Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Republican leader for his willingness to have a session on tomorrow in order that I and other Senators might make speeches which we have not had an opportunity to give during the previous busy days of this week. But I thought it better, if it could be done, that we complete our speeches today and not cause the Senate to have to be in session on tomorrow. I did want to thank the majority leader for his willingness to have the Senate come in. Mr. President, I thank those who have stayed to listen, and may God bless all the Members of this body and all the staff people who work to help us to serve our constituents. May he continue to bless this great country, and may we as Americans never forget that this country has been a favorite in God's masterful design. God bless America. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Will the distinguished majority leader yield?

Mr. BYRD. I hope you will have a session tomorrow without votes. There are many of us who like to make some speeches from time to time. We don't get the opportunity to do that. I would like to give a speech concerning Independence Day, for example, and there are others.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg. I compliment him on the battle he has been waging, and successfully, might I add. I am sorry he has elected not to return to this body. I wish he would change his mind on that score. Let me just say at this point, I am pleased to join Senator Lautenberg in offering this amendment to the fiscal year 2000 Treasury and general government appropriations bill. The amendment would require that the Office of National Drug Control Policy's Antidrug Youth Media Campaign include ads regarding illegal underage drinking. It is absurd to me that our federally funded media campaign fails to include the No. 1 drug choice amongst children; namely, alcohol. I do not know how that could escape anyone's attention. I cannot understand why that is not included. Large numbers of young people are drinking. According to the 1997 Monitoring the Future Study conducted by the University of Michigan, approximately 34 percent of high school seniors, 22 percent of tenth graders, and 8 percent of eighth graders, report being drunk at least once in a given month. Yes, Mr. President, drunk. I know that is a shocking statistic. It is also one that we should not tolerate. Alcohol is a gateway drug. Young people who consume alcohol are more likely to use other drugs. Statistics compiled by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University show that 37.5 percent of young people who have consumed alcohol have used some illicit drug versus only 5 percent of young people who have never consumed alcohol. Early alcohol use results in alcohol problems in life. A report by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism indicates that when young people begin drinking before the age of 15, they are four times more likely to develop alcohol dependence than when drinking begins at age 21. I noted in I believe it was either Roll Call or the Hill earlier this week there was a story about interns who are visiting the ``watering holes''--visiting the watering holes. We all know what that means. These are not watering holes. These are places where these young interns are going to drink some form of alcohol, and many of them will end up getting drunk. Most tragically, alcohol kills. It is deadly. Deadly! It takes the lives of more children than all other drugs put together. Yet, for some reason, this particularly lethal drug is left out of the media campaign. This administration has been leading a great campaign, a great crusade against tobacco, against smoking, and that is all right. That is well and good. But why doesn't the administration put its stamp on a crusade, on a great campaign against alcohol for youngsters? Why doesn't the administration lead in that crusade? Let me repeat a story I have told many times. Russell Conwell, one of the great chautauqua speakers, told the story ``Acres of Diamonds'' 5,000 times. I have not told this story 5,000 times, but I have told it a number of times. In 1951, when I was a member of the West Virginia Senate, I asked the warden of the State penitentiary in Moundsville to let me be a witness to the scheduled execution of a young man by the name of James Hewlett. Under the laws of West Virginia at that time, a certain number of witnesses were required to be at an execution. The warden acceded to my request. Why did I want to witness an execution? I often have the opportunity to speak to young people. I often speak to these pages who are sitting right now on both sides of the aisle looking at me. I speak with them out in the halls. I try to tell them wholesome stories from Tolstoy or from other great authors. I try to give them good stories. I try to teach them good lessons so they will leave here having heard someone-- and I am sure there are other Senators who do the same thing--talk with them about values. It was for that reason that I wanted to see this execution. I often speak to young people in 4-H groups, Boy Scout groups, Girl Scout groups, and other groups, and I wanted to be able to tell them something that would help them in later life. I went down and talked with the man who was to be executed. He had hired a cab driver to take him from Huntington, WV, over to Logan. On the way, he pulled a revolver and shot the cab driver in the back, robbed him, dumped him by the side of the road, and left him there to die. Later, Jim Hewlett was apprehended in a theater in Montgomery. He was brought to trial, convicted, and sentenced to die in the electric chair. He was asked if he would like a chaplain in his cell. He scoffed at the idea of having a chaplain in his cell. He did not want any part of it. But when the Governor declined to commute his sentence, then the young man became serious about a chaplain. He wanted a chaplain in his cell. On this occasion, the warden permitted me to go down to the cell of the young man, and I talked with him. I told him I had the opportunity to talk with young people on many occasions, and I asked if he had something that he could tell me that would help these young people, some advice that I could pass on to them that might assist them in avoiding trouble in later life. Jim Hewlett said yes. He said: ``Tell them to go to Sunday school and church.'' He said: ``If I had gone to Sunday school and church, I wouldn't be here tonight.'' Our conversation was very short. The hour of 9 was rapidly approaching, and he was to step into the electric chair at 9 o'clock. As I started to go, after thanking him, he said, ``Wait a minute. Tell them one more thing. Tell them not to drink the stuff that I drank.'' Those are his exact words. I have spoken them hundreds of times: ``Tell them not to drink the stuff that I drank.'' I said: ``What do you mean by that?'' The chaplain spoke up and said: ``Senator''--I was a State senator at that time--``Senator, you see that little crack on the wall up there? If he were to have a couple of drinks, he would try to go through that crack in the wall. That is what it does to him. He was drinking when he shot the cab driver.'' I went back to the warden's office. The rest of the story, of course, is obvious. The young man was executed, and I have been passing these words of Jim Hewlett from Fayette County, WV, on to young people during these almost 50 years since: ``Tell them not to drink the stuff that I drank.'' Why do we have to tippy-toe around it? Why does the administration have to tippy-toe around it? Why do the people in the administration who have responsibilities along this line have to tippy-toe around it? Alcohol kills! Not only does it sometimes kill the person who imbibes but it also kills others--wives, children, old people who are trying to go to the grocery store or to a child-care center. These are people who are innocent. They are not doing the drinking. But the person who drank and then got behind the wheel, that person has killed others. Every year at commencement time, when high schools are holding their commencements all over the country, we read stories in the newspapers. They are the same year after year: a group of youngsters, having just graduated, have a big party, and they get drunk and they crash their automobile that is going at a speed of 100 miles per hour into a tree. The automobile wraps itself around the tree and there are the mangled, bleeding, dead bodies in the twisted wreckage. And in the car is also found some alcohol. It is time this country awakens. It is time the churches of this country awaken and tell our young people: Don't do it. When I give a Christmas message, I do not say: Don't drink and drive. I simply say: Don't drink. I am not expecting everybody to feel as I do or to do as I do, but at least we ought to do what we can to educate the young people of this country as to the evils, the dangers, and the sorrows that will come from the use of alcohol--alcohol. There are some young people right now listening to me on the television somewhere who have heard me pass along the advice of the condemned man, Jim Hewlett: ``Tell them not to drink the stuff that I drank.'' I hope those young people will listen. I hope they will take it to heart and not drink alcohol. This amendment is a commonsense amendment--a commonsense amendment-- to address the staggering statistics regarding youth alcohol use. We need to send a strong message to the nation's youth that drinking has serious consequences, and all too often they are deadly consequences. I thank Mr. Lautenberg for his statesmanship, for his courage, and for his common sense. I appreciate very much his allowing me to cosponsor this amendment. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today marks another milestone in the remarkable career of a remarkable man--former Senator James Sasser of Tennessee. Today, after three-and-a-half tumultuous years, Jim Sasser formally relinquishes his post as U.S. Ambassador to the People's Republic of China and prepares to return home. I am told that Henry Kissinger gave a speech in Beijing the other day and called Jim Sasser ``the best Ambassador we have sent to China.'' Having served with Jim for 18 years in the United States Senate, I am not surprised at the accolades he has received for his service as U.S. Ambassador in one of the most difficult and sensitive posts in the world. Jim Sasser is a man of decency, integrity, and honor. Throughout his globe-spanning career, as a lawyer, a United States Senator, and a diplomat, he has never strayed far from his rural west Tennessee roots, where he learned the core values that have guided his actions ever since. In 1989, when I became chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Jim took over the chairmanship of the Senate Budget Committee. Together, we successfully tackled many of the thorny budget and appropriations issues that arose in the early 1990's. I was privileged to work closely with him for many years on the Senate Appropriations Committee, where he served with distinction as Chairman of the Military Construction Subcommittee. It is clear that the hard work, talent, and leadership that he demonstrated throughout his Senate career served Jim well when he took over the post of Ambassador to China in 1996. U.S. relations with that nation have experienced dizzying swings during Jim's tenure, reaching their lowest point when the U.S. embassy in Beijing came under siege during the Kosovo conflict, but Jim has always remained above the fray, earning the respect of U.S. and Chinese officials alike. Few of us who know him can forget the haunting photograph of Jim Sasser standing behind the shattered window of the embassy at the height of the anti- American demonstrations in China just two months ago. Mr. President, four-and-a-half years ago, I stood in this spot to bid Senator Sasser farewell upon his retirement from the Senate. Today, I am pleased to welcome him home to America again. He has served our nation with distinction, and I am confident that he will continue to do so in the coming years wherever the future may lead him.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank both Senators.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise to urge a speedy resolution to the conference the House- and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 1554, the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act. I hope that the conferees will meet soon, and that the Congress can take final action on this matter. This is a much needed measure to enhance the satellite television industry's ability to compete with cable television. Currently, cable has a commanding 85 percent share of the multichannel video programming distribution market. Satellite serves only 12.1 percent of the market. The 1988 Satellite Home Viewer Act enacted in 1988 put in place certain impediments to satellite carriers being truly competitive with cable. This measure alleviates those roadblocks and will promote real competition. This is good news for consumers. Prices should come down, and the diversity of programming offered should increase. The Senate version of H.R. 1554 would remove the 90-day waiting period for receipt of broadcast network signals that consumers currently face when switching from cable to satellite television reception. It would authorize satellite carriers to offer local television station broadcasts to their customers. This provision would go a long way toward leveling the playing field between cable and satellite television. One of the major deterrents to purchasing satellite television has been the inability to watch local broadcast programming. The bill also contains a ``must carry'' provision, meaning that all local stations must be carried by the satellite carriers by January 1, 2002. But, Mr. President, the aspect of this legislation that my constituents are most immediately concerned about is their current access to distant network signals through their satellite television systems. As I drive through the mountains of West Virginia, I am awed by their beauty and majesty. West Virginia truly is an amazing state in which to live, sometimes described as ``all ups and downs.'' Flattened out as you would a crumpled piece of paper, a topographic map of West Virginia would move up the ranks from one of the smaller states in the Union to one of the largest. This awe-inspiring geography presents unique challenges to my constituents. One of those challenges is the ability to receive over-the-air broadcast signals. Many of my constituents, through no fault of their own, are having those signals terminated. While they may live in an area that is supposed to get a signal from the local broadcast station, many times geography and other factors result in a picture that is not acceptable. Under current law, if a household should be able to receive broadcast network signals with an antenna, that household is ineligible to receive distant network signals from their satellite provider. This leaves many West Virginians with little recourse. Their street address or zip code indicates that they should be able to receive local stations with a rooftop antenna, but the steep hillsides that form their backyards make that impossible. In an effort to address this issue, under the Senate-passed version of H.R. 1554, customers who were receiving a distant network signal before July 11, 1998, would receive those signals until December 31, 1999. After that date, the affiliate network signals of customers residing within the Grade A contours, the areas closest to the broadcast station, would be cut off. This bill will allow satellite subscribers outside of the grade A contour, but within the grade B contour, to continue to receive their distant network signals after December 31, 1999, subject to an FCC rulemaking. I believe this is a fair way to deal with subscribers who, through no fault of their own, would otherwise have distant network signals terminated. I am a strong supporter of local broadcasters, and I believe that they perform an important function for local communities. The local news and emergency services broadcasters provide are invaluable and should be protected. While I understand the concerns expressed by local broadcasters, I am not convinced that the grandfathering provision included in the Senate bill will constitute significant harm to their livelihoods. I urge the conferees to complete action so that Congress can quickly enact this legislation to provide relief to the many people throughout West Virginia and the Nation. I apologize to all officers, Senators's aides and Members of the staff for the late hour, but I think that is perhaps better than being in session tomorrow.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I take this time to call the attention of our colleagues and our viewing audience to the forthcoming Independence Day, July 4. What is July 4 all about? The Declaration of Independence in U.S. history was a document that proclaimed the freedom of the Thirteen Colonies from British rule. It was the first formal pronouncement by an organized body of people of the right to govern by choice. On July 2, 1776, the Second Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia, approved Richard Henry Lee's motion for independence, and on July 4--which later came to be celebrated as Independence Day--it approved the declaration. Signing of the declaration took place over the course of several months, beginning August 2. Ultimately, the signatories numbered 56. The Declaration of Independence, written primarily by Thomas Jefferson, and modeled largely on the theories of John Locke, have affirmed the national rights of man and the doctrine of government by contract, which Congress insisted had been repeatedly violated by King George III. Specific grievances were listed in support of the contention that the Colonies had the right and the duty to revoke. The declaration was paid little attention to at the time, but it proved influential in the 19th century, and in the United States has enjoyed an esteem second only to the Federal Constitution. Mr. President, all across the United States and in U.S. embassies around the world, lawns are being mowed and outdoor furniture is being hosed off as Americans prepare to celebrate our biggest open air holiday, Independence Day. The fireworks stands have been doing brisk business selling everything from smoky uncoiling snakes to dazzling sparklers to rockets and fountains that shriek and pop as they dispense multicolored bursts of flame and sparks. The one great constant in our national lexicon, it seems, is the Fourth of July. With some variations in the side dishes, the core menu reliably consists of juicy hamburgers and crisp-skinned hotdogs slathered in ketchup and mustard, served with creamy potato and macaroni salads, potato chips, onions, sweet corn on the cob dripping with butter, and icy, icy, icy, icy watermelon wedges that provide the ammunition for seed spitting contests. How great it is. Whether eating with friends or family at a picnic site, in one's backyard, or tailgate style, the feasts are followed by games to fill the endless wait until the skies darken and become a fitting backdrop for the big show of the day--the fireworks displays. The sight of fireworks, those great blossoming stars of sparks that burst and then fall like rain from the sky, never fails to remind me of the words of the Star Spangled Banner, written by Francis Scott Key after witnessing the artillery bombardment of Fort McHenry during the War of 1812: ``. . . and the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air, gave proof through the night that our flag was still there. . . .'' Francis Scott Key was being held by the British, having sailed out to their fleet, staged off Baltimore, in an attempt to free a local doctor taken hostage earlier. The British officers did finally agree to free the doctor, but decided that Key and his companions had seen too much to be released before the attack began. The beauty and excitement of the fireworks that many of us will see this weekend, therefore, evoke for me the great battles that were fought to make our Nation free and to defend her from harm in those dangerous early years of the republic. It is when I see fireworks that I most fully appreciate the great risks hazarded by our forefathers when they declared independence from the Crown. They risked everything--their lives, their fortunes, their lands, their families, their sacred honor. I recall Nathan Hale, who responded to the call of George Washington, the commander of the armies at Valley Forge. George Washington wanted someone to volunteer to go behind the British lines and draw pictures of the breastworks and bring them back to him, George Washington. It was a dangerous undertaking. It meant risking one's life. And so Nathan Hale, who was a schoolteacher, volunteered. He went behind the British lines. He succeeded in what he had gone there to do, but the night before he planned to return to the American lines he was discovered and the papers were discovered on him, and the next morning he was brought before the scaffold. The British officer, whose name was Cunningham, and who denied Nathan Hale's last wish, his wish for a Bible, said to him: Have you anything to say? Well, there at the foot of the scaffold, Nathan Hale could see the rough-hewn wooden coffin in which his body would soon lie. He said, ``I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.'' Think of that. ``I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.'' That is the kind of patriot who gave this country its independence, and many of us can't even give our country one vote on election day. What a pitiful example we sometimes set as a people on election day when we don't bother to go to the polls. Whether we are Democrats or Republicans or Independents, we should owe that much, that much to our country and to the memory of Nathan Hale. I talk to our young pages here and sometimes I borrow a history book from those who are here when they are attending school. I want to see what kind of history books they are reading in this day and time. When I was talking with these young pages a few days ago, I said, Who was Nathan Hale? Who here knows, who can tell me about Nathan Hale? Well, sorrowfully, many of the history books today don't even mention Nathan Hale's name. Those are not history books. They are social science textbooks. Nathan Hale; and so he said, ``I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.'' Those men and women risked everything, as I say--their lives, their fortunes, their lands, their families, their sacred honor, even the populations in the States they represented--when they boldly inked their names on the Declaration of Independence. In the percussive thuds and whistling screams of today's fireworks I can hear--Can you hear?--the distant thunder of cannons and the crack of flintlocks as the first major land battle of the Revolutionary War was pitched at Point Pleasant, West Virginia. When I see the great fireworks displays put on here in the Nation's capital, I see the shadows of the Capitol dome consumed in flames, as it was in August 1814. If I look out on the wide Potomac dotted with pleasure craft bobbing gently at anchor as still more people enjoy the fireworks, I can easily imagine General George Washington and his ragged Army struggling to cross the Delaware River for their daring Christmas day raid in the bitter cold of December 1776. And when I catch the scent of black powder drifting by as the night sky grows cloudy with the smoke from the explosions, I get the tingling sensation of fear and nerves that must have accompanied every soldier awaiting advancing Redcoats at Lexington and Concord. What courage and what bravery were displayed by the people of this fledgling Nation, when first they undertook to break away from Great Britain. What great good fortune I, and everyone else who is listening, have, to be able to enjoy the fruits of their boldness, their courage, their willingness to give their lives. From coast to coast this weekend, we are able to freely gather, to celebrate, to rejoice, and, yes, to watch fireworks in a peaceful imitation of those perilous days over twenty decades ago. In this great land and its marvelously balanced Constitution, we have inherited a treasure beyond price. It is a treasure that we honor with our service and which we defend with our blood if need be. So, while I enjoy the parades and picnics and fireworks of this happy holiday, I will also be offering my thanks to all those through the years who are responsible for struggling and winning the battles to secure our more perfect union, that we might be free to pursue health, happiness, and the blessings of liberty. My thanks also go to those men and women who today guard our freedom and who offer hope to others who fear the loss of their liberty, their lives, and their families. I thank Nathan Hale who died on September 22, 1776, and who willingly would have died many times for his country. We are a great and prosperous nation. We ought to thank God for his watchfulness over us, for the blessings he has showered upon our great country from its beginning, even before the Republic was instituted. Just this week we have learned anew how prosperous we are, as the administration heralded new long-term estimates that paint a very bright economic picture of rising surpluses and falling debt. I must confess I am pretty wary of economic estimates. That is a science even far less exact than weather forecasting or even, it seems, astrology. It does seem clear that for the near term, at least, we may expect a small on-budget surplus that was not previously anticipated. I urge that we Senators support an effort to designate a substantial portion of these newly found resources to the Department of Veterans Affairs in order to support veterans health care. I have talked to my good friend and colleague, Mr. Stevens, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and we are in agreement. But the fact that we are in agreement does not mean that the matter is settled. We have a tough uphill battle before us. Veterans health care, a promise of lifetime care made to everyone who serves faithfully and well in the defense of our Nation, faces a funding crisis that threatens the quality and continuity of the health care that these men and women have come to depend upon. Veterans service organizations and others knowledgeable about the needs of America's veterans have pointed out that the fiscal year 2000 budget request for veterans health care is far below what is needed to meet demand and to allow the Veterans Administration to respond to new requirements levied by Congress. The budget resolution conference report adopted by the Congress earlier this year made a commitment to provide additional funds for veterans health care, but a budget resolution is a nonbinding document. Platitudes, good intentions, and fireworks do not pay doctor's bills. The funding caps passed by Congress have left the Appropriations Committee hamstrung, unable to provide more funding for this and other worthy causes. But now, if additional surpluses not associated with Social Security become available, I believe that we should try hard to honor our commitment made in the budget resolution, and honor our debt to the veterans who, in the spirit of those patriots of the Revolution, dared much, risked much, and sacrificed much that we might enjoy the blessings of freedom. They treasure our country and honor it with their service and their blood. I feel certain that my colleagues share with me a commitment to our Nation's veterans that is stronger and deeper than any allegiance to an arbitrary budget figure or cap that is based on a very different set of economic assumptions. Mr. President, I have been fortunate to have traveled across the globe. I have seen many other lovely and ancient places, from Rome to Cairo to London to Tokyo to Moscow to that great crossroads of east and west that is Istanbul. I met warm and charming people in all these places and more. But, like Americans who will gather in far flung outposts around the globe next Monday to toast their homeland, and on Sunday to fly that flag in front of our homes, I am always glad to come home. No spot on earth calls to me like the mountains of my home, West Virginia, where the ground rises to meet my feet and the trees spread dappled umbrellas to shade me from the Sun; where glittering rivulets of clear, cold water flash like gems set in a verdant tapestry of ferns; and where birdsongs chime the hours away. In a gentle eternal symphony, raindrops hitting leaves provide the timpani and wind through the tossing branches serves as strings. The woodwind notes of mourning doves gently welcome the Sun each morning and whippoorwills pipe its setting in the evening. It is music for the heart as well as for the ears. Nowhere are the people more dear to me than in West Virginia, where church doors are always ready to welcome the traveler and where in grocery stores there are clerks who still greet me by name and ask about my family. West Virginians are a proud people, proud of their heritage, proud of their home State. Wherever you may find them around the world--and I have found them in Afghanistan, in India, all across the globe--they are always proud to proclaim themselves Mountaineers. I close with a favorite poem of mine by Henry van Dyke, ``America for Me'': 'Tis fine to see the Old World, and travel up and down Among the famous palaces and cities of renown, To admire the crumbly castles and the statues of the kings,-- But now I think I've had enough of antiquated things. So it's home again, and home again, America for me! My heart is turning home again, and there I long to be, In the land of youth and freedom beyond the ocean bars, Where the air is full of sunlight and the flag is full of stars. Oh, London is a man's town, there's power in the air; And Paris is a woman's town, with flowers in her hair; And it's sweet to dream in Venice, and it's great to study in Rome But when it comes to living there is just no place like home. I like the German fir-woods, in green battalions drilled; I like the gardens of Versailles with flashing fountains filled; But, oh, to take your hand, my dear, and ramble for a day In the friendly western woodland where Nature has her way! I know that Europe's wonderful, yet something seems to lack: The Past is too much with her, and the people looking back. But the glory of the Present is to make the Future free,-- We love our land for what she is and what she is to be. Oh, it's home again, and home again, America for me! I want a ship that's westward bound to plough the rolling sea, To the blessed Land of Room Enough beyond the ocean bars, Where the air is full of sunlight and the flag is full of stars. 

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I don't have any objection, but I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader may proceed in this way. A tabling motion has been made, and there is no debate on a tabling motion.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, House Members may not be in the Well.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask for order.

Mr. BYRD. Now, Mr. President, I ask that House Members stay out of the well and stop lobbying Senators. I have had a number of Senators come to me and tell me that House Members are in the well lobbying them. The other Members didn't speak up, but I shall.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding the rules that there be no debate, the Senator be allowed to make a unanimous consent.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, there is no debate following a motion to table.

Mr. BYRD. The Chair should have the advice from the Parliamentarian to call this to the Senate's attention.

Mr. BYRD. I hope the Sergeant at Arms will see to it that House Members, who are our guests, will get out of the well. There are places in the back of the Chamber for them.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, my views on foreign assistance are well known. I don't like it. I understand there are circumstances in which the United States needs to extend a helping hand to other nations facing political and economic strains that we thankfully do not have to endure. I simply think that the United States spends too much of its citizens' hard-earned tax dollars overseas, and that is why I traditionally vote against the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. My reluctance to send U.S. tax dollars overseas leads me to scrutinize closely those programs that we do fund. One of the largest recipients of U.S. foreign assistance is the Middle East, and in particular Israel, and to a lesser extent, Egypt. These nations are our strongest allies in a troubled region, and I firmly believe that maintaining a strong relationship with them is in the best strategic interests of the United States. We cannot forget that it was Egypt and Israel that negotiated the Camp David Accords, an historic breakthrough in the efforts to bring peace to the Middle East. As part of the Camp David Accords, a concept was reached regarding the ratio of United States foreign assistance between Egypt and Israel. This formula has been followed since the signing of the Accords. I have believed for many years that the United States is spending too much on foreign assistance to Egypt and Israel. I have tried in the past, to no avail, to reduce the level of assistance being sent to Israel. I am pleased that the United States has finally embarked on a program of reducing economic assistance to both nations, with the agreement of those nations. However, maintaining proportionality between Egypt and Israel as the level of foreign assistance is reduced is vitally important, and never more so than now, when the recent elections in Israel offer fresh hope of restarting the peace process. Unfortunately, the mechanism by which United States foreign assistance is currently being provided to Egypt and Israel has resulted in an imbalance to that program in that Israel has the unique advantage of having immediate access to an interest bearing account while Egypt has not been accorded the same treatment. This, I believe, is a procedure which can be interpreted as a departure from the standard of fairness that is central to United States assistance under the Camp David Accords. Mr. President, this is an injustice that should be corrected. Speaking frankly, it is my opinion that neither Israel nor Egypt should be earning interest on United States foreign assistance. But, under the principles of parity that underlie the Camp David Accords, both nations should receive the same treatment. Egypt and Israel are pivotal allies in the Middle East, and the United States should accord them equal treatment in disbursing its foreign assistance. Amendment No. 1185 (Purpose: Regarding availability of United States assistance for the Palestian Authority) Strike section 577, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today we honor 20 years of service to the Senate by its Chief Reporter, Ron Kavulick. For 16 years, beginning in 1979, Ron worked on the Senate floor as a reporter of debates, where he distinguished himself as a friend to everyone and as one who labored mightily to accurately report Senators' statements for publication in the Congressional Record. He was a stickler for detail and bent over backwards to make sure every aspect of his work was correct, as he strove to preserve Senate history to its fullest. As a result of his tenacity and dedication, Ron was promoted to Chief Reporter in 1995. In that position, Ron was invaluable to the Senate in his dedication to the accuracy of the Congessional Record. He gave of himself unselfishly to be a fair and considerate supervisor. Ron now retires to be with his wife, Pat, and their two married children, Jeff and Susan, and granddaughter Allison. The Senate today says thank you to Ron and his family for his exemplary service to the Senate and its family. He truly is our friend.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I support the Patients' Bill of Rights. Let me thank my friend from Illinois, who is one of the newer Members of this body. He has had much experience in the other body. He comes to this body with a tremendously versatile mind. He can speak almost at the drop of a hat. He is very conversant on every subject. He fights today for a cause which is important. I congratulate him. He has been speaking on the floor for several days on this subject. He speaks with great eloquence. I congratulate him and look forward to hearing him on other occasions. I hope in this situation he and we will be successful at some point. I support the Patients' Bill of Rights. This is important legislation that, if enacted, will provide important protections to the many millions of Americans who receive their health care from managed care companies. It is therefore critically important that the Senate conduct a full debate on this issue. I am saddened that supporters of this legislation have been put in the position of offering this measure to an appropriations bill, thereby temporarily stalling progress on funding programs that are a priority for yet other Americans. While I consider a vote on the Patients' Bill of Rights imperative in this Congress, I am also very concerned that putting important issues at loggerheads with one another may ultimately interfere with the smooth operation of the government. We should all strive to avoid a repeat of the train wreck that resulted in last year's Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations bill. Putting the Senate in the position of having to choose between competing critical needs is a dangerous game that we should not play. It is bad public policy. There is still enough room on the calendar for both a thorough debate on the Patients' Bill of Rights and for timely progress on the important work of passing the Fiscal Year 2000 appropriations bills. I urge the leadership to move forward in a fair manner--to allow this bill to be fully considered and debated, and to let amendments to the Patients' Bill of Rights be called up and debated and voted on--voted up or down or amended again. Action on the Patients' Bill of Rights has been delayed for too long. As the Congress stalls, problems with managed care companies increase. According to a Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard University survey, the number of people reporting having problems with their health plan, or who know someone who has had a problem with their health plan, rose from 96 million in 1996 to 115 million in 1998. With 85 percent of all insured employees in managed care plans, this issue is too far-reaching to be delayed. While managed care has been successful in stemming health care inflation in recent years, it has too often compromised patients' health care needs. Unfortunately and tragically, some health insurers have put saving money ahead of patients' well-being. Instead of patient care, we are getting ``investor care,'' with health plans keeping a constant eye on shareholder profits. Our Patients' Bill of Rights would provide important and necessary protections for families to ensure they get the care they need. Too often, managed care plans erect barriers that interfere with patients getting the medical services they need when confronted with an emergency. Under this measure, patients do not have to fear that their emergency room care will not be covered if they have reason to believe they need emergency care. They will not have to call for permission first and waste precious time hoping for clearance. Someone who experiences chest pain and believes he or she is having a heart attack should not have to check to see whether the health plan will cover the emergency room care. The ``prudent layperson'' standard gives patients the ability to seek emergency room care with the assurance that it will be covered. Comprehensive managed care reform legislation should also provide women in managed care plans important protections. Oftentimes, women use their ob/gyn as their primary care provider. Having managed care plans recognize this fact will eliminate time-consuming and costly administrative barriers women face in getting the care they need. A woman and her doctor should be able to make the decision, for example, as to how long she needs to stay in the hospital after a mastectomy, not some health plan bureaucrat. In recent years, health plan coverage of patients' participation in clinical trials has declined. This is a troubling trend. Under S. 6, of which I am a cosponsor, health plans would be required to cover the routine costs associated with a patient's participation in certain clinical trials. This is an important provision because in some cases clinical trials may be the only option for patients who have not responded to conventional treatments. The Patients' Bill of Rights also has special protections for children's access to care. The bill provides guaranteed access to pediatric specialists. When a child has a chronic condition our bill allows standing referrals to pediatric specialists which eliminates the extra step of seeking the consent of the primary care provider. Under our bill, if a pediatric specialist is not included in the health plan's network, your child would have the right to see a specialist outside the network without having to pay more. Patients undergoing treatment need to know that, if their doctor is dropped by the health plan or if their employer changes their health plan, they can still see their doctor. S. 6 offers continuity of coverage by requiring a 90-day transition period during which treatment is continued. For example, a terminally ill patient should not have to go through the disruption of changing doctors as that patient faces death. I have long been concerned about West Virginians' access to health care and, over the years, I have been successful in bringing facilities and technologies to the State to expand my constituents' access to quality care. Marshall University's Rural Health Center; the VA hospitals and clinics; and Mountaineer Doctor Television (MDTV), West Virginia's Statewide telemedicine program, are projects that have broadened West Virginians' ability to receive quality care in West Virginia. As managed care continues to grow in the State, it is important that common-sense protections are in place so that patients can get the care they need. The Republicans have introduced their own managed care reform legislation in response to the Democrat's Patients' Bill of Rights. But, the Republican plan would leave over 100 million Americans without protection. By applying reforms only to self-funded employer plans, the Republican bill leaves those most in need of protection--people who buy their insurance without the assistance of their employer and those who work for small businesses--out in the cold. Scope of coverage is not the only weakness of the Republican plan. Even the protections provided to a limited number of Americans under their plan do not go far enough. While differences exist in the shape and scope of the reform proposals, one thing is clear. There is a crying need in the lives of real Americans for action to address these health care problems. We need a thorough debate, an open debate about this issue, a debate which is not constrained by limits on amendments or by a desire to hold such a critical matter hostage to partisan politics, and we need it now. We also need to move forward on appropriations bills which fund important programs all across the spectrum of American life. I can only hope that reason will prevail in this body, and that we will allow all of these important matters to proceed in a timely and sincere manner as soon as possible. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania. I am one of the original cosponsors of the quota bill. I urge my colleagues to support cloture. I compliment my very able colleague, Jay Rockefeller, for his diligent work on this matter. I also compliment Mr. Santorum, our colleague from Pennsylvania, for his equally good work. The quota bill is a critical measure in addressing the steel import crisis that is confronting U.S. steel mills, and I am mystified by statements suggesting that the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Bill is a competing interest against the quota bill. I am here to set the record straight. As a result of global financial chaos, in 1998, a record level of 40 million tons of cheap and illegally dumped imported steel flooded the U.S. market. That represents an 83 percent increase over the 23 million tons average for the previous eight years! The result has been the loss of 10,000 steel jobs, and the bankruptcy of several U.S. steel mills. While both bills are before the Senate because of the steel import crisis--one has been passed and the conferees thereon were appointed yesterday--the quota bill and the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Bill serve vastly different purposes, and both deserve support from every member in the Senate. The quota bill is a long-term solution to the steel import crisis. The quota bill would cap steel imports at a level that equals the average amount of steel that came into U.S. markets in 1995, 1996, and the first half of 1997. The measure would take effect immediately and prohibit any country from sending more steel to the United States than it did in July of 1997. The quotas would terminate in three years. The President could achieve these import limits by imposing quotas, tariff surcharges, negotiated enforceable voluntary export restraint agreements, or other means. The Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program which passed the Senate last week is a helping hand to U.S. steel mills that have been injured by the cheap and illegal imports. It is a short-term assistance program to aid U.S. steel mills during their hour of need. It does not address the underlying critical problem of both cheap and illegally dumped imported steel that continues to adversely impact U.S. steel mills. While essential to aiding thousands of hardworking Americans, the steel loan guarantee program is no substitute, nor was it intended to be, for the long-term solution that is offered by the quota bill. The House of Representatives passed the quota bill by a vote of 289 yeas to 141 nays. Now it is the Senate's turn to send a vigorous message to our trading partners that this nation will not idly sit by while another American industry is shipped abroad. Last week, I strongly urged my colleagues to support the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program. It is a fair and important measure for the U.S. steel industry and thousands of hardworking Americans. Let there be no mistake: members can not hide behind one vote and claim to have solved the crisis in our domestic steel industry. The Senate must act to help the U.S. steel industry on a long-term basis as well. This Senate acted wisely in passing the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program. It provides a cash flow for financially damaged steel companies and it will enable them to invest in further modernization. It will save jobs that are at risk from illegal imports. Likewise, this Senate should ensure that the need for the loan guarantee program is minimized by casting a vote that will stop the illegal dumping of foreign steel. The quota bill will stop the cheating and finally provide U.S. steel mills with an international playing field that is fair. I thank the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum, for his courtesy and kindness. I thank my colleague from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller, for his leadership in this matter. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this bill on which we are about to vote is a buy-American bill. A vote for this bill is a buy-American vote, a vote of confidence in American steel, American workers, and American families. But a vote against the bill sends a very different message. It says buy Russian, buy Japanese, buy South Korean, buy from our foreign competitors and send our steel industry and our steel jobs overseas. I urge my colleagues to vote American. Now, if I have any time remaining in the 2\1/2\ minutes, I wish to compliment Mr. Nickles, Mr. Gramm, and others who were the opponents of the bill. They were honorable opponents, and I think they made good contributions, especially in our discussions yesterday. Their proposals improve the bill. I was happy to support their proposals and to join as a cosponsor of the amendment. I especially wish to thank Senator Stevens and Senator Domenici. Senator Stevens has kept his word. He is a man of his word. Senator Domenici has done a great job in proposing a similar program for the oil and gas industry. I hope that he will be able to speak likewise at some point. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent also that other Senators may include statements in the Record if they so wish.