Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, when one speaks of the State of Idaho, we think of her glorious and rugged landscape, her fertile valleys, her waters ideal for fishing, her world-class ski resorts, her national parks and forests, with land fit for hiking, or biking, and, of course, her reputation as the potato capital of the world. Following the end of the 105th Congress, I daresay that our associations to the State of Idaho will also include the name of Dirk Kempthorne, the state's junior Senator and one of this body's most respected Members. Although our friend from the west is leaving the Senate after only one six-year term, I, for one, will remember him fondly for years to come. Senator Kempthorne and I formerly served together as Chairman and Ranking Member, respectively, of the Personnel Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee. We worked together to introduce legislation requiring the study of gender integrated training in the military. That association has been pleasant, and, I believe, productive. To be sure, I have not always agreed with his policy proposals, or he with mine. On many issues, including the balanced budget constitutional amendment and the unfunded mandates legislation, we have held opposing views. Throughout the lengthy debate on the unfunded mandates bill in early 1995, the Senator was conscientious, thorough, and fair. His grace and courtesy in managing that bill were impressive, particularly for someone so new to the Senate. And, as we all know, his efforts paid off after deliberate consideration and compromise. Moreover, with passage of the unfunded mandates bill, Senator Kempthorne holds the honor of being the most junior member of the Senate since World War II to author, manage, and win passage of a bill numbered Senate Bill One. When he leaves these hallowed halls, Senator Kempthorne will return to his home state. Boise, of course, is familiar ground for Senator Kempthorne, serving as that city's forty-third Mayor, from 1985 until 1992, when the people of Idaho elected him to his present seat in the Senate. Incidentally, he became so popular during his first term as Mayor that he faced no opposition in his bid for a second term! How many of our colleagues would like to be in that situation? How many of us would like to be so universally popular, and be held in such high respect by our constituents, that such popularity and respect would foreclose potential challengers? I congratulate Senator Kempthorne on his fine service here, and I wish him and his nice family happiness in future years.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I want to highlight a provision contained within this massive omnibus appropriations bill, H.R. 4328, that addresses a longstanding debt owed by this nation to the veterans of the Persian Gulf War. Title XVI of Division C of this bill contains the Persian Gulf War Veterans Act of 1998. In five short sections, the Persian Gulf War Veterans Act of 1998 lays out a sound, scientific process by which the Secretary of Veterans Affairs may make a determination, based on the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences or other sound scientific or medical evidence, that diseases suffered by Gulf War veterans are linked to hazardous materials they were exposed to during that conflict. That is, the Secretary now has a credible process to determine what diseases should be considered service-connected for purposes of providing health care and disability compensation to Gulf War veterans. This is not some give-away program, but a long overdue recognition that Gulf War veterans may be suffering from invisible wartime wounds just as real as any left by bullets--wounds to their immune systems, to their muscles and joints, or to their internal organs, caused by the toxic fog of chemicals, oil well fires, and medications in which they were immersed. This nation has a long history of caring for the men and women who were wounded in her service, and it is a shame that it took over seven years to recognize and honor our commitment to these veterans. I have seen some news reports that this provision will cost between $1 and $6 billion over ten years. I do not know what these estimates are based on. The Congressional Budget Office determined that this program would cost $40 million over the first five years, and a total of $490 million over ten years. That is not an extravagant bill to pay for a war that cost the United States over $60 billion for less than two months of actual fighting--for a mere 100 hours of actual on-the- ground combat. Almost 700,000 service personnel were in the Southwest Asia theater during the initial phase of the conflict, and over one million service personnel have pulled tours of duty in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait since 1991. Over 120,000 of these men and women are now on Department of Defense or Department of Veterans Affairs Gulf War registries, many suffering from multiple debilitating symptoms since their service in the Gulf. The provisions in this omnibus bill were extracted from S. 2358, a bill I introduced with Senator Rockefeller and Senator Specter, the Ranking Member and Chairman, respectively, of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, on July 27. I am proud of this collaboration, which I believe produced a sound as well as needed piece of legislation. Although S. 2358 was adopted by the Senate in the closing days of this Congress, and after the process of putting together the omnibus appropriations bill had begun, no action was taken on it by the House of Representatives. Some elements of S. 2358 were included in two House-passed bills, H.R. 3980 and H.R. 4110, that were sent to the Senate, again, after the process of putting together the omnibus appropriations bill had begun. In my opinion, these bills fell far short of delivering on our commitment to Gulf War veterans. In both H.R. 3980 and H.R. 4110, the National Academy of Sciences was directed to conduct a study and to make recommendations to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs regarding illnesses that might be linked to service in the Gulf. But, the Secretary was directed only to make recommendations to Congress. The veterans would not receive any immediate assistance. It would be up to Congress to make the determination of service connection, find the funds to pay for it, and convince both Houses of Congress and the President to agree that action should be taken. Mr. President, I do not believe that adding this kind of delay to the process aids our veterans. We can do better, and we did better in S. 2358. Let the Secretary do his job, and if we do not like the way he carries out his job, then we can take corrective action. Mr. President, I have already noted that these compromise bills arrived in the Senate late in this session, after work on the omnibus appropriations bill had begun. As the Ranking Member on the Senate Appropriations Committee, I had already added S. 2358 to the list of legislation to be considered for inclusion in the omnibus package. I did this not because I approve of this way of passing legislation on an appropriations bill and especially not on a monstrosity like this omnibus bill, but because I saw an opportunity to do something useful and needed for these veterans. They do not deserve any additional delay. And when I saw that the compromise language contained only a study, and the possibility of further delay for these veterans, I became determined to include the key elements of S. 2358 in the omnibus appropriations bill. Now, I have been noted for my stubbornness--my friends call it tenacity or perseverance, but my opponents call it stubbornness. On this matter, I was determined, tenacious, persistent, and, yes, even stubborn. As a conferee on the omnibus appropriations bill, I was able to defend my position. This section of the omnibus bill was among the last issues decided. I sincerely thank my colleagues, Senator Stevens, Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Representatives Livingston and Obey, the Chairman and Ranking Member, respectively, of the House Appropriations Committee, who supported my efforts to include this provision in the final bill. They did this over the objections of the Administration. For their leadership and courage in defending the interests of Gulf War veterans they merit great praise. The veterans of the Gulf War have struggled for seven years to have their wartime sacrifices recognized for what they are--the scars of battle. I hope that Title XVI of Division C of H.R. 4328 will set this process on a track that is both credible and fair, and that will follow through on our nation's commitment, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, ``To take care of him who has borne the battle. . . .''

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the United States Constitution contains two options providing for the appointment of the principal officers of our federal government. First, the Appointments Clause, found in Article II, section 2, clause 2, states that the President ``shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint'' such officers. Alternatively, should the Senate not be in session, Article II, section 2, clause 3, authorizes the President to unilaterally ``fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate,'' subject only to the proviso that the recess appointment expires at the end of the next session of Congress. As the Supreme Court pointedly observed in the 1997 case of Edmond v. United States, ``the Appointments Clause of Article II is more than a matter of `etiquette or protocol'; it is among the significant structural safeguards of the constitutional scheme.'' With enactment of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, an important step will have been taken toward securing the Senate's constitutional responsibility to render its advice and consent on presidential nominations. It is my hope that this legislation, which makes several substantive changes to the current Vacancies Act, will protect this vital constitutional ``safeguard'' by bringing to an end a quarter century of obfuscation, bureaucratic intransigence, and outright circumvention Mr. President, because I am an original sponsor of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, and because the Act as it is being enacted differs somewhat from the bill reported to the Senate by the Committee on Governmental Affairs on July 15, 1998, (S. Rpt. 105-250), I wish to offer my perspective on the Act's application, time limitations, exclusivity and exceptions, enforcement, reporting requirements, and effective date and application to current vacancies. Application Section 3345 states that the provisions of the Act will apply to any officer in any executive agency, other than the General Accounting Office, if that officer's appointment is made by the President, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. Unlike current law, this change will make clear that the Vacancies Act, as amended by this legislation, applies to all executive branch officers whose appointment requires Senate confirmation, except for those officers described in Section 3349c. Section 3345 applies when an officer dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office (the latter provision covers, inter alia, sickness or absence, which are listed in current law, or expiration of a term of office). Should one of these situations arise, the officer's position may then be filled temporarily by either: (1) the first assistant to the vacant office; (2) an executive officer who has been confirmed by the Senate for his current position; or (3) a career civil servant, paid at or above the GS-15 rate, who has served in the agency for at least 90 of the past 365 days. However, a person may not serve as an acting officer if: (1)(a) he is not the first assistant, or (b) he has been the first assistant for less than 90 of the past 365 days, and has not been confirmed for the position; and (2), the President nominates him to fill the vacant office. Time Limitation Section 3346 places a strict time limit of 210 days upon how long an acting officer may serve. As the language of this section make abundantly clear, the time limit begins on the day the position becomes vacant, and not on any other date. The precise language that was used in the Act will correct the decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in Doolin Security Savings Bank v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 139 F.3rd 203 (D.C. Cir. 1998). If, however, the President forwards to the Senate a first or second nomination to fill the vacant office, the acting official may continue to serve until 210 days after the nomination is rejected by the Senate, withdrawn, or returned to the President by the Senate. With respect to this time limitation, section 3349d further provides that the vacant office may be temporarily filled beyond the 210-day time limit if, during a recess or adjournment of greater than 15 days, the President formally notifies the Senate of his intention to nominate a specified person for the vacant position, and, in fact, does submit to the Senate the nomination within two days of the end of the recess or adjournment. Should the President, for whatever reason, fail to forward the nomination, then any action taken by the acting official shall have no legal force or effect, nor shall that action be ratified. Moreover, such failure would render the position vacant as of the second day following the Senate's return. Finally, on the issue of time, the Act, unlike current law, appropriately recognizes the difficulties faced by a new President following his initial inauguration. To address that situation, section 3349a provides that, with respect to any advice-and-consent position which becomes vacant during the first 60 days of the new President's term, the 210 day time limitation shall not begin until 90 days after the inauguration date, or 90 days after the date of the vacancy, whichever is later. Effectively, then, this provision will give a new President up to 300 days to forward nominations to the Senate. Exclusivity and Exceptions Mr. President, turning now to the question of the exclusivity of the Act, I think it is a fair assessment of this entire issue to say that the matter of exclusivity is the bedrock point on which the executive and legislative branches have historically differed. Indeed, it is very likely that we would not be here today were it not for the differing interpretations as to the exclusivity of the Vacancies Act. And, without opening old wounds, suffice it to say that the problems that have heretofore been brought to the attention of Congress were not the fault of any one President, any one Attorney General, and certainly not the fault of any one political party. Accordingly, it is my fervent hope that the language of the Act will, once and for all, end this decades-long disagreement. As the language of Section 3347 makes clear, unless other statutory provisions exist which explicitly authorize the temporary filling of vacancies in executive positions requiring Senate confirmation, or unless such provisions are enacted in the future, Sections 3345-3349d are to be the exclusive statutory means for filling vacant advice-and- consent positions in the executive branch. Moreover, in an effort to squarely address past problems, the Act specifically prohibits the use of general, ``housekeeping'' statutes as a basis for circumventing the Vacancies Act. Provisions such as, but not limited to, 28 U.S.C. 509 and 510, which vest all functions of the Department of Justice in the Attorney General and allow the Attorney General to delegate responsibility for carrying out those functions, shall not be construed as providing an alternative means of filling vacancies. Finally, Section 3349b makes clear that the Vacancies Act, as now amended, does not affect statutory holdover provisions. Nor does the Act, as explained in Section 3349c, apply to members of independent, multiple-member boards or commissions, to commissioners of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, to members of the Surface Transportation Board, or to any judge of any court constituted pursuant to Article I of the Constitution. Enforcement Mr. President, with enactment of this legislation, the Vacancies Act will, for the first time ever, contain an effective enforcement mechanism. As spelled out in Section 3348, failure to comply with Sections 3345, 3346, or 3347 shall result in a vacant office remaining vacant, and no-one, other than the agency head, may perform the functions or duties that are assigned by statute or regulation to that office exclusively. An action taken by an acting official who is not in compliance with Sections 3345, 3346, or 3347 shall have no force or effect and may not be subsequently ratified. For those who are concerned with this provision, I would point out that, while this is an effective, and admittedly tough enforcement mechanism, it is not so stringent that it will result in governmental paralysis. On the contrary, not only is the head of the agency authorized to carry out the most essential functions of an office forced to remain vacant due to noncompliance, but the language of the legislation is crafted in such a way as to allow for the filling of a vacant office once the President submits a nomination to the Senate. In that respect, then, the enforcement mechanism should not be considered, nor is it intended to be, a form of punishment, but, rather, a means of providing incentive for the timely submission of nominations. Reporting Requirement Because one of the keys to exacting compliance with the Vacancies Act is full and complete disclosure of information regarding vacant positions, Section 3349 establishes a provision for the regular reporting of information. Under this section, the head of each executive branch agency shall, at the appropriate time, submit to the Comptroller General and to each House of Congress the following information: Notification of any vacancy in an office subject to the Vacancies Act; the name of the person serving in an acting capacity and the date such service began; the name of any person nominated for the vacant position and the date such nomination was submitted to the Senate; and the date the nomination was withdrawn, rejected by the Senate or returned by the Senate. If the Comptroller General, once he has received the relevant information, determines that an individual is serving in an acting capacity beyond the 210-day time limitation in violation of the Vacancies Act, the Comptroller General is required to notify the Senate, the House of Representatives, various committees of the two Houses, the Office of Personnel Management and the President. Mr. President, although these may seem to be rather routine procedures, in this case they are vitally important, because one of the great difficulties in crafting this legislation has been the absence of reliable information. However, with these reporting requirements, the Congress and the executive branch will be in a far better position to objectively evaluate the operation of the Vacancies Act, and, should this issue require further review, will be prepared to discuss the matter based on reliable data. Effective Date and Application to Current Vacancies Finally, let me address the matter of the Act's effective date and application. First, as the legislation makes clear, the Act will take effect 30 days after the date of enactment. Next, the Act, and all of its provisions, will fully apply to any position which becomes vacant after the effective date. Third, with respect to those positions that are vacant on the effective date, or those positions which are being filled by an acting official on the effective date, only the time limitations of section 3346 shall apply. None of the other provisions of the Act (including, but not limited to, the length of service requirements contained in section 3345), shall apply to those individuals currently serving in an acting capacity. Lastly, the Act makes clear that, notwithstanding the fact that an individual may have previously been nominated, the next nomination of that individual will be treated as a first nomination for purposes of the Vacancies Act, as amended. Mr. President, that concludes my remarks on the meaning and intent of the various provisions of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998. However, I would like to take a moment to extend my congratulations and my sincere gratitude to Senator Thompson, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, for all the time and effort he has put into this endeavor. I also wish to thank the Democratic members of the committee--in particular Senators Glenn, Levin, Lieberman and Durbin--for their willingness to see this legislation through to completion. It was not an easy task, and I commend them all for their hard work. Despite the difficulties, though, I hope they will agree that securing the rights of the Senate, and thus the integrity of the U.S. Constitution, is a task that bears doing no matter how demanding it may be. Women's Health Cancer Rights Act of 1998

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I expressed yesterday my abhorrence of the process that produced this behemoth Omnibus Bill. I said, however, that I would vote for it, because it contained some good things for the Nation. That is true, but I just could not do it. I cannot support such a twisting of constitutional intent and of the legislative process. Therefore, I voted no, so that I can sleep more peacefully tonight.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, we are about to take up the conference report on the so-called omnibus appropriation measure, which contains funding for Fiscal Year 1999 for the departments and agencies under the jurisdiction of eight Appropriations Subcommittees: Agriculture, Commerce/Justice/State/The Judiciary, the District of Columbia, Foreign Operations, Interior, Labor/Health and Human Services and Education, Transportation, and Treasury and General Government. In addition, this omnibus package contains some $20 billion, which has been designated as an emergency, in a supplemental package for such things as: agriculture disaster assistance--$6 billion; defense, including military readiness, $6.8 billion; hardening of embassies and other security matters--$2 billion; Y2K--$3.25 billion, of which $1.1 billion is for the Department of Defense; war on drugs--$690 million; and various disaster assistance programs, such as FEMA, Community Development Block Grants, and other programs which aid those who have suffered from natural disasters in the past months, such as Hurricane Georges--$1.4 billion. Also included are a substantial number of legislative riders that have been recommended by various members of the House and Senate and have been approved by not only the Appropriations Committees but also the joint leadership and the administration. As if that were not enough, this conference report also includes a $9.2 billion tax package. This omnibus conference report is massive. It numbers thousands of pages. I haven't seen it yet, but that is what I am told. It provides funding totaling nearly $500 billion, or close to one-third of the entire Federal budget. If you don't think that is a lot of money--$500 billion--that is $500 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. Let me say that again. That $500 billion is $500 for every 60 seconds since Jesus Christ was born. It is virtually beyond comprehension when we talk about funding of that size. Webster's Dictionary does not contain words enough to allow me to appropriately express my disappointment and my regret that we have reached the point we have, to present this colossal monstrosity to the United States Senate. All too often in recent years, we have faced similar situations where Congress has failed to enact its 13 separate annual appropriation bills in a timely manner and, in many cases, we have failed to enact them at all, except in an omnibus package. Just 2 years ago, under the chairmanship in the Senate of the distinguished Senator from Oregon, Mr. Hatfield, the Senate was placed in a similar position. It wasn't Mr. Hatfield's fault, but the Senate was placed in a similar position of having to vote on an omnibus appropriation bill that contained six of the annual appropriation bills in one conference report. Then, as today, Members were asked to vote on those appropriation bills in their entirety, plus hundreds of other provisions, sight unseen, a pig in a poke, without satisfactory opportunities to understand those provisions and virtually without opportunity to amend the omnibus bill. In 1996, I joined Chairman Hatfield and our present chairman, Senator Stevens, in expressing my regret that the Senate was put into that difficult position. Senator Stevens indicated that he hoped the Senate would never have to appropriate by way of an omnibus bill again. Last year, Chairman Stevens and his counterpart, the distinguished chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Representative Livingston, with the support of the ranking members on each of the subcommittees, were able to complete action on all 13 appropriation bills without the need for omnibus legislation. That was last year, and that is the way the process ought to work every year. It is very, very costly to the U.S. taxpayers to have to govern through a series of continuing resolutions. Departments and agencies have to curtail their operations and alter their plans in many cases because they are not certain as to what their appropriation will be for the full fiscal year. We have now had five continuing resolutions in relation to the fiscal year 1999 appropriation bills. Five continuing resolutions! As Members are aware, we have only enacted into law three fiscal year 1999 regular appropriation bills--defense, military construction and energy and water. Furthermore, the Senate never took up the District of Columbia, or the Labor-HHS appropriation bills, and although it was taken up on the Senate floor, action was never completed on the Interior appropriation bill. Yet, here we are today faced with having to vote not only on those three appropriations bills, but also on five more in this conference report, plus many authorization measures and a tax bill. The process that has brought us to this point is deplorable. It is manifestly preposterous in that no Member of the House or Senate could possibly know, much less understand, all of the provisions that are contained in this conference report. It is absolutely inexcusable. It ranks, as far as the legislative lexicon is concerned, with the unpardonable sin in the spiritual realm--the unpardonable sin. It is absolutely unpardonable for Members of the Senate and the House to put themselves into this kind of situation. It should be difficult for every one of us to face the voters of this country. If the voters really understood what we are doing here, they would probably feel like voting us all out of office. Thank God, only one-third of the Senators have to go before the voters each 2 years. By failing to enact our regular appropriation bills on time, we have brought this situation upon ourselves. There is nobody here but us; there is nobody to blame but us. We are to blame for this. We brought this situation on ourselves. Senators are being asked to vote on this massive piece of legislation that provides funding of nearly one-half trillion dollars-- approximately one-third of the entire Federal budget--without an adequate opportunity to consider it or amend it. Senators cannot amend this conference report--in spite of the Constitution, which says, with reference to revenue-raising bills, that they shall originate in the House of Representatives, but that the Senate may propose amendments to revenue-raising bills, as on all other measures, as on all other legislation. The Constitution didn't foresee this kind of a monstrosity--eight appropriations bills wrapped into one conference report, one tax bill, and a supplemental appropriation bill--right? Right. Eight. What a monstrosity, what a gargantuan monstrosity! Do I know what is in the measure? Are we kidding? No. I don't know what is in this measure. I know a few things that are in it, but only God knows everything that is in this monstrosity. Only God knows what is in this conference report. And very few people, relatively speaking, are on speaking terms with Him. Nobody in this Government--not one person in this Government-- understands every jot and tittle that are in this measure; not one. We have no opportunity to amend it. In other words, the representatives of the people are being denied by the rules the opportunity to offer an amendment on behalf of one's constituencies. No Senator can offer any amendments to this conference report. And, yet, we have seen in the last several days daily press conferences where both sides--both sides, out in the Rose Garden they appeared, and out here somewhere near the Capitol--both sides were patting themselves on the backs, patting each other on the backs, and congratulating themselves and each other. For what? For finally putting together a massive gargantuan monstrosity referred to as ``the conference report'' containing the bills that we should have passed long months ago. We put off acting on these bills for months, and then, finally, when we get beyond the beginning of the new fiscal year, we finally bring in a massive piece of legislation. We don't know what is in it. Nobody in here knows everything that is in it. Certain Members know certain things about it. And then we pat ourselves on the back. What a great victory--it was proclaimed down in the Rose Garden--what a victory for the American people! What a shame. Webster wouldn't define that as a victory. I was invited to go down to the White House. I didn't go. I didn't consider that a victory. I am not going to be a prop, a backup prop, for that kind of victory. Why is it a victory? Several months late we all gather in the Rose Garden and pat ourselves on the back for having finally gotten around to doing the work that we should have done months ago? Is that a victory? Mr. President, although I strenuously object to the process, I will vote for this monstrous measure in the form of a conference report for the same reason that many other Senators will vote for it--and that is to keep the Government running. All that I have said is not to say that this huge legislation does not have some good things in it. There are some good things in it that we know about--good things for the Nation--and we do have to pass appropriations bills to keep the Government running. If Congress does nothing else in an entire year, it must pass appropriations measures to keep the Government running. But it is not a vote which I relish casting. I would be less than honest if I did not state here and now that I do not know--as I have stated already--a great deal about what is in this legislation. In that, I am not alone. This conference report is a creation, without a mother or a father--rather more like a Frankenstein creature, a being of some sort that has been patched together from old legislative body parts that do not quite fit. And just as Dr. Frankenstein was quite surprised by the results of his creation, so may we be startled by the result of ours. So we all gather down in the Rose Garden to proclaim what a victory this Frankenstein monster is for the American people! Hail, hail the victory for the American people. Hastily drafted legislation, as Senators in this body well know, often has strange and unintended consequences. I don't fault the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Senator Stevens and the Appropriations Committee worked hard and reported the appropriations bills. We could long ago have acted upon these bills in the Senate and sent them down to the White House. We could have long ago done it. The Appropriations Committee didn't hold up the bills. I fault the entire Congress for repeatedly failing to do its work, and for bringing us to the brink all too often. Thirteen appropriations bills, Mr. President, and several supplemental bills comprise the sum total of what this Congress actually has to accomplish each year. Those 13 bills, and any supplementals which may be needed, make up our basic work requirement each year before we can go home. Yet, how often we have to cobble together continuing resolutions or horrific omnibus bills like this one because we will not do our work in a timely way. Out there in the real world when you don't do your work you are fired. On the real job site, colleagues, we would be gone! We would have been gone, out there on the real job site! That is us, the delayers. What results when we get to the end of a session and go through these agonies is Government at its worst. Someone said that making legislation was like making sausage. Don't kid yourselves. I have made sausage. It is nothing like making this piece of goods. I have made sausage. I can tell you that what we did this year in gobbling together this appropriations conference report is significantly more sloppy, more messy than making sausage. Congress did not even pass a budget resolution this year. How about that. The Senate passed a budget resolution. The House passed one. But they never got together in conference, so Congress never passed a budget resolution this year. I believe that this is probably the first time since 1974, when we enacted the Congressional Budget Act, that we have gone ahead and written appropriations bills without the discipline of a budget resolution. It is rather like writing checks when you have no idea how much money is in your bank account. No sane, responsible citizen would do that. But that is what we have done with the Federal budget in this unfortunate year. We have prostituted the legislative process. We have prostituted the appropriations process. Aha, what a victory! But the worst part about this year-end charade we so often play with appropriations bills, and especially this year's belly dance with the White House, is the way that we have flaunted the Constitution-- flaunted the Constitution! Mr. President, I do not like to be tedious about these things, but the Constitution is not a rough draft. Article I, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution says: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Earlier this year, I filed an amicus brief before the Supreme Court of the United States along with Senators Moynihan and Levin with the aim of bringing down a gross aberration of the framers' intent called the line-item veto. One of the major agreements made in support of our case against the line-item veto was that the President is not empowered to legislate, and the Supreme Court upheld that. The President is supposed to faithfully execute the law, not write it. And so we argued that when the President can completely alter an appropriations bill by lining out portions of it, by repealing it, by canceling it, canceling portions of it, thus creating an entirely different bill--one that has never passed either House of Congress--he, the President, has become not just a legislator but a superlegislator. The Court agreed. God save the Supreme Court of the United States! The Court agreed. They wisely struck down this unwise and dangerous statute. But now look, just look now at what we have done. Look at what we have done now to the framers' handiwork at the close of the 105th Congress. We invited--we, the Congress invited--the executive branch to legislate. We said, ``We can't do it. You come on in.'' We invited them to legislate. Shame, shame on us! We eagerly offered the executive branch a seat at the legislative table. They are, in fact, in every way co-architects of this giant piece of legislation. We have allowed--not only allowed, we have invited--this White House to participate in this process, just as if, under the Constitution, the executive branch were legislators. So we have invited the executive branch to be coauthors of this giant, hybrid measure in the form of a conference report. It contains both legislation and appropriations bills about which most Members of Congress, especially on this side of the aisle, know very little. Why do I say ``especially on this side of the aisle'' we know very little about it? I will tell you why. We had two or three levels of conferences going on, all at the same time. The appropriators, Senator Stevens, Representative Livingston, the chairmen of the two appropriations committees, respectively, and Mr. Obey of the other body and I, as ranking members of the two appropriations committees, met. We met all day Saturday; we met all day on the Sabbath; we met all day Monday, Columbus Day, and we hammered out item after item after item. On the other side of the table were the executive branch people. Can you imagine that. We invited them by our having delayed action on the appropriations bills. Then on another level there was Speaker Gingrich and the majority leader of the Senate, Mr. Lott, both Republicans, a great political party--I have nothing against that; I have nothing against those two men, but there was the majority, the Speaker of the House, and the majority leader of the Senate. Where were the Democratic legislators at that level? There weren't any. No Democrats from the Senate or House were there to represent the minority in those negotiations. Who represented the minority? The executive branch--the executive branch represented the minority in the Senate and House because the minority in the Senate and House wasn't at the table. We weren't at the table. The minority in the Congress had been blacked out of the picture because our seat at the legislating table was occupied, by whom? By the President's men. I don't think the President attended any of the meetings. But he was represented. He had his representatives from the White House at the table. On one side of the table were the representatives of the President; on the other side of the table were the Speaker and the majority leader of the Senate representing the majority. We in the minority in the Senate and in the House were not at that table. If Banquo's ghost would have appeared there, I wouldn't have seen him. I deplore this process. We have run roughshod over the Constitution of the United States of America. Through this process, we have, in effect, circumvented the supreme law of the land because we have circumvented the Constitution, Section 9 of Article I and Section 1 of Article I. We have blurred and we have blended the very clear lines of the separation of powers set out in our national charter, and instead we have cooked up this unsavory soup which will be force fed to the American people in order to avoid a completely avoidable, but for partisan games, Government shutdown. This time there is no Supreme Court to save us from ourselves. We are quite randomly doing violence to the Constitution, and justifying it because of political expediency. Not only are we justifying it, we are claiming that it is the ``second coming.'' ``Hallelujah, what a victory for the American people. Come one, come all. Come down to the Rose Garden! Hallelujah, what a great victory for the American people!'' What a shame! Call that a victory! I extend my thanks to the distinguished chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Mr. Stevens. He has worked hard. He has done a masterful job in bringing the bills to the floor. He has worked zealously, assiduously, and effectively. I have never seen a finer chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I take my hat off to him. And I do the same with respect to his counterpart in the House, Mr. Livingston. I commend them both and I thank them both for their hard work in bringing this measure to the floor under very difficult circumstances. And I also commend the ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey. Moreover, I appreciate the tireless efforts of the subcommittee chairmen and the ranking members of the subcommittees. I thank the staffs that have been hard at work, far into the nights. Our staffs on both sides worked far into the nights to cobble together these webs, fragments, and pieces of legislation. Each chairman and ranking member, and their staffs, on a bipartisan basis, have worked many long hours and weekends in order to complete this piece of legislation. While I do sincerely appreciate all their efforts, I hope that they will join me in my belief that this has to stop. How long, how long are we going to have to deprive our constituents of the opportunity of having their Representatives offer amendments to legislation on the Senate floor? I will never vote for another such monstrosity as long as I am privileged to hold this office. And I hope I never see another such monstrosity. I will never again support such a convolution of the legislative process as the one we have seen this year. And I hope that others will agree that this process is just as silly and as sad and as ridiculous and as disgraceful as I think it is. I hope they will join me in an effort to prevent it in the future. I again thank the chairman of the committee. I am sure that he does not think any more of this process than I do. Under the Constitution, the legislative branch is to appropriate. The legislative branch has control over the purse, and the legislative branch should never so conduct itself as to essentially invite the executive branch to participate in the writing of appropriations bills. The President has his right under the Constitution to veto a bill, but I say we ought to appropriate. We ought to pass the bills. We ought to be able to have them called up here, be able to offer amendments on both sides of the aisle--and on another day I will talk about that part of the process that is partly to blame for this situation we are in. But we ought to send the President the bills. Send them on time. If he wants to veto them, fine; he has that right under the Constitution. And the Senate and the House can try to override if they can. If they cannot, then they just cannot. But we ought not, ought not be a party to inviting the executive branch to participate in legislating appropriations bills and then gather on the White House lawn and here at the Capitol to proclaim that it is a victory for the American people. Shame on us! Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 15 minutes of my time be reserved for Mr. Dorgan.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Wellstone have 15 minutes of time, later.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I don't have any intention of objecting--what are these two changes in 33 and 39?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Delaware.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, a time when we work to heighten people's awareness of breast cancer and the importance of early detection through mammography and self examination. Breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer among women with one in nine women at risk of developing breast cancer over her lifetime. That is up from a risk that, in 1960, was just one in fourteen! In West Virginia, the American Cancer Society estimates that this year 1,200 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer, while nearly 300 women in the State will die from the disease. Across the country, more than 43,000 women will lose their battle with the disease this year, while more than 178,000 women will just begin their fight. Too many people know the pain of losing a loved one to this devastating, terrible disease. The startling statistics on the incidence of breast cancer call for a strong Federal response, and that is what Congress has worked to provide. Since 1990, the Congress has increased cancer research funding by 54 percent. For this new fiscal year, I believe that the Senate is heading in the right direction with its version of the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. This measure contains more than $15.5 billion for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which is an increase of $2 billion over the level appropriated last year. Within that amount, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) would receive almost $3 billion--a 15- percent increase over last year. It is my hope that the final appropriations measure for the NIH, the National Institutes of Health, and the NCI, the National Cancer Institute, will retain these sizable increases. The research performed and funded by NIH is crucial to our Nation, crucial to those suffering from this dreadful disease, and crucial to the families of those who are suffering. The strong national investment in cancer research is producing some promising results. For instance, an exciting new avenue being tested for breast cancer prevention is the drug tamoxifen. This therapy potentially promises to prevent 50 percent of breast cancer cases in women who run a high risk of developing the disease. Additionally, there are a number of new treatment options being studied, including such practices as gene therapy and hormonal agents. This combination of research and new therapies is lending hope to the many women and their families who are blighted by this devastating disease. Let us continue to invest in programs to address the scourge of cancer, breast cancer in women in particular. Early detection of breast cancer is critical, and, according to medical experts, mammography is the best way to find the disease in its early stages. In West Virginia, about 73 percent of women have had a clinical breast examination and mammogram. That is good, but not good enough. West Virginia still lags behind the national median of 77 percent. So we need to do more. In an effort to boost breast and cervical cancer prevention, I helped to launch the first-ever West Virginia cancer prevention, education, and screening project in 1990. As a result of this effort and other programs that have partnered with it, between 1989 and 1995, West Virginia experienced a 45 percent increase in the number of women receiving mammograms. We need to continue working together to increase the number of women having mammograms. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator for his very gracious felicitations. He is a far better student than I am a teacher. I thank him.

Mr. BYRD. When a breast cancer tumor is found in its earliest stages, a woman has a better than 90 percent chance of long-term survival. Places like the Mary Babb Randolph Cancer center in Morgantown play an important role in early detection and community education. The center proved to be a life-saver for Jorie Florek. She is a professional golfer from New York State who played in a West Virginia golf tournament to raise money for the cancer center. During the tournament, doctors and nurses from the center provided women with breast cancer information, including instructions on how to perform self examinations. Using that information, Jorie detected a lump that, unfortunately, turned out to be malignant. However, through early detection and aggressive treatment at the cancer center, Jorie is now cancer free. Another West Virginia success story is that of Stephanie Juristy. Stephanie was working, going to school, raising her teenage son, and planning a wedding when she was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1995. She received treatment at the cancer center, undergoing surgery and chemotherapy, and participated in clinical trials of new treatments. Stephanie is now married, working full-time, and preparing to graduate from school. She is also an advocate for patients in Morgantown, sharing her experiences and knowledge with other women. Early detection, treatment, and research are all important components in the war against breast cancer. Strides are being made in each of these areas, and, hopefully, one day will lead to a cure for all cancer. And that will be a glorious--glorious--day. However, until then, we must remain vigilant and continue to encourage women to get mammograms and to self screen, and we must continue to make a strong investment in cancer research to press forward for a cure. As we recognize Breast Cancer Awareness Month, let us redouble our efforts to tackle this disease that takes such a devastating toll on our Nation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon the completion of my remarks, the distinguished Senator from Oregon be recognized for not to exceed 15 minutes, and that he be followed by the distinguished Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, for not to exceed 30 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the Senator knows of a Senator who wishes to speak, that is one thing. I know Senator Gramm wants to speak for 30 minutes. He inquired through a staff person as to whether or not I would make the request for him. I hope the Senator will not object to Mr. Gramm following the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. BYRD. The distinguished Senator from Oregon is also here. I wonder--and the reason I am asking is I have been asked by a Senator on the other side, Mr. Gramm, to try to get 30 minutes locked in for him. May I ask the distinguished Senator from Oregon how much time he would require?

Mr. BYRD. Not to exceed 20 minutes, and that I then be recognized for not to exceed 25 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Now, Mr. President, the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden, actually was here before I was, which does not mean anything under the Senate rules, but we have to live and let live here, and he has to catch a train at 2 p.m. So I ask unanimous consent that I may retain the floor, but that in the meantime the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden, be recognized for not to exceed----

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. There was no previous order that I be recognized, but I still thank the Chair, and I hope I am recognized.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I didn't object to the Senator asking for his time.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, for the first time in weeks, the news from Belgrade regarding Kosovo is encouraging. It would appear--with emphasis on the word ``appear''--that Slobodan Milosevic has agreed to NATO's terms to withdraw his forces, begin peace negotiations, and allow 2,000 international observers into Kosovo. If Mr. Milosevic can be taken at his word, this is truly a turning point in the negotiations. Unfortunately, as we know from the trail of broken promises and from the trail of tears he has left in his wake, Slobodan Milosevic's word is worthless. Hopefully, the concurrent action NATO has taken to authorize air strikes if Mr. Milosevic does not abide by the agreement will be sufficient to persuade him to cooperate. I have my doubts. As welcome as these new developments are, they do not let Congress off the hook. Over the past several weeks, as we have rushed to complete our work prior to adjournment, we have tiptoed carefully around the role of Congress in authorizing military intervention in Kosovo without ever mustering up the courage to confront the issue head on. On the topic of Kosovo, we have lectured, we have criticized, we have urged this or that action, but we have been strangely silent on the subject of introducing and voting up or down on a resolution that would fulfill our duty, under both the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution, to authorize the use of force in Kosovo and throughout Serbia. The Constitution invests in Congress the power to declare war. The War Powers Resolution prohibits the President from waging war beyond 60 days without Congressional authorization. Whether we are acting unilaterally, or as part of a multinational force, or as one member of a formal alliance such at NATO, the burden of responsibility on the Congress is the same. The bottom line here is that Congress has a duty to authorize the use of force if and when offensive military action is called for. By blinking at the prospect of an authorization of force resolution, we are abdicating our responsibility to the Executive Branch and shirking our duty to the nation. For weeks, Congress has wrung its hands over conditions in Kosovo while NATO was moving toward a military showdown in the region and while some of us were making solemn speeches condemning the brutality of Mr. Milosevic, our NATO allies were moving to authorize air strikes in and around Kosovo. The agreement reached with Milosevic has, at the very least, bought some time, but it has by no means removed the threat of military intervention in Kosovo. If NATO chooses to move forward with air strikes in the next few days or weeks, Congress, the only branch of Government with the power to declare war, will be just another bystander, watching from the sidelines as U.S. troops are placed in a hostile environment. Mr. President, none of us wants to rush this nation into military conflict. None of us wants to place the life of even one American at risk. None of us wants to give the order to shoot. But we do not have the luxury of avoiding such decisions. Whether we like it or not, Congress cannot bury its head in the sand when faced with tough issues like declaring war or authorizing military action overseas. And whether we wish to admit it or not, that is exactly what Congress is doing. When it comes to tough issues like Kosovo, Congress seems to want it both ways: we want to be able to criticize the administration, but we do not want to step up to the plate and take the responsibility of giving the administration any guidance. Now, this matter of responsibility is a two-way street. Congress has responsibility, but so does the administration--at the other end of the avenue. The administration has the responsibility--the duty--to consult with Congress before committing to military action. And the administration has been woefully remiss in accepting its share of the responsibility. This administration, like so many before it, seems to have confused the concept of consultation on the one hand with the act of advising on the other. Advising Congress of what the administration has already decided to do does not constitute consultation. And charging ahead without making a case to Congress and to the American people does not even constitute common sense. Like many of my colleagues, I have been troubled by several aspects of the proposed military intervention in Kosovo by the United States and NATO, particularly by the absence of a clear-cut game plan beyond the initial air strikes. Given the complexity of the problem and the potential consequences of any action we take, it is inexcusable and frankly foolhardy for the administration to wait until the eleventh hour to make its case to Congress. Yes, Congress has the responsibility to exercise its constitutional authority, but that does not give the administration the right to toss what amounts to a live grenade into Congress's lap and expect action before that grenade explodes. Yet, that is the situation with which we were forced to deal. We were told by the administration that air strikes could come at any time once NATO reached consensus on such action. We were alerted that American citizens were being evacuated from Yugoslavia. We watched American diplomats ping-ponging back and forth between Washington and Belgrade and Brussels. And we were given to understand that the administration would like for Congress to endorse its efforts. Mr. President, this is no way to conduct grave matters of war and peace. I congratulate the administration officials who have been tirelessly working to find a solution to the perilous situation in Kosovo. I am convinced that Secretary of Defense Cohen and Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke have gone the extra mile--literally--to end the bloodshed and turmoil in Kosovo, and to bring Mr. Milosevic to the bargaining table. I spent over an hour meeting with Secretary Cohen this past week, and I believe he understands fully the stakes involved in attempting to broker peace through the use of force in the Balkans. I am confident that he is well aware of the risks and uncertainties associated with the actions that have been taken and those being contemplated by the United States and our allies. I am not ready to give the administration a blanket endorsement--or a blank check--to carry out any plan for NATO air strikes on Kosovo. I believe there are too many loose ends, too many uncertainties. But I am equally unwilling to close my eyes to the problem and simply let the chips fall where they may. I commend Senator Daschle and Senator Biden and Senator Levin and others for the efforts they have made to deal with this situation. They are among a number of Senators who have worked to craft a resolution authorizing U.S. intervention in Kosovo, if wisdom dictates such intervention. I appreciate their taking my concerns into account as they worked to draft a resolution. They took my concerns into account by incorporating into the resolution provisions that would place some restraints on the administration, guard against an open-ended mission, in terms of its length and scope, and inject some accountability into the operation, without micromanaging the process. The result may or may not have been the best solution; it may or may not have been a resolution that I or a majority of my colleagues could have supported after reasonable debate, but at the very least, it was an effort to acknowledge our constitutional responsibility and articulate our concerns. Unfortunately, the clock up there on the wall is ticking, and this Senate has neither the time nor the inclination to take up such a resolution, particularly in light of the recent breakthrough in negotiations. I sincerely hope that the agreement Mr. Holbrooke has achieved in Belgrade means that military intervention will be averted, but I have little confidence that Mr. Milosevic will honor his commitment. I have a feeling he may do the same as Saddam Hussein has done in Iraq. Just watch. I would recommend that the sine die adjournment resolution contain authority to call Congress back into session. I am not talking about the President calling us back. He has that right under the Constitution. I am talking about our own leadership calling Congress back into session in order to deal with any crisis that might erupt over the period between the end of this Congress and the beginning of the 106th Congress. I further recommend that the administration immediately institute new procedures to truly consult with Congress before committing American troops to hostilities overseas. Mr. President, I have heard this old record played and replayed over and over and over again; a process in which we Senators on both sides of the aisle will be notified that there will be a meeting in room 407, where classified information can be divulged, at such and such a time, such and such a date. And the administration will appear there, the administration's Representatives will appear there. I have been to several of those meetings. Very, very seldom have I found anything, any information divulged in those meetings that I haven't already read in the newspapers. And yet the administration, whether it be this one or a preceding administration, feels that the administration has consulted with Congress. The administration hasn't consulted at all. They appear up there, and many times they appear to be talking down to us as though we are new kids on the block, they know it all and we should just be nice, nice boys and girls; they will handle everything; they know everything. For me, as far as I am concerned, for the most part, it has become an empty exercise to go up to room 407 and listen to the administration's people. Consultation involves far more than that. In addition to the elected leadership of the Senate and House of Representatives, I think the administration should consult--and I do mean consult, not merely advise--the chairmen, no matter what their gender, and the ranking members of the Appropriations, Armed Services, Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees. If military action becomes necessary in Kosovo, the administration will have to come back to Congress to pay for the operation, and the attitude which most administrations appear to have is that if they put American men and women into areas where hostilities are either already going on or imminent, Congress certainly will not turn its back on those men and women; Congress will fork over the money. So the administration always--most administrations in recent years--certainly seemed to have the idea, ``Well, once we get our men in there, Congress will have to come along,'' and we do. Congress isn't going to turn its back on our men and women who are in harm's way. But it doesn't breed confidence between the two bodies. We were told we would only be in Bosnia, oh, something like a year, about a year. That was 3 years ago, 3 or 4, several years back. I predict that administration officials would find the task a good deal easier if, when they come back before Congress and ask for money, they had truly counseled with Congress, built a case for their request and sought the advice of the pertinent committee leadership beforehand. Mr. President, I understand absolutely the serious nature of the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo and the threat to regional stability in the Balkans that are posed by Mr. Milosevic's brutal repression of the ethnic Albanian Kosovars. With winter closing in on Kosovo and up to 70,000 ethnic Albanians hiding in the mountains without food or shelter, we are looking at the virtual certainty of a humanitarian catastrophe if something is not done to bring relief to those people and to ensure the safety of the other 250,000 to 400,000 Kosovars who have been forced from their homes by the fighting. There is a strong case to be made that dealing with the situation in Kosovo now will help to prevent it from becoming a flashpoint that could draw other nations into the conflict like moths to a flame. Viewed in that light, Kosovo is much, much more than a humanitarian endeavor. But we in the Congress have no right to wring our hands over the plight of the Kosovars while refusing to even debate whatever role wisdom may dictate that Congress should play. We have no right to be bold when it comes to criticizing NATO's proposed action while being timid when it comes to doing our job. Regardless of what anyone else does, Congress has a constitutional duty to authorize whatever action it deems necessary. We do no one any favor by surrendering our duty to the executive branch. Mr. President, we cannot adequately address the crisis in Kosovo in the time we have remaining in this Congress, but that does not mean we ought to completely abandon our responsibility. NATO is prepared to conduct airstrikes in the event the agreement reached in Belgrade falls apart. Congress should be equally prepared in its sine die adjournment resolution. Congress should be ready and should manifest that it is ready to reconvene on the call of the bipartisan joint leadership of the two Houses of Congress if the situation warrants it.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, over the next few days, as the Senate concludes its legislative business, one of the finest individuals it has been my privilege to know will bring to a close yet another chapter in what has been, by any measure, an extraordinary public service career. When that time comes--when the senior Senator from the Commonwealth of Kentucky walks out of this chamber for the last time as a United States Senator--this institution, and all who serve in it, will feel a great and lasting loss. When Wendell Ford came to this body on December 28, 1974, thus becoming the 1,685th individual to have served in the Senate, he did so not as a political neophyte but as an accomplished entrepreneur and a dedicated and seasoned public servant. Following service in World War II, our friend from Kentucky returned to his home state and launched a successful insurance business. But it was the call of public service, the chance to reach out and help all of his fellow Kentuckians, that meant the most to this young executive. And, so, in 1964, Wendell Ford began what was to become a successful political career by winning election to the Kentucky State Senate. Two years later, in 1966, he successfully ran for the position of Lieutenant Governor, and, in 1970, against all odds, he became Kentucky's Governor, a position from which he served with distinction as the chairman of the National Democratic Governors Caucus. Mr. President, despite his selfless service within his state, it is, of course, the near quarter-century he has spent here in the United States Senate that has earned Wendell Ford the admiration, the respect, and the undying affection of his colleagues. And, having been elected to four terms in the Senate, it is obvious that the good people of Kentucky also understand and appreciate the skill, the dedication, and the flawless integrity that Wendell Ford brings to his work. He serves Kentucky and the Nation with a wit and candor that are as timely and as refreshing as a cool Kentucky breeze on a hot summer day. In fact, in 1992, he began a string of historical achievements when he received the largest number of votes ever recorded by a candidate for elected office in the state of Kentucky. On November 14, 1996, Wendell Ford broke Alben Barlkey's record for the longest consecutive service in the United States Senate as a Senator from the Commonwealth, while becoming the overall longest serving Senator from Kentucky in March of this year. Mr. President, such milestones are not just proud, personal moments, although they are that. Rather, they speak to the immense respect, and the tremendous trust that the citizens of Kentucky have for their distinguished senior Senator. Of course, to those of us who know Wendell Ford, such respect and trust are not unfounded. As a Member of this body, Senator Ford has become a recognized leader in such diverse areas as aviation, federal campaign finance reform, and energy. He has, through dedication and hard work, shaped such important legislation as the National Voter Registration Act, the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the National Energy Security Act of 1992, and the Energy Security Act of 1977. The commitment shown by our colleague from Kentucky in working on these and other profound and troubling problems that face this Nation is emblematic of the devoted public servant that Wendell Ford has shown himself to be. There will be few who will match the accomplishments of our friend; few who will bring to this body a deeper passion; and few who will legislate with greater skill. Mr. President, as he prepares to leave the Senate, I offer my sincere gratitude to Senator Wendell Ford for his professionalism, for his friendship, for his leadership, for his candor, and for his many years of dedicated service to our Nation. I would also like to express my admiration, and that of my wife, Erma, to Wendell's gracious and dedicated wife, Jean. Few know, of course, of the tremendous sacrifices made by our spouses. But those of us who serve in this body understand the price paid by these selfless, silent partners. None has done so with greater dignity, or with more grace, than has Jean Ford. And, so, I say to my friend from the Commonwealth of Kentucky, I have treasured the time we have worked together, and I wish him good luck and God's speed. He is coming home. Weep no more, my lady, Oh! weep no more to-day! We will sing one song for the Old Kentucky Home, For the old Kentucky Home far away. ``My Old Kentucky Home,'' Stephen Collins Foster, 1826- 1864. Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, first appointed to the United States Senate in 1989 by Governor Robert Orr to succeed Vice President Dan Quayle, Senator Coats subsequently won reelection and has served this body during these past nine years with knowledge, skill, and a true dedication to his Senatorial duties. As he departs this great institution to pursue future endeavors, we bid him farewell and best wishes. Prior to joining the United States Senate, Senator Coats made his mark in several arenas. In his early years, he served as a staff sergeant in the U.S. Army, experience he drew on as a member of the Armed Services Committee. With a passion for law and politics, he worked full-time as a legal intern while attending the Indiana University School of Law at night and serving as Associate Editor of the Law Review. Later, in an effort to gain business experience, he switched tunes from barrister to become a vice president for an Indiana life insurance company, all before embarking on his legislative career in the House of Representatives, where he was elected in 1980 to represent Indiana's Fourth District. During his tenure in the Senate, Senator Coats has served on three powerful and influential Senate Committees--Armed Services, Intelligence, and Labor and Human Resources, and has crafted sound education, health care, and national security policy for the nation. I have had the pleasure of working with Senator Coats on the Armed Services Committee, where he has served on the Personnel, Readiness, and the Airland Forces Subcommittees. There have been a variety of national defense issues on which we have concurred, always keeping in mind the best interests of our national security and the importance of a strong and well equipped line of defense. Just this year, I appreciated his insight and support of my amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization bill to require separate training units for male and female recruits during basic training. And, of course, there have been the issues on which we have not seen eye-to-eye. I distinctly remember tangling this year on the Senate floor over Constitutional issues relating to the deployment of troops in Bosnia and Herzegovina. And, on the balanced budget amendment and the line item veto, we have been on opposite sides of the coin as well. Yet, Senator Coats always carries himself well, demonstrating the utmost respect for his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. For this, I hold him in high regard. Perhaps, Senator Coats' greatest contribution to the United States Senate has been as a member of the Labor and Human Resources Committee. His dedication to strengthening families began long before his political career. He is a longstanding member of Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America, and was recently elected national president of that organization. His service in the House included serving as a leading member of the Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families. On appointment to the Senate, he became Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Children and Families, where he has served as Chairman since 1995. He has been the author of the ``Project for American Renewal'' to revive civil society and America's character-forming institutions, and he is a passionate advocate for school choice, unpaid leave for family and medical emergencies, and prayer in schools. Most recently, Senator Coats shepherded legislation through Congress to reauthorize the Head Start and Low Income Home Energy Assistance program. In appreciation of his efforts and compassion for our nation's children and families, it was only fitting that this piece of legislation was named in his honor. The Coats Human Service Reauthorization Act is but just one example of his fine work here in the United States Senate. In speaking of his ``Project for American Renewal,'' he says, ``The goal of public policy should be to revive the institutions of civil society that build character. Arguably, it is the erosion of those institutions--the family, community organizations, and private and religious charities--that has led to the most severe pathologies we now suffer.'' I commend Senator Coats for his tireless efforts in behalf of these fundamental institutions, and, as he departs this body, I wish him well. Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in the bustling commotion of the ending days of the 105th Congress, members are preoccupied with efforts to enact sought after objectives important to their constituents. We are busy tying up loose ends, putting the finishing touches on projects, and looking forward to going home to our constituents and to a break in the hectic schedule of the United States Senate. Regrettably, as this session of Congress adjourns, we are also faced with the difficult task of saying goodbye to colleagues who have chosen to follow a new path in life. As I reflect on my years in Congress and on my association with its many members and their various personalities, their goals and, yes, sometimes, their eccentricities, I am reminded of some very important milestones in history made possible by these fine Americans. I am reminded of my good fortune to have been associated with men and women representing the American people from all walks of life and from all corners of the United States. In my reflections, I have thanked my Creator for allowing me to serve my country with such fine men and women, and I am, indeed, sorrowful at the upcoming loss of some of the finest men I have ever known. I pay tribute today to an exceptional United States Senator, a man with whom it has been my honor to serve and to have been associated with--a man of unusual conviction, passion, and resolve. He has been called the last Southern liberal, and he is proud of it. He often quotes from ``To Kill a Mocking Bird.'' He is THE commanding foe against the space station. The above discourse clearly references the actions of only one man-- Senator Dale Bumpers, Democrat from Arkansas. He is the United States Senator responsible for ``right-turn-on-red,'' his first legislative victory and one for which, I am told, he received devilish teasing from a colleague who warned that ``many people might want to drive straight!'' I will miss my friend, who is retiring following twenty-four years of service. He leaves a legacy that has made a difference, not only to the people of Arkansas, but to all Americans. His tireless efforts to end federal policies that he believes give away resources that belong to the taxpayer will long be remembered by certain mining and ranching interests out West. And more than a few NASA space station contractors will continue to run when they hear his name! Contractors who worked on the now-terminated Superconducting Super Collider can only wish that Senator Bumpers had chosen to retire earlier. While many a press story covered his crusades against alleged lost causes, Senator Dale Bumpers is a man that leaves this Senate with a triumphant record for the American people. In particular, Senator Bumpers has been a national leader in protecting the health of children. In fact, along with his wife, Betty, Senator Bumpers has long promoted childhood immunizations, known safeguards in protecting the health of millions of children. As the ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, formerly the Chairman, Dale Bumpers has represented the rural heart of America. He has fought for policies to help rural families, including securing funding for basic infrastructure projects that provide water and sewer facilities to small towns throughout the nation. I personally wish to thank Senator Bumpers for being a leading advocate for funding on these vital projects, and I share his concern for the millions of Americans who do not have access to a clean, ample supply of drinking water. Senator Bumpers has further made a significant mark on efforts to protect family farmers. In particular, we owe our gratitude to Dale Bumpers for his efforts to initiate programs to help young Americans become this nation's next generation of family farmers, a dwindling breed at risk of extinction. In honor of his service to rural America, I am proud that this Congress, in the Fiscal Year 1999 Agriculture Appropriations Bill, is formally paying tribute to his work by designating an Agricultural Research Service facility as the Dale Bumpers National Rice Research Center. This action follows the recognition by the people of Arkansas in dedicating the Dale Bumpers College of Agricultural, Food, and Life Sciences at the University of Arkansas. Senator Bumpers' noteworthy record also extends to many other constituencies. Through his ranking membership on the Senate Small Business Committee, he has fought to help self-employed people obtain health care. He has also been an advocate of funding for rural hospitals; for Medicaid; for the Women, Infants and Children feeding program. The list goes on and on. Dale Bumpers' legislative skills and record are clear. He is a modern hero to the underdog. But there is yet another side of the Senator from Arkansas that deserves recognition--the Dale Bumpers who is a husband, a father, and a grandfather. Married to Betty Lou Flanagen, Dale's ``Secretary of Peace,'' for 49 years, he is devoted to his marriage and his family. Dale and Betty have three children and six grandchildren, and Dale often speaks affectionately of his family and of their influence on his consideration of legislative issues. Yes, Senator Dale Bumpers of Arkansas has a personal record of which he can be proud. It is with regret that I bid farewell to my friend and colleague, who is now departing the United States Senate. I believe that the Senate has deeply benefited from the work of U.S. Senator Dale Bumpers. As I say my farewell to Dale Bumpers, I want him to know that when the 106th Congress convenes, I will remember his thoughtful recital of the fictional Atticus Finch in ``To Kill a Mocking Bird,'' ``For God's sake, do your duty.''

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I was listening to the debate going on on the floor and I heard that it was someone's birthday. For those in the galleries who wish to make note of it, I am 29,544 days old today. It is not my birthday, but I am 29,544 days old. I want to congratulate our leader on his birthday.