Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. No, no, Mr. President, I hope he will not be under the burden of thinking that I have a feeling about this. I am perfectly agreeable to wait a little longer, just so I can get in line immediately after the Senator from Texas.

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

Mr. BYRD. I like to try to live according to the Scriptures, which say that the first should be last and the last should be first. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senator is very kind and considerate. I was waiting to speak, but the Senator from Texas may have to go farther, a greater distance than I would have to go if I were going to West Virginia today. I ask unanimous consent that I may be recognized at the completion of the remarks by the distinguished Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for enlightening this Senator in response to the question I asked. I again commend him for his unceasing effort in behalf of this legislation, the Patients' Bill of Rights.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts can always be counted upon to stand up for the things in which he believes. He is constantly supporting legislation that is calculated and dedicated to bring better health care to the American people. I support his Patients' Bill of Rights. ``Constancy, thou art the jewel.'' He is always constant in this efforts. I have been hearing some ads on the radio, and these ads are talking about the ``Kennedy Bill of Rights.'' I don't recall their ever telling us what is wrong with it. They may have been doing it; I have missed that. But I continually see these ads on the television: ``Write your Congressman, write your Senator, write your representative, and urge them to defeat the Kennedy Bill of Rights, the health care bill of rights.'' Tell me, has the Senator seen those ads, and what are we talking about?

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for a very interesting statement concerning the health bills. I admire the Senator from Texas. I admire his ability. He is one of the most articulate Members that I have ever seen in my 40 years in the Senate. He has one of the best brains, I would say, of any of those that I have seen on both sides of the aisle in those 40 years. I think Darwin's theory of natural selection would not explain how this kind of a brain developed. I take my hat off to people like Senator Gramm for the extremely high intelligence that is obviously there.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Americans, commonly speaking, refer to our form of government as a ``democracy.'' I often try to talk with our little pages--both Republican and Democratic pages--out in the lobby from time to time. I tell them the story, ``Acres of Diamonds,'' Tolstoy wrote, ``How Much Land Does a Man Need,'' and I tell them the story, that Russell Conwell, one of the early chautauqua speakers, said he had given 5,000 times. I tell them various other stories, and I always try to help them to learn some things about the Senate, about our Constitution, and about our form of government. Recently, I said to the little pages, ``Now, is this a democracy? What form of government is ours?'' And I said to them about the same things that I am going to say here with reference to a democracy versus a republic. Again, Americans, commonly speaking, refer to our form of government as a ``democracy.'' One reason for this is because politicians of all political parties generally refer to our government as a democracy. Politicians generally do that. Glib references are constantly being made anent our democracy. But our form of government, strictly speaking, is not a democracy. It may more properly be called a representative democracy, but, strictly speaking, ours is a republic. ``We pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands''--not to the democracy for which it stands. Incidentally, I was a Member of the other body when the House passed the law on June 5, 1954, inserting the words ``under God'' into the Pledge of Allegiance. Exactly 1 year from that day, on June 5, 1955, we passed a law requiring the words ``In God We Trust'' to appear on our currency and coins. There are the words on the wall in this Senate Chamber just below the clock, ``In God We Trust.'' We passed that law in the House on June 5, 1955. I will always be proud that I was a Member of the House of Representatives when we passed those two pieces of legislation. So we pledge allegiance ``to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic''--not to the democracy, but to the Republic--``for which it stands.'' We operate by democratic processes. Ours is a democratic society--I have no quarrel with that--but we do not live in a pure democracy. This is a Republic. We ought to get it straight. High rhetorical phrases referring to our form of government as a democracy constitute somewhat idle talk, and we politicians especially ought to know better. I sent over to the Library and got a civics textbook by R.O. Hughes, vintage 1927. I studied civics in 1927. That was the year Lindbergh flew across the Atlantic and Jack Dempsey fought Gene Tunney to regain the heavyweight title, but he didn't regain it. That was the year when Babe Ruth, the Sultan of Swat, hit his 60th home run. So this civics textbook was vintage 1927, and it was right on the mark. Here is what it said: ``We call the United States a federal republic.'' The textbook also defined a republic as ``a government in which the sovereign power is in the hands of the people, but is exercised through officials whom they elect.'' Now, there it is. The textbook also defined a democracy: ``A democracy is a government in which all power is exercised directly by the people. It is next to impossible for this to be done except in small communities, but the spirit of democracy prevails in many republics and some monarchies.'' That 1927 civics textbook had it right. In my hometown of Sophia, WV, 1,186 souls--as of the last census--could very well operate as a pure democracy. All of the people could gather together, and they could pass laws; that would not be difficult at all--like the early city-states of Greece. The 1927 civics textbook also defined a ``monarchy'' as well as an ``oligarchy'' and an ``aristocracy.'' Curious as to what a modern textbook on civics would have to say on this subject, I picked up a book, copyright 1990 by Prentice-Hall, Inc., and found no reference--none--to republics and monarchies. Instead, the book referred only to dictatorships and democracies. The 1990 civics textbook states that one way to describe government ``is by saying whether it is a dictatorship or a democracy.'' The book defined a democracy as follows: ``Democracies are quite different from dictatorships. In a democracy the final authority rests with the people. Those who govern do so by permission of the people. Government is run, in other words, with the people's consent. The United States of America is an example of a democracy.'' That is really inaccurate, ``The United States of America is an example of a democracy.'' It is not. Let me quote what I would consider to be the ultimate authority. This definition does not square with Madison's definition. If Senators want an argument about this, don't argue with me, argue with Madison. This definition does not square with Madison's definition, yet this is what students who study from this 1990 civics textbook are being taught. The same textbook goes on to state: ``Democracies may be either direct or indirect. A direct democracy is one in which the people themselves, usually in a group meeting, make decisions about what the government will do. Direct democracies do not work very well in large communities. It is almost impossible to get all the people together in one place.'' That is what the book says. Then the book proceeds. It says: ``An indirect democracy is one in which a few people are elected to represent everyone else in the community. For this reason, indirect democracies are also called representative democracies.'' It is kind of a convoluted way of getting around to saying the right thing, referring to a representative democracy. Continuing to quote from the book: ``These representatives are held responsible by the people for the day-to-day operation of the government. If the people are unhappy with the performance of their representatives, they may vote them out of office during the next election.'' What a profound statement. That is the civics textbook of 1990. Until I opened up that textbook, I had never heard, I have to say, of ``direct'' democracies and ``indirect'' democracies. So now, my Pledge of Allegiance would have to be stated as follows: ``I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the indirect democracy for which it stands,'' and so forth. Are you confused? James Madison, one of the principal framers of the Constitution, alluded to ``the confounding of a republic with a democracy'' in the Federalist #14, written on November 30, 1787. He proceeds to delineate a true distinction between these forms: ``. . . in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy consequently will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.'' Madison was confronting the critics of the Constitution, some of whom sought, by the artifice of confusing the terms democracy and republic, to maintain that a republic could never be established except among a small number of people, living within a small territory. As Madison so ably pointed out, this observation was applicable to a democracy only. Madison describes the territorial limitations of democracies such as the ``turbulent democracies of ancient Greece,'' saying: ``. . . the natural limit of a democracy is that distance from the central point, which would just permit the most remote citizens to assemble as often as their public functions demand; and will include no greater number than can join in those functions; . . .'' He proceeds to say that the natural limit of a republic ``is that distance from the center, which will barely allow the representatives of the people to meet as often as may be necessary for the administration of public affairs.'' Madison argues that the territorial limits of the United States do not exceed the limit within which a republic can operate and effectively administer the affairs of the people. Again, in the Federalist #10, where Madison discusses the sources and causes and dangers of faction, he defines a ``pure'' democracy as being ``a society, consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person.'' Let me say that again. Madison defines a ``pure'' democracy as being ``a society, consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person.'' And Madison indicates that such a form of government ``can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.'' Listen to this--Madison again--stating that, ``democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention,'' Madison proceeds to add that they ``have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property.'' He adds: ``Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.'' It is quite different with a republic, however. Listen to Madison as he extols this form as a better approach to dealing with faction: ``A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure, and the efficacy which it must derive from the union.'' Again, Madison clearly distinguishes between a democracy and a republic: ``The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are, first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, ``--meaning in the republic--'' to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter ``--meaning the republic--'' may be extended.'' Madison in the Federalist #10 then examines whether the public voice pronounced by the representatives of the people will be more consonant to the public good in a small rather than in a large republic, and he comes down in favor of a more extensive republic as being ``most favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal.'' Madison clearly decides in favor of the larger territory. But let's let him speak for himself: ``The greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican, than of democratic government'' is a ``circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former ``--the republic--'' than in the latter.'' In summation, Madison said, ``Hence it clearly appears, that the same advantage, which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction''--George Washington, we will remember, warned us about faction in his farewell address. Madison said, ``Hence it clearly appears, that the same advantage, which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic--is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it.'' Hamilton, in Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention, referred to the ``amazing violence and turbulence of the democratic spirit.'' Madison himself, in his notes, referred to the dangers of a ``leveling spirit,'' when he said: ``No agrarian attempts have yet been made in this country, but symptoms, of a leveling spirit, as we have understood, have sufficiently appeared in a certain quarter to give notice of the future danger. How is this danger to be guarded against on republican principles?'' Madison was probably referring to the Shays' Rebellion which had occurred just the year before the convention, in 1786, when he spoke of the symptoms of a ``leveling spirit.'' Madison was espousing the establishment of a Senate as ``a body in the government sufficiently respectable for its wisdom and virtue, to aid on such emergencies, the preponderance of justice by throwing its weight into that scale.'' Madison went on to observe ``That as it was more than probable we were now digesting a plan which in its operations would decide forever the fate of republican government--talking about the constitution--we ought not only to provide every guard to liberty that its preservation could require, but be equally careful to supply the defects which our own experience had particularly pointed out.'' What a wise, wise man, Madison. What wise men who gathered there in Philadelphia during those hot summer days between May 25, 1787 and September 17 of that year and hammered out the Constitution of the United States. What a document! In the discussions concerning the mode of selection of members of the first branch of the national legislature, Mr. Sherman opposed election by the people. We hear a lot about this ``democracy'' of ours. Many of the framers were concerned about democracy. Some of them didn't want any part of it. They didn't want a democracy. Mr. Sherman opposed election by the people, insisting that it ought to be by the State legislatures. According to Madison's notes, Mr. Sherman expressed himself accordingly: ``The people, he said, immediately should have as little to do as may be about the Government. They want information and are constantly liable to be misled.'' Roger Sherman, a delegate from Connecticut, was joined in this feeling by Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts who, as Madison explained, averred: ``The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. . . . He . . . had been taught by experience the danger of the leveling [sic] spirit.'' George Mason of Virginia favored the election of the larger branch by the people. According to Madison, Mason ``admitted that we had been too Democratic but was afraid we should incautiously run into the opposite extreme.'' They didn't want to go to the extreme on either edge. Governor Edmund Randolph of Virginia, who had offered the resolves, around which the debates would swirl throughout the Convention. These are Madison notes from which I am quoting Governor Edmund Randolph of Virginia who had presented the resolves on the 29th day of May, 1787. It is so easy for me to remember that day because the 29th day of May is my wedding anniversary. It happens to be my wife's wedding anniversary also, naturally, May 29. We have seen 61 anniversaries already in our lifetime. And so here is the quote of Governor Randolph. He ``observed that the general object was to provide a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.'' He was of the opinion, therefore, that a check ``was to be sought for against this tendency of our government,'' and he believed that a Senate--a Senate would achieve this end. In speaking of the Senate of Maryland, and the length of Senatorial terms in that State, Hamilton said: ``They suppose seven years a sufficient period to give the Senate an adequate firmness, from not duly considering the amazing violence and turbulence of the democratic spirit. When a great object of government is pursued, which seizes the popular passions, they spread like wildfire, and become irresistible.'' This was Hamilton speaking, referring to the Senate of Maryland. It is evident from Madison's notes on the Convention that a pure democracy, as a form of government, did not appeal to the delegates at the Convention, and that a fear of the ``leveling spirit'' of democracy was prevalent at the time and leading members of the Convention were aware of this concern. Therefore, as Alexis de Tocqueville stated in ``Democracy in America,'' ``the Americans have a democratic state of society'', we should be more careful than to allude to our form of government as a ``democracy.'' If we want to say it's a representative democracy, that is one thing. But it is not a ``democracy''. To do so is to use our language loosely. And we all use our language loosely from time to time. I do. But I never refer to this government as a ``democracy.'' I prefer to stick to the strict definition as explained by Madison and refer to ours as a republic--which I proudly do. The framers were wise men. As Butler of South Carolina said ``We must follow the example of Solon, who gave the Athenians not the best government he could devise, but the best [government that] they would receive.'' Our founding fathers gave us a republic. As Dale Bumpers reminded me a moment ago--a few minutes ago, when a lady approached Benjamin Franklin at the conclusion of the convention's proceedings on September 17, 1987, she said, ``Dr. Franklin, what form of government have you given us?'' Franklin didn't answer saying, ``A democracy, Madam.'' His answer was, ``A republic, Madam, if you can keep it.'' Our Founding Fathers gave us a republic, and we public officials, politicians and other molders of opinion should formulate our spoken and written language accordingly. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank Senators for their courtesy in listening. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I support H.R. 4057, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act and I commend my colleagues on the bipartisan and expeditious manner in which this important legislation was adopted by the Senate. This bill will reauthorize the programs of the FAA for two years, including the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), which is due to expire on September 30. The purpose of the AIP is to provide grants to fund the capital needs of the nation's commercial airports and general aviation facilities. Without this important FAA reauthorization legislation to continue the contract authority for the AIP, the FAA would not be able to distribute airport grants that are vitally important to not only the State which I am honored to represent, West Virginia, but also the entire nation. A major focus of H.R. 4057 is promoting competition and quality air service which, Mr. President, the State of West Virginia needs desperately. Since the deregulation of the airlines, West Virginia travelers have suffered from increased airfares and greatly reduced service. Consequently, the inefficiencies in the present air transportation system and the high costs have denied air passengers and air freight shippers in West Virginia reasonable access to the national and international air transportation system. Mother Nature has blessed the State of West Virginia with a beautiful but most unforgiving terrain. Steeply undulating mountains and deep gorges are punctuated by sweetly serene valleys and hollows, and West Virginia is kind to those who need to travel through the State by automobile. Yet, despite the rigorous terrain of the State, most people have to drive great distances even to catch an airplane for what is usually the first of several stops en route to their final destination. In eastern West Virginia, residents travel to either Dulles or Reagan National Airports in Virginia; in the northern reaches, residents drive to Pennsylvania or Ohio; and in the southern portion of the State, they may have to drive to North Carolina to get to a major hub. Not only is the limited availability of flights and destinations a problem for air travel originating within West Virginia, but so is the exorbitant cost of air transportation to and from the State. For example, a round trip air ticket from Reagan National Airport to Yeager Airport in Charleston can cost almost $700. That is almost $700 to travel under 400 miles-- and when you are done, you are only as far away as Washington, D.C. Leaving from Washington, $700 can take you to Europe and back! This does not make sense to most hardworking West Virginians, and it discourages other travelers from visiting to experience West Virginia's many wonders for themselves. With the advent of the 21st Century just around the corner, the West Virginia air travelers and businesses that rely on air freight will welcome this legislation. West Virginia's expected economic expansion in the 21st century will depend on its ability to compete not only in the national economy, but also in the ever-growing global economy. To successfully compete, quality, affordable, and efficient air transportation is needed to successfully round out West Virginia's increasingly modern infrastructure of highways, railways, and waterways. Mr. President, this bill, H.R. 4057, contains other necessary language to help West Virginia progress into the new millennium. Major provisions of this bill are not only the AIP program, but also the Small Communities Air Service Development Program, and slot exemptions for nonstop regional jet service. The Small Communities Air Service Development Program will be a four- year, $30 million, small communities grant program. Executed through the Department of Transportation, this program will encourage commercial air service to small communities all over the United States, including those in West Virginia. By providing matching funds of up to 25 percent, a consortia of local communities in West Virginia is expected to compete for the grants of $500,000 per year available per community. It was Thomas Edison who said, ``Restlessness and discontent are the necessities of progress.'' Mr. President, this captures the way that I feel about additional slot exemptions for nonstop regional jet service at Ronald Reagan National Airport. I share the concern expressed by the distinguished Senators from the State of Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia regarding increased noise pollution in the localities surrounding Reagan National Airport. On the other hand, twelve additional slots to increase traffic between Washington and smaller, non-hub airports increases the likelihood of additional airline traffic to underserved areas like West Virginia. Improved air travel to and from States like West Virginia will be critical to my State's remaining competitive in the future and accessible in the present.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in June 1997, Senator Glenn, Senator Levin, and I requested the General Accounting Office (GAO) to examine the Department of Defense's (DOD) approach for addressing U.S. troop exposures to low levels of chemical warfare agents. That report is being released today. This kind of exposure, most recently experienced in the immediate aftermath of the Persian Gulf War--and possibly during it--is likely to become an ever greater threat, as more nations seek a battlefield advantage by employing the ``poor man's bomb,'' chemical weapons. Our concern was to ensure that the Department of Defense had, in fact, learned the lessons of the Persian Gulf War and had taken effective steps to address any weaknesses that might result in the soldiers of future wars being needlessly harmed by exposure to low levels of chemical weapons. It is one thing to suffer casualties on the battlefield due to the misfortunes of war; it is quite another thing to inflict on American service men and women unnecessary wounds caused by a lack of foresight and planning. That is unacceptable. Unfortunately, what the GAO discovered is that, as far as chemical weapons and chemical battlefields are concerned, the United States military is still in Cold War mode. DOD's focus in this area is still to enable U.S. forces to survive, fight, and win in the dreaded all-out nuclear, biological, and chemical battlefields of the Cold War. DOD has no strategy to address low-level exposures to chemical warfare agents. None. Nada. Zip. Despite the fact that existing DOD-conducted research indicates that low-level exposures to some chemical warfare agents may result in adverse short-term performance and long-term health effects, the Department of Defense has not stated a policy or developed doctrine on the protection of troops from low-level exposures to chemical warfare agents on the battlefield. Apparently, DOD prefers to concentrate on ``winning,'' and hand off any chemical casualties to the Department of Veterans Affairs with a ``no longer my business'' attitude. I think we need to look at the bigger picture and give the safety of our military personnel the consideration they certainly deserve. Even in the wake of disclosures by DOD that approximately 100,000 U.S. troops might have been exposed to some harmful level of chemical nerve and blister agents resulting from the destruction of a single Iraqi munitions dump, less than two percent of DOD's chemical and biological defense research and development program funds have been allocated to low-level chemical exposure issues in the two years since those disclosures. DOD claims that there is ``no validated threat'' of low-level chemical exposure to warrant greater effort, even as it continues to analyze other incidents during the Gulf War that may result in more troops being notified that they may have been exposed to low doses of chemical warfare agents. Moreover, the GAO report notes that DOD did a study just last year analyzing the impact of state sponsored terrorist attacks using low levels of chemical warfare agent to clandestinely disrupt U.S. military operations. It seems both prudent and reasonable to at least begin the conceptual work to address the issue of low-level exposures to chemical warfare agents. But what GAO found instead was a few uncoordinated efforts by concerned offices to look into this current and future threat. This issue demands a top-down approach, in which the broad strategy or framework can guide the development of research, new technology, and operational practice to better defend American men and women, our sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters, when they don the uniform of the United States and defend our interests in the hardest and most courageous manner. For this reason, and based upon the material which the GAO investigators had uncovered, I authored an amendment, which Senator Glenn cosponsored, to this year's Department of Defense Authorization bill to require the Secretary of Defense to review and modify chemical warfare defense policies and doctrine. The review calls upon DOD to address providing adequate protection from any low-level exposure, whether singly or in combination with other hazards, and whether to a single agent or to multiple agents and hazards over time. This amendment also requires the Secretary to address the reporting, coordinating, and retaining of information on possible exposures, including monitoring the health effects of those exposures by location, so that other mistakes of the Persian Gulf War are not extended to future battles. Additionally, this amendment calls upon the Secretary to develop and carry out a research program on the health effects of low-level exposures that can guide the Secretary in the evolution of policy and doctrine on low-level exposures to chemical warfare agents. I am very pleased that the amendment was retained in conference, and I look forward to the report on the review, which is due on May 1, 1999. I am also pleased with the fine and useful work done by GAO on this report, particularly by Dr. Sushil Sharma and Mr. Jeffery Harris. I hope that the Department of Defense finds their analysis and their conclusions helpful as it begins the review mandated in the Department of Defense Authorization conference report. And finally, I thank Senator Levin and Senator Glenn for their interest in this matter.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, once again, I come to the floor to express my opposition to fast-track procedures. Fast-track procedures were soundly defeated last year by this body, but were resurrected by the Senate Finance Committee as part of a trade bill reported under its jurisdiction. In reviewing the trade bill reported by the Senate Finance Committee, I am reminded of a remark attributed to Napoleon in referring to one time political-supporter-turned-foe, Charles Maurice de Talleyrand- Perigord. Purportedly, Napoleon referenced Talleyrand as ``a silk stocking filled with mud,'' believing that Talleyrand's costume and charm covered nothing but light-mindedness and egotism. Regardless of the legitimacy of Napoleon's remark, ``a silk stocking filled with mud'' is exactly my expectation of what would result from the provisions of the trade bill reported by the Senate Finance Committee. The bill's supporters have proclaimed a trade package promising lucrative U.S. economic gains, and have tried to stake out a claim to the moral high ground in the name of free trade. The rhetoric may extol a very pretty package, indeed, but, I am not sold by packaging. American workers simply cannot afford pleasing packaged rhetoric that in reality might leave them in an uphill fight, through an international thicket, to save their jobs. In addition to the certainty that current fast-track trade negotiating authority offers no guarantee to the average American worker, my colleagues should take heed that, likewise, no certainty exists that rosy international economic predictions linked to fast- track authority would come true. Take a look at the current global economic crisis. There are no guarantees. I have listened to my colleagues who urge support of the fast-track process, but I cannot, and I will not, vote to undermine a responsibility assigned to Congress through the Constitution. That responsibility is ``to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations'' and to ``lay and collect * * * Duties, Imposts and Excises''--a responsibility that this legislation appears bent on diminishing. Clearly, under the Constitution, the Senate is to have a meaningful role in trade negotiations. Likely, the Founding Fathers recognized the different institutional interests that affect trade negotiations and, thus, crafted provisions to provide checks and balances to ensure that the broad interests of the states--and the people--are protected. By side-stepping the Senate's authority in trade negotiations, we are circumventing the framework set up by the Founders to help guarantee that the total national interest is met. We are playing dangerously with the basic premises that underlie our system of checks and balances, and separation of powers. I note that many of my colleagues feel that the fast-track legislation under consideration sufficiently revises past trade negotiating authority to ensure that Congress' constitutional role in the regulation of foreign trade is preserved. Particularly, in this regard, supporters are touting the bill's beefed-up notice and consultation provisions as achieving the proper balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of government. I am supportive of continuous dialogue between the Administration and the Congress throughout any trade negotiating process. That would seem like a commonsense approach to me. But guidelines and cursory oversight provisions simply do not fulfill the Senate's constitutional role in foreign trade, and these new consultation and notification provisions can not overshadow the bill's basic shortcomings. That basic flaw is that the Congress through this measure hands the President broad authority to initiate, negotiate, and present trade agreements to the Congress. The Congress must then consider those agreements by an up-or-down vote with little or no debate and no opportunity to offer amendments. That is where we get off the track. They may call it the fast-track process. But that is where we leave the constitutional track. That is where we leave the track, which under the Constitution, says that the Senate has the right to offer amendments. While the Members on the committees of jurisdiction may have the opportunity to influence and develop the implementing legislation, for all practical purposes, this bill obliterates the voices of most of the Members of Congress when it comes to international trade agreements. The Constitution says that revenue measures shall originate in the House of Representatives but that the Senate may amend as on other bills. But here in this so-called fast track, the agreement is presented to the Senate to accept--up or down, with no amendments in order. Take it all or nothing. Frankly, I have little faith that consultations with the administration will have much impact--this or any other administration, if we are to be guided by recent administrations. Such consultations--with this or any administration--usually do not yield significant results. They have not thus far, in recent years certainly. So consult and notify as you will, but I am well aware of the likelihood that the President will sign an agreement, an implementing bill will stealthily materialize, and Senators will be provided with an immense document which they have little ability to change. It is take it or leave it. This is where we leave the track. This is where we part company as far as I am concerned. Under this bill, Senators' ``meaningful'' role in trade pacts will continue to be a yes- or-no vote on legislation that can affect millions of American workers and their communities. Perhaps I would be more enthusiastic about fast-track procedures if I believed that past trade agreements implemented under fast-track rules were beneficial to the nation as a whole. Regrettably, I believe that past agreements, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, which I voted against, have poorly represented the concerns of the average American worker. By eroding the carefully crafted checks and balances provided under the Constitution, our current trade policy poorly represents the broader interests of American society. Why can't the Senate be given an opportunity to at least offer 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 amendments? I am not suggesting that the Senate ought to be the arbiter over every little, teensy-weensy item in a trade agreement. I am not suggesting that at all. Obviously, we can't do that. But to say that the Senate cannot amend, can offer no amendments is off the track. To me that doesn't comport with the Constitution which provides that the Senate may offer amendments to bills. Trade agreements, in principle as well as in practice, always have winners and losers. I believe the underlying issue for the average American worker is precisely who benefits most from our trade negotiations. I believe that the average American worker perceives that a select few U.S. industries keep winning, while other domestic industries keep losing, and that the promised ``trickle down'' of benefits from the winners to the losers never actually trickles. Some will say that the benefits have not yet had time to trickle down. But data available today demonstrate a most distressing trend toward U.S. income inequality. That is: the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer. Under fast-track rules, Senators cannot challenge trade provisions that appear inappropriate or unfair. They cannot question trade provisions which seem to contain juicy deals for specific industries or companies, but hold few guarantees for the average American worker just trying to make ends meet, take care of family responsibilities, and save a little bit for retirement. Thus, it should be no mystery to Members of Congress as to why the American public is increasingly skeptical about our trade policies. During the NAFTA debate there were promises that the agreement would create lucrative economic gains for Americans--all Americans. American workers remember this promise, and they have judged that the promised gains have not materialized. We need to wise up. Our trade negotiators are under strong pressures from certain influential industry sectors in our economy to negotiate deals which benefit them. To achieve these deals, our negotiators often offer our trading partners concessions, such as tariff reductions that adversely affect less influential U.S. industries. Such concessions, I believe, are not usually properly reviewed. Too often, the benefits achieved in our trade agreements are insignificant compared with the costs to the individual workers, and the total costs to the economy. Worse, many of the negotiated provisions to benefit U.S. industries fail to materialize because our trading partners fail to implement the promised reforms. Therefore, we end up imposing enormous costs on various groups and segments of our economy and wind up with nothing to show for the damage. We end up with that pretty silk stocking filled with worthless mud. Average American workers live in my state of West Virginia. They work hard for their money, very hard indeed. They labor in the coal mines, on small family-operated farms, in steel, glass or chemical manufacturing plants. These hard-working families deserve a fair slice of the pie. These and other American workers elected the various members of this body to look after their interests in national trade matters. Senators simply cannot adequately fulfill this obligation under fast-track procedures. The Constitution established a system of government that has served the United States well for over 200 years. It created a nation filled with the promise of opportunity for all. It is our duty to do our best to make certain that the interests of every American are considered when it comes to matters of trade. We live in an increasingly globalized world economy. I am not a protectionist and I am not against fair and free trade. But I would vote to preserve the Senate's essential role in its right to amend bills and in regulating foreign commerce. I would vote against fast- track procedures, as I have in the past, procedures that camouflage provisions that simply might not be acceptable to the majority of Americans. I urge my colleagues to carefully consider the institutional and practical problems that fast track presents. The Constitution is clear: Congress is assigned the power ``to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations: and to ``lay and collect duties, imposts and excises.'' The Constitution is also clear on the point that the Senate has the power and the right to amend legislation that comes before this body. Let us not again so easily relinquish our constitutional power when it comes to issues of such importance to American working families. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object Mr. President, I have advocated the passage of this bill. On a number of occasions I have asked the leader to proceed with this bill as soon as he could do so. And I introduced the legislation several months ago--I believe last year even--that went to the committee chaired by the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Thompson. I asked the chairman to hold hearings on the bill, which he did. I appeared before the committee and spoke in support of the bill. And that bill has been reported from the committee with some changes, which I support. So I support this bill 100 percent. But I am constrained to object this evening because of one or two colleagues on my side of the aisle who wish to object. I am sorry to have to do that. But with that explanation, Mr. President, I do object.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a signatory to the cloture motion.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. I express my deep appreciation to the distinguished Senator for his comments. It has been my privilege to serve over these 40 years in the Senate with some great Senators from Alabama. Senator James Allen was an expert in the rules and procedures. He had been Lieutenant Governor of Alabama, and I believe he told me that as presiding officer over the Alabama lower house, I believe it was, he used the rules of the U.S. Senate. He certainly was very conversant with the U.S. Senate rules, a master of the rules of the Senate, a very able man, and courageous. He had no difficulty in taking a stand even if he stood alone. We were sorry at his untimely passing. There were other great Senators from Alabama--John Sparkman, who promoted and wrote important legislation dealing with housing; Lister Hill. I can see Lister Hill--that is his desk, I believe it was that desk right there--speaking. He had a fine way of speaking. I believe he told me that he had been named after Dr. Lister--a great English surgeon, Dr. Lister. Senator Hill told me, if I am not mistaken in my recollection, that Dr. Lister had performed an operation on a man who had gangrene in one of his legs. They didn't have the anesthetics in that day and time that they have today. This man went through this excruciating experience and then wrote the poem ``Invictus.'' And the surgeon was a Dr. Lister. Senator Hill was given the name Lister, after that great English surgeon. I am proud to recall these fine Senators from Alabama who were here when I came to the Senate. I have lately come to appreciate the work of the distinguished Senator who is now standing at the desk of the majority leader, and I appreciate his kind words. I have treasured his letters, and I know that ours is a friendship which will be a lasting one. I shall cherish it. I thank him for relating his experiences in the little country schoolhouse. It doesn't have to be a massive building with beautiful columns and hallways decorated with shining pieces of furniture. The teacher makes the school. James A. Garfield, hearkening back to his schooldays, said that if he had his old teacher, Mark Hopkins, on one end of the log and he himself on the other there was a university. Those are not the exact words, but they were well spoken. I am trying to remember a poem about a teacher. It doesn't come back to me just now, except in part: A Teacher builded a temple With loving and infinite care, Planning each arch with patience, Laying each stone with prayer. * * * * * But the temple the teacher builded Will last while the ages roll For that beautiful unseen temple Was a child's immortal soul. I thank the distinguished Senator. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I was pleased to read an article in the September 15 edition of the Washington Times, titled, ``Classics Back in Fashion at Some Schools.'' Speaking precisely to the point that I have made countless times during my years in the Senate, this article reiterates the need to get back to the basics in education. I would like to get back to the little two-room schoolhouse in which I started along about 1923. I laud those schools that have taken this valuable step back and are getting back to the basics in order to reintroduce classical education into their classrooms. Who better to teach our students today than the true historians, the poets, and the playwrights of yesteryear. I long for the old McGuffey readers--I still have a set of those old McGuffey readers in my personal library--where the students read poems and wholesome stories that taught them good morals, how to act, how to grow up and be good citizens. The old McGuffey readers. The historians, the poets, and the playwrights of yesteryear, such as Euripides, Aeschylus, Shakespeare, and Sophocles, who were the four great master poets of tragedy throughout the years and were outstanding as writers of tragic plays, their works were among the classics that have built history, influenced the framers of our Constitution, and can serve to enhance our ability to better understand the present and to set goals for the future. Today, our students are caught up in the MTV generation--some of them--watching mind-polluting television sitcoms, listening to shock radio, and repeating the degrading language that they acquire by digesting this steady diet of unhealthy perversity. Sadly, many modern classrooms often offer nothing to counteract this flood of popular junk and ignorance, which are smothering our country's students. The classics have been ignored in recent years and replaced by psuedoliterature filled with profanity and violence, and textbooks which do a better job of teaching I don't know what than basic algebra. It alarms me to think that students cannot even begin to identify the great heroes of our past or the authors of the Federalist Papers. If our Nation hopes to produce better students, students who can match or outperform the competition in international exams, we must return to the basics, return to the great books and history, such as ``Plutarch's Lives,'' Milton's ``Paradise Lost,'' Milton's ``Paradise Regained,'' Daniel Defoe's ``Robinson Crusoe,'' Emerson's essays, Carlyle's ``History of the French Revolution,'' the Bible, the ``Iliad'' and the ``Odyssey.'' Alexander the Great kept a copy of The Iliad under his pillow. It was called the ``casket copy''. He submitted Homer's ``Iliad'' to Aristotle, and asked Aristotle to critique it. Then Alexander the Great prized it above all other literature. Shakespeare's 37 plays: I quoted extracts from Shakespeare's 37 plays one year in the Senate. These are all replete with the history and philosophy that are integral elements in a well-rounded, uplifting education. When I talk about an education, I mean one that goes through one's lifetime. It doesn't stop with graduating from high school or from college or from getting a Ph.D. in physics, as two of my grandsons have done. It means continuing to educate one's self throughout one's life. Solon, one of the seven wise men of Greece, said, ``I grow old in the pursuit of learning.'' That is a goal that all of us should emulate: ``I grow old in the pursuit of learning.'' I try to follow in Solon's footsteps in that regard. During the last break I read Cicero's ``Republic''--not Plato's ``Republic.'' I had already done that some time ago, but Cicero's ``Republic,'' and Cicero's ``Law''--and De Tocqueville's ``Democracy in America''--two excellent volumes. Ours is not a democracy. We are talking about a form of government. Ours is not a democracy. We live in a democratic society and we promote democratic principles. But, as for our form of government, it is not a democracy. So many people loosely and glibly refer to it as a ``democracy.'' One needs only to read the Federalist Papers No. 10 and No. 14, to get a good definition of what is a ``democracy'' and what is a ``republic.'' Madison, in both of those essays, defines and distinguishes between a democracy, as a form of government, and a republic. So let us continue to study and to learn. Learning can be one of the most rewarding of the human activities. But it must be a lifelong journey. It ought to be a lifelong journey which carries one across the rivers of changes in events and into the recesses of man's immortal spirit. There is no better way to build upon shallow and superficial knowledge than to ponder the lessons of the past. There is no better way. As Cicero said, ``To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born, is to remain always a child.'' I encourage all schools to give their students this opportunity to grow, to share the lessons of the past, to share history, to read ancient history. Herodotus who wrote about Persia, and who wrote about Egypt, lived somewhere between 484 and 424 B.C.--Xenophon, Thucydides, Sallustius, Polybius, Zosimus, Orosius, Ammianus, Appianus, Arrianus, Caesar himself who wrote the Gallic Wars, Florus, Procopius, Eutropius, Cassius Dio Cocceianus, Livius, Tacitus, Plutarch, Gibbon on The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Read histories of England. Of Rome and Greece. Read these histories, and read American history, and read the history of the U.S. Senate. These are illuminating. They are uplifting. And we can learn by past events how, in many instances, to deal with current events. Napoleon said, ``Teach my son to study history. It is the only true philosophy.'' Enjoy the vision of the poets and the philosophers and begin to shape leaders, who can take us confidently into the future because they so well understand the past. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, has the Pastore rule expired for today?

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak out of order.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order.

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as I look about at my distinguished colleagues seated in the august Senate chamber, I find myself mentally transported to another gathering of distinguished leaders, in another elegant chamber, that occurred exactly two hundred and eleven years ago today. The date was Monday, September 17; the setting, the Philadelphia State House. It had been a long, hot summer, and only 38 of the 55 delegates attending the Constitutional Convention were still in attendance. One can imagine the commingled sense of pride, nervous excitement, and exhaustion that filled these men as they filed into the State House chamber and took their seats. For awaiting them that day was a task that they must have eagerly anticipated for several months-- and that many of them feared might never arrive. It was to be the fruition of their diligent, patient, frustrating summer of debate, discussion, and dispute. Finally, they would put their signatures to the document, freshly copied on parchment in neat script, that they had spent the summer composing. And so it was that, after a protracted and at times painful labor, on September 17, 1787, the Constitution was signed. Today, this document, little changed since its creation in Philadelphia, celebrates its 211th birthday. Before the signing ceremony took place, Benjamin Franklin rose to speak one last time to his colleagues. Some of them still had reservations about the document that the Convention had drafted, and Franklin, as he had so often that summer, used his customary self- deprecating charm and understated wisdom to try to win them over. Acknowledging that the draft Constitution might well contain some ``faults,'' Franklin added, however: I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an Assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel. . . . Mr. President, I, too, continue to be astonished at the perfection of this document. The more I study it, the more I see it in action--as we all do here, on a daily basis--the more I marvel at the handiwork of those 55 men in Philadelphia. What transpired that summer in Philadelphia's State House was truly one of the great events in the history of this Republic--it is not a democracy; it is a Republic--or in the history of the world. Indeed, it is no stretch to call this Constitution, as Gladstone did, ``the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.'' Part of the strength of the Constitution lies in its ability to accommodate situations and developments that the Framers could never have anticipated. Just as Seneca tells us that the test of a strong man is adversity, so the true test of the Constitution may be how well it handles the unexpected. So far, Mr. President, the Constitution has passed that test with flying colors. It has seen us through two centuries of staggering technological, economic, social, and political transformations. We may well be entering a new period of upheaval which will further test the Constitution's strength and elasticity. Some have even suggested that we are entering ``a constitutional crisis.'' I, for one, have greater faith in the Framers' handiwork. The Constitution sets up a clear process for investigating and resolving allegations of wrongdoing by the Executive and other civil officers. The House is assigned the power of impeachment and the Senate the power to try impeachments. The current situation may well not result in impeachment, but if it does--and that is just one possibility--then I am confident that, as long as we in the House and the Senate fulfill our constitutional duties solemnly and judiciously, we will see the nation through this and any future difficulties. Sadly, just as current events reaffirm the importance of knowing and following constitutional processes and procedures, a new poll indicates that America's youth are largely ignorant of the Constitution and its origins. It seems that every few months a new poll appears which plumbs the depths of ignorance among some of our children. Each time, we hope that we have finally reached the bottom of the abyss; each time, we are disappointed when a new survey a little later indicates that the depths are deeper and darker than we ever realized. The latest sounding of the depths comes to us through the courtesy of a poll by the National Constitution Center, which shows that while American teenagers are Rhodes Scholars in popular culture, in many instances many are sadly deficient in matters constitutional. The study found that by a wide margin, 59 percent to 41 percent, more American teenagers can name the Three Stooges than can name the three branches of government. Less than 3 percent of teens could name the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, while almost 95 percent could name the television actor who played the ``Fresh Prince of Bel-Air.'' And less than one-third could name the Speaker of the House, while almost 9 of 10 could name the star of the T.V. show ``Home Improvement.'' It gets worse, Mr. President. Why, just one-quarter of the teens could name the city in which the Constitution was written! Only one- quarter knew what the 5th Amendment protects. Only 21% knew how many Senators there are. And less than half knew the name given to the first ten amendments. These should not be difficult questions to answer. This is not a matter of knowing whether the Constitution allows states to grant letters of Marque and Reprisal--it doesn't--or citing cases over which the Supreme Court has original, rather than appellate, jurisdiction. One should not need a degree in constitutional history, or a course in constitutional law, to know the name of the Speaker of the House. Indeed, answering many of the questions I cited requires only a cursory familiarity with current events. What's more, over half of the teens interviewed said they read or listen to the news for at least 15 minutes daily, over half said their teachers discuss politics at least a few times a week, and yet, only a handful could recall the names of Newt Gingrich or William Rehnquist. Where does the fault lie, Mr. President? With our schools, for failing to provide students with the most rudimentary background in civics and government? With the media, for its shallow and trivializing coverage of important issues? Or with parents, for failing to prepare their children for their responsibilities as citizens? With the entire national culture, for placing greater emphasis on the fashion tips of supermodels and the escapades of rock stars than on the accomplishments and heroics of great men and women of the past and present? Perhaps all of these entities must share some responsibility for this sad state of affairs. But my purpose today, Mr. President, is not to cast blame. I speak not in anger but in sadness, out of a concern for the welfare of our country and the future generations which will assume its leadership. This country will not long continue to occupy its unique position among the nations of the world if it does not adequately prepare its children to pick up the reins of power that the older generations currently wield. We need to prepare our children to be active, informed, involved citizens. We need to make them aware of how our governmental system operates and what part they play within it. We need, in short, to teach them about the Constitution. For it is the Constitution that lays out the Federal system of government. It is the Constitution that establishes the separation of certain powers and the sharing of other powers among three distinct but overlapping branches of government, and between one Federal and multiple State governments. The Constitution is the secular bible of this Republic, and, given its importance, its brevity, and its accessibility, it is not too much to expect that every citizen have at least a passing familiarity with it. Even this is not enough, however. The Constitution, as I suggested at the beginning, is the product of a particularly momentous course of events. Simply reading the words of the Constitution without knowing something of those events is like learning about World War I by reading the Treaty of Versailles. We cannot teach our children to understand and respect this document unless they learn its history. They must learn about the considerable intellectual and physical energy that those 55 men at Philadelphia expended in drafting this document. They should read some of those debates, and they should read The Federalist Papers and discover for themselves the principles, hopes, and fears that motivated the Framers. For the Constitution was not simply handed down to us as the Old Testament God handed down the Commandments to Moses. To believe that would be a disservice to the remarkable men who toiled long and hard to produce the document. The Constitution is our tangible connection with those men, and with the founding events of this Republic some two centuries ago. So, I close where I began: with 38 men gathered in a room at the Philadelphia State House some 211 years ago. While they may not have fully appreciated the moment of the occasion-- how could they?--they had some inkling of it. And, of course, it was Franklin again who best captured the spirit of the moment. Gazing at the back of the President's chair, upon which the sun had been painted, Franklin commented: I have often and often in the course of the Session, and the vicissitudes of my hopes and fears as to its issue, looked at that behind the President without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting: But now at length I have the happiness to know that it is a rising and not a setting Sun. Today, 211 years later, that sun continues to be in the ascendant. I hope and pray that it will remain so for another 211 years.