Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader. I do not take the time of the Senate very often. I try not to impose upon other Senators or upon the Senate. But I noted a series of quorum calls, so I felt this might be a good time for me to speak.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if there is no objection, I would like to proceed. I ask unanimous consent that the vote be delayed for an additional 5 minutes or whatever.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have some rather brief remarks that will probably take me 15 minutes. Is this a time when I might speak out of order?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the small, serious, tousled-hair lad seemed, even at the tender age of 3, to know just the right thing to do. With a straight back and a smart, entirely proper, military salute, John F. Kennedy, Jr. expressed the grief of an entire nation with a dignity far beyond his years. He was only 3, yet he gave the Nation a lasting, memorable, indelible image, an image that is remembered by millions and captured on videotape for generations to come. Now John F. Kennedy, Jr. has, himself, been lost at an age far too young for easy acceptance by a country which had affectionately watched him grow to manhood. His untimely death feels as heavy and oppressive as the too hot, too dry summer in which he lived his final days. Words fail to express the special deprivation that the human spirit feels when the young, the beautiful, the handsome, the vital among us are suddenly taken from our midst before they have fulfilled their potential promise. Especially, in this case, the mind reels at the spectre of yet another Kennedy, taken too soon, yet another unbearable sorrow for this family which has had so much sorrow to bear. Yet this incredible American family will undoubtedly once again demonstrate to the Nation that they will endure, and that it is how one lives, and not how one dies, that ultimately matters. John Kennedy, Jr., his wife, Carolyn, and his sister-in-law, Lauren Bessette have vanished in the summer night in the springtime of their years, and our hearts go out to the Bessette and the Kennedy families. I am particularly saddened for my good friend, Senator Ted Kennedy. He is a great Senator. He is a great figure on the American political stage. I know that his heart must be broken by this latest family tragedy, yet I am confident that his expansive spirit and his deep faith in God will see him safely to a harbor of peace and of comfort. My wife, Erma, and I offer our prayers and our deepest sympathies to him and to the families at this saddest of sad times. Ted Kennedy, in July of 1996--3 years ago--presented to me a book titled ``American Poetry.'' I have chosen a bit of poetry by Nathaniel Hawthorne from that book for the Record today. It seems to me that it is most appropriate for this occasion. The title of this poem is ``The Ocean.'' The Ocean has its silent caves, Deep, quiet and alone; Though there be fury on the waves, Beneath them there is none. The awful spirits of the deep Hold their communion there; And there are those for whom we weep, The young, the bright, the fair. Calmly the wearied seamen rest Beneath their own blue sea. The ocean solitudes are blest, For there is purity. The earth has guilt, the earth has care, Unquiet are its graves; But peaceful sleep is ever there, Beneath the dark blue waves. Mr. President, what is the scheduled time for the vote?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am going to honor the request by the distinguished majority leader, and I am going to yield the floor now. But I will ask unanimous consent that immediately after the vote, I may be recognized to make a second speech, to which I had alluded earlier, which will probably require no longer than 15 minutes at that time.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on July 16, the Robert J. Dole Institute for Public Service and Public Policy at the University of Kansas hosted a discussion of civility and deliberation in the United States Senate. Long subjects of interest to me, I was heartened to learn of this event. In an age of media and money-driven politics, it is important to remember that what we Senators must truly strive to be about has little to do with either the media or money. Discussions such as this one remind us all of the essential nature of this body in which we are so privileged to serve, and of the responsibility each of us bears to help this great institution, the United States Senate, continue to reflect the Framers' intent. I ask unanimous consent that the remarks of the Honorable Robert J. Dole, and the remarks of Mr. Harry C. McPherson, former Special Counsel to President Lyndon B. Johnson, be inserted in the Record at this point.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for an additional 10 minutes, if necessary.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this week a delegation of British Members of Parliament will visit the Senate in the latest in a long line of biennial exchanges fostered by the British-American Parliamentary Group. My good and true and long-time friend, Senator Stevens, and I serve as co-chairs for the American delegation. These exchanges date back to the aftermath of World War II, when both sides recognized the value of maintaining the kind of close working relationship that can only be realized through personal interaction and camaraderie. After graciously hosting Senator Stevens and me in 1997, when we visited London and York with several other Senators, Lord Jopling later this week will arrive in Washington with Members from the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Lord Michael Jopling is a former Member of the House of Commons. This weekend, I am pleased that the group will be meeting at the famous Greenbrier in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, to discuss defense, trade, and environmental issues of concern to our great nations. As an avid student of history, particularly Roman and Greek history, Persian history, English history, and American history, I remind all who will listen that those roots are essential in understanding the development of the American Constitution. In the Senate chamber, and while walking through the halls of our columned Capitol building, I am daily reminded of the unique and enduring legacy bequeathed to Americans by our English, Scot, Welsh, and Irish ancestors. The Minton tiles paving the corridors as well as the very language of debate which rings across the Senate floor in sonorous spoken cadences recall this powerful legacy. Even the physical being of the Capitol building itself--its white marble and sunny sandstone gleaming amid graceful stands of stately trees and curving drives--owes a nod of thanks to informal and inviting landscaping design pioneered in Britain. And, less visible but more pervasive, the strong skeleton of government and law in the United States carries the indelible genetic markers of British origin--its DNA shaped by centuries of struggle between monarchs and parliaments before mutating into a new form under the guidance of the British citizens that became our Founding Fathers. Though certainly not an exact clone, like Dolly the sheep, the American bicameral legislature and our legal system based upon British Common Law bear witness to this sturdy inheritance. From the defining moment at Runnymede in 1215, when the English barons forced King John to give his assent to a charter of liberties, the belief in fundamental written guarantees of rights and privileges has become a treasured inheritance on both sides of the Atlantic. Unknown or unpracticed in many parts of the world, the concept of individual rights guaranteed by law is a jewel in the crown of British history. Other documents written since the Magna Carta, and comprising the unwritten English Constitution, including the Petition of Right, 1628, and the English Bill of Rights, 1689, have also found new life on distant shores in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. And the concepts of ``habeas corpus,'' presentment and trial juries, ``just compensation,'' and the right against self-incrimination, all pillars of American jurisprudence, migrated to the United States from England and English law. To my mind, however, one of the greatest legacies bestowed upon the United States by these generations of British lawmakers is in establishing control over the power of the purse in elected officials of the people, rather than in the executive. Seven hundred and two years ago, in 1297, Edward I reluctantly agreed to the ``Confirmation of the Charters,'' promising not to levy taxes without the common consent of the realm. Parliament took on its original form during the reign of Edward I, who has been called the father of Parliament. Parliament divided into the House of Commons and the House of Lords along about 1339, 1341-42, during the reign of Edward III, who reigned from 1327 to 1377, a total of 50 years. Paired with this spending authority came the right to audit how funds had been expended. These powers of appropriation and audit, the fraternal twins of legislative might, shaped and tested by British experience, were united by the American Founding Fathers in a single paragraph of article I, section 9, of the U.S. Constitution. It states that, ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.'' And so it is this sentence, together with the very first section of article 1, which invests in the Senate and the House of Representatives their broad scope to check the power of the Chief Executive and defend the interests of their various constituencies. For this, as in so many things, I give thanks to my English forbearers, who shed their blood at the point of the sword in wresting from tyrannical monarchs the control of the power over the purse. That struggle lasted for hundreds of years, until finally, in 1689, under the English Bill of Rights, it was guaranteed. As for William of Orange and Mary, who assumed the joint rule over the British people, Parliament required that they accede to and agree to the Declaration of Rights, which had been drawn up in February of 1689. Once they agreed, then they were crowned joint monarchs. In December of that year, the English Declaration of Rights was put into statute form and designated the English Bill of Rights. This is a pearl beyond price, and one which I hope to pass down unblemished to my descendants. Never again, after that English Bill of Rights had been put into statute form, would Kings levy taxes--excise or other taxes--upon the British people without the approval, the assent and consent of Parliament. I have fought with every ounce of energy that I could muster against such mutations of the legacy passed down to this country through a thousand years of blood and English history as the constitutional amendment to balance the budget and the line-item veto. Our common past has built a history of cooperation between the British and the American people that has always prevailed over our differences. In this century, our sons, brothers, and fathers have stood shoulder to shoulder against common enemies from the battlegrounds of world wars to conflicts in the Persian Gulf and in the Balkans. Together, we have stood against the Soviet bear. We have stood fast through changes of governments and shifts in political power. While not always smooth, just as relations between family members are not always smooth, Anglo-American relations have weathered bigger storms than Bosnia, Kosovo, NATO expansion, and differences in how to approach the problem of global climate change. Our blood ties are stronger than the vast and deep ocean of waters that are between us. And those unbreakable bonds will see us through to the next century and beyond, because we are brothers made so through the parenthood of historical experience. Exchanges like those fostered by the British-American Parliamentary Group are the nectar, the ambrosia, that sweetens and sustains the close ties between our nations. I look forward to this week's opportunity to join again at the flower of good fellowship. I second the words of Winston Churchill, who said in a speech in the House of Commons on August 20, 1940: The British Empire and the United States will have to be somewhat mixed up together in some of their affairs for the mutual and general advantage. For my own part looking out upon the future, I do not view the process with any misgivings. I could not stop it if I wished; no one can stop it. Like the Mississippi, it just keeps rolling along. Let it roll, let it roll on full flood, inexorable, irresistible, benignant, to broader lands and better days. Senator Stevens, our other colleagues who have agreed to join with us at the Greenbrier, and my wife Erma and I welcome Lord and Lady Jopling. My wife and I were in England--in York, as a matter of fact-- in August of the year before last, on the day that Princess Diana was killed, and on which we returned to the United States after meeting with the British-U.S. Parliamentary Group. I had the pleasure of chairing the group when we Democrats were in control of the Senate. On that occasion, I took the members of the British group down to the Greenbrier, in Greenbrier County at White Sulphur Springs. We enjoyed it. We all look forward to going there again. Again, I welcome Lord and Lady Jopling, and the British members of this year's exchange. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Does the distinguished Senator from Alabama wish time?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. For months now, I and many of my colleagues, including the very distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, have been alerting this Congress to the devastating nature of the steel import crisis that has plagued this Nation since the end of 1997. A year and a half later, in yesterday's Wheeling Intelligencer headlines, we see the statement: ``Sixth Steelmaker Claims Bankruptcy.'' Let me repeat that headline from the Wheeling, WV, newspaper: a sixth U.S. steel mill has declared bankruptcy. With that announcement, U.S. steelworkers in West Virginia, and elsewhere, are wondering when the Clinton administration and this Congress will realize that enough is enough. I have no doubt that the 1,800 people who are employed at Gulf States Steel, Inc., in Gadsden, AL--the sixth U.S. steel mill to declare bankruptcy since the steel import crisis began--are also wondering why no one is acting on a long- term basis to prevent the illegal steel dumping that has jeopardized their jobs. I say enough is enough. Six companies declare bankruptcy, more than 6,200 jobs are jeopardized, and this Administration and this Congress still fail to act: 1,800 jobs in Gadsden, Alabama; 200 jobs in Alton, Illinois; 140 jobs in Holsapple, Pennsylvania; 2,400 jobs in Vineyard, Utah; and 540 jobs in Washington, Pennsylvania, and Massillon, Ohio. For those who believe that the steel industry is not in difficulty, tell it to these families. Tell it to those workers who have lost their jobs. These men and women and their families are the human faces of the steel crisis. They are not just numbers. They are not just statistics. These are real faces. These are real men and women. These are real children of the steel crisis. While we do nothing, the list of the victims of the steel import crisis grows ever longer. I hear from U.S. steelworkers. They want to know how many more bankruptcies it will take to make the President of the United States and the Congress understand that immediate action must be taken against the tide of cheap and illegal steel imports into this country. How many more U.S. jobs must be lost before we tell our trading partners that enough is enough? We already know that there will be no quota bill passed by this Congress. The House passed a quota bill. The Senate has not passed a quota bill and will not pass a quota bill. Penalties are not likely against Brazil and Russia, even though the Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission found them to be guilty of dumping steel illegally on American shores. Instead of finding a long-term, global solution, this administration chooses to promote piecemeal solutions and negotiate suspension agreements with those two countries. Changes in U.S. trade laws to strengthen enforcement seem even more unlikely. According to the Wheeling, WV, Intelligencer, the U.S. steel industry is still holding on to the thin hope that the steel loan guarantee program, which the Senate has already approved twice, will quickly, hopefully, be approved in the House of Representatives. While this is only a short-term program to help U.S. steel mills that have been hurt by the steel import crisis, I thank my colleagues for passing the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program, authored by me, and a similar program, the Emergency Oil and Gas Guaranteed Loan Program, authored by Senator Domenici. On June 21, the Senate requested a conference with the House on H.R. 1664, which contains the steel loan guarantee and the oil and gas loan guarantee, and conferees have been appointed by the Senate. I am hopeful that this conference will take place soon, and we have every right to expect that that conference will take place soon. There was a commitment entered into not too long ago, at the time the emergency supplemental appropriations bill was in conference between the two Houses. A commitment was entered into by the leadership of both the House and Senate to call up the bill in the Senate. That was done. The majority leader of the Senate and the minority leader kept their commitments. The bill was called up in the Senate, and the steel loan guarantee program and the oil and gas loan guarantee program were passed by the Senate for the second time and sent to the House. It is to be expected that a conference will take place, as the Senate has requested. Hopefully, that conference will then meet and act, and act quickly, and hopefully, further, both Houses will quickly adopt a conference report and send it on to the President for his signature. Illegal steel dumping has created exigent circumstances for the U.S. steel industry, and the loan guarantees will provide help to companies, small and middle-sized steel companies that employ thousands of hard- working Americans. These loan guarantees would work through the private market, help to sustain good-paying jobs, support our national security, and save taxpayers millions of dollars from lost tax revenues and increased public assistance payments for things such as unemployment compensation, food stamps, and worker retraining. The fate of the loan programs rests today in the hands of the U.S. House of Representatives. With great respect, I urge the House to act quickly. On behalf of U.S. steel mills and U.S. steelworkers, for those 1,800 steelworkers at great risk with Gulf States Steel in Alabama, for the thousands of other steelworkers and their families across the country who cry out for help, I urge the other body to take action and to support the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that my remaining time may be allotted to the Senator from Maine.

Mr. BYRD. I would be very happy to yield to the Senator. First, I would like to inquire of the distinguished Senator from Alabama if he wishes some of my time.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, my time is rapidly dwindling. I would like to know whether or not she wishes my remaining time.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator. With my remaining time, I am very glad to yield to the Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe, if she wishes to have my remaining minutes.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will vote against the Republican alternative to the Patients' Bill of Rights. All week long, I have supported amendments that would have strengthened the Republican bill and would have provided all privately insured Americans with meaningful patient protections. At each step along the way, the Democratic amendments were rejected. There are major deficiencies in the Republican bill. The bill that will be passed by the majority covers only 48 million Americans who receive their coverage through self-funded plans. What about the 113 million that their bill leaves out? Don't those 113 million people deserve protections too? I believe that all 160 million Americans with private insurance deserve basic protections. Another important weakness in the Republican plan, Mr. President, is that it does not provide patients the opportunity to hold their health plans responsible under state law. If a health plan's decisions lead to the injury or death of a patient, the plan should not be shielded from accountability. I regret that the Senate narrowly rejected the Robb amendment, which I cosponsored. This amendment would have provided women with important access to their obstetrician/gynecologist (ob/gyn). The Republican bill does not allow a woman to designate her ob/gyn as her primary care provider. Another major distinction between the bills is who makes medical decisions. Will it be the doctor or the insurance company? Unfortunately, the Republicans rejected our definition of medical necessity. Under our bill, plans could not deny benefits based on the insurance companies' definition of medical necessity instead of the doctors' definition. The Democratic version of managed care reform includes access to clinical trials for patients with life-threatening or serious illnesses. The Republican bill provides access to clinical trials only for those suffering from cancer. In addition, their provision applies solely to 48 million Americans. Their bill leaves too many seriously ill Americans without the hope that experimental therapies through clinical trials provide. I regret that the Senate has squandered this opportunity to enact a true Patients' Bill of Rights and provide important protections to all privately insured Americans. I feel I must vote against this bill that puts health plans' profits ahead of patients' well-being. I hope that we can revisit this issue one day and pass legislation that provides strong patient protections.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time remains before the recess?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for not to exceed 3 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is finally considering managed care reform legislation. I believe that the Democratic version of the Patients' Bill of Rights is the right vehicle on which to bring reform to the nation. Our colleague from Virginia, Mr. Robb, has offered an amendment that highlights an important aspect of managed care that needs to be fine- tuned, and that is women's access to health care. This amendment would allow a woman to designate her obstetrician/gynecologist (ob/gyn) as her primary care provider and to seek care from her ob/gyn without needing to get preauthorization from the plan or from her primary care provider. Even though many women consider their ob/gyn as their regular doctor, a number of plans require women to first see their primary care provider before seeing their ob/gyn. This means that a costly and potentially dangerous level of delay is built into the system for women. This amendment would allow a woman's ob/gyn to refer her to other specialists and order tests without jumping through the additional hoop of visiting the general practitioner. This amendment would also address the care a woman receives when undergoing the traumatic surgery of mastectomy. This provision would leave the decision about how long a woman would stay in the hospital following a mastectomy up to the physician and the woman. Some plans have required that this major surgery be done on an outpatient basis. In other instances, women have been sent home shortly after the procedure with tubes still in their bodies and still feeling the effects of anesthesia. This should not be allowed to happen. Plans should not put concern about costs before the well-being of women. The Republican bill does not provide women with sufficient access to care. Plans would not be required to allow women to choose their ob/gyn as their primary care provider. In addition, the Republican bill would allow health plans to limit women's direct access to her ob/gyn to routine care which could potentially be defined by a plan as one visit a year. In addition, ``drive-through mastectomies'' would not be prevented under their bill. Mr. President, the Robb amendment contains commonsense protections women need and deserve. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I will take a couple of minutes to express my appreciation to the two managers of this bill. I chaired the subcommittee on appropriations for the District of Columbia for 7 years, beginning in 1961 and ending in 1968. This is not just an ordinary city, as we all know. I have traveled in many areas of the world, as have most Senators. I have been in many cities of the world, but this is the only Federal city in the world. This is the only Federal city in the United States. Referring to the words of the Constitution, article I, section 9, it is the seat of the Government of the United States. It is not ``a'' seat of the Government of the United States, it is ``the'' seat of the Government of the United States. So it is a unique city. It is the only city of its kind in this country. It is the only city of its kind in the universe. I compliment these two Senators. It is 20 minutes after 9 o'clock on what will be the last day the Senate will be in session until after next week. These two Senators are here discussing important matters. As I sat here, I thought this bill is one that the Senate should vote on. Senators should be here and should vote on this bill. Next year, all things being equal, it is my intention at the present time to see that we have a vote on this bill, a rollcall vote. I think Senators should indicate that much interest in ``the'' city of the Federal Government of the United States. I happen to agree with the distinguished Senator from Illinois in respect to his comments concerning a tax cut. Senators will not find me supporting very many tax cuts, whether it is for the District of Columbia or elsewhere. I will have plenty to say about that in due time. But every Senator has a right to his own viewpoint. Every Senator is here representing his own State, trying to do the best he can. That is what I am trying to do. But we all have a responsibility toward this city. I referred to the job of the distinguished Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, and the distinguished Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, as being a thankless task. What did I mean by that? That was not spoken in pejorative terms, it was not in derogation of the District of Columbia, but it is a thankless task insofar as getting any credit from the folks back home is concerned. It doesn't get any Senator any votes back home, if that is what one expects. So in that respect, it is a thankless task. But we all, all 100 Senators and every person in the United States, owe our thanks to the Senators who give of their time to fulfill this responsibility. It is a responsibility; it is a duty. Nobody wants this job. I didn't want it, but I held it for 7 years and gave it my best because I thought that the District of Columbia was entitled to the best of my talents, my energy, and whatever limited wisdom I possessed. So we owe that to the District of Columbia. It is our capital. It is our seat of our Federal Government. So I thank both Senators. They spend a lot of time on this matter, I can tell you, and it is not easy. And they are subject to many criticisms from editorials in papers in the District and from editorials, probably, in their own States. They are subject to these criticisms. In return, as I say, they won't get many thanks. But they get my thanks. I hope to call this to the attention of the Senate, as I am now trying to do, as I am saying to the people of the United States who may be watching at this hour: These two Senators are entitled to the thanks and the congratulations of the people of the United States and the people of the District of Columbia. There are people in the District of Columbia who do not look back with great satisfaction on certain recent years. There is a Delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives. She has the privilege of the floor. She is not sitting in the gallery. The rules say that we cannot call attention to people in the galleries. I hope Senators will read that rule and refresh their memory. I trust the Presiding Officers will keep that in mind in the future and call it to the attention of any Senator who refers to people in the gallery; a person, name those persons. But we can refer to an elected Delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives who has the privilege of this floor. I do that now with respect to Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton. She is highly respected, highly regarded, and she gives the best of her talents and services to the people of the District of Columbia who elected her. I salute her. Again, I close by thanking the two fine Senators who have labored here and worked so late. I daresay the Senator from Texas would probably be on her way home, home in Texas. And the Senator from Illinois, I am quite sure, would be on his way home in Illinois. But he had a job to do here. He had a responsibility. I salute him, I thank him, and I yield the floor.