Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Vermont and the senior Senator from North Dakota for their remarks. I also thank them for the courage they have displayed time and time again in protecting this founding document. I thank them for the inspiring leadership that the rest of us have had from watching them and listening to them. They, indeed, have done a tremendous service to the country, to the Senate, and to the Constitution. I thank them both from the bottom of my heart.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, we Americans are patriotic, and there are few acts more deeply offensive to us than the willful destruction of our flag. The flag, after all, is a unique symbol of national unity and a powerful source of national pride. But the flag does not just represent the country and its history; in a very real sense it is a part of that history. Like the Constitution, the flag was handed down to us by the country's Founding Fathers, for it was the Second Continental Congress that, in 1777, established the Stars and Stripes as the national flag. From Tripoli in 1805 to Iwo Jima in 1945 to the Moon in 1969, the flag has been raised to commemorate some of America's proudest moments. Millions of American men and women have marched off to battle behind that flag. I see the flag there. It is just to the right of the Presiding Officer here in the Chamber. What a beautiful sight--that flag! Millions more have sworn allegiance to the flag and ``to the republic for which it stands.'' And, while historians may dispute this point, schoolchildren to this day are taught to revere Betsy Ross for having sewn the first flag. Anyone who doubts either the flag's place in the country's history or the tremendous emotional ties that it inspires needs only to listen to the words of our national anthem, in which Francis Scott Key recalls with pride the sight of the Stars and Stripes flying proudly over Fort McHenry after a heavy bombing by British forces in 1814. Key's words are so familiar that we may scarcely think of them when we hear or sing them, but they are a deeply moving tribute to our flag. In contemplation of the moment which is approaching when the Senate would again be confronted with a constitutional amendment concerning the desecration of the American flag, I have spent hours in discussions with constitutional scholars, with members of my staff, and in researching court decisions. I know of few subjects that have come before the Senate that have given me greater anguish. I know that the strong sentiment in West Virginia and throughout the country supports the amendment. I have voted for such a constitutional amendment in the past, but, based upon my deep and searching consideration of this matter, I have changed my mind and I will vote against S. J. Res. 14. In fact, it was my sad duty, on yesterday, to inform the members of The American Legion, gathered together here in Washington, that I could not be with them this time. I hated that I had to disappoint them. Some will fault me for having changed my position, and I can understand this, yet, as James Russell Lowell once said, ``The foolish and the dead alone never change their opinion.'' In fact, one of the greatest events of all time was brought about by the changing of one man's opinion 2000 years ago. Before he became the Great Apostle, Paul, who was then called Saul, was a persecutor of Christians. But after Saul was converted--he changed his opinion, his viewpoint, and his life. The Apostle Paul had a compelling influence on the future course of history. In Paul's case, God spoke to him and lifted his literal and psychic blindness. I do not contend that my change of viewpoint is in any way on the same scale of Paul's, or that such momentous results will follow, of course, but his story does remind us that one can be blinded to the truth by misplaced passion. Mr. President, I yield to no-one in my respect, honor, and reverence for Old Glory. Nor do I yield to anyone in my commitment to those veterans who, for the benefit of all Americans, have given so much in defense of our country and in defense of our flag. Yet, despite my love for the flag, and despite my commitment to our Nation's veterans, I regret that I cannot support this well-intended amendment. I cannot support it because I do not feel that it belongs in our Constitution; because I believe that many instances of flag desecration can be prosecuted under general laws protecting public or private property, laws which do not require any constitutional amendment; I cannot support the amendment because flag burning, though loathsome, is hardly pervasive enough to warrant amending the Constitution; I cannot support the amendment because I fear that the primary effect of this amendment would be more, not fewer, incidents of flag destruction; and because I feel that, rather than rushing into a constitutional amendment, we might be better served by allowing the Supreme Court the opportunity to revisit this issue. What do I mean, Mr. President, when I say that this measure does not ``belong'' in the Constitution? Let me start by being clear about what I do not mean. I do not mean that protecting the flag is a trivial or unimportant goal of government. Nor do I mean that the flag deserves anything less than our complete reverence and our complete devotion. What I do mean, quite simply, is that a ban on flag desecration does not fit into--would, in fact, be out of place in--the skeletal document which lays out the basic organization and structure of the national government, determines federal-state relations, and protects the fundamental liberties of the people, all of us. I think my meaning will be clearer if we take a closer look at the purposes that constitutional amendments are intended to serve. The Framers gave this matter some thought in their deliberations at Philadelphia in 1787. They considered and they rejected resolve No. 13 of the Virginia Plan offered by Gov. Edmund Randolph of that State, resolve 13 which would have permitted ``amendment of the Articles of Union whensoever it shall seem necessary,'' and which stated ``that the assent of the National Legislature ought not to be required thereto.'' They rejected that. Indeed, several delegates to the Convention, among them Charles Pinkney of South Carolina, opposed any provision for Constitutional amendments to the Constitution. Recognizing, however, that occasional revisions might be necessary, the Convention finally agreed upon a compromise that deliberately made it difficult to amend the Constitution by requiring successive supermajorities. Article V sets up a cumbersome two-step process to amend the Constitution. It is cumbersome because the framers intended it to be cumbersome. The first step is approval either by two-thirds of Congress meaning both Houses or--and this has never been done--by a convention called for by two- thirds of the states. The second step is ratification by three-fourths of the states. Given the hurdles set up by Article V, it should come as no surprise that so few amendments to the Constitution have been approved. There are twenty-seven in all, and the first ten were ratified en bloc in 1791--209 years ago. In the two hundred and nine years since ratification of the Bill of Rights, there have been just 17 additional amendments. Think of that. If we disregard the 18th and 21st Amendments, marking the beginning and end of Prohibition, we are left with only 15 amendments in 209 years! The 18th amendment was wiped out after 15 years by the 21st amendment. These mark the beginning and end of Prohibition. So, as I say, we are left with actually only 15 amendments in 209 years. Just think of it. In 209 years, despite all of the political, economic, and social changes this country has experienced over the course of more than two centuries; despite the advent of electricity, which lights this Chamber, and despite the advent of the internal combustion engine; despite one civil war and two world wars and several smaller wars; despite the discovery of modes of communication and transportation beyond the wildest fancies of the most visionary framers, this document, the Constitution of the United States, has been amended only 15 times. If you want to count the 21st amendment, 16 times would be the total number. Truly, the Constitution is an extraordinary work of wisdom and foresight on the part of the framers. George Washington and James Madison may be forgiven for referring to the product of their labor as ``little short of a miracle.'' Gladstone may well have gotten it right when in 1887 he declared the Constitution to be the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man. As for those 15 amendments I have just mentioned, these can generally be divided into two roughly equal categories. One category consists of those amendments that deal with the structure and organization of the three branches of Government, the laying out of the three separate branches--the legislative, the executive, the judiciary. The checks and balances, these include the 11th amendment. Of course, those were included in the original Constitution, the separation of powers, in the first, second, and third articles--the legislative, executive, and judicial. As to the amendments, the 15 amendments plus the first 10, these include the 11th amendment, preventing the Federal courts from hearing suits against States by citizens of other States; the 12th amendment, regarding the election of the President and the Vice President; the 17th amendment, establishing the direct elections of Senators; the 20th amendment, regulating Presidential terms and related matters; the 22nd amendment, limiting a President to two terms; the 25th amendment, regarding Presidential succession; and the 27th amendment, deferring congressional pay raises until after an intervening election. There is very little need for me to attempt to justify the inclusion of these provisions in the Constitution. However we may feel about them personally, their subject matter, the structure of the Federal Government, fits in perfectly with that of articles I through IV. There is good reason to suspect the framers themselves thought that most, if not all, amendments would address structural matters. In No. 85 of the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton expressed it this way: A thorough conviction that any constitutional amendments which ``may, upon mature consideration, be thought useful, will be applicable to the organization of the government and not to the mass of its powers.'' Hear that again: Hamilton expressed a thorough conviction that any constitutional amendments which ``may, upon mature consideration, be thought useful, will be applicable to the organization of the government, and not to the mass of its powers.'' In Hamilton's mind, any amendments would deal with the structure, the organization, of the Government. The second category consists of those constitutional amendments that narrow the powers of government and expand or protect fundamental personal rights. These include the 13th amendment banning slavery, the 14th amendment, which extended citizenship to all persons ``born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof'' and guaranteed all citizens certain basic protections, and the 15th, 19th, 23th, 24th, and 26th amendments, each of which extended the vote to new groups of citizens. Clearly, the flag desecration amendment fits into neither category. For constitutional purposes, it is neither fish nor fowl. It does not address a structural concern; it does not deal with Federal relations between the National and State governments--in other words, the Federal system; it extends, rather than narrows, the powers of government; and it does not protect a basic civil right. Look at your Constitution. Look at your Constitution and the amendments thereto which, to all intents and purposes, are part of the Constitution. You will see that the Constitution overall narrows the powers of government; it does not extend those powers. Indeed, some opponents of this amendment that is before us argue that it restricts personal liberty. The 13th amendment forbidding slavery may be viewed as the only amendment regulating the conduct of individuals. The 13th amendment was the product of a bitter, fiercely contested Civil War, the War Between the States, and it was necessary to end one of the most loathsome and shameful institutions in our Nation's history. This, the 13th amendment, was an exceptional amendment. It was necessitated by exceptional circumstances. There was, of course, one notable attempt to regulate individual conduct via a constitutional amendment. I have already referred to that, the 18th amendment, instituting Prohibition, which also deviated from the model of constitutional amendments I have laid out--with disastrous results. Like the flag desecration amendment, the 18th amendment sought to restrict private conduct in the name of a greater social good. Like the flag desecration amendment, the 18th amendment had a commendable goal. Nonetheless, the 18th amendment was a mistake and it took us 15 years to rectify it. True, the mistake was rectified in 1933, but the damage was already done. The 21st amendment ended Prohibition, but it could not erase the preceding 15 years in which a constitutional provision--not a statute, a constitutional provision, a portion of the highest law in the land--was routinely ignored and violated. You see, once that 18th amendment was riveted into the Constitution, it took 15 years to unlock it, to undo it, to repeal it. Prohibition not only made criminals and scofflaws of countless Americans, it also placed them in violation of the Constitution. I can remember the revenue officers, when they came to the coal camps and when they scoured around the hills and the mountains looking for the moonshine stills. I can remember those revenuers. That was a terrible mistake, and, while the blemish to the Constitution has since faded, the lesson may not have been learned. Thus, a constitutional amendment against flag burning may very well prove to be counterproductive, just as did the Prohibition amendment. If this were to happen, our Constitution would be diminished and flag burning would continue--would continue. In the final analysis, it is the Constitution--not the flag--that is the foundation and guarantor of the people's liberties. Respect for that Constitution should not be undermined by amendments, however well intentioned, that cannot be enforced. I fought the constitutional amendment to balance the budget for the same reason. I said it could not, would not--would not be enforced, and that as a result of lack of enforcement, the people's faith in the Constitution would be undermined. I say the same thing here. It will not be enforced. It is like the Commandment that says: ``Thou shalt not kill,'' but killing goes on every day right here in the Nation's Capital. ``Thou shalt not steal,'' but stealing continues. I have come to believe strongly that constitutional amendments, as Madison said, should be saved ``for certain and extraordinary occasions.'' I am not saying the Constitution should never be amended. I am not saying that. Madison was not saying that either. But Madison said that constitutional amendments should be saved for ``certain and extraordinary occasions.'' Critics may accuse me of being overly conservative, but I believe I am right. I have learned from study and from my own recent experience with the proposed constitutional amendment to balance the budget that tinkering with the careful system of checks and balances and the separation of powers contained in the Constitution, can have far- reaching and sometimes unexpected consequences. When it comes to revising the most basic text in our Federal system, when it comes to improving upon the handiwork of Washington and Madison and Hamilton and James Wilson and Roger Sherman and Gouverneur Morris and Benjamin Franklin and others at the convention; when it comes to setting a pen to the sacred charter of our liberties that my colleagues and I have sworn at the desk to uphold and defend--then, yes, I am conservative. While I do not rule out the possibility that I might offer an amendment some day, as I have done in the past--I have learned a lot in these last years in the Senate--they should be reserved, as Madison said, for compelling circumstances when alternatives are unavailable. Polls are no substitute for reasoned analysis and independent thought. Polls were very much in evidence during the balanced budget amendment debate, and we see the same thing here today. Who would oppose a balanced budget? Those of us who voted against the balanced budget amendment did not oppose a balanced budget. We were opposed to what that amendment would do to the Constitution of the United States; what it would do to the faith and confidence of the American people in their Constitution. Who would oppose protecting the flag? Nobody here certainly. But the Senate, in particular, was intended by the framers to be an oasis of cool, deliberate debate, free from the hasty and heated rhetoric that characterizes so many political exchanges. The writers of the Constitution were remarkable men. Such a gathering probably never before sat down within the four corners of the Earth. That was the real miracle that took place in Philadelphia, that those minds, and many of them were young--Franklin was 81, but Pinckney was 29; Gouverneur Morris was 35; Madison was 36; Hamilton was 30--that so many brilliant minds sat down in one place at a given moment in time. The clock of time had struck. Had it been 5 years earlier, they would not have experienced to the full the flaws of the Articles of Confederation, so they would not have been ready. Had it been 5 years later, they would have seen all of the ills, the extremes of the French Revolution, the deaths at the guillotine. They would have been repelled in horror by what happened there, the excesses. These were the miracles: the right place, the right time, and the right men. The framers of the Constitution were indeed remarkable men, and their words are often as wise and relevant today as they were two centuries ago. Thus, Madison wrote in Federalist 49 that ``a constitutional road to the decision of the people ought to be marked out and kept open, for certain great and extraordinary occasions.'' Currently, there appears to be no such ``great and extraordinary'' occasion that calls for a 28th constitutional amendment. Madison also warned against the reference of constitutional questions to the people too often. ``Do not do it too often,'' he said. ``Do not send amendments to the American people too often.'' In the Federalist 49, he said: . . . as every appeal to the people would carry an implication of some defect in the government, frequent appeals would, in great measure, deprive the government of that veneration which time bestows on everything, and without which perhaps the wisest and freest governments would not possess the requisite stability. Madison further said: The danger of disturbing the public tranquility by interesting too strongly the public passions is a still more serious objection against a frequent reference of constitutional questions to the decision of the whole society. . . . But the greatest objection of all is that the decisions which would probably result from such appeals would not answer the purpose of maintaining constitutional equilibrium of the government. That was James Madison warning us against sending to the American people constitutional amendments too often. Flag destruction is, fortunately, only a rare occurrence. While our culture may have become increasingly coarse and vulgar at times--and it certainly has, there is no question about that--most Americans respect the flag and most Americans voluntarily refrain from abusing it. I do not want to give the same attention-seekers who defile the flag the opportunity to defy the Constitution as well. By one act, they would then be able to desecrate and defy the flag and at the same time to defy--defy, defy--the Constitution of the United States. This is more than a matter of symbolism; this is a question of respect for the founding document of this Republic and the supreme law of the land. Any disrespect for the Constitution is a repudiation of the most basic principles and laws of the country. And now you say let's put into the Constitution some verbiage that cannot be enforced, that will not be enforced; cannot be. It will be defied by some. Let me say that again. Any disrespect for the Constitution is a repudiation of the most basic principles and laws of the country. We are talking about the supreme law of the land. The law here can be changed--passed today and changed before the beginning of the next Congress next year. But not a constitutional amendment. Once it is welded into the Constitution, it will take years to repeal it, to take it out, to remove it, as we saw in the case of amendment No. 18, the prohibition amendment. I shrink from the possibility of providing a tiny minority of rabble- rousers with the ammunition to fire upon the most important and beloved document in the country. As I suggested a bit earlier, we already made the mistake once before of inserting into the Constitution a restriction on private conduct that could not be enforced. The Constitution suffered terribly under Prohibition. It would also have suffered under a balanced budget amendment, another unenforceable and litigation-inducing provision that many of my colleagues wished to insert into the Constitution. Just as I opposed the balanced budget amendment out of a desire to protect the Constitution from further abasements, so, too, I must oppose a flag desecration amendment. It, too, would be unenforceable. If one provision of the Constitution proves to be unenforceable, what about the other provisions? Just as I am resolved to protect both the Constitution and the flag, I am determined that we not make martyrs of those villains who would sully--who would sully--the Stars and Stripes. Why should we let these malefactors portray themselves as courageous iconoclasts, sacrificed at the altar of public complacency and intolerance? It is possible, I believe, to craft statutory protection for the flag that can withstand a court challenge. The amendment in the form of a substitute that was offered by Senator McConnell, the Flag Protection Act of 1999, could, in the opinion of the American Law Division of the Library of Congress, withstand such scrutiny. In the words of that opinion, ``subsections (b) and (c) appear to present no constitutional difficulties, based on judicial precedents, either facially or as applied.'' Further, the opinion notes, ``Almost as evident from the Supreme Court's precedents, subsection (a) is quite likely to pass constitutional muster.'' The opinion closes by noting, ``In conclusion, the judicial precedents establish that the bill, if enacted, while not reversing Johnson and Eichman, should survive constitutional attack on First Amendment grounds.'' The first case to which I just referred, of Texas v. Johnson, arose from an incident during the 1984 Republican Convention in Dallas, Texas, in which Gregory Lee Johnson participated in a political demonstration and burned an American flag while protestors chanted. Johnson was convicted of desecration of a venerated object in violation of a Texas statute, and a State Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the decision, holding that burning the flag was expressive conduct for which the State could not, under the First Amendment, punish Johnson in these circumstances. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld the lower court's decision. But in the dissent by Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice White, and Justice O'Connor, they noted, ``the Texas statute deprived Johnson of only one rather inarticulate symbolic form of protest--a form of protest that was profoundly offensive to many--and left him with a full panoply of other symbols and every conceivable form of verbal expression to express his deep disapproval of national policy.'' The Justices also observed, ``Surely one of the high purposes of a democratic society is to legislate against conduct that is regarded as evil and profoundly offensive to the majority of people--whether it be murder, embezzlement, pollution, or flag burning.'' After the Johnson decision, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989, criminalizing the conduct of anyone who ``knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon'' a United States flag, except conduct related to the disposal of a ``worn or soiled'' flag. Subsequently, several people, among them Shawn D. Eichman, were prosecuted in District Courts. In each case, the appellees moved to dismiss the charges on the ground that the Act violated the First Amendment. The District Courts, following the precedent set by the Johnson case, held the Act unconstitutional as applied and dismissed the charges. The Supreme Court, again in a 5-4 decision, upheld the decision. However, in the dissent authored by Justice Stevens, with whom the Chief Justice, Justice White, and Justice O'Connor joined, the justices noted that ``it is equally well settled that certain methods of expression may be prohibited if (a) the prohibition is supported by a legitimate societal interest that is unrelated to the suppression of ideas the speaker desires to express; (b) the prohibition does not entail any interference with the speaker's freedom to express those ideas by other means; and (c) the interest in allowing the speaker complete freedom of choice among alternative methods of expression is less important than the societal interest supporting the prohibition.'' Given the closeness of the votes in Johnson and Eichman--given the presumption against amending the Constitution whenever other alternatives are available--and given the powerful arguments made by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Stevens in their dissents--perhaps the better course of action is to allow the Court sufficient time to reconsider its views on this controversial topic. The Court has already changed its composition since the Eichman decision eight years ago. Four of the Justices who decided that case, including three who voted with the majority, have been replaced. Who can say whether a new court will find itself swayed by the persuasive arguments that Mssrs. Rehnquist and Stevens have put forth? Instead of our adding a new, 28th Amendment to the Constitution, would it not be preferable for the Court, on closer inspection of the issue, to realize the error of its ways? Like many Americans, I was shocked by the Johnson and Eichman decisions overturning statutory protection for the flag. Now, that shock has subsided, and while I still question the correctness of those decisions, I no longer believe that a constitutional amendment is the best response to these horrific acts. The intervening years have allowed me to rethink my initial reaction to the Supreme Court's decisions, and while my love for the flag has not waned, neither have my respect for and devotion to the Constitution. If anything, the spate of proposed constitutional amendments in recent years--chief among them the misguided balanced budget amendment--and my continued studies of constitutional history have only increased my love for this magnificent document and my determination to prevent its abuse. Every time I read it--as with every time I read the Bible--I find something, it seems, that is new and intriguing and awe-inspiring. I have always promised my constituents that I will represent them to the best of my ability and with an open mind and an honest heart. Today, head and heart have convinced me to reconsider my beliefs. As Benjamin Franklin, the oldest man at the Constitutional Convention, put it, in addressing his fellow conferees at Philadelphia as they prepared to sign the Constitution--this is what he said--``For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.'' That has happened to me on several occasions. Certainly, it is true in the present instance. While I salute the patriotism of those who support this measure--I salute them--I hope that they will pause to consider its unintended but inevitable ramifications. Rather than inviting a surge in flag destruction; rather than spurring years of legal wrangling; rather than adding to our Constitution a provision that addresses a problem that occurs only infrequently, let us step back. Let us reconsider the matter. Let us rethink what we are proposing. Our Founding Fathers intended that amending the Constitution should be a difficult and laborious process--time consuming; cumbersome--not to be undertaken lightly. It sets a dangerous precedent, one that I have come to appreciate fully in recent years, to tinker with the careful checks and balances established by the Constitution. When it comes to our founding charter, history demands our utmost prudence. Every heart in this Chamber thrills at the sight of that flag, thrills at the rays of sunlight that play upon those stars and stripes, as we ride down or walk down a street on the Fourth of July. The flag! There is no other flag like it! None. But what gives each of us freedom of speech? What gives each of us the right to say what we want to say? What gives us that right? Not that flag--but the Constitution of the United States! What gives the fourth estate that sits in those galleries up there-- the press--what gives the press freedom to print, to televise, to broadcast? What gives this country freedom of the press? Not Old Glory, not that flag--but the Constitution of the United States! What gives my coal miners from West Virginia the right to come to these Capitol steps and to speak out and to thunder their criticism of the President of the United States or of the Congress of the United States, while Old Glory floats above the dome in the blue sky? What gives those miners that right? Not the flag, not Old Glory, soaring in the heavens--but the Constitution of the United States! What gives the truckers, what gives the farmers, what gives any group the right to come to Capitol Hill and to assemble and to petition the Government to obtain a redress of grievances? Not the flag--but the Constitution of the United States! There is the source of the right--there is the source--not in the dear old flag. The flag is the symbol of the Republic, the symbol of what the Constitution provides, but it is not the flag that provides it. It is the Constitution of the United States. That is why today I speak out against the amendment before the Senate, because it is that Constitution that provides us with the rights which all Americans enjoy, regardless of race, regardless of color, regardless of national origin, regardless of age or sex. It isn't that flag. I love it. How many times do we go the last mile of the way with a friend or a relative who sleeps beneath the closed lid of a steel coffin draped with the American flag? It is something to remember. He may have been a soldier, a sailor, a marine. He didn't die for that flag. He died for what that flag represents. And the instrument that provides what that flag represents is the Constitution of the United States. It is the real stuff! I think I am right to have changed my mind. I want to say again that I changed my mind because of long and serious study, not only of the Constitution of the United States, but also of the Articles of Confederation which was the first Constitution of the U.S., my study of the Federalist Papers, my study of the history of our country, the history of the colonies, the history of England, the struggles of Englishmen, and my studies of the ancient Romans. Because of these studies, in the beginning with the respect to the constitutional amendment to balance the budget and then with respect to the line-item veto, which I hate with a passion, and which the Supreme Court of the U.S. overthrew, I came to know more about the Constitution, about American constitutionalism, about the history of the Constitution, about the ratifying conventions, than I ever knew before. And it is the result of that long and assiduous study of constitutionalism in America, constitutionalism that had its roots not just at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, but in the states before the Constitution, and in the colonies before the states, and in the Biblical covenants before the colonies; roots that go back 1,000-2,000 years. I have come to this conclusion, and I believe that I can best serve my country today by voting against this amendment. The flag lives because the Constitution lives, without which there would be no American Republic, without which there would be no American Senate, without which there would be no United States of America, only the balkanized States of America. Without that Constitution, there would be no American liberty, no American flag. That flag is the symbol of our Nation. In a way, we might say that that flag is the symbol of all we hold near and dear. That flag is the symbol of our Nation's history. That flag is the symbol of our Nation's values. We love that flag. But we must love the Constitution more. For the Constitution is not just a symbol, it is the thing itself! I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Thank you.

Mr. BYRD. We will. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to acknowledge my good friend Senator Ted Stevens' special honor as Alaska's Man of the Century, which I understand will be awarded to him this Saturday in Anchorage. Speaking as a Senator from the State of West Virginia, it is a fitting tribute, I believe, for a man whose life has been devoted to Alaska since long before Alaska became a State. Calvin Coolidge once said: No person was ever honored for what he received. Honor has been the reward for what he gave. Calvin Coolidge was a man of few words. The Bible says: A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver. Calvin Coolidge spoke words that were fitly stated. Senator Ted Stevens has given much to Alaska, and he has given much to the Nation. He has given much to the Senate. He served his nation in war as a pilot in the 14th Air Force in World War II. As chairman of the Defense Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, which he also leads with great distinction, and as a cofounder of the Senate Arms Control Observer Group, Senator Stevens has continued to look after U.S. national security interests and the men and women who serve, as he did, in the uniform of her armed forces. Senator Ted Stevens has served his nation well in war, and he has served his nation well in peace, upholding the laws of the land as an attorney, as a U.S. attorney, and as a solicitor for the Department of the Interior. He has served in the executive branch of Government working as an assistant to the then Secretary of the Department of the Interior, Mr. Seaton, to create and pass legislation making Alaska the Nation's 49th State. I am proud to have voted to support the entry of both Alaska and Hawaii into the National Union. I am the only person on Capitol Hill who voted for statehood for both Alaska and Hawaii. I believe that is right. I was in the House when I voted for statehood for Alaska. Senator Stevens has been a leader in the legislative branch as a Senator from Alaska, looking out first, last, and always for the unique interests of his unique State, as well as for the interests of the Nation while serving as the assistant Senate Republican leader, serving as the Republican whip, and serving as chairman of the Appropriations Committee. His legislative accomplishments in behalf of Alaska are many--many--and they reflect the challenges of living, working, and traveling in a State that possesses half of the coastline of the United States, some of the most varied and spectacular terrain in the Nation, ranging from giant glaciers to volcanoes, and some of the most punishing weather, as well as some of the most delightful weather, on the planet. The old adage says that cream rises to the top, and it is safe to say then that Senator Stevens is the cream of the cream, the very best, for he has risen to the top of every profession, every endeavor, every challenge that he has ever tackled. His fellow Alaskans will add the cherry on top of the cream of the cream by recognizing his multitudinous accomplishments, his supreme dedication, and his deep passion for service when they bestow upon Senator Stevens the very distinct honor of naming a very special man, Senator Stevens, Alaska's Man of the Century. Now the century is not over yet. I hope the people of Alaska understand that. Our own people need to understand that as well. The century is not over yet, nor is the second millennium. It is still going on. The new millennium will begin next year, not this year, and the new century will begin next year, not this year. But this is the man, the Man of the Century for Alaska. Although he was not born in the earliest years of this century, his legacy for Alaska is more than enough to span the century and to reach into the next century as well. Senator Stevens is a worthy representative of his great State. He is the kind of Senator whom the framers of the Constitution had in mind when, on July 16, 1787, they reached the Great Compromise out of which came this, the greatest Senate of the world in all of the history of man. His sometimes fiery temper matches the fiery volcanoes that rim the Aleutians, while his dogged persistence mirrors the inexorable push of the icy glaciers of the frozen North. His understanding of the appropriations process is as thorough as an Alaskan snowfall, blanketing every nook, every cranny, every corner of the budget. But his warm and courteous consideration of his colleagues and his staff reflects the loyalty and the teamwork necessary to survive in the cold wastes of faraway Alaska. I know him to be a worthy competitor. I know him to be a loyal friend, a man of his word. What more can a man say? And only the Man of the Century could be like this man. He is an honest speaker of even the hardest and difficult truths, a man of surprising compassion and unexpected mirth. I am proud to see him honored. I wish I could be in Alaska when he is honored. I would like to just have a few minutes in Alaska to speak about this man to his own people. They know him best. The Bible says: A prophet is not without honour save in his own country, and house. But you see how this man's own house, how his own country, how his own State, how his own constituents, how his own people who know him best, how they honor him. I am proud to see him honored. I hope he enjoys the good wishes and the attention that will be his on Saturday. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said this: Through our great good fortune, in our youth our hearts were touched with fire. It was given us to learn at the outset that life is a profound and passionate thing. While we were permitted to scorn nothing but indifference, and do not pretend to undervalue the worldly rewards of ambition, we have seen with our own eyes, beyond and above the gold fields, the snowy heights of honor, and it is for us to bear the report to those who come after us. Ted Stevens of Alaska surely has a heart touched early by the fire of public service. That flame has fueled his passion through a long and distinguished career which continues to burn brightly. But the report on Senator Stevens is already in. From his fellow Alaskans. And they view him admiringly. And in their eyes he has crowned the snowy heights of honor. And in my eyes he has also. ``How far away is the temple of fame?'' Said a youth at the dawn of the day. He toiled and strove for a deathless name; The hours went by and the evening came, Leaving him old and feeble and lame, To plod on his cheerless way. ``How far away is the temple of good?'' Said another youth at the dawn of the day, He toiled in the spirit of brotherhood, To help and succor as best he could. The poor and unfortunate multitude, In its hard and cheerless way. He was careless alike of praise or blame, But after his work was done, An angel of glory from heaven came To write on high his immortal name, And to proclaim the truth that the temple of fame And the temple of good are one. For this is the lesson that history Has taught since the world began; That those whose memories never die, But shine like stars in the human sky, And brighter glow as the years go by, Are the men who live for man. I did not write the poem, but I dedicate it to my good and dear friend, Alaska's Man of the Century, Ted Stevens. May God continue to bless him and his family always.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Only 1 minute, if the Senator will yield?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator for his observations. He has very cogently and lucidly expressed those observations. I thank him for the work he has done in this subject area. I have been glad to work with him on some legislation, and I look forward to the opportunity of our working and cooperating to deal with this very serious problem. I thank him very much.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am aware that some Senators have come to this floor in recent weeks to talk about rapidly increasing petroleum prices, and other Senators have raised serious concerns about home heating oil prices in the Northeast this winter. I also recall that certain regions of this country were threatened by electricity brownouts last summer, to say nothing of the difficulties our beleaguered farmers may face this year and to say nothing at this moment of what they faced last year. All of these issues raise serious concerns that affect our everyday lives in every season and region of the country. The crisis that we have all been witnessing not only forces us to question our dependence on foreign oil, but, more importantly, to confront the crying need for a serious domestic energy strategy. I remember very well, because I was here, the energy problems this country experienced in the 1970's. During that decade, we were forced to confront our energy demands and our vulnerability to the whims of foreign powers. A quarter century later, this nation is still facing that same vulnerability. While some circumstances may have changed, the United States is now importing more than half of its oil from overseas. This fact, in addition to the potential for volatile market swings, is very unsettling to me. The United States should not be held hostage to the capricious decisions of other nations--friend or foe. We should not have to go, hat in hand, to other nations to beg them to produce more oil so that our supply and prices in the United States do not plummet to levels that stifle the economy. We should not have to think of sending in the troops every time some regional difficulty arises in the Middle East. Our ultimate national interest lies with concerns that are much larger than the current price hikes in gasoline, diesel, home heating oil, or electricity. Though I am certain that, in time, this petroleum crisis will pass as most crises do, I fear that, as a nation, we will sink back into somnolence, asleep at the wheel so to speak. The alarm is ringing loudly today, and it is time to wake up and address the underlying issue--our lack of a serious, comprehensive national energy strategy. That is the underlying issue. Our policies must take into account our energy independence and U.S. energy security. We need a policy that buffers our economy and our people from decisions made by foreign suppliers. It is past time to focus on increased research and development into advanced technologies, energy efficiency and conservation measures, and market incentives for these advanced technologies and conservation measures. Obviously we must also be sensitive to the environment. Clean air and clean water matter; the responsible use of our land matters; and the potential impact caused by the growth of greenhouse gases matters. We should aggressively investigate promising carbon sequestration technologies. In fact, a comprehensive national energy strategy must also incorporate a strong environmental strategy. I believe that we can, and that we should undertake this challenge. We ought to do it now. The United States is vast, and our resources are vast. We are a fortunate nation in that regard. The Creator has blessed us. Our economy is booming and with that boom comes an increased appetite for energy. We must consider how much we consume and how efficiently we use these resources. We possess energy reserves of oil and natural gas, as well as wind, solar, hydro, fuel cell, geothermal, and nuclear power. And, some of our most abundant energy sources are the coal reserves underlying many areas of the United States. We will need all of these resources if we are ever to achieve the goal of stable energy independence. It is time to examine the tough questions and to explore the opportunities before us to increase our energy independence. This is a daunting task, and its success is dependent on our active support of a focused research and development program. I serve as the Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. I am proud to have been able to provide funding for a range of critical research and development programs for energy efficiency. I have been on that committee 41 years; now going on 42 years. I have been on that Appropriations Committee longer than any other Senator has ever served on it. During that time, I have been conscious of the need for more energy research and the need for a comprehensive energy strategy. So I have provided funding for a range of critical research and development programs for energy efficiency. One such research and development effort that I am especially proud of is the Clean Coal Technology Program. I believe that it was, and continues to be, a commonsense, forward thinking program. In 1985, I was able to provide the initial $750 million to create the Department of Energy's Clean Coal Technology Program. It has been a very successful public-private partnership. Originally designed to address acid rain reduction, the Clean Coal Technology Program is now addressing a broader range of emission issues, including the reduction of greenhouse gases. Over the years, more than $2.4 billion in federal funding has moved the clean coal program forward. I have supported every dollar that has been utilized in this way. To date, 40 projects have been approved, with 32 either completed or scheduled to be completed by the end of 2001. But there is a disturbing trend taking shape at the Federal level. These funds are being threatened by deferrals and rescissions by this Administration. I have had to try to fight off these deferrals and rescissions that are being recommended by this administration. A critical research and development program that supports more efficient use of one of our most abundant domestic fuel sources--coal--must not be eviscerated if we are serious about advancing our energy security goal. We must continue to be ready in the event of a crisis. We have seen these crises occur before. Yet here we are with an administration that wants to rescind, wants to defer, moneys that are to be spent in the clean coal technology program. The utter folly of such an approach is self-evident. Here we have been caught without a cushion, so we were not prepared for the crisis the country is now in. We should have been prepared. Coal cannot be taken off the list of domestic energy sources if we are ever to get out of the posture of begging, begging, begging OPEC for mercy. I come from a coal State. Coal reserves are plentiful--not so plentiful as they once were in my State, but they are plentiful in this country. Coal supplies 56 percent of all electricity in this country. See the lights up here. Electricity is what makes those lights burn. What is behind that electricity? Coal, C-O-A-L. It keeps the lights burning in the hospitals, in the schools, in the Federal buildings, in the White House. Coal, as I say, supplies 56 percent of all electricity in this country--56 percent. Coal has literally fueled the American economy. It will continue to be an important source of energy for the foreseeable future--and it must continue to be. I know that there are concerns about coal mining and coal use. Some past practices would, quite rightly, not be condoned today. But we are capable, as a nation, of doing better, and we are doing more by improving these practices while also supplying the electricity that operates the wheels of industry and that lightens the offices so we can do our work, supplying an important fuel that lights our homes and businesses. For years, not just recently, I have promoted clean coal and other clean energy technologies through research and development. But many of these newer, cleaner technologies are more costly to bring to the market. We also need to address the gap between the research and development of these promising technologies and their widespread deployment in the marketplace. It is imperative that we fill that gap. For this reason, I have worked with Minority Leader Daschle and other Members of this body to develop a targeted package of tax incentives to encourage the demonstration and deployment of many energy efficient technologies. I worked with these Members for over a year and a half to craft S. 1833, the Energy Security Tax Act of 1999. If Senators have concerns about developing greater energy independence and encouraging cleaner, more efficient technologies, then I urge them to take a serious look at this legislation. Clean coal technologies are included in this package, as are a broad range of incentives for other fuels, including coal mine methane, renewables, and oil and gas. Additionally, we have included incentives for energy conservation technologies and energy efficient technologies and practices in the transportation, steel, and agriculture sectors. I say to my colleagues, if you want to help develop a strategy for an energy-independent country, then work to get this bill passed. It is the right thing for our economy, for the environment, for trade, and for jobs. It is a step toward a comprehensive national policy to promote energy efficiency, energy security, and energy independence. If we want to have a national energy strategy, we must sit down together and bring all of our interests and concerns to the table. We must take a multi-pronged approach that looks at the whole range of fuels, the whole kit and caboodle, at more efficient energy technologies and conservation practices, and at the participation of a broad spectrum of industries and interested parties. I do not want the United States to be at the mercy of rogue nations. I do not want our economy to tremble each time OPEC flexes its muscle. I want to ensure that we remain economically competitive. An efficient, stable supply of energy is key. I believe that the challenges of this new century can be met, lighting the way for a new energy strategy that recognizes the importance of economic development and environmental protection at the same time. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that should I need an additional 3 minutes, I may have it.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my friend, the very distinguished junior Senator from North Dakota, but he is the dean of the delegation. He served in the House several years.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, let us go back 2,000 years to the small family farms on the Italian peninsula. Those small family farms produced the rugged soldiers who helped ancient Rome to conquer all of the countries around the Mediterranean basin. Those family farms produced men and women who believed in the gods. They were pagan gods, but those ancient Romans believed in those gods, venerated their forefathers, their ancestors, taught their children to respect authority, to respect law, to respect the state. And the ancient Romans felt that the gods had in mind a particular destiny for their country. Each Roman felt that it was his duty to help to promote that destiny of his state. And then came the latifundia, the great corporate farms. Senators bought up land. They became huge farms. The farmers, the peasants, left the land and migrated into the cities and became a part of the mob that sought the theater and free bread. And when that happened, remember that the Roman legions, which constituted the greatest military fighting machine of that time, were able to get their recruits from the farms. When the peasants left the land, left the home, and the home deteriorated and the belief in the gods dimmed and faded, the great Roman Senate weakened, lost its way, lost its nerve, and without being forced to ceded to the dictators--the Caesars, and later the Emperors--the power of the purse, that was the beginning of the end. Rome collapsed. The same thing has happened here in America. When we look at our colonial forebears, they had the stamina, the stern discipline of the ancient Romans. They believed in a creator, and the home was where the values were inculcated into the young people. They respected the law, they respected authority, they respected their fathers and mothers, and they took seriously the Biblical injunction ``honor thy father and thy mother.'' We can take a lesson from the ancient Romans and many a leaf out of their history because there were several parallels between those ancient Romans and our colonial ancestors and the America that was--not the America that is, but the America that was--up until 50 years ago, or some such. I am in the very mood at this moment to commend my distinguished colleague, the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, when he talks about these farmers. They are the people who toil the earth. They have to depend upon the weather; it is uncertain. They can't count on, from month to month or year to year, what the weather is going to be, how dependable it is going to be. What a life they have to live. It is a rugged life, but it is a clean life--clean in that they understand what it is to be near the soil and near God's great tradition. I wish that more of our young people grew up on the farm. There was a time in this country when 90 percent of the population was from the farms. That day is long gone. I thank the Senator, who so often enlightens this great body on issues of importance to the country. He has his head screwed on right. His heart is where it ought to be. He has sound wisdom. He has done a great service today speaking about the small farmers. I personally thank him for what he means to the Senate and to the people of his State.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator.

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. Before the distinguished Senator goes to lunch, would he agree with me that Oliver Goldsmith, writing in ``The Deserted Village,'' must have had our family farmers in mind when he said: Ill fares the land, to hastening ills of prey, Where wealth accumulates, and men decay; Princes and Lords may flourish or may fade; A breath can make them, as a breath has made; But a bold peasantry, their country's pride, When once destroy'd, can never be supplied. Is there anything more fitting by way of poetry than Oliver Goldsmith's words in ``The Deserted Village'' when he talked about the bold peasantry?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today, as we observe the arrival of the vernal equinox and, with it, the official arrival of spring, the words of the poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge come easily to mind: All Nature seems at work. Slugs leave their lair-- The bees are stirring--birds are on the wing-- And Winter slumbering in the open air, Wears on his smiling face a dream of Spring! Washington has turned her smiling face towards spring as well. The roadsides, so recently painted gray-brown with grit and dirt in the wake of receding glaciers of snow mounded up by mastodon plow trucks, have greened again. The brave crocuses have forced their way through the still-cold Earth to offer their first bright promise of warmer weather, the merry forsythia mirrors the Sun's golden light, and the pear and magnolia trees are softening the gray weave of bare branches with their pink and white petals. Washington's famous cherry blossoms will soon be adding their dainty petals to the spring breezes. It is time for the soft whisper of falling snow to be replaced by the conversational patter of spring rains. It is time for the volume to be turned up from the quiet solos of solitary winter birds to the rousing, full-throated chorus of springtime birdsongs. I asked the robin, as he sprang From branch to branch and sweetly sang, What made his breast so round and red; Twas ``looking at the sun,'' he said; I asked the violets, sweet and blue, Sparkling in the morning dew, Whence came their colors, then so shy; They answered, ``looking to the sky''; I saw the roses, one by one, Unfold their petals to the sun, I asked them what made their tints so bright, And they answered, ``looking to the light''; I asked the thrush, whose silvery note Came like a song from angel's throat, Why he sang in the twilight dim; He answered, ``looking up at Him.'' We have this full-throated chorus of springtime voices--the violets, the roses, the robin, the thrush, the other bird songs--and it is time to spade up the garden, releasing the intoxicating perfume of rich, moist earth. How my little dog, Billy, loves that scent. He stands watch over the spade as I prepare the ground for my tomatoes, and his ears are pricked up, his tail is wagging, his eyes are shining with anticipation, waiting to chip in with paws flying, heedless of the dirt he will track into the house on his white coat. You see, he is a Maltese. This is Billy Byrd--Billy Byrd II. I used to have another dog. It was a cocker spaniel, but it was Billy Byrd I. It is also time to marvel at the mysteries of God's designs as we watch daffodils burn their way through dense layers of last year's leathery leaves in order to put on their bright show. It is time to wonder how a tiny crocus bulb, no larger than a thumbnail and no heavier than a dust-dry clod of earth, can push aside frozen Earth, melt its way through snow or ice, just to put out four colorful petals. I sometimes wonder for whom the crocuses' show is, for surely crocuses bloom too early for even the hardiest bee. William Shakespeare observed that, ``There is no ancient gentlemen but gardeners . . . They hold up Adam's profession.'' There is indeed a kinship among gardeners, whether serious gardeners whose gardens are their lifelong avocation, or the duffer with a few beds who buys plants at the local hardware store each spring. All gardeners are, at heart, optimists. They have to be. This season allows the gardener each year to fall in love all over again, and to wear on his smiling face a dream of spring and of greatness in the garden. He stands outside, shovel in not-yet-blistered hand, and has visions. He sees, not the patchy lawn and unkempt flowerbeds worn by winter, but some grand turf flowing like a green sea between islands of color, Sun, and shade. He foresees the abundance of the garden overflowing from his table to those of his friends and family. In March, it is not possible to truly believe that there will ever be too many tomatoes, too many zucchini, too many cucumbers. Each seed in the brightly colored envelope, each small budding plant, is precious and deserving of an opportunity to grow. Each is a gamble, but a gamble in which the gardener believes the odds are on his side. And why not? God is also on his side. Not all the plants will make it, but enough will, and those survivors will often exceed his most fecund imaginings. West Virginia is full of master gardeners. Their pantries and cellars are treasure houses filled with jewel-tone quart jars of ruby tomatoes, emerald green beans, and sapphire blueberries. Crystal quilted jelly jars hold not precious unguents, but the ambrosia of the gods--homemade jams, jellies, and preserves distilled from the freshest strawberries, plums, cherries, quinces, apples, and blackberries. West Virginia's home canners are well prepared to cope with the bounteous overflow of the overambitious gardener. To be a gardener is not only to be optimistic, but also to be patient. If something does not work out this year, there is always a different scheme next year. Over time, even the most scraggly sapling will reach majestic maturity, towering over the landscape and altering the microclimate of the yard with its shade and its earthmoving roots. The sun-loving flowers near it will gradually be replaced by those which tolerate increasing amounts of shade. No garden is a static place--how could it be?--filled with so much polite but fierce competition among its denizens, and always under attack by invading insects and dreaded diseases--black spot, to be sure, rather than the Black Plague, but dreaded, nonetheless. To be a gardener is to be close to the Creator, to follow in His example. You see, God made the country; man made the town. To be, as Shakespeare said, holding up Adam's profession, that is what it is to be a gardener. We each try to create, at least in our dreams, our own small Eden. We learn the great lessons of life as we cultivate patience and nurture our optimism. In a garden one sees, up close--up close, up real close--the great mysteries of birth, life, struggle, death, yes, and renewal, writ small enough to comprehend and only then, to translate into some larger understanding that may, with age, approach wisdom. My chaplain will say, in a garden, God speaks to us simply, in the language of flowers. The kiss of the sun for pardon, The song of the birds for mirth, One is nearer God's Heart in the garden Than anywhere else on earth. So said Dorothy Frances Gurney, and surely her words are even more true in the spring garden than at any other time of year. It gives me joy to watch the greening of the earth, once again, and to witness the triumph of each little bulb and each little bud as it bursts forth, victorious over the chill of winter. I am filled with warmth that is easy to share, as I and my colleagues in Adam's profession emerge from our winter hibernation into the soft spring air and, with smiling faces, dream of spring. The year's at the spring And day's at the morn; Morning's at seven; The hillside's dew-pearled; The lark's on the wing; The snail's on the thorn; God's in His Heaven-- All is right with the world.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today marks the 11-month anniversary of the tragic school shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado. On April 20, 1999, 2 boys walked into their high school, armed to the hilt, and killed 13 students and faculty members before taking their own lives. Despite the horrible nature of this crime, and those that have followed it in Georgia, in Michigan, in the District of Columbia, and in other places throughout the country, the Congress has shown precious little leadership in exploring ways to help prevent mayhem in our schools. Last May, in response to the Columbine shooting, this Senate passed the Juvenile Justice bill by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 73- 25. Despite this strong show of bipartisan agreement, the legislation is bogged down in a morass of election year politics. Despite the fact that the American people are crying out for some leadership on this issue, the Congress is proving itself to be uncaring, if not irrelevant. There is plenty of controversy to go around anytime any measure comes before the Congress which deals with gun violence. We have all heard repeatedly the cautionary slogan chanted by some, ``guns don't kill people, people kill people.'' But increasingly in recent years it has been children who are wielding guns against their classmates. Perhaps the slogan should be changed to ``guns don't kill children, children kill children.'' Sadly, that slogan now has the ring of reality, but, I doubt that anyone will be lobbying for gun rights with those words imprinted on their lecture. The Senate-passed legislation contained a number of important provisions to not only crack down on violent juvenile offenders, but also to reduce the potential for weapons to fall into the hands of children who may not understand all of the dangers that the weapons pose. The Senate legislation is a compromise between the rights of the individual to keep and bear arms and the safety of the public to be protected from those who should not have those guns. The bill would require that every handgun sold must have a trigger safety lock or secure container. It would require background checks on all buyers at gun shows. The legislation would ban the youth possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and their high-capacity ammunition clips. And it would bar anyone convicted of a violent felony as a juvenile from possessing a gun. These are commonsense provisions on which I hope parents and gun owners alike could agree. Last week, the Nation's leading gun manufacturer, Smith & Wesson, imposed upon itself many of the provisions contained in the Senate version of the Juvenile Justice bill, including trigger locks and background checks. If Smith & Wesson can see the wisdom of balancing public safety with private ownership rights, why can this Congress not do the same? The last time--and, in fact, the only time--that the conference committee on the Juvenile Justice legislation met was last August. Time is of the essence. I urge the conferees on both sides of the hill to meet and to settle their differences. The longer they wait, the longer the delay, the better the chances are that some further tragedy will come along and steal the lives of more innocent children. We might make a difference. We might save a life. Why not have the courage to try? Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, is it any wonder why the approval ratings of the Congress go up every time we go into recess? The American people are watching us, and they are wondering if we are really paying attention to the issues important to them. I fear that we are not paying enough attention, certainly. Next month, the nation will observe the 1-year anniversary of the tragic shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado, in which fifteen people, including the two student gunmen, were killed. But this tragedy is not unique. In May 1992, a 20-year-old killed four people and wounded ten others in an armed siege at his former high school in California. In January 1993, a 17-year-old walked into his teacher's seventh- period English class in Kentucky, and shot her in the head. He then shot the janitor in the abdomen. In February 1996, a 14-year-old student took an assault rifle to his school in Washington state and opened fire on his algebra class, killing two classmates and a teacher. One year later, in February 1997, a 16-year-old student opened fire with a shotgun at a school in Alaska, killing a classmate and the school principal and wounding two other students. In October 1997, a 16-year-old student, after shooting his mother, went to school with a gun and shot nine students, killing two of them. In December 1997, a student opened fire on a student prayer circle at a Kentucky school, killing three students and wounding five others. In March 1998, a pair of boys took rifles to school and turned them on classmates and teachers when they exited the building in response to a false fire alarm at their Arkansas school. Four girls and a teacher were killed, and 11 people were wounded. In April 1998, at a Pennsylvania school, a 14-year-old-boy fatally shot a teacher and wounded two students at an eighth-grade dance. The following month, in May 1998, a high school senior shot and killed another student in the school parking lot in Tennessee, and then turned the gun on himself. Two days later, a freshman student in Oregon opened fire with a semi- automatic rifle in a high school cafeteria, killing two students and wounding 22 others. The teen's parents were later found shot to death in their home. This freshman student did not heed the admonition of the Scriptures which says: Honor thy father and thy mother. He prceeded to kill his father and his mother. Then, a month after last year's massacre at Columbine High School, in May 1999, a 15-year-old gunman--I suppose you could call a 15-year-old a gunman--opened fire on fellow students in Georgia, injuring six students, including one critically. Most recently, last week in Flint, Michigan, a six-year-old boy took a gun to school and killed a six-year-old girl in front of their shocked classmates. Six-year-olds killing six-year-olds--what have we come to? And yet, the Congress fails to act. Are we blind? Are we numb to these killings? Even in the city in which we work, the tragedies are mounting. In the District of Columbia, since the school year began in September, 18 juveniles have been killed. Of those, police say that half of them started as arguments at school and ended in death in nearby neighborhood streets. Isn't this enough? Can't this Congress hear the cry of the American students, and their parents, to step up to the plate and at least debate ways to help break this cycle of violence? I know that Congress cannot solve this problem on its own, just as an individual school board or PTA cannot resolve this crisis acting as a single institution. But we, the elected leaders of this nation who are very quick to point to problems in other nations, are not even talking about ways to end this horrific record of children killing children. Day after day, we criticize one nation for human rights violations or another nation for failing to meet the needs of its people. But who are we to look across the waters and criticize others if we remain silent, if we remain numb, if we remain mute, dumb about our own problems? I am told that the current gridlock on this issue is because of partisanship. I hear that the reason the conference committee on the juvenile justice bill has only met once--last August--is that Members are at opposite ends of the spectrum on the gun-related provisions in the legislation. This legislation does not take any dramatic steps toward weapons. It simply would put in place some commonsense provisions to balance public safety and private gun owners' rights. Requiring trigger locks would not jeopardize anyone's second amendment rights, but it might prevent children from using the guns at school--where the parents are at fault for letting those weapons lie around where they are within the reach, within the sight, of children. And improving background checks is not a monumental change either. These checks would only serve to prevent those people who should not have access to weapons from getting them. I hope responsible parents and gun owners will be able to support these commonsense provisions. So I do not understand why this has to be a partisan issue in the U.S. Capitol Building or in the adjacent Senate and House Office Buildings when it is not a partisan issue in the rest of the country. I note that earlier the Republican Governor of Colorado signed into law a new background check initiative that is even more rigorous than the one overseen by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Governor Owens said this effort is a balance between ``the public's need to try to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals with the private right to purchase a firearm.'' Let me read what the Governor said again: ``* * * the public's need to try to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals with the private right to purchase a firearm.'' It is a balance between the two. He was talking about a balance between the two. If there can be bipartisan legislation in Colorado, why can't there be bipartisan legislation here in Congress? Even in this Chamber, Senators were able to put partisanship aside when we passed the juvenile justice bill last May. The legislation was approved overwhelmingly, by a vote of 73-25. Yet the conference committee still cannot reach an agreement. Is that the problem? The conference committee between the two Houses cannot reach an agreement. The time for delay is over. Our Nation is yearning for leadership. I express my hope, as one Senator, to the conferees to move ahead on the juvenile justice bill. Craft a commonsense bill that would help to break this cycle of youth violence. Show the Nation that the Congress can see what is happening outside the Capitol Building and that we are capable of working in partnership with all Americans to bring some modicum of calm to our classrooms. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. SCHUMER addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New York. I pride myself on being surrounded by very fine men and women who chose to give their time and tolerance and service to the Senate--the only Senate of its kind that has ever been created. Among those Senators is the distinguished junior Senator from New York. He has not been in this body long. He was in the House for a considerable time, so he comes here with a wealth of experience. He is one of the most articulate Members of this body, and I am extremely grateful for the kinds of things he says so many times about me. I think it was Mark Twain who said he could live for 2 weeks on a good compliment. The distinguished Senator from New York has equipped me to keep on going for at least another 6 months. I thank him.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment offered by Senator Robb today to the Affordable Education Act which would remove the provision of the bill to expand the use of educational individual retirement accounts for elementary and secondary education expenses, and instead expand incentives for the construction and renovation of our nation's public schools. While I understand the overwhelming need for additional resources to help repair and rebuild crumbling schools across the United States, this amendment would strip the legislation of its very admirable intent to assist parents in saving scarce resources for a child's elementary and secondary schooling years. Parents should have the ability to make decisions about their own child's education, particularly in the early, formative years, as they do with higher education. I believe that the education savings accounts for elementary and secondary education are a step in the right direction in helping families to make these often difficult decisions about the education of their child. This vote on the Robb amendment is a particularly difficult one for me to cast because I, too, am extremely concerned about the dilapidated state of our nation's schools. My home state of West Virginia has a school renovation and construction need in excess of $1.2 billion, and the nation a need totaling more than $250 billion. Mr. President, this is alarming! Our nation's schools are in disrepair and provide a less- than-appealing workplace for our students and faculties. They lack the basic infrastructure to allow our students to become ``ready'' for the age of technology, and many ill-equipped schools deny students the opportunity to engage in meaningful laboratory experiences in the sciences. Some schools are overcrowded, and many have become small communities of portable classrooms. Mr. President, it is my hope that the Senate will revisit this important issue of funding for school construction in a context that would not pit one good initiative against another.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the nightmare of violence in our nation's schools has grabbed our attention once more. This morning, a first- grade student was shot and killed by another first-grader at a Michigan elementary school. Our thoughts and prayers are with the young girl's family, with the young person who pulled the trigger, and with the twenty other students in the classroom. Tragically, once again, the notion of schools as a safe haven was shattered by the sound of gunfire, and we must now begin to face the formidable challenge of rebuilding that serene and tranquil school environment that each and every student and teacher deserves. This tragedy begs some very basic questions of our society. First, and perhaps most importantly, what is a first-grader doing with a loaded gun? A first-grader is six years old, maybe even seven. These are merely babes with sweet young faces who have barely begun their lives. They are still putting baby teeth under their pillows awaiting a visit from the tooth fairy. How did this child get the weapon? And what on Earth possessed the child to bring it to school? What has gone so wrong in our nation that students feel the need to bring weapons to the public school classroom? Do they think they have to show off for their friends? Do they feel the need for power? Surely not a child in the first grade. Do they think that carrying a weapon to school gives them greater stature? I know that we, as a nation, have been struggling with these questions for many, many months, but it is time we started to reach some conclusions. In the 315 days since the tragedy at Columbine High School, the violence has not stopped. We have seen the same tragic scene of students and teachers pouring out of schools in fear in Atlanta. In the District of Columbia, since this school year began in September, 15 public school students have been killed. According to police, eight of the fifteen slayings were precipitated by an argument in school and ended in gunfire on a neighborhood street. For some reason that we cannot seem to get our arms around, our children continue to injure and kill one another. Why in the world are we not concentrating on this? Why is the Juvenile Justice bill, which passed this Senate in May with common- sense weapons controls, still stalled? How many children have to die before this Congress sits up and takes notice? How many lives, so full of potential, have to be snuffed out: 15, 30, 50, 100? We need to find out why these tragedies continue to occur, and we need to find ways to stop it. There will be a supplemental bill coming before this Senate soon which is intended to provide close to a billion dollars in aid for Colombia. The White House calls this funding an emergency. I think we have more than enough emergencies here on our home soil that demand urgent attention. It is time to get our priorities straight. I understand that this is not something that Congress can do on its own, nor is it something that a local school board can accomplish by itself. Putting an end to school violence will take a concerted effort--from lawmakers to parents to students to clergy to community leaders. No one can be given a pass. We all share a responsibility to come together, to look past any historical differences, and to work to find real solutions that will put an end to these tragedies. I only pray that we can. My heart goes out to the family who must be stunned at the loss of their little girl. I can only imagine their suffering. All the potential in one tiny, small, little innocent life has been stolen in the flash of a gun. I hope that this Congress, and I hope that the electronic media, the Hollywood movie stars, the movie industry, and the whole Nation, will finally commit to taking the difficult steps that are needed to make sure something positive can come from such an incredible tragedy. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to congratulate my esteemed colleague, Senator Rockefeller, and his wife, Sharon, on the occasion of the birth of their first grandchild. Laura Chandler Rockefeller was born on Wednesday evening, February 16. February, the second month of our calendar year, is from the Latin, februarius. It is a word of Sabine origin, signifying purification. The Roman festival of purification was held during this month. Nature, in the midst of Winter, with its cold, yet cleansing air, is preparing for the glorious blooms of Spring. And, in this or any season, what can more exemplify the innocence and purity of life than a newborn baby? Laura's proud parents are Senator and Mrs. Rockefeller's eldest son, John, and his lovely wife, Emily. Laura is in good hands. She is blessed with parents, and grandparents, who love her, and who love learning. John is completing his doctoral studies in English Literature at Johns Hopkins University, and Emily is a teacher. The first, the most profound, teacher we have is our mother. When we first enter this world, in a blaze of light and confusion, in such frightening contrast to our earlier serenity, it is mother who comforts us. It is mother who soothes our cries, who cradles us safely in her arms, and rocks us to sleep. This is the first, most precious gift of a caring mother. I have no doubt that John and Emily will teach Laura the joy, the lifelong comfort, of the great books. The great, old man who raised me, my uncle, was truly the most remarkable man I have ever been privileged to know. He was just an old coal miner. He was not educated in this world's halls and universities. He was a wise man and a hard-working coal miner who played his part in life with a stoic and dignified determination to do his best for his small family, for his country, and for his God. He encouraged me to read, to learn, to develop my mind to the best of my own abilities. As another great man wrote, ``The reading of all good books is like conversations with the finest men of past centuries.'' Carl Sandburg once said that ``a baby is God's opinion that life should go on.'' One of the greatest joys of our existence is to simply hold a newborn baby, especially if that baby is our own daughter, or son, or grandchild, or great grandchild--just to hold a newborn baby that possesses all of the freshness and the newness and the promise of life. We gaze in awe at this valiant little creature, so helpless, and yet so strong, as its tiny, perfect fingers grasp our own little finger with eager curiosity and awareness and pull that finger about. No flower-bells that expand and shrink Gleam half so heavenly sweet As shine on life's untrodden brink A baby's feet.--Algernon Swinburne. In my experience, parenthood is a challenging balance of love and responsibility. It is a tapestry of the finest, and most delicate, weaving. We love and guide our children, and we try to always honor this awesome commitment. And we see a pageant of hellos and goodbyes. Children grow up. They go away to school. They go to work, marry, and have children of their own. And then, there are greetings to new and wonderful additions into our midst. For a grandparent, this tapestry, in the glow of a family's history, becomes more elaborate, more richly colored, and more easily observed. It has been one of the greatest delights of my own life, and in Erma's life, to witness this amazing procession of life following after life, seeing a new plateau rise, new plateau of immortality, a new taste. We wish Senator Rockefeller and Sharon the same happiness that has been our experience. Laura is the granddaughter of one Senator, and the great- granddaughter of another, our greatly admired former colleague, Senator Charles Percy. In these fast paced times, more than ever, grandparents are an essential refuge of reflection and continuity between the generations. They are the living history of our shared past. In their reminiscences of earlier days, in their principles forged over a lifetime of experience and hard work, they offer a unique, valuable perspective of a complex and intricate world. I recall with considerable awe the birth of my great granddaughter, Carolyn Byrd Fatemi, born on March 4 of last year. March 4 in the old days was when the new Congress came into session, and a new President was sworn into office March 4. Now that day is the birthday of Erma and my great granddaughter, Carolyn Byrd Fatemi. It is a joyous, and humbling, realization to truly see oneself as part of that intricate tapestry of successive generations. A new baby, so fragile, so tiny, so soft, so sweet, so delicate, and yet so determined to join this wonderful, maddening world, stirs our hearts and reminds us once more of our enduring link to the eternal. As William Wordsworth wrote, Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting: The soul that rises with us, our life's star, Hath had elsewhere its setting, And cometh from afar; Not in entire forgetfulness, And not in utter nakedness, But trailing clouds of glory do we come From God, who is our home: Heaven lies about us in our infancy! Erma and I also congratulate Senator and Mrs. Rockefeller on the engagement of their daughter, Valerie, to Mr. James Douglas Carnegie. Perhaps the greatest transition in a person's life is when he makes that great leap from ``I'' to ``We.'' It is the beginning of a journey with a beloved partner, who will share life's joys, and ease its inevitable burdens. My own treasured wife, Erma, and I have been on this wondrous journey for sixty-two years, and it will soon be 63, the Lord willing. To Valerie and James, I would wish the benediction of Milton, ``Mutual love, the crown of all our bliss.'' Senator Rockefeller has worked tirelessly for the people of West Virginia for over thirty years. It has been my great privilege to work alongside him in this Chamber for the past fifteen years. He has been a tenacious champion of developing economic opportunities for West Virginia's workers, and a compassionate, determined voice for children, for senior citizens, for our nation's veterans, and for our retired coal miners. I could not wish for a more capable, diligent and congenial colleague. I offer Senator Rockefeller my best wishes on these happy occasions for his family, and also my sincere gratitude to him for his intelligence, his strength of character, and his friendship. Congratulations again, 100 times, on the birth of this beautiful little granddaughter. How proud he has to be. I yield the floor.