Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, many Americans are preparing to enjoy a three-day weekend. Most could tell you that their holiday was to honor Christopher Columbus, and a fair number might be able to recite ``in fourteen-hundred and ninety-two, Columbus sailed the ocean blue'' on his way to discovering America. An even smaller number might be able to recount the ongoing controversy over just where along the continent Columbus first came to land. But few, I hazard to guess, can truly appreciate the magnitude of his great daring, though we all appreciate the bounty of his great mistake. Few may even realize that it is next Tuesday, October 12, that is the true anniversary of Christopher Columbus' discovery of the New World, some 507 years ago. Oh, Columbus, that scion of Eratosthenes, that son of Ptolemy, that kin in spirit to Marco Polo, what fascinating history he built upon when first he set out on his great journey. Although he was surely a brave man, Columbus did not sail blindly off to the west not knowing whether he would drop off the edge, as some children's books might lead one to believe. No, Columbus had the wisdom of the ancients to guide him and the lure of another adventurer's tales to entice him. He had history, mathematics, and science as his guides and greed as his goad to whip him along his journey. Long before Columbus' day, Eratosthenes, the ancient Greek scholar commonly called the Father of Geography, had determined with amazing accuracy the circumference of the earth. Born around 276 B.C. at a Greek colony in Cyrene, Libya, Eratosthenes was educated at the academies in Athens and was appointed to run the Great Library at Alexandria, in what is now Egypt, in 240 B.C. During his time there, he wrote a comprehensive volume about the world, called ``Geography,'' the first known coining of that word. Eratosthenes used known distances and geometry on a grand scale to calculate the circumference of the earth to within 100 miles of its true girth at the equator, 24,901 miles. His work was still available in Columbus' time. A later Greek geographer, Posidonius, felt that Eratosthenes' circumference was too large and recalculated the figure at 18,000 miles, some 7,000 miles too short. What is interesting about this fact is that Christopher Columbus deliberately used Posidonius's shorter figure to convince his backers that he could quickly reach Asia by sailing west from Europe. It may not have been the first time that financial backers have been duped using doctored numbers, but I am confident that it has not been the last! So, we know that Columbus knew the earth was round--no fear of falling off the edge--and that it was between 18,000 or 25,000 miles around at its midpoint--still a very long journey in either case for ships the size that Columbus sailed on. But what led him to think sailing west from Europe to Asia was feasible? For that, Columbus would have looked to a Roman scholar, Claudius Ptolemaeus, more commonly known as Ptolemy. Like Eratosthenes before him, Ptolemy, who lived from approximately 90 to 170 A.D., worked in the Great Library at Alexandria, from 127 to 150 A.D. Perhaps inspired by Eratosthenes' work, Ptolemy also published a scholarly work called ``Geography,'' in addition to a volume on astronomy and geometry, and a work on astrology. Ptolemy's ``Geography'' consisted of eight volumes, and it introduced critical elements of map-making to the world. Ptolemy advanced the efforts of mapmakers in representing the spherical world on flat paper, in what are known as map projections. He is responsible for the now universal practice of placing north at the top of the map. Ptolemy also invented latitude and longitude--that is, he created a grid system to lay over the globe in order to chart locations. His volumes charted some eight thousand places around the world he knew, revealing for future generations a geographic knowledge of the Roman empire of the second century. Like many ancient works, Ptolemy's ``Geography'' was lost for over a thousand years after it was first published. But in the early fifteenth century, his work was rediscovered, translated into Latin, and published in multiple editions. It would have been readily available to Christopher Columbus, who was influenced both by Ptolemy's erroneous shorter circumference of the earth and by his depiction of the Indian Ocean as a large inland sea, bordered on the south by beguiling Terra Incognita, the unknown land. I think there can be few things more mysterious, more alluring, than an old map with large blank land masses labeled simply ``terra incognita'' or, on some medieval maps, by the phrase ``here be dragons.'' Marco Polo's fantastic tales of Cathay and the exotic spices and goods that he brought back to Italy sparked a huge appetite for such things, which only increased when the returning Crusaders opened the overland trade routes between Europe and the Orient. However, when Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1453, two years after Columbus was born, the overland spice routes between Europe and Asia were closed off. Every power in Europe was eager--eager--to reopen the very profitable trade, by land or by some unknown sea route. Seeking an eastern sea route, Bartholomeu Dias reached the Cape of Good Hope in Africa in 1488, and Vasco da Gama reached India in 1498, but the eastern voyages were long and perilous. Anyone who could find a shorter route would make a fortune for himself and his backers. Columbus himself was born in Genoa in 1451 to Susanna Fontanarossa and Domenico Colombo, the eldest of their five children. Growing up in a major port city, Columbus would have learned a lot about the sea, in addition to hearing and reading the tales of riches beyond the horizon. True to his adventurous inclinations, Christopher Columbus took to the sea. After an attack by the French at sea in the Strait of Gibraltar in 1476, the ship Columbus was sailing on was sunk, forcing him to swim to land. He was able to grab an oar and swim to land in Portugal. Three years later, he married into the Portuguese aristocracy when he wed Felipa Perestrelo. The marriage resulted in one son, Diego, and an entre into the financial backing of the Portuguese and Spanish nobility. In the simple history of Christopher Columbus that we may recall from elementary school, which was a long time ago for me, it was King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain who finally provided the ships, the fabled Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria, in which Columbus set off on August 3, 1492, to discover the western shortcut to the fabled wealth of the Indies. At roughly 2 a.m. on October 12, 1492, after 71 grueling days at sea trusting in God, Eratosthenes, Ptolemy, and Polo, Columbus made landfall in what he believed was the Indies. Columbus found no gold, silks, spices or valuable wood in his misnamed Indies, but he did bring tobacco back to Europe. After establishing a fort called Natividad, built of timbers from the wrecked Santa Maria, Columbus returned to Spain. Columbus made three other journeys to his new-found land, which he named Hispaniola. His second voyage left Spain in September 1493 and returned to Spain in 1496 after establishing a more substantial colony. His third voyage led to his return to Spain in chains, prisoner of the colonists who rose up against his bad management. Columbus was able to clear his name and made a fourth and final voyage to the New World before he died in Spain on May 20, 1506. The great irony, however, is that Christopher Columbus believing that he had discovered some untouched part of the Indies, or distant outpost of China, not a continent previously unknown to the Europeans. He had made a mistake, but what a glorious mistake it was! For us, it was a very fortunate mistake. Christopher Columbus had discovered what for Europeans was truly Terra Incognita, a new and unknown land, a treasury of natural riches that we, as his heirs, enjoy to this day. I am glad that we celebrate this brave man. We celebrate a man who made a great gamble, a man who set off to seek a back door to the Far East by setting his sights west and trusting in ancient scholars. We celebrate a man who appreciated the romance of a traveler's tales and who sensed the riches and wonders that await the bold. We celebrate an imperfect man, a man who failed in his goal but who achieved much nonetheless. We celebrate a man whose daring, whose courage, who sheer persistence, moved history forward. We talk about profiles in courage. These are profiles in political courage. Here was an intrepid man who perhaps could claim the greatest--or one of the greatest--profiles ever written on the record of humankind. Imagine him out there on the deep waters. He had no wireless telegraph; he had no radio; he had no weather forecasters. All he had was the compass. There were no ships in the area to rescue him if his ship sank. There was no way to hear back from home or to speak to those back home if he became ill. There was no helicopter to take him to the nearby hospital or to a sister ship. There he was, alone on the great blue waters. Just imagine what courage he must have had, never knowing whether he would be able to return against the winds that were blowing from the east, no refrigerator in which to keep the hard tack. His son, Ferdinand, who accompanied him on his fourth journey, I believe it was, wrote that he, Ferdinand, had seen the sailors wait until after dark before they ate the hard tack so it would not be possible to see the maggots on the hard tack. No sanitation with respect to the water and the food was cooked in an open stove with wood on the decks of the small ship. What intrepidity. But how fortunate we are today that there was a man who was so intrepid as to face down the mutinous crew and who persisted in his faith to say an oath. Today we look forward to that weekend and to next Tuesday, which is actually the day, 507 years later, when Columbus made the great discovery. We will celebrate the life and the accomplishments of Christopher Columbus, the first European to see the low green land on the horizon that was North America. I would like to close with the words of Joaquin Miller: Behind him lay the gray Azores, Behind the gates of Hercules! Before him not the ghost of shores, Before him only shoreless seas. The good mate said: ``Now must we pray, For lo! The very stars are gone. Brave Adm'rl, speak; what shall I say?'' ``Why, say: `Sail on! sail on! and on!' '' ``My men grow mutinous day by day; My men grow ghastly wan and weak.'' The stout mate thought of home; a spray Of salt wave washed his swarthy cheek. ``What shall I say, brave Admiral, say, If we sight naught but seas at dawn?'' ``Why you shall say at break of day, Sail on! sail on! sail on! and on!' '' They sailed and sailed, as winds might blow, Until at last the blanched mate said: ``Why, now not even God would know Should I and all my men fall dead. These very winds forget their way. For God from these dread seas is gone. Now speak, brave Admiral; speak and say.'' He said: ``Sail on! sail on! and on!'' They sailed. They sailed. Then spake the mate: ``This mad sea shows his teeth tonight. He curls his lip, he lies in wait, With lifted teeth, as if to bite! Brave Adm'rl, say but one good word: What shall we do when hope is gone?'' The words leapt like a leaping sword: ``Sail on! sail on! sail on! and on!'' Then pale and worn, he kept his deck, And peered through darkness. Ah, that night Of all dark nights! And then a speck-- A light! a light! a light! a light! It grew, a starlet flag unfurled. It grew to be Time's burst of dawn. He gained a world; he gave that world It's grandest lesson: ``On! sail on!''

Mr. BYRD. I thank the chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, over the years, the culture of college has gradually changed from one of academics and concentrated study to one consumed with partying. Gathering at the library with classmates to prepare for an exam has taken a back seat to sitting around swilling beers at keg parties or ordering a round of shots at the closest bar. Sadly, the process does not always begin in college. Often times, experimentation with alcohol begins in high school, or even earlier. Large numbers of young people are drinking. According to the 1998 Monitoring the Future Study conducted by the University of Michigan, approximately thirty-three percent of high school seniors, twenty-one percent of tenth graders, and eight percent of eighth graders reported being drunk at least once in a given month. Yes, Mr. President, drunk. With such startling statistics at the pre-college level, it has become increasingly important for institutions of higher education to take an even more active role in informing and educating highly impressionable, yet extremely vulnerable, college freshmen about the many dangers of this practice. Last year, I added a provision to the Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998 to establish a National Recognition Awards program to identify a select number of colleges and universities with innovative and effective alcohol and drug prevention programs in place on campus. Under the program, each award recipient receives a grant ranging from $40,000 to $75,000 to assist in the continuation of its important efforts. I am pleased that I was able to obtain $850,000 in the Senate's Fiscal Year 2000 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill to continue funding for this important initiative. The U.S. Department of Education has recently named seven colleges and universities as recipients of this first-ever grant award. Mr. President, it is encouraging to know that institutions of higher education from all corners of the country are taking aim at the problem of alcohol abuse among our nation's youth through new and creative approaches. The six recipients of this award include Bowling Green State University at Bowling Green, Ohio; Hobart and William Smith College at Geneva, New York; the University of Arizona at Tucson, Arizona; Pennsylvania State University at University Park, Pennsylvania; the University of Northern Colorado at Greeley, Colorado; the University of Missouri at Columbia, Missouri; and Utah State University at Logan, Utah. The Bowling Green State University Peer-Based Misperception program, for example, is designed to change attitudes, behaviors, and the campus social environment with an emphasis on first-year students, members of Greek fraternal organizations, and athletes. This program incorporates small group survey research to uncover and dispel misperceptions among peer groups such as a sorority, fraternity, athletic team, or members of a residence hall. Award funds will be used to continue the program, to implement it at other institutions, and to reduce the overall binge drinking rate. Pennsylvania State University has been recognized for its alcohol- free ``HUB Late Night'' program, a model alternative activity program offering students multiple forms of free entertainment as a means of curbing high-risk drinking. The goals of the program involve delivering quality entertainment, providing a variety of alcohol-free programs for a diverse student body, encouraging student involvement in designing and implementing programs, and increasing awareness of the program. Approximately 71 percent of participants reported that participation in this program resulted in less drinking for themselves and for other students. I am pleased that a higher education institution in my state, West Virginia University (WVU), has adopted an approach similar to that at Pennsylvania State University in addressing alcohol abuse among students. West Virginia University recently created the WVUp All Night program which each Thursday, Friday, and Saturday night offers students concerts, games, movies, free food, and study rooms as attractive alternatives to bars and nightclubs. According to WVU President David Hardesty, the program has been a great success from the start, attracting an average of 4,000 students each Thursday, Friday, and Saturday night. While this grant program will certainly serve these seven schools well in providing them with the means to administer and expand their prevention programs, it is my true hope that this grant program will span far beyond dollars and cents. Soon, the Department of Education will be producing a publication highlighting these model programs, and will make this document available to high school counselors throughout the nation. When thinking about college, it is important for students and parents alike to be informed about good alcohol and drug prevention programs. This document will serve as an important tool in helping students and their parents to make even wiser decisions about where to pursue their college education. Moreover, the grant recipients of this year's award ought to serve as models to all higher education institutions throughout the country. Each August, many schools face the formidable challenge of determining how best to address the use and abuse of alcohol by underage students. With these model schools, new information will be available to schools still grappling with alcohol abuse problems. I encourage all Senators to pass along this information to institutions of higher education in their respective states. Mr. President, this program will only begin to touch upon some of the fundamental areas which must be addressed in halting alcohol from rearing its evil head on other vulnerable college campuses. The work now lies ahead for all schools to endorse these noteworthy approaches and ideas which are working on select campuses throughout the United States. Let these seven schools be models for all institutions of higher education today and in the future. I congratulate the awardees of the program, and look forward to a strong, prosperous future for all college-going students, a future that is free from alcohol and other drugs. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. They did in my mind.

Mr. BYRD. I thank Senator Biden. He is certainly one of the most knowledgeable of all Senators on this particular subject. I appreciate the fact that he has sat in on the hearings that the Armed Services Committee has held in the past 2 to 3 days. Mr. President, the debate on which we embark today is of far-reaching consequence. We are deliberating a major treaty, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Unfortunately, we embark on this debate effectively shackled, gagged, and, to a considerable extent, blindfolded. I have had the privilege of hearing three days of extremely detailed and complex testimony on this Treaty--three days! And I am one of a select few Senators, members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, together with Senator Biden, ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, who were exposed to that information. In a similar vein, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee conducted one full scale hearing on the Treaty this week. But the fact remains that many, if not most, of my colleagues have had little opportunity to hear from the experts testimony on the pros and cons of this Treaty. To be sure, there are a number of Senators who are well versed in the details of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, but they are few in number. Senator Levin is one of those. Senator Warner is one of those Senators. The rest of us are flying virtually blind. I wonder how many Senators have taken the time to read the Treaty? I wonder how many Senators have consulted with foreign leaders, those who will have to join the United States in ratifying this Treaty if it is to go into force, to get their opinions of the Treaty? Mr. President, when I was majority leader, I visited other capitals and took Senators with me to talk with the leaders in foreign capitals about a treaty. The Washington Post reported this morning that envoys from nearly 100 nations have implored the United States not to reject the CTBT. I wonder how many Senators fully understand the concerns of those nations? I wonder how many Senators fully understand our concerns? Those who have read the text of the Treaty may be familiar with the broad brush strokes of the Treaty. But for even those Senators, the details--the implications of the Articles, the Annexes, and the Protocols to the Treaty--may be murky at best. Mr. President, the hearings that the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner and Senator Levin, organized this week were extremely informative. So informative that I am overwhelmed by the amount of detail that I have heard. I have often said that the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, is a Senator who is exact. He scrupulously and agonizingly, it seems, peers through a microscope at every bit of minutia when it comes to details. That is the kind of study we need to give a treaty of this nature. The President may sign a bill into law today. If, per chance, both Houses suddenly realized that that bill had to be repealed, we can do it. We could pass a repealer in one day in both Houses. We could do it, if the emergency existed. But not a treaty; it isn't that way with a treaty. We cannot approve the resolution of ratification today, send it to the President, the President cannot enter into the treaty formally tomorrow, and then on the second day or third day of next week, we adopt a new treaty or we take action to negate the treaty we have entered into. So a treaty is much different from a bill. From Secretary William Cohen and General Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, I heard that this treaty is in the national security interests of the United States. I respect their judgments. But from former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, whom I also respect, and whose judgment I also respect, I heard that the treaty is flawed in terms of its duration--a permanent ban on nuclear weapons testing--and in its premise that only testing that can meet a so-called zero yield threshold is acceptable. I do respect Dr. Schlesinger's judgment. I heard confidence in the Stockpile Security Program expressed by Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, and I heard some caution expressed by the directors of the Energy Department's nuclear laboratories. Some caution there. Some caution. In short, I have heard some complex and conflicting testimony in a short period of time. I must ask, why on earth is the United States Senate allowing a treaty of this magnitude and complexity to be rammed through the body with a maximum of 14 hours of debate, and with a limit of two leadership amendments? Have we totally lost all sense of responsibility? What would be wrong with having the vote next year after we have seen the new assessment, which we were told is on its way and will be completed somewhere around the first of the year, as I remember. What would be wrong? Or even, as some would prefer, what would be wrong with putting it off until the following year? Why do we have to do it now? Why do we have to do it next week? I am not one of those who have been saying we have to have a vote on the treaty. I don't cast any aspersions on anybody by that statement. But lest there be some here who think I am one of those who have been clamoring for a vote, I am not; and lest there be some who think that I have been prevailed upon by the administration to express opposition to our voting next week. I have not been contacted by the administration. I am concerned about my country. I have heard various Senators say, well, if I am wrong, this will happen, or if he is wrong, that will happen; or which would you want to bet on, or some such. I am not interested in who is right or who is wrong, for the sake of this Senator or that Senator. I am interested from the standpoint of my country if we make the wrong decision. It is my country. And then, being one who is dedicated to this institution, having served in it for 41 years, I am also concerned that this institution is not doing its duty in connection with the approval of the ratification of a treaty. I said something to the effect that we are talking about the separation of powers here. And we are, because the constitutional framers did not feel it wise to leave in the hands of a chief executive alone the making and the carrying into effect of a treaty. And so the framers formulated this great system that we have of the separation of powers. Hence, the approval of the ratification of treaties by the U.S. Senate is a facet of the separation of powers, in the great scheme of things. Now, are we, as Members of the Senate--we who have taken an oath to support and defend that Constitution of the United States--are we, who are the trusted legatees of those framers who met in Philadelphia in 1787, to put aside our portion, our responsibility in that system of separation of powers and say, oh, well, the President is right, the administration is right, give it to them, and wash our hands of it, let's not spend anymore time on it? I don't think it is my proper responsibility to say I am ready to vote on it just because an administration--whether it be my party or somebody else's party--says I should vote on it. We Senators have a responsibility under our separation of powers to do our share of the work. The Senate is supposed to have that responsibility by virtue of the Constitution. I say that we are shirking our duty if we fail to uphold our end of the separation of powers doctrine, if we don't take the time to know what we are doing here. There have been questions raised. Are we seriously going to cede, without a murmur, our duty to advise and consent to the ratification of treaties? Are we seriously going to allow this travesty of the separation of powers to occur? It would be nobody's fault but ours if we do. I am not saying reject the treaty nor am I saying we should approve it. I have to hold my hand up before my Creator and say I don't honestly know how I shall vote on this treaty. I will not be pressured by anybody. And politics has nothing to do with it, in my view; in this instance, certainly. Mr. President, I bring before the Senate two issues that were raised by Dr. Schlesinger that I believe merit consideration. The first is the duration of the treaty. It imposes a permanent ban on the testing of nuclear weapons. Now, we are all for nonproliferation. That is not the argument here. We are all for nonproliferation, but there are other things involved here. First is the duration of the treaty. It imposes a permanent ban on the testing of nuclear weapons. Frankly, I would be delighted to see a permanent ban on the testing of nuclear weapons--if we could be sure that the United States could maintain the reliability of its nuclear weapons stockpile without testing. But what I have heard this week from some people is that the Stockpile Stewardship Program is not far enough along in development to be absolutely certain, or even almost certain, that it will be an effective substitute for testing. Our weapons are aging, and the nuclear scientists who developed and tested those weapons are aging also. For every year that the weapon ages, the scientist who tested that weapon ages a year. We can replace components of the weapons, but as Dr. Schlesinger and Dr. Paul Robinson, Director of Sandia National Laboratories, pointed out in their testimony, it is not so easy to replace the knowledge, the skill, and the judgment of the scientists who built those weapons. Can we really replace seasoned physicists with computer scientists? That is a question that I have, and an answer that I do not yet have. Dr. Schlesinger also questions the advisability of the zero-yield threshold for nuclear weapons testing. Now, I am fairly certain that most American families will not be discussing over the dinner table this evening the relative merits of zero-yield versus low-yield testing. I doubt that many of my colleagues in the Senate will be discussing such matters over this Columbus Day holiday. But it is a vital issue in the deliberation of this treaty. I don't know enough about it, and I have read, I have listened, and I have researched, to a limited degree, the issue. I still have questions. I have doubts. It may be that my doubts are unfounded. It may be that my questions can be satisfactorily answered. But not in the time constraints and under the procedural constraints with which we are faced. Mr. President, the Senate has a solemn duty to offer its advice and consent in the matter of treaties. We are not only not offering our advice, but we may be offering the wrong consent if we vote next week. We may be going the wrong way. We may be ill advised in the consent that we give. Not just consent, as I say, but advice as well. Advice comes in the form of understandings, reservations, amendments, conditions, and the like. But not on this treaty under these circumstances. On this treaty under these circumstances, amendments, understandings, reservations, motions, or any other binding expression of opinion are out of bounds. They are off limits, save for one amendment each to be offered by the two leaders of the Senate. On a treaty binding the United States of America to a permanent ban on the testing of the very weapons that form the core of our national security; on a treaty of such incredible importance, the Senate is proceeding to a vote under a self-imposed--a self-imposed--gag order. Has this body lost all sense of proportion? Has the Senate become so absolutely blind to its constitutional duties and so dedicated to its partisan political objectives that it is willing to abdicate to the executive branch the Senate's responsibility to give both its advice and consent on the ratification of treaties? Is the Senate truly willing to limit its role in the consideration of treaties to that of either rubber-stamping whatever the executive branch chooses to send us, or, alternatively, jettisoning it out of hand? That is no way to deliberate on a treaty, particularly one such as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which holds such promise, and likewise, perhaps, such peril for the future of America's national security. I respect the passion with which many of my colleagues view this treaty. They can state with absolute certitude that it is in the best interests of this country to approve the ratification of this treaty. And I respect that view. If I thought like they do, I would also express with absolute certitude that I was confident in the treaty. But they have spent more time--far more time--than I have spent on it. And I admire them for that and compliment them for it. Conversely, others with equal certitude say that the treaty should be rejected. I compliment Senator Levin, I compliment Senator Warner, and others on the leadership they have demonstrated. I compliment my great friend from New York, the Senior Senator from New York, before whom I bow with great reverence. But think of the experience the Senator from New York has had in the field of foreign affairs. I don't know what his position on the treaty is. But I daresay that he, too, would say we need more time. What is the driving force that says we absolutely cannot wait for a few more months, or even another year? I am not bound on having a vote next year. But this treaty is permanent. This is for keeps. I respect the strongly held views of others. I wish I could share their certainty either in the merits or dangers of this treaty. If we wait 6 months, I might still be uncertain. But I would have had my chance. I would have had my day in court. The Senate would have fulfilled its duty under the Constitution. To me that is important. I have spent 41 years of my 82 years right here in this Senate, and I have respected its rulings, its precedents, its rules, its history, and its customs. And I have to say to Senators that I often bow my head in sorrow at the way this Senate has changed since I came here. I cannot imagine that Senator Russell, Senator Dirksen, Senator Fulbright, Senator McClellan--I cannot imagine that those Senators would have been happy, would have been satisfied. They would have been restless. They would have been very uncomfortable with saying that we have to go through with this unanimous consent request which was sent around on the telephone to all Senators' offices--on a Friday--I believe it was Friday. All Senators are busy. It is all right with an ordinary bill, an ordinary matter, that comes before the Senate. But when it comes to a major treaty, everybody recognizes a major treaty. That is not a simple treaty with one or two other nations--which can be very important, however. But this is a major treaty, a far-reaching treaty. It involves the security interests of our country. It involves our children, and our grandchildren. Why shouldn't we take a little more time to be sure that Senators know that this is what we are about to do? We are about to take from every Senator his normal right to offer a reservation or an understanding or an amendment on a major treaty. But, as Shakespeare says, ``What's done 'tis done.'' Yet can we not rectify this horrible mistake and give this Senate a few more months so that we can have some hearings, so that we can have more experts, so that we can take time to read the treaty and to understand it and to talk with foreign leaders? I cannot understand why we have thrown away our rights so cavalierly. Mr. President, I come not to bury Caesar nor do I come here to call Lazarus from the tomb. I do not come here today to make a case for or against this treaty. I am here only to plead that we have more time so we can study it and be better prepared to render a proper and right judgment. That is why I am here on this floor today. I joined with other Senators in a letter some time ago urging the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee to hold hearings. That is the extent of the efforts that I have put forth in either direction. I want to state for the Record, I am only here to urge that this Constitution requires this Senate to advise and consent to treaties that have been made by the President of the United States. That is all I am urging--and that we be given sufficient additional the time. We are moving toward what appears to be a sure rejection of the treaty next week for all the wrong reasons. It may be that this treaty is not in the best interests of the United States. It may be that it is in the best interests of the United States. Only one thing is sure: It is not in the best interests of the United States or the Senate to be driven by little more than political gamesmanship--and all sides, I suppose, to some extent, have been tarnished by that. This is not necessarily leveling an arrow from my bow toward any particular side--political gamesmanship, I say, to an all-or-nothing vote on the treaty next week with 3 days' worth of hearings, less than 2 full days' worth of debate, and virtually no opportunity to improve or to modify the Resolution of Ratification. I close by urging the Senate to put off what promises to be a fatal vote on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and proceed, instead, with educating the Senate and the American people, so we can deliberate and decide the fate of this treaty and, who knows, this country and perhaps the world, with a better understanding of the consequences of our action. I thank all Senators for their indulgence.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator for his enlightened remarks. And, as always, he approaches a matter with an open mind, devoid of politics, and with only the interest of doing good, not harm; and that is his response in this instance.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate tomorrow is scheduled to begin debate on one of the most important and solemn matters that can come before this body--a resolution of ratification of a Treaty of the United States. The Treaty scheduled to come before us on Friday is the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, commonly referred to as the CTBT. Consideration of a Treaty of this stature is not--and it should never be--business as usual. A Treaty is the supreme law of this land along with the Constitution and the Laws that are made by Congress pursuant to that Constitution. Article VI of the Constitution so states: ``This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution of Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.'' Mr. President, consideration of a Treaty is not business as usual. And yet, Mr. President, I regret to say that the Senate is prepared to begin consideration of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty under a common, garden-variety, unanimous consent agreement, the type of agreement that the Senate has come to rely upon to churn through the nuts-and-bolts legislation with which we must routinely deal, as well as to thread a course through the more contentious political minefields with which we are frequently confronted. In fact, unanimous consent agreements have become so ubiquitous that silence from a Senator's office is often automatically assumed to be acquiescence. So it was the case when this unanimous consent request came to my office. I was not in the office at the time. We are very busy doing other things, working on appropriations bills, and so on. And so at the point when this unanimous consent agreement proposal reached my office, I was out of the office. When I came back to the office a little while later, the request was brought to my attention. But by the time it was brought to my attention, it was too late. I notified the Democratic Cloakroom that I would object to the unanimous consent agreement, but I was informed that the agreement had already been entered into. I make this point not to criticize the well-intentioned objective of this unanimous consent agreement, which was to seek consensus on the handling of a controversial matter. I do not criticize the two leaders who devised the agreement. I criticize no one. I do, however, point out the unfortunate repercussions of the agreement as it affects the Senate's ability to consider the ratification of a treaty. In short, unanimous consent is a useful tool, and it is a practical tool of the Senate. I suppose I may have, during the times I was majority leader of the Senate, constructed as many or more unanimous consent agreements than perhaps anybody else; I certainly have had my share of them, but it is not an all-purpose tool. The unanimous consent agreement under which the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is to be considered reads as follows, and I now read from the Executive Calendar of the Senate dated Thursday, October 7, 1999. Ordered, That on Friday, October 8, 1999, at 9:30 a.m., the Senate proceed to executive session for consideration of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty; that the treaty be advanced through the various parliamentary stages, up to and including the presentation of the resolution of ratification; that it be in order for the Majority Leader and the Democratic Leader to each offer one relevant amendment; that amendments must be filed at the desk 24 hours before being called up; and that there be a time limitation of four hours equally divided on each amendment. Ordered further, That there be fourteen hours of debate on the resolution of ratification equally divided between the two Leaders, or their designees; that no other amendments, reservations, conditions, declaration, statements, understandings or motions be in order. Ordered further, That following the use or yielding back of time and the disposition of the amendments, the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the resolution of ratification, as amended, if amended, all without any intervening action or debate. So if one reads the agreement, it is obvious that the treaty itself will not be before the Senate for consideration. I allude to the words in the unanimous consent request, namely: . . . that the treaty be advanced through the various parliamentary stages, up to and including the presentation of the resolution of ratification. So the Senate will not have any opportunity to amend the treaty, itself, but it is the resolution of ratification that will be before the Senate. Mr. President, the foregoing unanimous consent agreement may be expedient and there may be some who would even consider it to be a savvy way to dispose of a highly controversial and politically divisive issue in the least amount of time with the least amount of notoriety. The politics of this issue are of no interest to me. I am not interested in the politics of the issue. I have not been contacted by the administration in any way, shape, form, or manner. Nobody in the administration has talked with me about this. I am not interested in the politics of it. Not at all. There has been some politics, of course, abroad, about this agreement, but I am not a part of that. I did join in a letter to the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee urging that there be hearings, but I have not been pressing for a vote on the treaty. The politics of the issue do not interest me. But the propriety of this unanimous consent agreement does. Simply put, it is the wrong thing to do on a matter as important and as weighty as an arms control treaty. The Senate Armed Services Committee began a series of hearings on the CTBT just this week, and I commend the distinguished chairman of the Committee, Senator Warner, and the distinguished ranking member, Senator Carl Levin, for their efforts and commitment to bring this matter before the Senate and to have hearings conducted thereon. The first hearing, on Tuesday, was a highly classified and highly informative briefing by representatives of the CIA and the Department of Energy. I wish that all of my colleagues had the opportunity to hear the testimony given at that hearing, and to question the witnesses. Unfortunately, only the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee were privy to that information. I should say the distinguished ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Biden, was present also. The second hearing, yesterday, brought before the Committee Defense Secretary Bill Cohen; General Henry Shelton, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Dr. James Schlesinger, the former Secretary of Defense and Energy; and General John Shalikashvili, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Again, their testimony was very illuminating. I wonder how many of my colleagues, outside of the Armed Services Committee, and Mr. Biden, had the opportunity to follow that hearing--which lasted almost five hours--given the crush of other important business on the Senate floor? My coilleagues simply haven't had the opportunity to do it, other than those of us on the Armed Services Committee. I wonder how many of my colleagues have had an opportunity, since the vote on the CTBT was scheduled last week, to analyze, question, and digest the testimony and the opinions of the distinguished officials that the Committee heard from yesterday? I wonder, for example, how many of my colleagues heard from Secretary Cohen that a new National Intelligence Estimate that will have a major bearing on the consideration of this Treaty is due to be completed early next year? It is my judgment that the Senate should have that assessment in hand before it considers imposing a permanent ban--a permanent ban--on nuclear testing. The Armed Services Committee held its third, and I believe final, hearing on the CTBT this morning. The witnesses included Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, as well as the current directors of the nuclear weapons laboratories, and a selection of arms control experts, including a former director of one of the labs. Again, it was an extraordinarily informative hearing. I was there for most of it. Unfortunately, I was scheduled to go elsewhere near the close of the hearing. But it was an extraordinarily informative hearing. The laboratory directors were candid and forthcoming in their observations. They raised a number of important issues. I wonder how many of our colleagues here, outside the membership of the Armed Services Committee, heard those. I have attended every hearing and every briefing available this week in order to prepare myself for tomorrow's debate. But I did not prepare myself before this agreement was entered into. When the agreement came to my office and I objected and found that I objected too late, then I bestirred myself to learn more about this treaty. I have listened to witnesses, and I have questioned witnesses. I still have many questions--more now than when I started. I wonder how many of my colleagues--particularly those who have not had the same entree that members of the Senate Armed Services Committee have had to this week's hearings--have questions about this treaty. With the exception of Senator Biden--and, incidentally, Senator Biden is very knowledgeable about the treaty. He has studied it thoroughly and is very conversant with the details of the treaty. Perhaps some of the other members of the Foreign Relations Committee have done likewise. But other than that committee and the Committee on Armed Services, I daresay that few Senators have had an opportunity to engage themselves in a study of the treaty and even fewer, perhaps, have had the opportunity to hear witnesses and to question those witnesses. But, with the exception of Senator Biden, not even the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have had the opportunity to hear and question the witnesses who appeared before the Armed Services Committee this week. I wonder how many of my colleagues will participate in the debate tomorrow and how many will participate in the debate next Tuesday. These days are bookends around the holiday weekend when no votes are scheduled after this evening until 5:30 p.m. Tuesday at the earliest. I am confident that many Senators have important commitments in their home States that may conflict with this debate. Does anyone in this Chamber seriously believe we can give the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty the consideration it deserves in the amount of time that has been set aside to debate it? Beyond the question of time, Mr. President, is an even more disturbing question: The propriety of considering a major treaty under the straitjacket of procedural constraints in which only two amendments, one by each leader, will be in order. I have questions since I have read this treaty. I have reservations. Perhaps they will be put to rest by the debate. Or, it may be, as I continue to study the treaty and listen to the debate, that I would want to offer an amendment myself. I might want to offer an understanding or a condition. I might want to offer a reservation. I have done so on other treaties. It may be that some of my colleagues would wish to do likewise. We do not have that opportunity under this unanimous-consent agreement, with the exception of our two fine leaders. I know that they will go the extra mile, as they always do, to accommodate the concerns of the Members. But they, too, are in a cul-de-sac--only one way in, one way out. They are limited to one amendment each. Without exception, the other 98 Members of the Senate are effectively shut out from expressing, in any meaningful and binding way, reservations or concerns about this treaty. Mr. President, that is not the way to conduct the business of weighing a resolution dealing with the supreme law of the land. We might do that on an agriculture bill. We might do it on a bill making appropriations for the Department of the Interior. But this is a treaty we are talking about. A law can be repealed a year later but not a treaty. For the good of the Nation, this unanimous consent agreement ought to be abandoned, and there are ways to do it. It is a unanimous-consent agreement, I understand that, and ordinarily a unanimous-consent agreement can only be vitiated by unanimous-consent, or it can be modified by unanimous consent. But there are ways to avoid this vote. I urge my colleagues to put politics aside in this instance, at least, and to seek a consensus position on considering a comprehensive test ban treaty that upholds the dignity of the United States Senate and accords the right to United States Senators to debate and to amend. One need only read Madison's notes concerning the debates at the Convention to understand the importance of treaties in the minds of the framers. We are talking here not about an appropriations bill; we are not talking about a simple authorization bill; we are talking about something that affects the checks and balances, the separation of powers that constitutes the cornerstone of our constitutional system in this Republic. This is one of those checks and balances; this involves the separation of powers. The Senate, under the Constitution, has a voice in the approval of treaties. The President makes the treaty, by and with the consent of the United States Senate. I was here when we considered the Test Ban Treaty of 1963. I was on the Armed Services Committee at that time. I listened to Dr. Edward Teller, an eminent scientist who opposed that treaty. I voted against that treaty in 1963. I opposed it largely on the basis of the testimony of Dr. Edward Teller. We need to listen to the scientists. We need to listen to others in order that we might make an appropriate judgment. Who knows how this will affect the security interests of the United States in the future. This is a permanent treaty. It is in perpetuity, so it is not similar to a bill. As I say, we can repeal a law. But not this treaty. This treaty is in perpetuity--permanent. Maybe that is all right, but we need more time to study and consider it. We are told that the polls show the people of the Nation are overwhelmingly in favor of this treaty. I can trust the judgment of the people generally, but the people have not had the opportunity to study the fine print in this treaty. Most Senators have not. This is not a responsibility of the House of Representatives. This is the responsibility solely of the Senate under the Constitution of the United States. It is a great burden, a great responsibility, a very high duty, and we must know what we are doing. I have heard dire warnings as to what a rejection of the treaty might mean. One way to have it rejected fast, I am afraid, is to go through with this vote. But then how can we make up for it if we find we have made a mistake? If we find that we are wrong, it may be too late then. We had better stop, look, and listen and understand where we are going. We need more hearings. I hope we will put politics aside in this instance and seek a consensus position on considering a comprehensive test ban treaty that upholds the dignity of the United States Senate. I am an institutionalist. I have an institutional memory. I have been in this body for 41 years, and I have taken its rules seriously. I believe the framers knew what they were doing when they vested the responsibility in the Senate to approve or to reject treaties. We ought not take that responsibility lightly. The very idea of the unanimous-consent request says Senators cannot offer reservations; they cannot offer conditions; they cannot offer amendments; they cannot offer understandings. Let us so act that we reflect the importance of the treaty. Reject it if you will or approve it if you will, but let's do it with our eyes open. Let's not put on blinders. Let's not bind our hands and feet and mouths and ears and minds with a unanimous-consent agreement that will not allow unfettered debate or amendments. Let the Senate be the institution the framers intended it to be. I have not said how I shall vote on the treaty. I want to understand more about it. But I want other Senators to have an opportunity to understand it as well. Mr. President, I thank Senators for listening, and for their patience in indulging these remarks. I yield the floor. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the vote, I be recognized for not to exceed 30 minutes to speak on another matter.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, was the unanimous consent request agreed to?

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that following the Senator's statement, I be recognized to speak for not to exceed 15 minutes on another matter.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield without losing his right to the floor?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Amendments Nos. 2266 and 1921 (Purpose: To make technical changes and other modifications to the substitute amendment.) (Purpose: To improve the safety of animals transported on aircraft, and for other purposes)

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order. May we have order.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I hope the Senator will forgive me. I am asking for order, and I am going to insist on it. I want to help the Chair to get order.

Mr. BYRD. I hope the Chair will break that gavel so that Senators will hear him.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, there is no reason the Senator from New Jersey has to insist on order. I ask that the Chair get order in the Senate.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, recent comments by a political figure have unfairly and, I think, unjustly castigated American churches and millions of American church-goers as ``. . . a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. [meaning organized religion] tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people's business.'' Now these comments are being defended as the kind of outspoken honesty that people really seek in a politician. While I am totally in favor of greater candor from politicians, particularly in these days of poll-driven and consultant-drafted mealy-mouthed pap masquerading as ``vision,'' I am emphatically not in favor of rudeness. There is far too much rude and divisive talk in this Nation these days, and it only exacerbates the kind of climate that encourages acts of violence against anyone who is different or any organization that is not mainstream--or maybe even if it is mainstream, as churches are still mainstream, at least in my part of the world. We cannot and should not let this kind of meanness be excused in the name of honesty and candor. I do not question anyone's right to voice his opinion, whether I agree with it or not, but I also do not believe it is necessary to demean or belittle or denigrate anyone in the process of voicing an opinion. I am pleased to see that I am not alone in my outrage, but that many people have expressed similar feelings. I hope that we can all learn a lesson from this episode. All of us ask for guidance from those we trust whenever we are faced with difficult problems. We ask our parents, or our wives, we ask our husbands, or our friends. So what is wrong with seeking the advice of someone who has seen more troubles and received more training in counseling than ourselves--someone who has a calling, a passion, for this role? Someone such as our pastor or priest or minister? Or what is wrong with asking the One who knows and shares all of our troubles--in asking the Creator for guidance and support? What is wrong with asking ourselves, ``What would Jesus do?'' There is nothing wrong with using the spiritual guidance provided to us from God and His Son, and tested over nearly 2,000 years of human experience. It is not weak-minded. It is not sheep-like to grow up within a framework of faith and to celebrate the rituals of the church. It does not mean that one has a weakness and needs organized religion to ``strengthen oneself.'' Churches across this Nation provide millions of strong people with spiritual, emotional, and physical support. People who are active in their church may literally count their blessings when disaster strikes them. Be it the sudden loss of a loved one, a fire, a flood, that person will find himself surrounded with caring friends and helping hands. Insurance may provide a sense of financial security, but no matter whose good hands your insurance may be in, an insurance company cannot hold your hand and offer a shoulder to lean on while your home is reduced to smoky ruins or washed downstream in a flood. A pastor, a priest, a minister, or friend from your church can do so, and will do so. And people in your church will offer you the clothes off of their backs, or a place to stay, or food to eat when you are hungry, or help in many other small ways that are a balm on a hurting soul. Instead of facing your loss alone, help arrives in battalions. Churches have become, in many ways, the new centers of community in America. We live in ever-expanding suburbs. We spend long hours each day commuting to jobs miles from our homes. Our children ride buses to distant schools that may combine many neighborhoods or even many communities. We may rarely see our neighbor, or may know the neighbor only to nod at as we back our cars out of our driveways. Air conditioning, television, and other amenities have taken the place of sitting on the front porch with a glass of lemonade. Now, if we are outside, we are likely on a deck in the back yard, hidden by a fence or a hedge from the prying eyes of our unseen neighbors. But in church on Sunday, one is encouraged to shake a neighbor's hand. One is asked to pray for neighbors who are sick or in distress. And one hears the word of God--a Name that is above all other names--and participates in the observance of the liturgy that binds all of us in a seamless lineage to the heritage of man. Churches are not for the weak-minded, Mr. President. They are for the strong. They are for people who are not afraid to seek guidance, not afraid to show charity, not afraid to practice kindness. Tolerance for the beliefs of others is one of the cornerstones on which this Nation is founded, and we in public life would be well-advised to remember that. Let me close these remarks, Mr. President, with a passage from George Washington's Farewell Address. Mr. President, George Washington, commander of the American forces at Valley Forge, was not a weak-minded man. George Washington, the first President of the United States--and the greatest President of all--was not a weak-minded man. Let's share what he had to say about religion. We might even class George Washington as a politician. Here is what George Washington said. I suggest that all take note. Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. Let me digress briefly to suggest that all politicians, whether at the State or local or national level, take note of what George Washington said. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Gorton-Rockefeller amendment. This amendment makes important revisions to the underlying bill concerning the rules governing the allocation of slots at the nation's four slot-controlled airports--Chicago O'Hare, LaGuardia, Kennedy, and Reagan National Airports. The issues surrounding the application of the high density rule, and the perimeter rule, are both complex and delicate. They engender strong feelings on all sides. I believe that the bipartisan leadership of the aviation subcommittee, Senators Gorton and Rockefeller, performed a service to the Senate by crafting a compromise that, while not satisfactory to all Senators, proposes a regime that is much improved over the one contained in the committee-reported bill. Mr. President, when the Senate is in session, my wife and I reside in Northern Virginia, not far from the flight path serving Reagan National Airport. I have had misgivings about proposals to tinker with the status quo in terms of the number of flights coming into Reagan National Airport and the distances to which those flights can travel. Despite efforts to reduce the levels of aircraft noise through the advent of quieter jet engines, I can tell my colleagues that the aircraft noise along the Reagan National Airport flight path is often deafening. It can bring all family conversation to a halt. Current flight procedures for aircraft landing at Reagan National Airport from the north call on the pilots to direct their aircraft to the maximum extent possible over the Potomac River. The intent of this procedure is to minimize the noise impact on residential communities on both the Maryland and Virginia sides of the river. Notwithstanding this policy, however, too often the aircraft fail to follow that guidance. That is not necessarily the fault of the pilots. During the busiest times of the day, the requirement to stray directly over certain residential communities is necessary for safety reasons in order to maintain a minimum level of separation between the many aircraft queued up to land at Reagan National Airport. I invite my colleagues to glance up the river during twilight one day soon. There is a high probability that you will see the lights of no fewer than four aircraft, all lined up, waiting to land, one right after the other. I appreciate very much the earlier statements made by the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator McCain. The chairman pointed out that the Department of Transportation has indicated that safety will not be compromised through additional flights at Reagan National Airport. I remain concerned, however, regarding the current capabilities of the air traffic control tower at that airport. The air traffic controllers serving in that facility have been quite outspoken regarding the deficiencies they find with the aging and unreliable air traffic control equipment in the tower. Indeed, the situation has become so severe that our FAA Administrator, Ms. Jane Garvey, mandated that the equipment in that facility be replaced far sooner than was originally anticipated. Even so, the new equipment for that facility has, like so many other FAA procurements, suffered from development problems and extended delays. Just this past weekend, I know many of my colleagues noticed the Washington Post article discussing a further two-year delay in the FAA's deployment of equipment to minimize runway incursions--the very frightening circumstance through which taxiing aircraft or other vehicles unknowingly stray onto active runways. Given these concerns, Mr. President, I want to commend Senators Gorton and Rockefeller for negotiating a reasonable compromise on this issue. The Gorton-Rockefeller amendment will reduce by half the increased number of frequencies into Reagan National Airport than was originally sought. It will also reserve half of the additional slots for flights serving cities within the 1,250 mile perimeter. Most importantly, Mr. President, these additional slots within the perimeter will be reserved for flights to small communities, flights to communities without existing service to Reagan National Airport, and flights provided by either a new entrant airline, or an established airline that will provide new competition to the dominant carriers at Reagan National. As my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, knows well, no state has endured the ravages of airline deregulation like West Virginia. We have experienced a very severe downturn in the quality, quantity and affordability of air service in our state. Fares for flights to and from our state have grown to ludicrous levels. A refundable unrestricted round-trip ticket between Reagan National Airport and Charleston, West Virginia, now costs $722. Conversely, Mr. President, I can buy the same unrestricted round-trip ticket to Boston, which is 100 miles farther away than Charleston, and pay less than half that amount. By targeting the additional slots to be provided inside the perimeter to underserved communities, the Gorton-Rockefeller amendment has taken a small but important step toward addressing this problem. At the present time, the largest airport in West Virginia does have some direct service to Reagan National. We face greater hurdles, frankly, in gaining direct access to LaGuardia Airport in New York, as well as improved service to Chicago O'Hare. The Gorton-Rockefeller amendment expands slots at those airports as well. As a member of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, I intend to diligently work with Senator Rockefeller, Secretary Slater and his staff, to see that West Virginia has a fair shot at the expanded flight opportunities into these slot controlled airports. Again, in conclusion, I want to rise in support of the Gorton- Rockefeller amendment. It is a carefully crafted compromise that is a great improvement over the underlying committee bill, and gives appropriate attention to the needs of under-served communities. Keeping Aviation Trust Fund on Budget

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, yesterday afternoon I voted against Senator Hutchinson's amendment to transfer $25 million from the budget of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to increase funding for community health centers. I am not opposed to expanding the services provided by community health centers--to the contrary, I believe they are an important element in health care delivery in West Virginia. However, Mr. President, the National Labor Relations Board is also important to West Virginia. During the first half of this century, labor conditions in West Virginia coal mines, and the resulting growth in unions, led to a virtual state of war, in some instances. Having an orderly process in place to resolve these kinds of issues, such as that managed by the NLRB, helps to keep management-labor-union relations on a civilized path. The National Labor Relations Board is an independent agency created by Congress to administer the National Labor Relations Act, which is the primary law governing the relationship between unions and employers in the private sector. The NLRB has two principal functions: first, to determine, through secret ballot elections, if employees want to be represented by a union in dealing with their employers; and second, to prevent and remedy unfair labor practices by either employers or unions. The NLRB investigates violations of the National Labor Relations Act, seeks voluntary remedies to violations, and adjudicates those businesses that refuse to comply with the Act. Opponents of the NLRB have been eager to eliminate it in recent years, but have not had much success in doing so on the merits. Instead, they have been attacking its financing. The NLRB's budget has not kept pace with inflation over the last six years, and, even though the case load has decreased since last year, overall, staffing levels have fallen at a greater rate. The NLRB had 6,198 unfair labor practice cases pending initial investigation at the end of Fiscal Year 1998. The Hutchinson amendment, according to the NLRB, would have caused them to process six thousand fewer cases, and cut all staff training and information technology activities in Fiscal Year 2000. I support community health centers. They provide a vital service to low income persons who cannot afford health insurance. However, in my opinion, it is not practical to underfund one valuable program in order to fund another. Rather, I would prefer to see the funds come from other sources less disruptive to agencies as valuable to our nations' laborers as the NLRB.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I should be in a markup of the Appropriations Committee on the Labor-HHS appropriations bill right at this moment. Mr. President, as we quickly approach the end of Fiscal Year 1999, there is a portion of the American population that is not faring very well. The small family farmers of the North-Eastern and Mid-Atlantic States have been struggling to survive a fifteen-month-long drought. With all fifty-five of our counties receiving an emergency drought declaration on August 2 from the Secretary of Agriculture, farmers in West Virginia are no exception. These farmers have been waiting for a significant and timely response to their emergency, a feeling I imagine would be similar to dialing nine-one-one and getting a busy signal. Yet, over the years, this Congress has responded quickly to provide the necessary resources to help the victims of national disasters, not only in this country, but around the world. From the $1 billion for the victims of Mount Saint Helens in 1980; to the $2.7 billion for the victims of Hurricane Hugo in 1989; to the nearly $3 billion for the Loma Prieta earthquake victims, also in 1989; to the more than $10 billion for Hurricanes Andrew and Iniki in 1992; to the $6.8 billion in disaster funds for victims of the Mississippi floods in the Summer of 1993; to the North Ridge earthquake victims in 1994, for which almost $12 billion was appropriated. Throughout the 1990's, emergency disaster assistance has also been provided to the victims of tornadoes, tropical storms, droughts, floods, wildfires, blizzards, and so on. In 1999, emergency aid has gone to Central American and the Caribbean nations needing assistance with reconstruction after hurricane damage, to Kosovo military and humanitarian operations, and to American farmers suffering from low commodity prices. I voted for all of these. I have been willing to support emergency aid in these instances--all of them. However, I cannot understand why the drought emergency goes ignored. I cannot understand why we are not answering the emergency calls of long- suffering Northeast and Mid-Atlantic farmers. The drought has devastated--devastated--the lives of thousands of family farmers in this region. I know that the word devastated is used so often that one expects it to be pure hyperbole, but West Virginia farmers work hard on land most often held in the same family for generations. They farm an average of 194 acres in the rough mountain terrain, and they earn an average of just $25,000 annually. That is $25,000 annually for 365 days of never-ending labor. Farming is an every-day, every-week, every-month, 365-day operation every year with no time off. West Virginia farmers average $68.50 a day for days that begin at dawn and run past sunset. These small family farmers are the last to ask for assistance. They are hard-working, they are self- reliant individuals. They have a sense of pride that prevents them from requesting federal aid unless they are in a desperate situation. These farmers are now in a desperate situation, and they are asking us to respond to them in their time of need. Now is the time that we must assist them and assist them by not by burdening them with more debt--they are over their heads in debt all right, many of them, so they are not asking for more loan programs. They need help. By providing grants, we can give them help that will help them to recover from the drought. For many farmers it is already too late. They are disposing of their herds. They have sold off their livestock from land that has been farmed by their family for generations. Their pastures are grazed to stubble and will need fertilizer, lime, and reseeding if they are to support cattle again in the Spring. In the meantime, cattle must still be fed, and what little hay could be cut locally has already been eaten. The West Virginia Commissioner of Agriculture informs me that of the 21,000 surviving small family farms in West Virginia--and there were 90,000 back when I was in the State legislature in 1947. There were 90,000 farmers in West Virginia. Now there are 21,000 surviving, and over half of these are at risk as a result of drought. America cannot afford to let the small family farm die. A small family farming operation is the foundation on which America is based. We cannot afford not to help drought-stricken farmers. Granted, in this area the drought seems to be a thing of the past. The water restrictions to conserve water in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area have recently been lifted. Lawns have greened up again, and the drone of lawn mowers again dominates the weekend. Schools canceled classes in this area two weeks ago because hurricane Floyd threatened to deluge the city with too much rain too quickly. However, I assure you that the drought in West Virginia continues. Hurricane Floyd's rains did not scale West Virginia's mountains. The drought is so far-reaching that schoolchildren in Fayetteville, WV, had their classes canceled last week and the Fayette County Courthouse has postponed arraignments until October 1 because the city's reservoir has gone dry. The grass in West Virginia is not getting greener, as it is here in the Washington area. It is simply not growing. Seventeen North-Eastern and Mid-Atlantic States have received a Secretarial drought emergency declaration this year and five more are awaiting a decision. Yet, the emergency aid package that the Agriculture Conference Committee is still negotiating includes a mere $500 million in general aid for all disasters declared by the Secretary of Agriculture throughout 1999. The Secretary of Agriculture estimates that losses due to the drought of 1999 may total $2 billion. Losses in West Virginia alone are estimated at $200 million--and we are not a big farming State, not a big farming State. Most of ours are small farms, but these are people who have been on the land for generations. These farms have been handed down through the line of several generations. Mr. President, what happened to the small family farmers in ancient Rome is happening in this country. They are leaving the land, and with them will go our family values. The Secretary of Agriculture estimates, as I say, that the losses due to the drought of 1999 may total $2 billion, and in West Virginia alone they are estimated at $200 million. So the emergency aid package now attached to the Agriculture appropriations bill falls short by some $1.5 billion. I want colleagues to understand that although a drought is a slow- paced disaster, it nevertheless deserves much-needed attention as an emergency and merits a response much greater and faster than the one we have so far given. A drought can, and this one has, caused farmers to go out of business. My farmers know that farming is inherently a risky business. It does depend on the weather. I urge this body to help with this natural disaster. American farmers merit federal assistance to ensure their future productivity, and, more importantly, to preserve a heritage that I believe essential to this nation's history, to its moral fiber and to its character. We regularly hear talk of the small family farmer. Now is the time to help small family farmers. Congress must act on this opportunity to direct emergency funds toward a real emergency with wide-reaching effects, that impacts our most treasured Americans, our farmers. The devastation of the drought will only be compounded if we do not offer assistance now. If fields are not treated now, they will not be productive come spring. Farmers normally finance this activity with profits from fall sales, or secure loans based on such sales. But this time they have nothing to sell. We need to increase appropriations that will be directed to farmers suffering from the drought of 1999. I urge my fellow conferees on the Agriculture Appropriations Conference Committee and I urge the leadership in both Houses, to answer the call of the small family farmer and support increasing emergency assistance directed toward farmers suffering as a result of the drought of 1999. Do not let their 911 call for help be answered by a busy signal. Instead, let us answer the call of farmers by sending the signal that we are busy working for farmers.