are highly dedicated to it. Their combined efforts are always evident in the annual DOD appropriations bill. This year's bill is no exception--it is a well-balanced and comprehensive measure. In recent years, the committee has had to provide for ever-increasing demands on our military--primarily in peacekeeping activities around the world. Our military personnel are scattered around the world--they are skilled and dedicated men and women, ever vigilant in their duty-- charged with the responsibility of protecting the security of our country and its citizens. But they have in more recent times also been charged with the responsibility of acting as peacekeepers in many troubled areas around the globe. Under these circumstances, it is very difficult to craft Defense appropriations bills. It has been nearly impossible to determine just how long and to what extent our military personnel might be needed in some of these peacekeeping operations, and what the estimated costs thereof might be. That situation exists today, for example, in Bosnia. It exists in southwest Asia, in Kosovo, and even in Haiti. So I take my hat off to our managers for their dedication, not only this year but for many previous years, in working through these challenges to provide the funding necessary to carry out these efforts. The bill before us today clearly addresses the most critical needs of our military personnel and their families. The 3.7-percent pay raise recommended by the Senate Armed Services Committee is fully funded in this bill. Sufficient resources are also included to improve the health care benefits of our military retirees. And more than $96.7 billion is provided for the readiness of our military forces. It is imperative that Congress provide funding for these important programs to demonstrate to the men and women in uniform who are serving our country throughout the world our strong and unwavering support for them. Furthermore, this bill does not neglect our necessary defense modernization requirements. It provides funding for all of the highest priority programs identified by our military leaders and requested by the administration. So I congratulate Senator Stevens, chairman of the appropriations subcommittee--he is also chairman, of course, of the full Appropriations Committee--and Senator Inouye for their dedication and hard work, and I know that my colleagues will support passage of the bill. I also take this opportunity to recognize in a very special way our ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Daniel Inouye, who will be honored next week, at which time he will receive the Nation's highest military award for valor--the Congressional Medal of Honor. How proud it makes all of us feel that we have someone like Daniel Inouye here as a Senator in our midst as we think of the sacrifices that he made. Senator Inouye was first elected to the Senate in 1963 from our 50th State. Mr. President, 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 left remaining here who voted for statehood for both of these States. I am proud of having done that. He was first elected, as I say, to the Senate in 1963 from Hawaii, the 50th State. I think I am correct in saying that I am only one of three Members of today's Senate who were also here when he joined this body. When I first came to the Senate, there were 96 Members of the Senate. Upon my being sworn in, the two new Senators from the new State of Alaska were sworn in with me, making a total of 98 Senators. Later in the year, Hawaii, the new State, the 50th State, sent two Senators, two new Senators to the Senate, making a total of 100 Senators to comprise this body. I have had the pleasure of working with Danny Inouye on many occasions over the years. I have found him to be a man of the utmost integrity, who has worked tirelessly in the Senate on behalf of his constituents and on behalf of the Nation. He was a Senator who was extremely supportive of me when I was the majority leader of this body. He was supportive of me when I was minority leader. He was very supportive of me when I was chairman of the Appropriations Committee of the Senate. He is certainly a Senator on whom one can rely for truth, for integrity, for steadfastness, for forthrightness, and as one who is extremely and highly dedicated to his work. Like many others in this body, I view Senator Inouye as a national hero. I know of his wartime heroics in France and in Italy. I read about how he fought to protect the troops with whom he served without regard for his own life. He doesn't talk much about it, but we know about it. He was gravely wounded in serving his country, yet he continued to fight. I am immensely proud of this outstanding American in our midst. For many in Congress, in our hearts we have felt that Danny Inouye richly deserves the special recognition he earned in those bloody battles some 55 years ago. We are deeply moved and so proud that he is now to receive the highest military honor that can be bestowed upon any American citizen, the Congressional Medal of Honor. It isn't enough to say in our hearts That we like a man for his ways; 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. If a man does a work that you really admire, Don't leave a kind word unsaid. In fear to do so might make him vain And 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. Well done, our friend, our colleague, our hero.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate is making important strides in working to improve health care benefits for our military retirees. A case in point is the Defense Authorization measure before the Senate today, which includes significant improvements in pharmacy benefits for military beneficiaries as well as several demonstration projects intended to evaluate long range health care solutions for military retirees. But more needs to be done. We recognize that, and we are working to remedy the current situation. Senator Warner's proposal to permit military retirees aged 64 or older to remain under CHAMPUS and TRICARE by requiring these plans to be secondary payers to Medicare is a good step in the right direction, a responsible step, and I strongly support it. I also commend Senator Johnson for the laudatory goal of his amendment, but absent a plan to pay for such a sweeping reform, I fear that we are getting ahead of ourselves. The Senate has not set aside any money to pay for this proposal, and without a sure source of funding, we are offering our military retirees little more than an empty promise. For this reason, I am opposed to waiving the budget point of order against the Johnson amendment. The Senate has been moving toward improved medical benefits for all members of the military, active and retired, over the past several years. Health care benefits remain a top priority. Senator Warner's proposal to provide specific enhanced health benefits for older retirees for a three-year period while continuing to explore, test, and evaluate a long term solution is a prudent course of action. It gives us the opportunity to address the immediate health care needs of military retirees, while also giving Congress needed time to assess the best long-term solution, and to provide the necessary funding for whatever solution we reach.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this is not quite as important a subject to my listeners, perhaps, as the words I have just spoken, but it is an important subject to me, because next Monday, the Lord willing--in the Book of James, we are told always not to say, I'll do this or I will do that tomorrow; I'll go here or I'll go there tomorrow; always say, ``the Lord willing'' --next Monday, the Lord willing, my wife and I will celebrate our 63rd wedding anniversary. I have to frankly say that what little I have amounted to, if it is anything much, I owe for the most part to her. She saw to it that I earned a law degree. She virtually put me through law school by her caring ways. She fulfilled the responsibilities at home, rearing our children while I was busy. She went to the store, she did the buying, she did the washing, she did the ironing, she pressed my clothes. She mopped the floors, she vacuumed the carpets, she did the work. I have never seen a person who was a harder worker than my wife and the woman who raised me, my old foster mother, my aunt. But Erma is the one to whom credit is due. She has set the kind of example for me over the years that I have not been able to emulate fully. This coming Monday, I am going to show her my appreciation by going back to the hills with her. On Monday, we will finish reading the King James version of the Holy Bible together. We are down to where we lack four chapters. We try to read the Bible every Sunday--not that I am somebody who is good; the Bible says that no man is good; not that I am somebody good --but she and I read that Bible every Sunday. Three or four months ago, I counted the number of chapters remaining, and it came out to where if I divided them in a way that we would read six chapters every Sunday, we could finish the Bible, the reading of the Holy Bible, from beginning to end, the old testament and the new, on next Monday, our wedding anniversary. We lack four chapters, and God willing, we will finish those four chapters next Monday. After that day, we will be on our way to our 64th wedding anniversary.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as I am talking about the Bible, I want to call attention to a good man who works in this Capitol. He is a detective. His name is John Euill. Every time this little publication comes out, he brings it to me. The title of it is, ``Our Daily Bread.'' John Euill always brings that to me. Of course, we are not supposed to call attention to anyone in the galleries in the Chamber, but I am going to call attention to someone who is sitting on the Chamber bench on the Republican side right now. All of our Members have shaken his hand. He is courteous. John Euill is a wonderful man. Let me read just a few words from ``Our Daily Bread,'' which he gave me today. The chapter titled, ``Building on the Bible'': What can be done to improve society? An MTV political correspondent had this unexpected but praiseworthy suggestion: ``No matter how secular our culture becomes, it will remain drenched in the Bible. Since we will be haunted by the Bible even if we don't know it, doesn't it make sense to read it?'' Our culture is indeed ``drenched in the Bible.'' Whether or not the majority of people realize it, the principles on which the United States was founded, and the values which still permeate our national life, were based on the Holy Scriptures. If Senators don't believe that, go back and read the Mayflower Compact and many of the other great documents that form the basis of this great Nation. Yet, God's Word no longer occupies the commanding place it held in the past. And that is true. Its ethics are sometimes still praised even though biblical morality is flagrantly violated. So I agree with the political correspondent's urging that people read the Bible. We need to do more, however, than just read the Word of God. We need to believe the Bible and put its inspired teachings into practice. The psalmist reminded us that we are to walk in God's ways, to keep His precepts diligently, and to seek Him with our whole heart. Psalm 119, the second through the fourth verses. I am going to read those verses for the people who are watching through that electronic eye above the presiding chair. I want in my small way to dedicate them today to Detective John Euill. Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart. They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways. Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently. I thank all Senators for their patience, and I yield the floor.