Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator, and I thank, again, all Senators for allowing me to speak at this particular juncture. (By unanimous consent, the remarks of Mr. Byrd, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Feingold pertaining to another subject are printed later in today's Record.) Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wonder if I might get consent to speak on another matter at the conclusion of the Senator's remarks? Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. I guess it would be 45 minutes to an hour. It would give Senators a chance to get lunch.

Mr. BYRD. I do understand that. I have to be somewhere else from 1:30 on, for awhile. I had hoped that I might be able to speak out of order earlier.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I hope the Senator will remember that debate on the Interior bill is being interrupted here. I have no objection to that. And there was a request that there be no amendments until, I believe it was Friday or Thursday, at some point, or until we vote on cloture on this matter. I had no objection to that. But I could have objected. That debate was interrupted. I don't interrupt in debates very often. I hope the Senator will allow me to proceed in this instance.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, we appear to be only days away from receiving the Independent Counsel's report on President Clinton. The pressure on Congress is escalating. Talk of impeachment is in the air along with suggestions of resolutions of reprimand and censure. Some have even suggested that we ought to get on with impeachment and ``get this thing behind us.'' There had to come a time, sooner or later, when the boil would be lanced. The problem is, that with the lancing, a hemorrhaging may be only one of those continuing symptoms of a greater lancing--perhaps even an amputation--that still lurks in the shadows up ahead. There is no question but that the President, himself, has sown the wind, and he is reaping the whirlwind. His televised speech of August 17 heaped hot coals upon himself, coals causing wounds which continue to inflame and burn ever more deeply. Coming, as the speech did, so soon after the President's appearance before the Grand Jury, his words were ill-timed, ill-formed, and ill-advised. Perhaps if he had only delayed his televised speech for 24 hours, he may have, upon reflection, avoided some self-inflicted wounds that have since festered and continue to fester. The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it. When the scribes and Pharisees brought before Jesus a woman taken in adultery, saying that, under Moses, the law commanded that she be stoned, they sought to tempt Jesus that they might accuse him. He said unto them: ``He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.'' And that ancient admonition, that he who is without sin should cast the first stone, applies to every human being in this country today. Someone else has said: ``No man's life will bear looking into.'' These admonishments should give all of us pause and should encourage reflection and self-examination. In this instance, the President, himself, has, by his own actions and words, thrown the first stone at himself and thus made himself vulnerable to the stoning by others. What a sorrowful spectacle! To maintain that Presidents have private lives is, of course, not to be denied, but the Oval Office of the White House is not a private office; it is where much of the business of the Nation is conducted daily; it is the people's office; and the only real privacy that any President can realistically claim is in the third- floor living quarters of the White House with his family. What the President had hoped to claim was ``nobody else's business'' has now become everybody else's business. His speech was a lawyer-worded effort--as in the reference to ``legally accurate'' testimony--and the people have long since grown tired of having to pick and sift among artfully crafted words that have too often obscured the truth rather than revealed it. The White House's apparent strategy of delay and attack over so many long months has only succeeded in stringing out a judgment day that is increasingly threatening, and has only made bad matters worse. Former President Nixon, in an earlier tragedy for the Nation and for all of us who were here and lived through it, tried the same thing--delay, delay, delay, and counter-attack, attack, attack--and it failed in the end. We seem to be living recent history all over again. As the Book of Ecclesiastes plainly tells us, ``There is no new thing under the sun.'' Time seems to be turning backward in its flight, and many of the mistakes that President Nixon made are being made all over again. We also must stop and remember that this is a sad time for the President and his family, a sad time for his friends and supporters throughout the country, a sad time for the devoted members of his staff who have labored and sacrificed and given so much for a man in whom they implicitly believed. It is a sad time for members of his cabinet and heads of agencies who publicly defended him and who depended on his word. But it is an even sadder time for the country. As a schoolboy, I looked upon George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and Abraham Lincoln as my idols to be emulated; I looked upon Babe Ruth and Jack Dempsey and Charles Lindbergh and Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Edison and Nathan Hale and Daniel Morgan and Nathaniel Green and Stonewall Jackson as my heroes. I was taught, as most of us were, to revere God. I was taught to believe the Bible, and that a judgment day would surely come when we would all be punished for our sins or be saved by our faith and good works. The old couple who raised me taught me by their example and their words not to lie but to tell the truth, not to cheat but to be honest; but what will parents tell their children today? Can they tell them to plow a straight furrow and that honesty is still the best policy? To whom can our young people look for inspiration? I recently asked a question on this floor, ``Where have all the heroes gone?'' I ask that question again today. Where have all the heroes gone? Fortunately, we do have a Mark McGwire and a Sammy Sosa, both of whom have captured the Nation's admiration with their home runs. But where are the Nation's leaders to whom the children can look and be inspired to work hard and live clean lives? The political and social environment in which parents must today raise their children is, unfortunately, an environment in which anything goes; politicians try to be all things to all people; family values and religious values which made us a great Nation are looked upon as old-fashioned, unsophisticated, and the product of ignorance and rusticness. Profanity and vulgarity, sex and violence are pervasive in television programming, in the movies, and in much of today's books that pretend to pass for literature. The Nation is inexorably sinking toward the lowest common denominator in its standards and values. Haven't we had enough? I think our country sinks beneath the yoke; It weeps, it bleeds, and each new day A gash is added to her wounds. Yes, talk of impeachment and censure and resignation is in the air. It is on almost everybody's mind with whom I have talked. As we find ourselves being brought nearer and nearer, as it would seem, to a yawning abyss, I urge that we all step back and give ourselves and the country a little pause in which to reflect and meditate before we cast ourselves headlong over the precipice. To say we ought to get on with impeachment and ``get the thing behind us'' is a bold thing to say; but boldness, to the point of cavalierness, can come back to haunt us. I suggest that we Senators should let the House do its work and wait to see what action that body takes. The Senate cannot vote on Articles of Impeachment--we all know that--until the House formulates such articles and presents them by its managers to the Senate--if it ever does so. I also suggest that putting ``this thing behind us'' is not going to be an easy thing to do. If Congress reaches that stage of voting on Articles of Impeachment it is going to be a traumatic experience for all of us, both here in this city and throughout the country. The House is in no position to formulate Articles of Impeachment prior to its receipt and consideration of--and I emphasize consideration--the Starr report. The Judiciary Committee--I am talking about the Judiciary Committee in the House--will undoubtedly want to hold hearings before it formulates any Articles of Impeachment if such appear to be called for. That is the House's charge; that is the House's responsibility, not ours. If and when such Articles are presented here to the Senate--they are not amendable here, and the Senate, in such cases, is limited to an up-or-down vote on each Article--that will be a matter of the utmost gravity. All Senators will be sworn. I tell you. That will be a matter of the utmost gravity. Caution should be the order of the day. If, sometime in the future, the American people should come to believe that this President, or any other President, has been driven out of office for what they may perceive to be political reasons, their wrath will fall upon those who jumped to judgment prematurely. That is not something that we can so easily ``put behind us.'' Both the media and those of us who may ultimately be called upon to sit in judgment should exercise restraint in pressing toward a particular conclusion before all of the facts are known. There is a constitutional process in place. We should all let it work. It is my suggestion that everyone should exercise some self-restraint against calling for impeachment or censure or for the President's resignation. Who knows? I may do that before it is all over. But not now. We should exercise some self-restraint against calling for impeachment, or censure, or for resignation--until the other body has had an opportunity to study and sift through the Starr report. There are many avenues down which we could travel as we grapple with this matter. Among them is the path of official censure which some have suggested. Others may think that censure is ``meaningless.'' Let me state for the record that that is not my view. I have written in my work on the Senate that censure has no constitutional basis. It doesn't mean that censure is unconstitutional. Just as ``holds'' that are placed on bills and resolutions have no basis in the Senate rules, they nevertheless have grown up as a custom here, and such ``holds'' are practiced. I have observed that censure is not mentioned in the Constitution. But, certainly censure is not ``meaningless.'' It is a serious and emphatic expression of condemnation and disapproval. Censure by the Congress is a major blot on the record and reputation of a public official. While at this point, I prefer to reserve judgment on that course, it should not be simply brushed off as ``meaningless.'' And we must not fail to consider the lessons of history. For my part, I have seen history repeat itself. I served on the Senate Judiciary Committee and was the Democratic Whip during the weeks and months of the Nixon tragedy. Some of the aspects of that tragedy can be seen in the problems that are today confronting us. Some aspects are different. Much is the same. By April 1973, there had been talk of impeachment of President Nixon, with some people saying that he should resign. On May 23 of that year, I said, ``As of now, there is no reason for President Nixon to resign, and talk of impeachment is at best, premature, and, at worst, reckless.'' Citing the lack of hard evidence ``to date,'' I also said, ``It is a time for restraint and sobriety in our words, our actions, and our judgments.'' I later said that impeachment would require ``hard evidence'' of Nixon's complicity in Watergate and would also require strong ``public opinion to support'' impeachment and conviction. And I say to my colleagues here today, it will require strong ``public opinion to support'' impeachment and conviction of any President in the future. ``We all shrink from taking a step that is the most drastic step authorized in the Constitution,'' I said. I added that ``the bare possibility of resignation of Mr. Nixon at some point is a more likely event than impeachment.'' Those are my quotes as I look back. On January 28, 1974, I was a guest on ``Washington's Straight Talk,'' a 30-minute public television interview show. In reference to the impact that the Watergate Affair was having on the President, I stated: ``There is no question but that his influence has been greatly eroded. I doubt that he can ever regain the confidence of the American people.'' I also said that impeachment of the President ``is becoming a more realistic possibility, but there is still no groundswell for impeachment.'' I was talking about a Republican President in that instance. ``There is an uneasiness on impeachment because of the paralysis that would come with it,'' I said then. I cosponsored a resolution directing the Committee on Rules and Administration--on which I served and still serve--to review all existing rules and precedents that applied to impeachment trials in order to recommend any revisions to the rules that might be necessary. The result of our work was an exhaustively researched publication, titled, ``Procedure and Guidelines for Impeachment Trials in the United States Senate.'' The Senate was, indeed, gearing up for an impeachment trial--if needed. But, on Thursday, August 8, 1974--almost a quarter of a century ago-- President Nixon resigned, his resignation to be effective at noon the next day. And promptly after noon on Friday, August 9, Gerald Ford was sworn in as the 38th President. Mr. President, just as I urged caution and patience in 1973 and 1974, I urge that same course now. I suggest that we try to restrain ourselves and wait until the House of Representatives has had an opportunity to examine the contents of Mr. Starr's report. It will be forthcoming soon, I hear. Perhaps before the week is out. Let us, as Senators, remember that if the House ultimately votes to impeach this President--and we all should be careful not to attempt to influence the other body--when I say ``we all'' I have reference to ourselves, to the executive branch and to the media--in any way in a decision which should rest with the House, and it alone--we Senators, who must sit as jurors if the worst ever comes to worst, will carry a heavy burden in that event. We must not compromise any final decision by rushing to judgment in advance. I trust that we will all weigh carefully, in our own minds and hearts, the possible consequences to the nation of our words and actions and judgments if that duty ultimately should beckon us. If it does, there will be many difficult questions. What is an impeachable offense? We read in last weekend's newspaper. And what is meant by ``high crimes and misdemeanors''? We heard the question asked on television. Gerald Ford, in remarks to the House of Representatives in April 1970, stated: ``The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers [it] to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds''--not just 60--``of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office.'' Even though the debates and actions at the Philadelphia Convention regarding impeachment appear on the record to have been comparatively sparse, they seem to indicate clearly enough that the framers intended the phrase ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' to subsume corruption, maladministration, gross and wanton neglect of duty, misuse of official power, and other violations of the public trust by officeholders.'' The interpretation of the Constitution's clause on impeachable offenses entered into the ratification debates. James Iredell, speaking at the North Carolina Convention, declared that the ``power of impeachment'' given by the Constitution was ``to bring great offenders to punishment. . . . for crime which it is not easy to describe, but which every one must be convinced is a high crime and misdemeanor against the government.'' Iredell, who would later serve as a Supreme Court justice, said that the ``occasion'' for exercise of the impeachment power ``will arise from acts of great injury to the community, and the objects of it may be such as cannot be easily reached by an ordinary tribunal.'' Alexander Hamilton, hoping to influence the critical New York decision on ratification, explained in The Federalist No. 65: A well constituted court for the trial of impeachments, is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety to be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. . . . What it may be asked is the true spirit of the institution itself? Is it not designed as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men? A misconception that has surfaced during impeachment trials is the notion that criminal or civil standards of proof are somehow required in order to convict. Such standards run the gamut from the lowest threshold, proof by ``preponderance of the evidence,'' which must be met by plaintiffs in most civil cases; to the next highest standard, proof by ``clear and convincing evidence,'' employed in some classes of civil cases; to the most rigorous standard, ``proof beyond a reasonable doubt,'' imposed for criminal cases. Of course, Mr. President, a Senator may apply any standard of proof he or she desires, or may choose to apply no set standard whatever. But, given the history of impeachment in the United States and the fact that neither civil penalties nor criminal punishments are applicable in impeachment cases, any talk of standards of proof seems rather pointless and likely to be unproductive. If they have taught us nothing else, the events of recent months at least should have taught us the essential importance of restraint. As Members of this body, we are all likely to be sorely tested in this matter. The nation will look to us for leadership. And in critical times, real leadership often requires one to turn one's back on the daily hue and cry and quietly sort through the noise of competing interests for the one overriding, essential interest. Such a course demands restraint and discipline. We, who may one day be called upon to bear the brunt of the responsibility of deciding the fate of a president, must reach for those qualities at this time. And so, I respectfully urge everyone in this town to calm down for a little while and contemplate with seriousness the impact that our actions may have on the well-being of the nation, and the paralysis which we may be spawning if we continue to be mesmerized with each new rumor, and each new titillating whisper. The President's situation--and the Congress', the media's, and the public's all-consuming obsession with it--has contributed to a loss of focus on, and attention to, many aspects of our national life that have far-reaching consequences; and we shall see a continuation of that loss of focus when and if the time ever comes that we have to vote on an impeachment resolution. Nowhere is this more true than in the realm of foreign policy. In the few snippets of newspaper and news shows which attempt to turn our attention from our unfortunate domestic travails and focus instead on events overseas, we can see the troubling signs of a long and difficult winter ahead. In the Balkans, the Serb-dominated Yugoslav Army has reportedly rounded up ethnic Albanian men and boys of fighting age in the province of Kosovo, labeling them all ``terrorists.'' This action bears the bloody stains of earlier Serbian ``ethnic cleansing'' in neighboring Bosnia that eventually led to a massive intervention by NATO. What action, if any, should the U.S. take? I fear that our lack of attention may allow the situation to get even further out of hand. In Iraq, troubling questions have been raised about an unwillingness to deal with continued Iraqi intransigence over weapons inspections. Russia's economy and indeed her very government appear on the verge of dissolution. North Korea has launched a long range missile right over our ally, Japan. In China and elsewhere, many tens of thousands of people face the coming winter hungry and homeless as a result of floods and fires and droughts. And, not least, acts of terrorism against U.S. embassies and interests continue to threaten. All of these unhappy circumstances will challenge the U.S. economy and U.S. leadership. It ill behooves us all to become so enmeshed in the current web of scandal that we ignore or obscure opportunities to deal with these serious challenges before they escalate into full-blown crises. We cannot continue to swirl in this miasma of misery if we are to judiciously carry out our duties as the representatives of the people. Impeachment is among the most serious, if not the most serious, duty meted out to us in the Constitution that we are sworn to support and defend. Let us wait for the facts to come out before we rush to judgment as to the action we should take. Let us wait for the House to determine those facts from the report that will shortly be presented to it. And then, hopefully, we can all see what the facts are. There are serious challenges to our nation ahead. Here in the Senate, we may be called upon to help restore such forgotten qualities as courage, integrity, dignity, fairness, and thoughtfulness to a situation marked, for the most part, by the absence of those characteristics. For my part, I shall pray that we who serve here will do our best to restore the sense of serious contemplation and quiet duty expected of us under the Constitution and by the good people of this nation during times of testing and crisis. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for his words, which I take very seriously, and for his kindness, as always, to me. I hope that I have spoken wisely. I hope that I will not be misunderstood. I simply think that before we reach a judgment on this President or any other President--and I said this when Mr. Nixon was in the docks, as it were--I hope that we Senators will not advocate impeachment or censure or resignation at least until the Starr report has reached the House and the House has had an opportunity to conduct hearings, if it so chooses, and has formulated articles, if it so chooses. There will be plenty of time then for Senators to reach that judgment. In the meantime, we have much to do. I thank the distinguished Senator. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of Interior and Related Agencies. I speak in support of the fiscal year 1999 interior appropriations bill. This is an important bill which provides for the management of our Nation's natural resources and funds research critical to our energy future. It supports the well-being of our Indian populations and protects the historical and cultural heritage of our country. I hope the Senate will move swiftly through the bill. It has been my privilege, Mr. President, to serve as the Ranking Member for this bill at the side of our very able Chairman, the senior Senator from Washington. Senator Gorton has done an outstanding job in crafting the bill and balancing its many competing interests, and crafting the Interior bill is not an easy task. The Interior bill remains one of the most popular appropriation bills, funding a diverse set of very worthy programs and projects. The bill is full of thousands of relatively small, yet very meaningful details. Our Chairman is a master of the complexities of the bill, and it is a pleasure to work on this appropriations bill with Senator Gorton. He has treated Senators fairly and openly. This bill was put together in a bipartisan manner, and it reflects priorities identified by many Senators, by the public, and by the agencies that are charged with carrying out the programs and projects funded in the bill. The breadth of the activities covered by the Interior bill is vast-- ranging from museums to parks to hospitals to resources to research-- with most of the funds being spent far away from the Capitol and far away from Washington. This bill funds hundreds of national parks, wildlife refuges, national forests, and other land management units. The bill supports more than 400 Indian hospitals and clinics and thousands of Indian students. A wide variety of natural science and energy research and technology development is funded through this bill, providing immediate and far-reaching benefits to all parts of our country and to our society as a whole. This bill makes its presence known in every State--from the rocky coasts of Maine to the mountains of California, from the coral reefs of Florida to the farflung island territories of the Pacific, from the Aleutian Islands in Alaska to the Outer Banks of North Carolina. And the number of requests that Senator Gorton and I have received from Senators for project funding in the Interior bill numbers more than 1,400--1,400 requests for specific items. This reflects its broad impact. While it is impossible to include every request, Senator Gorton has done an admirable job of accommodating high-priority items within the allocation, an allocation that is $660 million below the President's budget request and $290 million below last year's enacted level in new spending authority. Since the bill is at its allocation, any additional funding sought by Senators will need to be offset. Mr. President, highlights of this bill include: A total of $233 million for land acquisition, which is $37 million below the President's request and $38 million below the level of funding included in title I and title II of last year's bill for land acquisition. A continuing emphasis on operating and protecting our national parks. Park operation funds are increased by $55 million, including $15 million targeted for the special operations initiative, $10 million for an across-the-board increase for all parks, and $14 million for maintenance. A total of $10 million for the President's Millennium initiative, ``Save America's Treasures.'' In addition, specific funding for critical historical and cultural resources is contained in the normal funding categories--items such as restoration of the Star Spangled Banner at the Smithsonian Institution, presevation of Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia, protection of buildings at the Edison National Historic Site, and stabilization and protection of the Longfellow National Historic Site. A continuing focus on the maintenance backlog needs of the land management agencies. Specific increases include: +$6 million for BLM facilities maintenance; +$10 million for FWS refuge operations and maintenance; +$18 million for NPS maintenance; and +$13 million for Forest Service road maintenance. A total of $155 million for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, allowing operation of the reserve without selling any of its oil. An increase of $45 million above the President's request for the Indian Health Services program to help cover fixed costs. The administration's budget gave no consideration to these needs for IHS. A net increase of $35 million for energy conservation programs-- including increases for weatherization assistance, the building equipment and materials program, the industry sector programs, and the transportation programs. Mr. President, while this bill provides needed resources for protecting some of our Nation's most valuable treasures, we still have a long way to go. The agencies funded through this bill are starting to make progress towards addressing their backlog maintenance issues, thanks in great measure to the leadership of the Congress, the expansion of private-public partnerships, and the development of innovative user fees. But we are by no means out of the woods. Many deplorable conditions remain; many important resource and research needs are unmet. We must continue our vigilance towards unnecessary new initiatives as well as unwise decreases, our support for the basic programs that provide the foundation of the Interior bill, and our careful stewardship of the resources and assets placed in our trust. Mr. President, the chairman and manager of the bill has already stated for the record many of the salient points that are covered in the bill, many of the items, many of the programs and projects. There is no need for my repeating them here. Lastly, Mr. President, I extend a warm word of appreciation to the staff that have assisted the chairman and myself in our work on this bill. They work as a team and serve both of us, as well as all Senators, in a very effective and dedicated manner. On the majority side, the staff members are Bruce Evans, Ginny James, Anne McInerney, Leif Fonnesbeck, Mary Ellen Mueller, and Kevin Johnson. On my staff, Sue Masica, Kurt Dodd, Craig Leff, and Carole Geagley have worked on the Interior bill this year. This team works under the tutelage of the staff directors of the full committee--Steve Cortese for the majority and Jim English for the minority. In closing, Mr. President, I want to share my deep appreciation for the wonderful words that members of the subcommittee and full committee have spoken about Sue Masica, the minority clerk for the bill, who recently accepted a position with the National Park Service. Sue was the best of the best. She will be sorely missed by myself and by the other Senators. Her dedication, acumen, and team spirit epitomize the Senate and the appropriations process. Mr. President, this is a good bill, and I urge the Senate to complete its action promptly. And I urge all Senators to support the bill in its final passage. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what does the language mean, so that I can understand it?

Mr. BYRD. Thank you.

Mr. BYRD. For those purposes again?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I join with my two illustrious leaders in saluting Senator Thurmond--truly an outstanding Senator. None of us has ever seen a Senator like Senator Thurmond. He has served in the U.S. Senate 44 years. He has accumulated scores of honors, awards, and accolades. Today, he adds yet another accomplishment to his roster of achievements: the casting of his 15,000th vote in the Senate. This is a remarkable milestone for a remarkable individual. I would suggest if anyone wants to read a truly remarkable autobiography or biographical sketch, they read in the Senate Congressional Record about Senator Thurmond. I have never seen anything like the accounts of his career. Casting fifteen thousand votes in the United States Senate represents a record of service that few in this Chamber can hope to achieve in a lifetime. For Senator Thurmond, it is only part of the story. It was only after a rich and varied career that spanned more than three decades--a career as a teacher, a decorated World War II soldier, a governor, and a lawyer in private practice and he studied Blackstone; Blackstone; not many lawyers can say they studied Blackstone--that Strom Thurmond embarked on a new chapter in his life. In 1954, at the age of 52, he became the first--and only--person to be elected to the Senate on a write-in ballot. That is a remarkable achievement in itself. He remains today the oldest and the longest serving Senator in history, a true legend in this institution and in his home state of South Carolina. Although he has worn many different hats over the years--teacher, soldier, lawyer, governor, Senator--the common threads that are woven throughout his life are those of patriotism and service to his fellow citizens. His first job out of college, after graduating from Clemson University in 1923, was as a teacher and athletic coach in his hometown of Edgefield, South Carolina. It wasn't long before he was named county superintendent of education while studying law--Blackstone--in his spare time. By 1930, he had his law degree and was serving as city and county attorney in his hometown. He was elected state senator in 1933 and began service as a circuit judge in 1938. So he has been in all of the branches of Government--the judicial branch, the executive branch, and the legislative branch. Four years later, after 1938, he left his promising judicial career behind to volunteer--volunteer--for service in World War II. He was soon flung directly into the eye of the storm, landing at Normandy on D-Day with the Army's 82nd Airborne Division. The distinction with which he served in World War II earned him five Battle Stars and 15 decorations, medals, and other awards. Now, who can match that? At the end of the war, Strom Thurmond returned home and was elected governor of South Carolina. It was only after a run for President in 1948, the completion of his term of office as governor, and a brief period of private law practice that Senator Thurmond turned his sights to the United States Senate. His length of service and the thousands of votes he has cast in this institution are proof that he has never looked back. At a time in his life when most would have put the rigors of the workplace long behind them, Senator Thurmond continues his public service. He serves ably as chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee and as the senior member of the Judiciary and Veterans Affairs Committees. As President pro tempore of the Senate, he is meticulous in attending to his duties, often as I have said being the first to arrive in this chamber in order to call the Senate into session. For many years, the walls of Senator Thurmond's office in the Russell Senate Office Building were lined, floor to ceiling, with hundreds of plaques and pictures and certificates of appreciation for his service to the people of South Carolina and to the nation. Those awards and citations marked the moments in history that Senator Thurmond has witnessed, and influenced, from his position as a United States Senator. No doubt he could connect many of his 15,000 votes with the events chronicled and memorialized on the walls of his office. Many of those mementoes have been transferred to the Strom Thurmond Institute of Government and Public Affairs at Senator Thurmond's alma mater, Clemson University, but for those of us who have been privileged to see them, it was a striking sight. And yet, if one were to visit Senator Thurmond's office when all of those citations were displayed there, one would find that the Senator would not direct your attention to the case displaying his military medals. He would not point out the photos of him with Presidents and world leaders. He would not urge you to read the commendations from esteemed organizations in his state or in the nation. No, Senator Thurmond would draw your attention to the photos of his four children, Nancy Moore, a promising college student whose life was cut short by a tragic automobile accident; Strom Jr., a lawyer like his father--I doubt he studied Blackstone; Julie, who works for the Red Cross; and Paul, who works for the Senate Government Affairs Committee. Those children are the crowning achievements of Senator Thurmond's career; among all of his historic votes and all of his honors and awards, they are the accomplishments of which he is most proud. The sheer number of votes that he has cast is a wonderful achievement for which we honor Senator Thurmond, but as a fellow Senator, a father, and a grandfather myself, I salute Senator Thurmond not only for the number of votes that he has cast but also for his lifelong dedication to the Senate, to his family, his patriotism, and his service to the people of America. Mr. President, 1,843 Senators have served in this body since the Senate first met on April 6, 1789. I can remember Strom Thurmond when I first came to the Senate. As I look around me, he is the only Senator in this body whom I recognize as a Senator who sat here when I took my oath of office for the first time as a Senator. I can remember his wife, his first wife, as she sat in the galleries and looked down at the Senate, listening to Strom as he spoke. Then when she was taken away by the Father of us all, I came to the Senate that day and I saw Strom Thurmond, sitting right there at his desk, as I recall. I walked up to him, held out my hand and told him I was sorry. That same stern, strong look that we so often see on Strom Thurmond's face was the look that he gave to me; a strong, firm handshake; straight as an arrow, stern as an Indian, he thanked me for my expression of condolences. It has been said that ``the measure of a man's life is the well spending of it, and not the length.'' By any measure, Senator Thurmond is an example of a life both great in length and well spent. I congratulate my esteemed and illustrious colleague on his remarkable career and on his remarkable life. I thank my Creator for having blessed me with the many thousands of friendships that I have enjoyed over the years, so many scores of which have been other Members of this Chamber, among whom only one do I look upon as senior to myself. I congratulate myself on having lived to serve with this man, and I hope that God's blessings will continue to be upon Strom Thurmond. Madam President, I yield the floor. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator from Indiana will allow me, there have been other references made here of a personal nature involving Senator Thurmond. I would not want to let this occasion pass without my making one such reference. It was on April 12 of 1982 that I lost my grandson in a truck accident. Memorial services were held 2 days later. My colleague, Senator Randolph, came to that memorial service--my then colleague. My present colleague, Senator Rockefeller, was Governor of the State of West Virginia at that time. He came. There was one other Senator who attended that memorial service for my grandson. And that Senator was Strom Thurmond. I can never forget that, and I would have been remiss in letting this opportunity pass without my having publicly expressed my gratitude to Strom Thurmond for his having attended that service on that day, a day that I can never, never forget. I thank him from the bottom of my heart. I think Senator Thurmond wishes to say something and so I shall take my seat.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order. I see at least eight conversations going on in the Senate. The Senator is entitled to be heard. I hope we will be able to hear him.

Mr. BYRD. If the managers of the bill would entertain a question, it is my understanding from their explanation that their intent in including the notification requirements in sections 540(a) and 572(b) is to support these activities, and to ensure that information the Congress asks for is provided by the administration. I want to be sure that, assuming the administration keeps the Congress informed about how appropriated funds are to be spent, the Congress intends for these programs to receive the necessary funds. Am I correct?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the conversations have not yet been ended. May we have order in the Senate. Mr. President, I hope Senators will pay attention to the Chair and show some respect for the Chair as well as the Senator who seeks to address the Senate.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Senator Specter announced earlier today the release of a voluminous and comprehensive report of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs special investigation unit on Gulf War illnesses. I commend the Senator from Pennsylvania and the other Members of the Committee, including my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, on this report, which was over a year in the making. In great detail, this report and its appendices provide the justification for legislation that Senator Specter, Senator Rockefeller, and I introduced on July 28, S. 2358, the Gulf War Veterans Act of 1998. The history of this sorry saga of war, illness, and bureaucratic bungling it details has not improved with time. Indeed, age has turned this victory wine into sour vinegar, not a vintage to be savored. Since the signing of the cease fire in Iraq in 1991, soldiers have been complaining of symptoms that have been poorly dealt with by the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. As the years have passed, we have learned that these soldiers, sailors, and airmen had to operate in a toxic atmospheric cocktail of environmental and battlefield hazards, topped off with a chaser of vaccines and pills that may have interacted poorly with all the other hazardous exposures. We have learned that our equipment to detect and protect our troops may not be good enough, and that their training and doctrine is inadequate. We have even learned of the role that the U.S. played in arming Iraq with chemical and biological warfare technology and materials. Finally, DOD and the VA record keeping was poor, the databases inadequately designed and incompatible, so that the ability to identify battlefield exposures--when known--is not available to the VA when requested by a sick soldier. We won the war, but the price paid by these soldiers has been unacceptably high, perhaps needlessly high. And DOD and the VA have done little to correct the problems. The official motto seems to be ``That which does not kill us, we ignore--unless forced to address it.'' Like other Members, I have tried to correct these matters as they have come to light. I successfully offered an amendment to ensure DOD and the Intelligence Community consultation when pathogens useful to a biological warfare program are approved for export, so that we have a better opportunity to track countries that have the capability, if not the intent, to produce biological warfare agents. I obtained funding for the first peer-reviewed scientific studies of the possible health effects of exposure to low levels of chemical warfare agents. An amendment I authored that was adopted by the Senate but rejected in conference would have provided military health care to the children of Gulf War veterans born with birth defects that might be linked to their parent's wartime exposures. This year, I offered amendments to the Department of Defense authorization bill to improve the oversight and approval process for granting waivers to use investigational drugs without informed consent of the troops, and to require a review of chemical warfare defense doctrine to address exposure to low levels of chemical warfare agents. This last effort is based on a soon-to-be released General Accounting Organization (GAO) study that I requested last year in conjunction with Senator Levin and Senator Glenn. I am sorry to say that, despite DOD's 1996 show of concern over possible chemical exposures at Khamisiyah [Kam-ih-see-yah] and other Iraqi sites that may have resulted in the exposure of U.S. personnel to varying levels of chemical warfare agents, little has been done to address the lack of training that should better enable our troops to recognize and take effective action to protect themselves from these potential health threats. We have also requested GAO to look into the adequacy of U.S. detection and protection equipment and efforts to address hazardous, but not lethal, levels of chemical and biological warfare agents. This study will be completed next year. While I hope that my efforts and the efforts of other Members and Committees can push DOD and the VA into facing the serious new health consequences of war on the modern battlefield, even these cannot adequately substitute for an epiphany in those departments that will result in a sincere and thorough examination of this issue, and in proactive and coordinated steps to correct the deficiencies outlined in this comprehensive report. There is no smoking gun in this report, no explosive new evidence that says ``whodunit'' and why. But like previous reports by Congress, the GAO, and the Presidential Advisory Committee on Gulf War Illnesses, this report confirms that our veterans were exposed to a poison cocktail of hazardous materials, that many are now ill, and that the bureaucratic response has been slow and stumbling. It is likely that there will never be a clear and final answer for our sick soldiers and their families as to exactly what ails them. But this report does offer many corrective recommendations aimed at preventing the veterans of the next war from having to go through the years of frustration and outrage that the sick veterans of the Persian Gulf War have endured. It also offers a solid foundation to move forward and address the legitimate health concerns of Persian Gulf veterans that are contained in S. 2358, the Persian Gulf Veterans Act of 1998. Gulf War veterans in West Virginia and across the country are getting sick as a result of their participation in the Gulf War, which may have exposed them to a variety of hazardous materials and chemicals while serving their country. But instead of receiving medical care, these veterans are given bureaucratic excuses. It is time to end the litany of excuses and to give our veterans the health care they deserve. I again thank my friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, for his efforts, and the efforts and my colleague from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller. I congratulate and thank the committee for its efforts. I look forward to the successful passage of S. 2358. Mr. President, I thank my friend, Mr. Specter, for his courtesy in allowing me to proceed at this point. I now yield the floor. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, has the Pastore rule expired?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that I may speak out of order.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I will be happy to wait.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I didn't understand the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. No objection.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. I will require 20 or 25 minutes. But I will await my turn. I thank the Senator from Colorado.