Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for not to exceed 10 minutes out of order.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, The Apocrypha, or the Hidden Books, is a term used to describe the books found in the Alexandrine Greek Scripture (The Septuagint), but absent from the Orthodox Hebrew Scripture. In the second book of Esdras is found the following Admonishment: ``Now therefore keep thy sorrow to thyself, and bear with a good courage that which hath befallen thee.'' There is one Member of this body who seems to have lived his life by that particular piece of ancient wisdom. That Member to whom I refer is the senior Senator from the State of Massachusetts, Edward M. Kennedy. The saga of the Kennedy family is well known by nearly everyone. It is a story replete with triumphs and unfathomable tragedies. Many times, I have marveled, at the resilience displayed by Ted Kennedy and by his family. Somehow they always manage to regroup, to prevail, to go on, even in the face of devastation. I believe they find their strength in the love of each other, and in their unstinting devotion to public service. Senator Ted Kennedy is absolutely committed to public service. He has served and served wisely and well in the United States for 38 years. First elected to the Senate in 1962, Ted Kennedy is now the third most senior Member of this body. A child of privilege, educated at Harvard and the University of Virginia Law School, Ted Kennedy could have taken the easier path in life. But instead Ted Kennedy came to the Senate to work. And the causes he has championed and put his broad shoulder to the wheel to support, are for the most part, the causes that benefit the little people--the poor, the downtrodden, the children in our society. Senator Kennedy has been an unstinting warrior in the effort to ensure quality health care to the citizens of the Nation. Two recent achievements in this area are the Health Insurance and Accountability Act of 1996, which makes it easier for those who change or lose their jobs to keep their health insurance, and the children's Health Insurance Act of 1997, which makes their health insurance far more widely available to children through age 18 in all 50 states. Senator Kennedy has for years, also been a dynamic leader on a wide range of other issues of central importance to the people of this Nation, including education, raising the minimum wage, defending the rights of workers and their families, strengthening civil rights laws, assisting individuals with disabilities, fighting for cleaner water and cleaner air, and protecting Social Security and Medicare for senior citizens. I have not always agreed with his solutions to our Nation's problems, but I have always respected his capacity for hard work, his devotion to the causes he champions, and his energetic ability to get things done. And although we have disagreed in the past, one time or another over the years, Senator Kennedy and I have come to be friends for a long time. We share many things in common, although two more different individuals in background could hardly be imagined. We share a love of history, of poetry, of the rough-and-tumble and the humor of politics, and we share a love and understanding of this Senate and the singularly important role it was intended to play in this Republic. Rarely have I been more touched than when Ted personally delivered 80 long-stemmed roses to my office in remembrance of my 80th birthday, 2 years ago. It was a memorable moment for me. Through all the triumphs and tragedies, through all the hard work, the disappointments, and the hard knocks that always accompany a long political career, Senator Kennedy has retained a young man's zeal for life, for service, for laughter, and for achievement. I believe that his shadow will loom large when the history of this body is written in future years. Already, the sum total of his legislative achievements is enormous, and he is still as active, as energetic and as committed as ever. Fortunately, for this body and for the Nation, we can expect many, many more years of loyal and distinguished service from the senior Senator from the Bay State. So today on the birthday of my friend, Ted Kennedy, I rise to salute his courage, his work, his resiliency, and his extraordinary friendship and kindness to me. And I offer to him this day one of those famous, certainly very lyrical of Irish blessings: May the road rise to meet you, May the wind be always at your back, May the sun shine warm upon your face, May the rain fall softly upon your fertile fields. And, until we meet again, May God hold you in the palm of His hand. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?

Mr. BYRD. Is there a time limit in the order?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish to speak briefly regarding the late Floyd Riddick. Floyd Riddick was for several years the Parliamentarian of the Senate. Floyd Riddick was born in 1908 in Trotville, NC. That was the same year in which the Model T Ford was made. The Model A Ford came along in December of 1927, but the Model T Ford came on the market in 1908. Floyd Riddick was from that generation of Americans committed to duty, excellence, and hard work. His entire life reflected a love of duty, of excellence, and of hard work. Floyd Riddick attended Duke University. He attained his master's degree at Vanderbilt, and then he returned to Duke University to earn his Ph.D. in political science. While working on his doctoral dissertation, Floyd Riddick spent a year observing the workings of the U.S. House of Representatives. And then, in 1941, he published an expanded version of that research as congressional procedure. For the benefit of the viewing public, I hold in my hand a copy of the volume about which I have just spoken. The title is ``Riddick's Senate Procedure.'' This particular volume, which was printed by the U.S. Government Printing Office here in Washington in 1992, including the appendix, contains 1,564 pages. Mr. President, I have read this book on Riddick's Procedure through and through and through a number of times. It used to be that when I was the Democratic whip, and while I was also Secretary of the Democratic Conference in the Senate, and during the time I was majority leader, minority leader, and majority leader again, I read this book once every year--the complete book. It is a very valuable book. If one hopes to ever have a fairly good understanding of the Senate rules and precedents, then he or she should read this book. The Parliamentarians of the Senate are very familiar with it. They resort to it many times a day, and it is a sure and dependable guideline with respect to the rules and precedents in the Senate. Doc Riddick--we called him ``Doc''--published a book on congressional procedure. This book is on Senate procedure. He then came to Washington permanently as a statistical analyst and as an instructor of political science at American University. He was a Ph.D. in political science. I never received my baccalaureate in political science until I was 76 years old. That was about 6 years ago. I received my baccalaureate in political science, but, of course, I knew a lot about political science long before I ever received that degree. I am a graduate of the school of hard knocks, and I learned a long time ago the lessons that are taught by service in this body and in the other body. This is my 48th year on Capitol Hill. The late Richard Russell talked with me one day about the rules in the Democratic Cloakroom, right in back of where I am now standing. He said: Robert, you need not only to know about the rules, you need also to understand the precedents of the Senate. I said: Where can I learn about them? He picked up this book, ``Riddick's Procedure,'' and he said: This is the book where you can learn a lot about the precedents of the Senate. Doc Riddick--as I say, because he had a Ph.D. in political science, Doc Riddick wrote the book. From 1943 to 1946, Dr. Riddick edited the Legislative Daily for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a post which led to his being asked to set up a Daily Digest in the Congressional Record which would summarize congressional events and serve as a guide to the daily Record. Now, Doc Riddick wasn't the first man who ever thought of that. Julius Caesar developed what well might have been called the legislative daily. He developed a process whereby the daily actions of the Senate would be noted and would be distributed to the various parts of the Roman Empire, and nailed upon walls for all to see. That was a kind of daily legislative digest. That came along quite a good many years before Dr. Riddick's time. But he followed in the shoes of Julius Caesar in that regard in that he set up a Daily Digest in the Congressional Record. It is still to be found in the back of the Congressional Record. In the back of the Record there is a Daily Digest, and Senators can go to the Daily Digest and very quickly be informed about the actions of the Senate and the House the day before, and what legislation was passed and how many rollcall votes there were. It is a very valuable compendium of the actions of the Senate and the House on the day previous to the day on which the Congressional Record appears in our office. From that position in 1951, Dr. Riddick joined the Office of Parliamentarian as an assistant, succeeding to the position of Senate Parliamentarian in 1964 where he served until 1974. After his retirement, Dr. Riddick continued to serve the Senate as Parliamentarian Emeritus and as a consultant to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. Do you know what his salary was? Zero. He didn't charge anything for his services. That was a deeply dedicated man who enjoyed giving of his knowledge and talents, his expertise, his experience to other Senators. I have been a member of that committee for a long time, so I am quite familiar with Floyd Riddick and his work on the committee. Most Senators now serving will be most familiar with the name of Floyd Riddick in connection with Riddick's Rules of Procedure. He also authored a series of articles summarizing each congressional session which appeared in the American Political Science Review and the Western Political Quarterly, along with several other books on the organization, history, and procedures of the Congress. I used to conduct a seminar on the legislative process at American University during the summers. I didn't earn much money, but the money that I earned I put into a fund for the college education of a Chinese orphan. I would have Dr. Riddick over to speak during those days when I was conducting the seminar. Dr. Riddick would come over and speak to the class. It wasn't an easy class. It was a tough one. I gave between 600 and 700 questions on the final exam, and I flunked three or four individuals in the class who apparently thought it would be an easy thing to skip when they wanted to. But they didn't make the grade. I had no hesitancy in flunking them. Dr. Riddick, though, was one of those who spoke for me from time to time. I also had Senator Sam Ervin over to speak to my class. I had the late Speaker, Carl Albert, over to American University from time to time to speak in this seminar. I asked some of the officers of the Senate to visit the class. So we offered those young people a real treat in the legislative process. The Random House College Dictionary gives us this definition of the word ``integrity'': ``Adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.'' That word ``integrity'' is used repeatedly in the publication entitled ``Tributes to Dr. Floyd M. Riddick'' upon the occasion of his retirement and designation as parliamentarian emeritus, which was ordered by the Senate to be printed on December 19, 1974. Senator after Senator, in speaking of the services of Floyd Riddick upon his retirement, used that word ``integrity.'' He was a Parliamentarian who would not be swayed by anybody in the Senate. He called the shots exactly as he saw them. He didn't lean toward the Republicans; he didn't lean toward the Democrats. He called the questions as he saw them, and based them on the Senate rules and upon the precedents. When we received advice from Dr. Riddick while he was Parliamentarian, we knew that was the way it was. We knew he wasn't bending the rules to favor any of us or to favor either political party. So the word ``integrity'' was an extremely well-fitting word for Floyd Riddick. There are some individuals who come up from their origins with a closeness to earth and a nearness to growing things--growing things, the lilac bush, the rosebush, the tomato plant, the ordinary weed, a blade of grass--these individuals have integrity. There is a sort of elemental trueness about them which even the foibles and the follies and the bright lights of Washington politics cannot shake from their being. As Popeye says, ``I am what I am and that is all I am.'' And these people are just what they are and that is all they are. That was Dr. Riddick. Even the foibles and follies of politics in Washington could not shake his being. So it is not surprising to learn that Floyd Riddick enjoyed being on a farm. He used to give some of us here a few of his tomatoes. He grew those large, beefsteak tomatoes, and he would bring them in from the farm. He would give me some in the summer. And there were others who were fortunate enough to be the recipients of Floyd Riddick's tomatoes. And later in life, Dr. Riddick routinely escaped to his farm in Rappahannock County, VA, as if for renewal and refreshment. Rappahannock County, VA--my distant forbear, whose name was William Sale, came from England in 1657 and settled on the Rappahannock River in Virginia. He worked 7 years as an indentured servant to pay for his trip across the Atlantic--7 years. Then he received 160 acres of land. So it was in Rappahannock County that Dr. Riddick had a farm. He loved that farm. Emerson said, ``The true test of civilization is not in the census, nor the size of cities, nor the crops. No. But the kind of man the country turns out.'' This was the kind of man we could emulate. He was a noble soul, Floyd Riddick. He was the kind of man we could proudly call a friend or associate. Emerson also said: ``It is easy in the world to live after the world's opinion.'' That is easy. ``It is easy in solitude to live after our own.'' That is easy. ``But the great man is he who, in the midst of the crowd, keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude.'' Floyd Riddick never seemed frazzled, never seemed exasperated by the pressure cooker atmosphere that can and does develop here on the Senate floor. Even though Dr. Riddick's tenure as Senate Parliamentarian coincided with some of the most difficult and passionate issues ever encountered by the Senate, such as Vietnam and civil rights, he was ever the calm professional, always willing and ready to lift a hand, always desirous of helping especially the new Members who were sworn into this body, always there, too, at the beck and call of the Members who had been here a long time. Such a common, friendly, warm, congenial, accommodating, decent individual! Around him there seemed to be always an aura of peace and control. He kept his mind on his responsibilities, and he never ever forgot that, as Parliamentarian--in effect, the silent referee of Senate debate and procedure--he had to maintain complete and total objectivity. No partisanship--complete and total objectivity. Senators on both sides of the aisle knew it. They knew when they went to him, they would get the straight answer and it would not be colored or tinctured by partisanship. Doc Riddick was in every sense of the word a scholar. He was quiet, soft spoken, unassuming, and absolutely rock solid. That was Floyd Riddick! I leaned upon him heavily in my earlier years in the Senate. He was a delight to work with, and I enjoyed his company. He was one of those completely dedicated selfless people who labored for the good of the institution. He loved the institution. He labored for the good of the Senate and for the good of his country. Robert E. Lee said that the word ``duty'' was the sublimest word in the English language. Dr. Riddick understood what that meant, and, to him, duty was sublime. He was above politics, as I have repeatedly said, he was honorable, and he was entirely above reproach. Floyd Riddick did not need praise, although he certainly deserved it. He did not covet recognition, although the recognition of his scholarly expertise was widespread. For him, the glory of the work, the glory of serving the Senate, the glory of serving Senators, and through Senators the glory of serving the American people, was enough. We will long remember Dr. Riddick, those of us who served with him. Whence cometh such another? I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I shall vote in favor of S. 625, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999, in order to restore fiscal responsibility to the nation's bankruptcy code. Last year, a record 1.4 million people declared bankruptcy, which was almost triple the number in 1988 (549,612) and five times the number in 1980 (287,057). That the number of households in severe financial difficulty has risen so dramatically is perplexing, given the prosperous economy, and suggests that some filers are abusing the bankruptcy code to erase debts they are able to pay. The dramatic rise in bankruptcy filings may also suggest that there is no longer a stigma attached to bankruptcy filers, and that the bankruptcy laws are seen more as a financial planning tool rather than a system of last resort. This bill would curb potential abuses of the bankruptcy code by channeling debtors away from chapter 7 liquidation, where a debtor's liabilities are erased, and towards chapter 13 repayment, where debts are reorganized under a repayment plan. While I am not satisfied that this bill will decrease the bankruptcy rate as dramatically as advocates claim, I am convinced that S. 625 is a worthwhile effort in restoring fiscal responsibility. However, during the bankruptcy debate, the Republican-controlled Senate passed an amendment that would attach $75 billion in tax cuts over ten years to the bankruptcy bill. These tax cuts were adopted in lieu of targeted cuts that would have benefitted low-income and rural families, which I supported, and that would have been fully paid-for by closing down tax loopholes that would force businesses to pay their fair share of taxes. Instead, the Senate adopted a tax package that would not have been paid-for, and would largely benefit high-income taxpayers. This means that Congress may have to borrow needed money or cut spending to vital programs that benefit hundred of thousands of West Virginians in order to pay for these tax cuts. It is almost ironic that Congress attached these unpaid-for tax cuts to the bankruptcy bill. Here we are today voting on a bill that would demand financial prudence of debtors at the same time that Congress is providing for $75 billion in unpaid-for tax cuts. In addition to these tax cuts, the Senate rejected a minimum wage proposal by Senator Kennedy, which I supported, that would have raised the minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.15 over two years. Instead, the Senate adopted a one dollar rise in the minimum wage over three years that was proposed by Senator Domenici. This would effectively delay a pay raise to minimum wage workers, and cost year-round, full-time minimum wage workers approximately $1,200 over three years. I have always supported the minimum wage because of the 11.4 million workers who rely on it to support their families. The two-year minimum wage proposal would have provided an additional $2,000 a year for 11.4 million minimum wage workers. That $2,000 translates into an additional seven months of groceries, five months of rent, almost ten months of utilities, and eighteen months of tuition and fees at a two year college. My hope and expectation is that the three year minimum wage hike and $75 billion tax cut provisions will be replaced with a two year minimum wage rise and more targeted tax package when the conferees from the House of Representatives and the Senate meet in the coming months to work out the differences between the House- and Senate-passed versions of this legislation. Consequently, I have joined with forty-four other senators in sending a letter to the bankruptcy conferees urging that they remove the Domenici provisions and accept the Kennedy proposal.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment offered to the bankruptcy reform bill by Senator Levin that would prohibit gun manufacturers from discharging debt associated with firearm sales. Currently, the families of victims who have been harmed by a firearm can sue the gun manufacturer for financial damages in civil court. The bankruptcy code allows for the gun manufacturer to file for bankruptcy protection and discharge the debt that the manufacturer may owe to the victim's family. This amendment would prohibit a gun manufacturer from discharging that debt. I am voting against this amendment because, at this time, I have not received significant evidence to suggest that gun manufacturers are abusing loopholes in the bankruptcy code to avoid paying their liabilities. Additionally, this amendment is not narrowly tailored to gun manufacturers who are illegally selling firearms. It targets the industry as a whole, and would set an unfortunate precedent by legally separating this industry from other industries in the bankruptcy code. While I understand the concerns of people who would argue that gun manufacturers are abusing the bankruptcy code, I cannot support the separate treatment of certain industries under our nation's bankruptcy laws absent more significant evidence of actual abuse.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I also want to thank the members of staffs of Senators, and the Members, the Senate family who sit here before us every day, who work so assiduously and in such a dedicated fashion. They make our lives easier than they would otherwise be, and they make it possible, whereas it would be otherwise impossible, for us to do the work of serving our constituents. I hope that they will all have a very happy Thanksgiving and very pleasant Christmas. Let me also thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. The lovely lady from Maine sits in the majority leader's chair at this moment; she does the work of the Senate in such a beautiful manner, and who does so with such skill and dignity as rare as the day in June. I want to thank everyone. I want to thank my own colleague, Jay Rockefeller, for being my colleague, and I want to thank the official reporters for doing their difficult work and doing it so well and so promptly and always so courteously. So I thank, in closing, the two leaders who make it possible for all of us to get our work done. They are courteous; they are very helpful. I particularly thank the distinguished majority leader for his assistance in regard to the amendment I offered yesterday and which was cosponsored by my senior colleague and by the senior Senator from Kentucky and the junior Senator from Kentucky, Mitch McConnell, and Mr. Bunning, and all of the other Senators on both sides of the aisle who worked with me on behalf of that amendment. I thank my own leader for also helping to pave the way for us to have a vote, have the Senate vote on that amendment. When Thanksgiving Day comes and the turkey is being carved and my dear wife of 62, almost 62\1/2\ years, and my lovely daughters, their husbands, our grandchildren, and our great grandchildren are all around me, we will think of the blessings of the good Lord, and one of those blessings is that of being in the company of and associated with so many wonderful people who are part of the Senate family every day. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, let me say a few words. I would like to say more about this man from Wisconsin but time constraints will not allow me to do that. He is the Stonewall Jackson of Wisconsin. He stands like a stone wall. If I had the voice of Jove, I would shout from the ends of the earth. Yet I would not be able to move this man, Herb Kohl, when he takes a determined stand. He has been talking with me time and time again about this issue that is so important to him and the people of Wisconsin. He has been absolutely indefatigable; he has been unshakable, and I salute him. He has stood up for the people of Wisconsin. That is what I like about him. He stands for principle. He stands for his people. I have been criticized many times for standing for my people in West Virginia. Who sends me here? They do. The distinguished Senator from Wisconsin feels the same way. He is courteous; he doesn't talk very much or very loud; but he always listens. Always, when I have had a problem affecting my State in particular, he has listened. I sat down in his office with him and talked with him. So I listen to him. I salute him. The people of Wisconsin have a real treasure in Herb Kohl, and I have a real treasure in Herb Kohl as a friend. I want him to know that at any future time when this issue comes up, he knows the number of my office, the number on my telephone. I will be glad to see him, talk with him, and help him in his fight.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I am very grateful for her overly generous and charitable remarks. May I say in kind to her: The hours are like a string of pearls, The days like diamonds rare, The moments are the threads of gold, That bind them for our wear, So may the years that come to you Such health and good contain That every moment, hour, and day Be like a golden chain. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on occasion I have noted the birthdays of some of my colleagues by sharing a few observations about them. But, like those poor schoolchildren whose birthdays fall in the middle of the summer vacation, thus denying them the pleasure of a day of special recognition at school, one of my colleague's birthday falls on a day when the Senate can be virtually guaranteed not to be in session. I do not wish to let the whim of the calendar prevent me from honoring a man whose many sterling qualities compare to his more natally auspicious brethren. Senator Ernest F. ``Fritz'' Hollings was born on January 1, 1922, denying by just a few hours an extra year's tax deduction to his hardworking parents. That may have been the only disappointment caused by their over-achieving son, however. Young Ernest went on to do his parents proud by graduating as a member of the highest honor society at The Citadel in 1942, then serving proudly for thirty-three months in World War II, attaining the rank of captain. Upon returning home, he again took up the scholar's mantle, earning his law degree at the University of South Carolina in 1947, followed by his doctorate of law from The Citadel in 1959. He excelled as a lawyer, being admitted to practice before the South Carolina Supreme Court, the U.S. District Court, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, U.S. Tax Court, U.S. Customs Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court. He was first elected to public office at the tender age of 26, in 1948, to the South Carolina General Assembly, and subsequently served with distinction as lieutenant governor, South Carolina's youngest Governor in this century, and as Senator. I feel sure his parents must have been proud of him. I know that I am proud to have served with him in the United States Senate for the last thirty-two, almost thirty-three, years. The rolling, sonorous cadences of this rich Carolina drawl soften the edges of Senator Hollings's sometimes acerbic observations and acid analysis of bills and treaties. I know of few Members who can so decisively carve up sloppy legislation with so few trenchant observations, so mellifluously delivered, that one still feels that the afternoon is going smoothly and pleasantly. With his background in tax and customs law, Senator Hollings has long been a force on the Commerce Committee, and his energy is felt on the Senate Floor any time trade legislation or treaties are considered. As a member of the Appropriations and Budget Committees, he is well versed in the intricacies of fiscal policy-making. And on telecommunications matters few would dare tangle with him without first arming themselves with unassailable arguments at one's trigger finger, for fear of being completely done in by his quick-draw ripostes! We have been on opposite ends of main street legislative shoot-outs over the years regarding the Balanced Budget Amendment and the nefarious Line Item Veto, but never has courtesy or friendship fallen victim to our philosophical disagreements. To the contrary, we have found common ground in our opposition to unfair trade practices and unequal trade agreements that hurt Americans. On the whole, I must admit I prefer to have Senator Hollings on my side, rather than against, as he is such a formidable foe. I have highlighted a few of my distinguished colleague's many honors, but there is one that still eludes him. For though he continues to make his parents proud in heaven, and his family and constituents proud here on Earth, he remains the most senior junior Senator in our nation's history. At 32 years and 10 months, Senator Hollings has surpassed even the legendary Senator John C. Stennis, who served 31 years and 2 months of his impressive 42 years of service as a Senator from Mississippi in the shadow of the equally legendary Senator James O. Eastland. This record is a testament to both the performance and the endurance of Senator Hollings and his distinguished senior Senator, Strom Thurmond. I know that Senator Hollings wears his title with pride and good humor, and his home state of South Carolina is all the better for it. As these last weeks of this congressional session come to a clattering and confusing end amid legislation, floor debates, and appropriations conferences, I am proud to keep a resolution I made last New Year's day to remember and pay tribute to a good friend and a remarkable, well talented Senator. I hope during his next birthday, come January 1, the year 2000, hidden among the hoopla and hyperbole surrounding the year 2000, that Senator Hollings and his lovely wife, Peatsy, can celebrate his birthday knowing that it does not pass unnoticed or unacknowledged by his friends here in the Senate. So, on behalf of my wife Erma, I say to Senator Hollings these words: Count your garden by the flowers Never by the leaves that fall; Count your days by the sunny hours, Not remembering clouds at all; Count your nights by stars, not shadows, Count your life by smiles, not tears, And on that beautiful January day, Count your age by friends, not years.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I know what is in this amendment. I prepared this amendment. I have been explaining it now for weeks. And, upon my honor, there is nothing in it that undermines or undercuts the Clean Water Act or the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, both of which I supported, one of which I called up as majority leader in this Senate in 1977. I know what I am talking about. I have lived under a coal miner's roof, ate from a coal miner's table, slept in a coal miner's bed. I have known the joys and the sorrows of coal miners. I married a coal miner's daughter. I know what I am talking about. I haven't just made a trip into West Virginia and come back to Washington to issue a news report on the State and its people. I have lived there for many years. I will be 82 years old the day after tomorrow. I know what those miners need. I am not misleading anybody. Let me say this to the Senator: That stay he refers to that the judge put on has no legal basis. The judge stated that it has no legal basis. He put it on, and he can lift it the day this Congress winds up its work. I hope Senators will vote for this amendment. There were 125,000 coal miners when I went to the House of Representatives; 125,000 in West Virginia. Today there are 20,000 or less. My dad was a coal miner. My wife's sister's husband died with black lung. My wife's sister's husband's father died under a slate fall. I know the joys and the sorrows of the mining people. I have helped to carry those miners, the heavy coffins, on the steep hillsides of West Virginia. I have not just gone into those hills poking around, and then coming back, and issuing news reports about their poverty. I know what they need, because I am one of them. Those 20,000 coal miners earn their bread in the sweat of their brow. Let's give them a vote. If the Senator from Minnesota had people who were faced with the loss of their jobs, this Senator would vote with the Senator from Minnesota and not say a word about it. I resent anything such as has been said by the Senator about my State and its people.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, would the Senator mind stating how long he wishes to speak?

Mr. BYRD. I have no objection. I thank the Chair and thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I want to call attention to the fact that today, November 18, 1999, is the birthday of the very distinguished chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, my friend. I would like to say lifelong friend; I just haven't had the pleasure of knowing him all of my life. The day after tomorrow, I will be 82 years old, if the Lord lets me live. So I can't say he is my lifelong friend, but he has been my friend over all the years he has served in the Senate. I wish him a happy, happy birthday. He is a Senator who doesn't look up to the rich. He doesn't look down on the poor. He is a good man on the inside and on the outside. And he is a man who sticks by his principles. He is a Republican. I am a Democrat. But neither he nor I puts political party above everything else. We know that political party is important, but there are other things in this life that are even more important. He recognizes that. His handclasp is like the handclasp of our ancestors. His word is his bond, as was the word of our ancestors. I could say much more. I will simply say he is a Christian gentleman, a gentleman first, last, and always. My wife Erma and I extend to him our very best wishes on his birthday and our prayers and hopes that he will enjoy many, many more happy birthdays. He is rendering a tremendous service to his country and to his State. I hope the people of Alaska realize what a treasure this man is. He works for Alaska every day in the Senate. We know that. He is effective. He is forceful. He is genuine. Erma and I join in wishing him a happy birthday and expressing our good wishes also to his lovely wife, Catherine, and to his children. I yield to the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the Chair. Madam President, what is the matter before the Senate?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, in the rush to complete work on an omnibus appropriations bill that will attract enough votes to pass both Chambers of Congress without incurring a veto from the White House, a number of important measures that should have been in the conference report have ended up on the cutting room floor. One of those issues is mountaintop mining. I am extremely disappointed at the shortsightedness of the White House, as well as some Members of Congress, on this issue. We had a chance on the omnibus package to right a wrong, to remedy the crisis in West Virginia's coal fields that was triggered by a recent Federal court ruling. But the White House blocked that effort, leading the charge to exclude the proposed legislative remedy from the omnibus bill. As a result, thousands of coal miners in West Virginia, and throughout Appalachia, are facing a bleak and uncertain future. Particularly troubling to me is that the ammunition used to defeat this proposal, the ammunition used to keep it out of the omnibus package, was, in large part, a campaign of misinformation, led by the White House. My proposal is not antienvironment. The White House would have you believe otherwise. My proposal would not weaken or in any way alter the Clean Water Act. Let the White House hear! The White House would have the people believe otherwise. Let me say it again. This amendment which is cosponsored by Mr. McConnell, the senior Senator from Kentucky; Mr. Rockefeller, the junior Senator from West Virginia; and Mr. Bunning, the junior Senator from Kentucky, would not weaken or in any way alter, modify, change, repeal, amend, or undermine the Clean Water Act. I know the White House has tried to mislead people into believing that it would. It would not. Fie on the White House! fie for attempting to mislead the people. Now, one can honestly believe what he is saying and can mislead or one can mislead with the intention of misleading. All the Byrd-McConnell amendment would do is preserve the status quo until an environmental impact assessment, which is already underway, is completed and regulations resulting from it are issued. That environmental impact assessment was not put in motion by the White House; it was put in motion by a court action last December. No laws would be weakened by the Byrd-McConnell amendment. No regulations would be discarded. The legislative remedy that is proposed by this amendment is not an either/or proposition. This amendment would permit carefully controlled mountaintop mining while allowing work to continue on a broad environmental study that could spur better oversight and more environmentally friendly mining practices nationally in the years ahead. In my book, that is a win/win situation. This mountaintop mining proposal is an effort to stand up for America's coal miners--and the railway workers, and the truckers, and the suppliers, and all who are involved directly or indirectly with mining. This proposal is an effort to stand up for the coal miners and the hundreds of thousands of jobs and the scores of other industries they support. Allowing this opportunity to slip through our fingers would be a grievous mistake. We can't control what the people at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue say. We can't control how they treat America's coal miners. But we can speak up for what we believe here in the Senate. We can send our message to the White House. To get that message across, I hope to offer an amendment. I could speak at length on the omnibus appropriations bill when it comes before the Senate. We could be here another week. We could be here another 2 weeks. They say time is running out for the continuing resolution. Madam President, time is running out for the coal miners and their families, and for the retired coal miners, and their wives, or their widows, and their families. Time is running out for them. The President wants this Appropriations Bill sent to him, in Greece. Indeed! What are we going to send to the coal miners who have been working for this country before he was born? What are we going to send them? I have seriously considered this matter. This issue merits the time and the attention of Congress. I am prepared to give it some time. I don't want to hold this measure up interminably. I want to see action on it. I want to vote. I want to vote on this amendment--the Byrd, McConnell, Rockefeller, Bunning, et al. amendment. So, I take these few moments to speak the truth, to try to set the record straight on the impact of this amendment, of which I am the chief cosponsor, and to give this body, and hopefully the other body, one more chance this year to protect the jobs and the livelihoods of thousands of working men and women in West Virginia and throughout America, and to give the White House one more chance to reverse its current position and protect the jobs of the coal miners. We are not just talking about coal miners; we are also talking about the coal industry; we are talking about other laborers--the truckers, the railway operators, the barge operators who go up and down the Ohio and other rivers. It isn't just the coal miners union that is concerned. The AFL-CIO is concerned. Take another look! Take another look at those who are opposed and who work against legislation that will benefit the working men and women of America. On October 20, a Federal district court in West Virginia issued an opinion in a lawsuit involving Federal regulatory agencies that virtually set off an explosion in the coal fields. Mining companies immediately announced that there would be hundreds of coal miners who would be cut off, and new mines which were in the plans by companies to be built, would be scuttled. In some instances, a new mine costs $50 million; it costs $75 million in some instances; and in some instances it costs $90 million, or more, to open a new mine. What mining company is going to invest $90 million in a new mine when the Federal judge issues a ruling such as this? There is no predictability at all in the future. Before the court issued its opinion, as part of a settlement the mining industry in West Virginia was operating under two memoranda of understanding--two memoranda of understanding that had been agreed upon. Hear this: Two memoranda of understanding. I didn't have anything to do with those memoranda of understanding. Who agreed? Who entered into agreements concerning mountaintop mining? Who entered into agreements concerning mountaintop mining? Who entered into the memoranda of understanding? These were agreed upon by the Federal and State regulatory agencies. Hear me now! These were entered into and agreed upon by the regulatory agencies--both State and Federal--that oversee mining permits. What are those agencies that entered into this agreement? The Federal Office of Surface Mining, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the State Division of Environmental Protection, the Environmental Protection Agency. These are this administration's regulatory agencies. This administration's regulatory agencies entered into those agreements. Let me say that again. Hear me. Who entered into those regulations? Who were the parties to those agreements? This administration's regulatory agencies, the EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of the Interior through the Office of Surface Mining, and the West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection--Federal and State agencies--created these agreements, devised these memoranda of understanding. They weren't created by me. The administration's own Environmental Protection Agency, the great Federal protector of our land, water, and air, helped to write and signed onto these memoranda of understanding. Do you, my friends, really believe that the EPA signed agreements that weakened environmental protections? Let me say to the White House: Do you believe that your own Environmental Protection Agency signed onto agreements that weakened environmental protections? No. No. These memoranda of understanding-- called MOUs--put into place stronger environmental protections in West Virginia. Listen to this: These MOUs put into place stronger--get it, now-- stronger environmental protections and regulations in West Virginia than exist in any other State in the Union. Hear me, environmentalists; you ought to be fighting for this amendment. You ought to be urging us on in our fight for this amendment. I am an environmentalist. Who was the majority leader of the Senate when SMCRA was passed in this body, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act? Who was the majority leader of the Senate then? Who stood up for you environmentalists then? West Virginia at one time was the only State in the United States that had no wildlife refuge. I put money in Appropriations bills, to bring the first wildlife refuge to West Virginia, the last State among the 50 that got a wildlife refuge. Hear me, environmentalists. Who put the money in for the Canaan Valley Wildlife Refuge--that West Virginia refuge was the 500th in the nation? I did. I am an environmentalist. Who put the $138 million in for the fish and wildlife's national conservation and training facilities at Terrapin Neck, three miles out of Shepherdstown, WV? Who fought 5 years in the Senate Appropriations Committee for that $138 million? Who fought for it in the House-Senate conferences? This Senator; this environmentalist fought for it. Nobody wants a cleaner environment than I do. But I hope I also have some common sense. We know that in West Virginia the great core industries have fueled the powerplants of the Nation, have fueled the war machine of the Nation. The coal industry, the steel industry, the glass industry, the chemical industry, these and other core industries have employed hundreds of people in West Virginia. The core industries are still there, but they are diminishing. There were 125,000 coal miners in West Virginia when I first ran for the House of Representatives in 1952. Today, there are only 20,000, give or take, in West Virginia. These core industries cannot always be what they once were. But there are those who want coal mining stopped now. They want it stopped tonight. They want it stopped tomorrow. Shut it down! That is what they want. But we can't do that. It can't be done overnight. People have to work. Children have to eat. Widows have to live. We have to continue to operate the mines. We are trying to develop other industries in West Virginia--high-tech industries. I have tried to encourage Federal agencies to look to West Virginia for a better quality of life, for a safer life, where the people who work can at last buy a home, where people want to work and will turn in a good day's work. We are trying to diversify our industries. It takes time. I have put appropriations into the corridor highways of West Virginia, so that other industries will be encouraged to come into West Virginia and to expand. They won't come where there are bad roads. They need an infrastructure that will support their industries and their people. It takes time. It can't be done overnight. Those environmentalists who want it done overnight, it can't be done overnight. Those MOUs established stronger environmental protections and regulations in West Virginia than exist in any other State in the Nation, bar none. I say to the Administration, your own regulatory agencies agreed and worked out those regulations, and now you, the White House, want to turn your back on your own environmental agency, on your own Army Corps of Engineers, on your own Office of Surface Mining. Peter heard the cock crow three times, and then he hung his head in shame. He denied his Lord thrice and then hung his own head in shame and walked away. White House, hang your head in shame! But the court's opinion, throw all these things out the window. The MOUs, the agreements that have been entered into by this administration's regulatory agencies, are all thrown out the window. The court ruled that the way in which the agencies were operating did not follow the letter and intent of the law. Hear that. I helped to create those laws. I supported the Clean Water Act. I supported the Surface Mining and Control Reclamation Act. I supported it. But the court ruled that the way in which these agencies were operating did not follow the letter of the law and intent of the law. Congress passed the law. The court disagreed with the way in which the Federal regulatory agencies and the State regulatory agency interpreted the law. But the court was wrong. There are 20,000 miners, 20,000 voices that come from the coal fields who say that the court was wrong. Its decision was completely contrary to the intent of Congress in passing those two laws, the Clean Water Act and the Surface Mining and Control and Reclamation Act. While I disagree with the court, the ball is here. It is in our court now because the judge in his ruling said if application of Federal regulation prevents certain activities in the Appalachian coal fields ``it is up to Congress.'' That is this body and the other body. He said . . . ``it is up to Congress''--and the legislature--``to alter that result.'' So we have accepted the responsibility. The judge said it is up to Congress. We, who are supporting this amendment, have accepted that responsibility and we are trying to do something about it. We are being impeded and we are being undercut by the White House, by my own White House. Almost immediately after the judge issued his ruling, confusion reigned. There was chaos in the coal fields. Layoff notices went out. Mining companies announced that they might not make significant investments in the State that had long ago been planned. That is real money that has to be spent. Those are real risks they take on. As a result of the court ruling, coal companies, truckers, barge operators, railroads--none of them had any certainty that the investments they might make today would be justifiable tomorrow. Some say, it's just a West Virginia problem. You tell the people of Kentucky that. Tell the people of Pennsylvania that. Too bad for West Virginia. But I am here to say to my colleagues it is a national problem. Look out. Look out. That cloud that is over West Virginia is headed your way next, Kentucky. And Mitch McConnell knows that. That is why he is a cosponsor of this amendment. That cloud just over the border, that cloud is just over the horizon in West Virginia. You will be next. And they know it. Look out, it is coming your way next. But if you want to head it off, the opportunity is here with this amendment. This is the time to head off this dragon. Beat it back. Take the sword that I offer, that Mitch McConnell offers, that Jay Rockefeller offers, that Senator Bunning offers, and all the other Senators whose names are on this amendment offer--take this sword. Take this sword, and fight for the working men and women of this Nation, and do it now. Some may say, ``I would like to. I would like to sign up. I am willing to put on the suit of armor--but what about the environment? We can't upset the environment.'' Let me assure my colleagues and the people who are watching out there--let me assure you, this amendment is not the toxic monster it is purported to be by some of the environmental organizations and by this White House. It is not the toxic monster they purport it to be. In fact, this amendment puts into place in West Virginia--get this--this amendment puts into place in West Virginia the tougher environmental standards prescribed by the very MOUs that this administration's own EPA helped to negotiate. But you certainly would not know that from all of the frothing at the mouth by people who either have no idea what they are talking about, or who, for some reason, are deliberately trying to mislead the people of this country. They either have no idea of what they are talking about or they are deliberately and dishonestly trying to mislead. Those who have expressed opposition to this amendment, including the White House, claim it would harm clean water protections under both the Clean Water Act and SMCRA. There is not a word--not a word--of that true, and they ought to know it, the people who are saying it. As a matter of fact, as far as I am concerned, they do know it. But they certainly ought to if they don't. This amendment would not harm the Clean Water and the Surface Mining Reclamation Acts, would not harm those protections. This amendment would not lay a hand on those protections. It would not touch--not touch them. It would not even brush up against them. This amendment specifically states --now hear this, hear this Senators--this amendment specifically states: Nothing in this section modifies, supersedes, undermines, displaces or amends any requirement of or regulation issued under the Federal Water Pollution Act commonly known as the Clean Water Act, or the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. What could be plainer? What could be clearer? What could give greater assurance than these words that are in the amendment?

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield to my friend, Senator McConnell. Yes, I do.

Mr. BYRD. Absolutely.

Mr. BYRD. They are not telling the truth.

Mr. BYRD. They either know they are not telling the truth or they are woefully uninformed; exactly, preeminently precise.

Mr. BYRD. That is it, that is it, and it has my fingerprints on it, and it has your fingerprints on it, may I say to my dear friend from Kentucky.