Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have long been concerned about our nation's education system and the many problems that individual classes across the country grapple with every day. When I reflect on my days in a two-room schoolhouse, I have fond memories of my teachers and classmates, and, most importantly, my learning experience. The students were disciplined, my teachers were serious about their work, classes were small and well-kept, and students thrived on learning for learning's own sake. We did not have the kinds of problems so common in schools today. I do, however, recognize that with each passing year, educating our nation's children becomes an even more formidable challenge. I am pleased that we were able to address a few of the many concerns facing parents, students, and educators as part of the Senate's debate on this bill, S. 280, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999. With classrooms bursting at their seams with students, there is a definite need for smaller class size. Students do better when they have the individual attention of a teacher. Moreover, I believe that this kind of environment provides teachers and students with a setting truly conducive to quality instruction. We, as a nation, need to do more in this regard. But, Mr. President, there are also other pressing education priorities for states, including funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which remains underfunded to date. Disabled children deserve the same opportunity to receive a good education as those without a disability. I am hopeful that we in Congress will continue to build toward the forty-percent funding commitment that was established as part of the IDEA legislation. I believe, however, that reducing class size and providing for the needs of disabled children are both worthy goals that are not mutually exclusive, and I am troubled that efforts to provide sufficient resources to achieve one of those goals may have the effect of undercutting the other. The notion of pitting these two worthy goals against one another to score partisan political points is embarrassing. Certainly, both can, and should, be accomplished. While many important education programs and new initiatives have been discussed during the Senate's debate of S. 280, I believe that the underlying legislation offers some benefits in the form of flexibility. I do have concerns that there is little substantive performance data on the impact of Ed-Flex in the states now operating with it. I would have preferred to see some positive results on student achievement levels prior to making this type of expansion. But I am hopeful that the education accountability built into this legislation will hold states to a higher standard and serve as an incentive to all states seeking Ed-Flex status. I am also somewhat comforted by the fact that the bill contains a sunset provision, which will force the Congress to revisit this issue, and, I hope, live up to its oversight responsibilities. Mr. President, it disturbs me greatly to witness the political divide in this body on such an important issue which affects us all, whether it be our own child's education, that of a grandchild, or a neighbor's child. We are all for education--it is the country's number one priority, and with many problems to solve, it is time for us to work together to make every child's educational experience a rewarding one.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as we approach the vote to invoke cloture on S. 280, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1998, I wish to express my dismay with the procedural battle evoked by this legislation. We have now spent close to three full days on this bill, but the Senate has expended most of its time and energy on procedural tactics intended to preclude one party or the other from debating those topics of utmost importance to them. I find this greatly disturbing. Education is a serious topic which deserves the substantive attention of this body. It merits an in-depth examination from a multitude of levels and angles so that our nation's children can someday reap the full benefit of a well-rounded learning experience. With so many priority items to discuss and debate in this Congress, there is, of course, great difficulty with accommodating and balancing the wishes of 100 Senators, but I hope that we could come to an understanding by which Republicans and Democrats alike could use this opportunity to further discuss and debate education policy. People all across the United States from California to Maine tell us that education is their top priority. Obviously there are concerns. Can we not set aside our differences and use this opportunity to help address the many problems facing our nation's education system? As part of this debate on the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1998, I would like to take some time to discuss the issue of education accountability, a topic which has received much attention from my colleagues during these past few days. I am pleased to note that greater accountability has been built into this legislation to ensure that states granted this so-called Ed-Flex status are held to higher standards of accountability in exchange for increased flexibility at the state level. I am, however, reluctant to support the notion of expanding this Ed-Flex designation nationwide, given the limited performance results from the twelve demonstration states and the lack of accountability data on which a state or school currently reports. Perhaps, before embarking on this mission of handing over greater authority to states to waive federal education requirements, we should consider the somewhat startling fact that more than sixty percent of parents have never seen an individual report card on the performance of their area school. I find it ironic that, in an age where a wealth of information abounds about any imaginable field, precious little information exists about the performance of our nation's schools. Mr. President, I bring to the attention of the Senate a recent publication by Education Week and A-Plus Communications, entitled ``Reporting Results,'' that discusses this new buzzword of 1999. While I find encouraging the fact, as reported in Education Week, that thirty-six states are expected to issue school accountability data or ``report cards'' this year, that practice, it seems to me, should be undertaken by all fifty states. Furthermore, of the thirty-six states that will have report cards in 1999, only thirteen states ensure that the report cards actually get sent home to parents and few include all the information that parents report that they actually want to see most. Moreover, the information on these report cards rarely finds its way to the community at large, which has an interest in the education of its young people. I am baffled by this phenomenon! Why go through the process of creating such a document for it to end up as yet another soiled piece of paper in the garbage can? And without this kind of documentation from schools, should we really be proceeding with the expansion of Ed-Flex authority to waive certain federal education requirements without significant knowledge of how our nation's schools are performing in the first place? Of all the decisions in life that a parent has to make, the decision about where to send a child to school is one of the most difficult and important. I find it unbelievable to think that parents often, for the lack of better information, rely upon word-of-mouth to make such important decisions. Where are the numbers on student achievement, test scores, teacher certification, and graduation rates? Parents need to have this information before them as a key resource for making an informed decision. I feel for parents who, despite their best efforts to learn about the quality of their local schools, cross their fingers as they send their children off each day in the hope that their children will be spending those hours in an enriching and safe environment. I find it terribly disconcerting that the quality of our schools in different corners of the same community can differ so dramatically as to force families to move from neighborhood to neighborhood on the trail of the best schools. I find it sad that so many families have felt compelled to give up on public schools in favor of private schools or home schooling. Mr. President, I believe that greater education accountability is the key to unlocking this trend burdening so many families today. With more information, and I am talking about the real stuff--test scores, teacher qualifications, graduation rates, tracking of students from grade school into college and after--parents will have substantive data at their fingertips to truly determine what is in the best interest of their child and their family as a whole. Perhaps, at the same time, this could provide a better framework for gauging how Ed-Flex is impacting student achievement levels and enhancing teacher preparation. Competition is at the heart of creating better schools for the nation. During this debate, my colleagues will raise the important issues of school construction, class-size reduction, and others of great concern to the American people, but I believe that fostering a competitive environment among schools is perhaps one of the more simple and effective ways of improving our nation's schools for the 21st century. By forcing schools to annually report on performance data, such as test scores and other quantitative measures, teacher qualifications, and safety indicators, parents will have a framework for weighing one school against another, and communities will have data they need to force improvements in their school systems. As Education Week pointed out in its report, so many of the report cards that actually make their way into a parents' hands are difficult to read, with extraneous information of little benefit to educators and parents. Mr. President, there needs to be uniformity in gathering key data that parents are seeking and a model that all parents can follow. Holding schools accountable for the students they are producing and the teachers they have chosen, while making this information readily available to parents, will turn up the heat on schools, and apply much long-needed pressure to those at the helm to up the ante on teacher qualifications and curriculum requirements. But test scores and other achievement data will mean little to parents if we continue upon this so-called trend of ``teaching to the test.'' What good will come of teaching students skills simply to ace a standardized test? Mr. President, if we hope to produce well-rounded students prepared for the challenges ahead in today's workforce, a standardized test should not drive the curriculum. Life is not multiple choice. Life is an essay, to be written well or poorly by educated students. Education accountability is a serious issue which has been left behind for many years at the expense of our nation's parents and educators. It is time to examine the necessity for reporting data both as part of this Ed-Flex legislation and at the local level in the form of school report cards. I look forward to working with the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee in ensuring that our nation begins to navigate this challenging territory. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, there is no question that America's armed forces are the best in the world. The men and women who serve in our military demonstrate their courage and dedication every day, from the fighter pilots who are making life-threatening raids into Iraq to contain the deadly forces of Saddam Hussein, to the soldiers who are maintaining peace in the war-weary towns of Bosnia, to the countless sailors, soldiers, and airmen on lonely patrol throughout the world, enduring hardship and homesickness to protect their fellow Americans. It is vital to our national security that we maintain the level of excellence that these troops represent. Of the many factors that contribute to the robustness of our military, none is more basic than the ability to recruit and retain qualified, talented individuals. Without enough people to operate them, our mightiest weapons are worthless. Without enough people to execute them, our best planned strategies are useless. Without enough people in uniform to defend it, our nation is at risk. We ask much of the men and women who serve in our military, and of their families as well. Yet, as we have learned from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pay and benefit levels for members of the armed services have been slipping behind those of their civilian counterparts. Today, we are facing a personnel shortfall of alarming proportions. The need for the legislation before us is acute. According to recent published reports, the Army fell 2,300 short of its recruiting goal-- approximately a 20 percent deficit--in the first quarter of fiscal year 1999. The Navy missed its recruitment target by almost 7,000 last year. The Air Force, which has suffered a hemorrhage of pilots over the past several years, fell 400 short of its first quarter goal. Many factors are contributing to the current recruitment and retention problems of the services, but military leaders across the services and up and down the chain of command have identified pay and benefits as major culprits. We need to come to grips with this problem. In my state of West Virginia, approximately 9,000 men and women serve around the world in the active and reserve armed forces. They are subject to being called away at a moment's notice to some of the most dangerous trouble spots on earth. The least we can do for them in return is to make sure that their families will be able to make ends meet while they are deployed away from home. The least we can do is strive to ensure that the monthly paychecks we issue to our men and women in uniform are comparable to that of their civilian counterparts. Improving the pay and benefits of the men and women who serve in our military is an obvious first step to help reverse the downward spiral in recruitment and retention, and I applaud the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, for moving quickly to address this situation. Likewise, I applaud Senator Levin, the Ranking Member of the Committee, for insisting that the benchmarks of prudence and careful consideration be met in the bill before us. This legislation is not the place for grandstanding or political one-upmanship. I am hopeful that as we debate this bill over the coming days, we will work for the common good of our military and our nation, and come up with a balanced, commonsense bill. I hope, also, that we will be mindful, as we consider this bill, that monetary compensation is only one factor affecting recruiting and retention levels in the military. Plainly put, we cannot buy the finest military in the world. To rise to the level of excellence that the United States military has achieved requires an uncommon degree of dedication, self-sacrifice, and patriotism--qualities that can be inspired and nurtured but not bought. By all means, let us work together to improve the compensation of our men and women in uniform. But let us also work together to preserve and enhance the intangible compensations of military service--the honor, respect, and sense of accomplishment--that form the true foundation of military service.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. What is the length of time Senators are permitted to speak?

Mr. BYRD. Very well. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, is the Senate now in morning business?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Will the distinguished Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for his comments. They are timely and they are very persuasive to me. I join with him in expressing hope that we will apply these surpluses to reducing the national debt--after, of course, shoring up Social Security. And we have to think of Medicare, also. I have been in politics now 53 years. The easiest vote that I ever cast was a vote to cut taxes. It didn't require any courage on my part. And likewise, one of the most difficult votes is a vote to increase taxes. We have to do that from time to time. Now, if Congress passes legislation to provide for tax cuts --and there may be some areas of tax cuts that I can very well support--but generally speaking, if we do, of course, the legislation that Congress enacts to do that would be permanent legislation, will it not, until changed? So if after a while--not 10 years hence, as the distinguished Senator has shown on his graph, but 5 years hence, or 4 years hence, 3 years hence--we hit upon hard times, then what? Would the reduced taxes continue, unless Congress legislated to increase them again? Would they, may I ask the Senator?

Mr. BYRD. Then it would be incumbent upon us to make difficult decisions and act to increase the revenue again. Well, I join with the Senator. I think he performs a great service in calling to our attention and to the attention of the American people the options we face. I hope that Congress will think long and carefully about what we do. We are in a happy situation, but who knows how long the situation will remain happy. I see Alan Greenspan down in that engine room, and he is entitled to a good many compliments from all of us for the good work that he has done, the vision that he has displayed. But I join with the Senator and I hope he will help to lead us as we move forward in the coming days and use his good economics. I think I had about one semester of economics when I was in high school, and that is about it. But the Senator from North Dakota has had excellent training, a fine education in that field. I am going to continue to listen to him and look to him for leadership as we go forward. I thank him very much.

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

Mr. BYRD. I don't want to prolong this, but would he respond to this question: How do our massive trade deficits play into this whole equation?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the able Senator for responding to my questions.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today I speak in memory of Raymond Scott Bates, one of the dear members of our own Senate family who recently departed this life. Let Fate do her worst, there are relics of joy, Bright dreams of the past, which she cannot destroy; Which come, in the night-time of sorrow and care, And bring back the features that joy used to wear. Long, long be my heart with such memories filled, Like the vase in which roses have once been distilled, You may break, you may shatter the vase, if you will, But the scent of the roses will hang round it still. These words, written by Thomas Moore, are so fitting this afternoon, as I, in my limited and feeble way, attempt to pay honor and tribute to the life of Scott Bates, a man whom we all admired and respected, and who was taken from our midst, virtually in the twinkle of an eye, and without warning. It was on the evening of February 5 that the pallid messenger beckoned Scott to depart this life. We can believe that he awakened to see a more glorious sunrise with unimaginable splendor above a celestial horizon, and that he yet remembers us as we remember him, for we have the consolation that has come down to us from the lips of that ancient man of Uz, whose name was Job, ``Oh that my words were written in a book and engraved with an iron pen, and lead in the rock forever, for I know that my Redeemer liveth and that in the latter day He shall stand upon the earth.'' When Erma and I lost our dear grandson, Michael, now almost 17 years ago, I felt that Michael was resting and at peace in the arms of God, and deep within my soul I was aware that Michael knew of my grief. He, too, was taken from us suddenly and without warning, and he left us without a wave of a hand or without saying goodbye, and so Erma and I know what this family is going through. We, too, have walked through the valley of the shadow of death. And Erma and I join in saying to Scott's family today, Scott knows of your grief. I have known Scott Bates since the very first day that he became a member of the Senate family. I watched him grow. I watched him as he increased in knowledge and in his love for the Senate. Often, when I was the Democratic Leader in the Senate, and many times since, I had the occasion to call upon Scott for help. He was always ready, always courteous, always accommodating. From time to time, we talked about the Senate and how it was different from what it used to be. He was a Senate employee whose time in the Senate extended beyond the tenure of many of the Members of this body, and, like many of the men and women who have toiled here in the Senate over the years, Scott appreciated the Senate, loved it, and understood it, better even than many of its own Members loved and understood it. His contributions to the Senate have been many and notable. Although public service in general and careers in Washington have, in some quarters, fallen out of favor, I believe that Scott Bates' life and work experience present a compelling case against the current cynicism about the many fine people who serve in the Senate in various capacities. Their names are never in the newspapers, they experience few public kudos, and yet they work as long hours, probably longer, than we do. They are dedicated, they are capable, they are patriotic individuals who represent the best that America has to offer from all over this Nation. Scott was one of those rare individuals about whom no unkind and ungenerous word was ever, ever spoken by anyone who knew him. He personified what we politicians like to refer to as ``family values.'' He lived them. He was active in his church, and he loved his wife, Ricki, and their three lovely children--Lisa, Lori, and Paul. As all of us know, one of Scott's official duties as legislative clerk was to call the roll of the Senate during votes and during quorum calls. Thousands of times--thousands of times, I have heard him call my name: ``Mr. Byrd''. Now the thread of life is cut; the immortal is separated from the mortal; and that rich voice which was wont to fill the walls of the Senate Chamber, is hushed in eternal silence. But while the portals of the tomb have closed upon the remains of a gifted member of the Senate family, the grave is powerless to hold in its bosom the spirit of man. In the words of William Jennings Bryan, ``if the Father stoops to give to the rose bush, whose withered blossoms float upon the autumn breeze, the sweet assurance of another springtime, will he refuse the words of hope to the sons of men when the frosts of winter come? If matter, mute and inanimate, though changed into a multitude of forms can never be destroyed, will the imperial spirit of man suffer annihilation when it has paid a brief visit like a royal guest to this tenement of clay? No, I am sure that He who, notwithstanding His apparent prodigality, created nothing without a purpose, and wasted not a single atom in all His creation, has made provision for a future life in which man's universal longing for immortality will find its realization. I am sure that we shall live again,'' as sure as I am that we live today, and I am also sure that someday I shall hear the voice of a new angel, calling my name again, this time on the heavenly rolls: ``Mr. Byrd.'' To Lisa, to Lori and to Paul, I think your father would have wanted me to say, live as he taught you to live and strive always to make him proud, because he knows. On Saturday afternoon, we gathered in a church in Vienna. It was a large church, a Presbyterian Church. Our Senate Chaplain was there. He had arranged the program, and he did a marvelous job. The Vice President came, the President of the Senate, the head of our Senate family. Senator Byron Dorgan was there. Senator Chuck Robb was there. Senator Gregg was there. Former Senator Robert Dole was there. And there was a host of friends. The church was filled. The balcony was filled. It was a great outpouring of generous tribute and love for Scott Bates. Although I had known Scott for 30 years, I had never known him as I came to know him last Saturday afternoon when I heard Lisa and Lori and Paul speak of their father. Then and only then did I realize what a truly great family this was. Only then did I realize what a father's love could be for his two daughters and his son. And only then did I realize what a deep and abiding and living love Scott's children had for him. His wife Ricki was there. She had been brought in, and she lay there on a cot, she having not yet recovered from the injuries she sustained when the accident occurred. It was evident that this was a family in which there was real love and in which the presence of God made itself manifest, because this was not something that just came about overnight. I will never forget the sight of those children speaking about their father and their mother and then seeing them, after they had spoken to the audience, go to their mother and kiss her on the cheek. Scott must have been pleased with it all. I count it as a great honor to have been invited by Scott's family to speak during that hour. To Lisa and Lori and Paul, I think your father would want me to say to you, live as he taught you to live and strive always to make him proud. He knows. To his legion of friends, I say that Scott's life was a blessing, a blessing to each of us who knew him. May we strive to be like him that we may be more worthy for, indeed, here was a man. When comes such another? To his wife Ricki, Erma and I say, the love of your children and your friends and the mercies of an omnipotent God can, over the passage of time, be an anodyne to your grief. Be assured, Ricki, love is timeless, love is endless and Scott will be with you always. And sometimes in the quietness of an evening or in the clear silence, as you gaze upon the lustre of the Morning Star, you may hear someone whisper: If I should ever leave you whom I love To go along the silent way, grieve not Nor speak of me with tears, But laugh and talk of me As if I were beside you, for who knows But that I shall be, oftentime? I'd come, I'd come, could I but find a way, But would not tears and grief be barriers? And when you hear a song I used to sing Or see a bird I love, Let not the thought of me be sad, For I am loving you, just as I always have. You were so good to me, So many things I wanted still to do, So many, many things to say to you. Remember that I did not fear, It was just leaving you, I could not bear to face; We cannot see Beyond . . . But this I know: I loved you so. `Twas Heaven here with you. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. Chief Justice: I think my country sinks beneath the yoke, It weeps, it bleeds, And each new day, a gash is added to her wounds. I am the only remaining Member of Congress who was here in 1954 when we added the words ``under God'' to the Pledge of Allegiance. That was on June 7, 1954. One year from that day we added the words ``In God We Trust'' to the currency and coin of this country. Those words were already on some of the coins. But I shall always be proud to have voted to add those words, ``under God'' and ``In God We Trust.'' They mean much to us today as we meet here. This is my 47th year in Congress. I never dreamed that this day would ever come. And, until 6 months ago I couldn't place myself in this position. I couldn't imagine that, really, an American President was about to be impeached. A few years ago, when my youngest grandson, who now is a Ph.D. in physics, was just a little tot, he came up to my den and looked around and said, ``Papa, who made this mess?'' Now, Senators who made this mess? The mess was created at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. The House of Representatives didn't make it. The U.S. Senate didn't make it. But, nevertheless, we sit here today in judgment of a President. Mr. Chief Justice, I thank you for presiding over this gathering with such grace and dignity. But the Chief Justice is not here because he wanted to be. He is not here because we asked him to come. He is here because the Constitution commanded that he be here. Senators are not here because you wanted to be here today. We are here because the Constitution said that the Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. Soon we will vote and, hopefully, end this nightmarish time for the nation. Like so many Americans, I have been deeply torn on the matter of impeachment. I have been angry at the President, sickened that his behavior has hurt us all and led to this spectacle. I am sad for all of the actors in this national tragedy. His family and even the loyal people around him whom he betrayed--all have been hurt. All of the institutions of government--the presidency, the House of Representatives, the Senate, the system of justice and law, yes, even the media--all have been damaged by this unhappy and sorry chapter in our nation's history. The events of this last year have engendered so much disillusionment, distrust, bitter division and discord among the people of the United States. There can be, I fear, no happy ending, no final act that leads to a curtain call in which all the actors link hands and bow together amid great applause from the audience. No matter what happens here, many, many people will be left tasting only the bitter dregs of discontent. I was proud of this Senate when, early last month, we gathered in the Old Senate Chamber to choose a path on which to proceed. We agreed on a Constitutional road map to follow during the early days of this trial. We followed that road map to the letter, considering a motion to dismiss the proceedings as well as one to provide for the deposition of witnesses. When there was a question or conflict, we decided the answer together. I commend Senator Daschle and Senator Lott for their untiring efforts to maintain bipartisanship. Hamilton observed that impeachable offenses ``are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust . . . to injuries done immediately to the society itself.'' Hamilton also observed that the impeachment court could not be ``tied down'' by strict rules, ``either in the delineation of the offense by the prosecutors (the House of Representatives) or in the construction of it by the judges (the Senate).'' Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story said: ``The jurisdiction is to be exercised over offenses, which are committed by public men in violation of their public trust and duties . . . injuries to the society in its political character,'' . . . ``such kind of misdeeds . . . as peculiarly injure the commonwealth by the abuse of high offices of trust.'' Story observed that ``no previous statute is necessary to authorize an impeachment for any official misconduct,'' . . . because ``political offenses are so various and complex . . . so utterly incapable of being defined, or classified, that the task of positive legislation would be impracticable, if it were not almost absurd to attempt it.'' There are those--without my repeating the sordid details of what we have all heard over and over and over again--there are those who say that the President lied to protect his family. We all understand that. I have a feeling for that. But I can never forget his standing before the television cameras and saying to the American people, what he said: ``Now I want you to listen to me. . .'' Don't you Senators think that that was a bit overdone if the purpose was to protect his family? ``O, what a tangled web we weave when once we practice to deceive.'' Impeachment is a sword of Damocles that hangs over the heads of presidents, vice presidents, and all civil officers, always ready to drop should it become necessary. But, the impeachment of a President is uniquely and especially grave. We must recognize the gravity and awesomeness of it, and act in accordance with the oath we took to do ``impartial justice''. We are the wielders of this weapon, responsible for using it sparingly and with prudence and wisdom. This is only the second time that this nation has ever impeached a President. President Nixon resigned when it was made clear to him that, if impeached and tried, he would be convicted and removed from office. In that instance, both the country and the Congress were of the same mind that the President's offenses merited his removal. It was not a partisan political impeachment; it was a bipartisan act. But where political partisanship becomes such an overwhelming factor as to put the country and the Congress at odds, as it has with this impeachment, something draws us back. We must be careful of the precedent we set. One political party, alone, should not be enough to bring Goliath's great sword out of the Temple. Regrettably, this process has become so partisan on both sides of the aisle and particularly in the House and was so tainted from the outset, that the American people have rebelled against it. The President lied to the American people, and, while a great majority of the people believe, as I do, that the President made false and misleading statements under oath, still, some two-thirds of the American people do not want the President removed from office. I do not think that this is just a reflection of the American people's traditional bias for the underdog, but rather, of the much more basic American dislike of unfairness. Many people, perhaps even most people, do not believe that this process has been a fair process. They are further supported in their viewpoint by the polarization and partisanship so regrettably displayed in Congress. Indeed, the atmosphere in Washington has become poisoned by politics and even by personal vendettas. As a result, perspective and a clear sense of proportion and balance have been lost by all too many people. As a byproduct of the venom, a process intended to be serious and sober has, instead, devolved into a virulent, off-color soap opera event, watched by an incredulous people grown weary of its content. We have known for weeks that the votes were not here to convict this President. And yet some wanted to press on, in a desperate attempt to bring witnesses onto the Senate Floor. What a dreadful national spectacle that would have been! That is one reason why I offered a motion to dismiss the proceedings. Both the House Managers and the White House defense team had presented their case and had presented it well. We had gotten into the 16 hours of questioning by Senators, while all went along swimmingly for a while, the proceedings began to degenerate into a dueling press conference on both sides of the aisle. Moreover, the House Managers had already taken steps to begin the deposition of Monica Lewinsky, and the fact that they were doing this before the Senate had even voted to depose witnesses, led me to believe that it was time to call the whole thing off before the Senate slipped into the snake pit of bitter partisanship like the House of Representatives had done. Always with a weather eye open concerning the image of the Senate and its place in history, I made the motion to dismiss which had been provided for in the original agreement by 100 Senators on January 8, following the great bipartisan meeting we had all attended in the old Senate Chamber. Many people all around the country, as well as here within the beltway, misunderstood my reasons for moving to dismiss. I didn't do that to protect Mr. Clinton, as some people have so mistakenly surmised. I knew that the votes were not here then to convict him, and we all know they are not here now. I just didn't want the Senate to sink further into the mire. I did not want this body to damage its own quotient of public trust the way the House and the White House have diminished theirs. I called for these proceedings to be dismissed, out of genuine concern for the divisive effect that an ultimately futile trial would have on the Senate and on the nation. The House Articles charged the President with having committed perjury. This word ``perjury''--lawyers can dance all around the head of a pin on that word. I won't attempt to dance all around on the head of the pin on the word ``perjury.'' The President plainly lied to the American people. Of course, that is not impeachable, but he also lied under oath in judicial proceedings. Mr. Clinton's offenses do, in my judgment, constitute an ``abuse or violation of some public trust.'' Reasonable men and women can, of course, differ with my viewpoint. Even though the House of Representatives rejected the second article that came out of the Judiciary Committee, the evidence against Mr. Clinton shows that he willfully and knowingly and repeatedly gave false testimony under oath in judicial proceedings. When the President of the United States, who has sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and to see to it that the laws be faithfully executed, breaks the law himself by lying under oath, he undermines the system of justice and law on which this Republic--not this ``democracy''--this Republic has its foundation. In so doing, has the President not committed an offense in violation of the public trust? Does not this misconduct constitute an injury to the society and its political character? Does not such injury to the institutions of Government constitute an impeachable offense, a political high crime or high misdemeanor against the state? How would Washington vote? How would Hamilton vote? How would Madison or Mason or Gerry vote? My head and my heart tell me that their answer to these questions would be, ``Yes.'' But the matter does not end there. The Constitution states, without equivocation, that the President, Vice President or any civil officer, when impeached and convicted, shall be removed from office. Hence, one cannot convict the President without removing him from office. Should Mr. Clinton be removed from office for these impeachable offenses? This question gives me great pause. The answer is, as it was intended to be by the framers, a difficult calculus. This is without question the most difficult, wrenching and soul-searching vote that I have ever, ever cast in my 46 years in Congress. A vote to convict carries with it an automatic removal of the President from office. It is not a two-step process. Senators can't vote maybe. The only vote that the Senator can cast, under the rules, as written, is a vote either to convict and remove or a vote to acquit. So should I vote ``Guilty'' when my name is called, believing that President Clinton's offenses constitute high misdemeanors? Should I vote guilty and vote to remove him from office? Some critics may say-- some of my colleagues may say--they may ask, if you believe he is guilty, how can you not vote to remove him from office? There is some logic to the question, but simple logic can point one way while wisdom may be in quite a different direction. It is not a popularity contest, of course. But remember our English forbears, who, on June 20, 1604, submitted to King James I the Apology of the Commons, in which they declared that their rights were not derived from kings, and that, ``The voice of the people in things of their knowledge is [as] the voice of God.'' ``Vox populi, vox Dei.'' The American people deeply believe in fairness, and they have come to view the President as having ``been put upon'' for politically partisan reasons. They think that the House proceedings were unfair. History, too, will see it that way. The people believe that the Independent Counsel, Mr. Starr, had motivations which went beyond the duties strictly assigned to him. In the end, the people's perception of this entire matter as being driven by political agendas all around, and the resulting lack of support for the President's removal, tip the scales for allowing this President to serve out the remaining 22 months of his term, as he was elected to do. When the people believe that we who have been entrusted with their proxies, have been motivated mostly or solely by political partisanship on a matter of such momentous import as the removal from office of a twice-elected President, wisdom dictates that we turn away from that dramatic step. To drop the sword of Damocles now, given the bitter political partisanship surrounding this entire matter, would only serve to further undermine a public trust that is too much damaged already. Therefore, I will reluctantly vote to acquit. In 399 B.C., Socrates was convicted and sentenced by the Athenian jury to die. If only 30 votes on that Athenian jury had switched, Socrates would not have been convicted. If only twenty Senators--or less--on my side of the aisle who are expected to acquit, were to switch their votes, President Clinton would be convicted, and before this coming Sabbath day, he would be removed from the Oval Office. President Clinton will be acquitted by the Senate; yet, he will not be vindicated. The crowds will still cheer the President of the United States, but the American people have been deeply hurt and, while they may forgive, they will not forget. The pages of history will not be expunged--ever! Be assured that there will be no winners on this vote. The vote cast by every Senator will be criticized harshly by various individuals and sundry interest groups. Yet, it is well for the critics to remember that each Senator has not only taken a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution, but also to do ``impartial justice'' to Mr. Clinton and to the nation, ``So help me, God''. The critics and the cynics have not taken that oath; only Senators have done so. Carrying out that oath has not been easy. That oath does not say anything about political party; politics should have nothing to do with it. The frenzy of pro-and-con opinions on every aspect of this case emanating from every conceivable source in the land has made coming to any sort of ``impartial'' conclusion akin to performing brain surgery in a noisy, rowdy football stadium. It will be easy for the cynics and the critics who do not have to vote, to stand on the sidelines and berate us. But only those of us who have to cast the votes will bear the judgment of history. Mr. Chief Justice, none of us knows whether the attitudes of the American people will take a different turn after this trial is over and this drab chapter is closed. ``Fame is a vapor; popularity an accident; riches take wings; those who cheer today may curse tomorrow; only one thing endures--character!'' It is the character of the Senate that will count. And while the politics of destruction may be satisfying to some, the rubble of political ruin provides a dangerous and unstable foundation for the nation. And yet we must move ahead. The nation is faced with potential dangers abroad. No one can foresee what will happen in Russia or in North Korea or in Kosovo or in Iraq. To remove Mr. Clinton at this time could create an unstable condition for our nation in the face of unforeseen and potentially dangerous happenings overseas. Preceding Senators have sounded the clarion note of separation of powers! I have sounded that same trumpet many times when the line item veto was before the Senate, but to no avail. Some of the voices that have rung throughout this chamber in these deliberations, were curiously still on that occasion. The Supreme Court of the United States saved the Constitution and struck that law down. But the Supreme Court has no voice in the decision that confronts the Senate at this hour. It is for the Senate alone to make. When these Senate doors are flung open, we must hope that the vote that follows will strengthen, not weaken, our nation. Let there be no preening and posturing and gloating on the White House lawn this time when the voting is over and done. The House of Representatives has already inflicted upon the President the greatest censure, the greatest condemnation, that the House can inflict upon any President. And it is called impeachment! That was an indelible judgment which can never be withdrawn. It will run throughout the pages of history and its deep stain can never be eradicated from the eyes and memories of man. God can forgive us all, but history may not. Within a few hours, the mechanics of this matter will finally be concluded. But it will not yet be over. For the nation must still digest the unpleasant residue of these events. Mr. Chief Justice, hatred is an ugly thing. It can seize the psyche and twist sound reasoning. I have seen it unleashed in all its mindless fury too many times in my own life. In a charged political atmosphere, it can destroy all in its path with the blind fury of a whirlwind. I hear its ominous rumble and see its destructive funnel on the horizon in our land today. I fear for our nation if its turbulent winds are not calmed and its storm clouds somehow dispersed. In the days to come, we must do all that we can to stop the feeding of its vengeful fires. Let us heap no more coals to fan the flames. Public passion has been aroused to a fever pitch, and we as leaders must come together to heal the open wounds, bind up the damaged trust, and, by our example, again unite our people. We would all be wise to cool the rhetoric. For the common good, we must now put aside the bitterness that has infected our nation, and take up a new mantle. We have to work with this President and with each other, and with the members of the House of Representatives in dealing with the many pressing issues which face the nation. We must, each of us, resolve through our efforts to rebuild the lost confidence in our government institutions. We can begin by putting behind us the distrust and bitterness caused by this sorry episode, and search for common ground instead of shoring up the divisions that have eroded decency and good will and dimmed our collective vision. We must seek out our better natures and aspire to higher things. I hope that with the end of these proceedings, we can, together, crush the seeds of ugliness and enmity which have taken root in the sacred soil of our republic, and, instead, sow new respect for honestly differing views, bipartisanship, and simple kindness towards each other. We have much important work to do. And, in truth, it is long past time for us to move on.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor with Senator Thurmond a resolution commending Mr. Frank Burk who retired as Legislative Counsel of the Senate on December 31, 1998. While serving as President pro tempore of the Senate, I had the pleasure of appointing Frank Burk to the position of Legislative Counsel of the Senate on January 1, 1991. I wish to join with Senator Thurmond, and with all Senators, in expressing our deepest gratitude to Frank Burk for his long years of service to the United States Senate. He has been part of the Office of Legislative Counsel for more than 28 years, including the last 8 as Legislative Counsel; and during that time he has provided valuable assistance to me and to my staff. Mr. President, while overseeing the Office of Legislative Counsel during the first 4 years of Frank Burk's tenure as Legislative Counsel, I appreciated the great dedication and professionalism he displayed in carrying out his duties and responsibilities. I know that his departure will leave a void that is difficult to fill. In passing this resolution, the Senate recognizes his years of commitment to the Senate. Mr. President, I wish Frank Burk and his family well in his retirement.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Would the clerk read that again.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. Chief Justice, may we have order.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a motion in writing to the desk.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Parliamentary inquiry. Could the clerk read the resolution for the edification of the Senate at this time.

Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that be done.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate.

Mr. BYRD. The Senate is transacting business.

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