Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, I do not intend to, I think that I addressed the Chair ahead of the other Senator, but I wouldn't challenge the Chair on that point. I know the Chair has the discretion to recognize whomever he hears first, but I would like to make a statement.

Mr. BYRD. If the Senator will yield, I have no problem. The Senator is not creating a problem for me. I just call attention to the rules, that the Presiding Officer recognize the first person who addresses the Chair seeking recognition. I have no quarrel with the Chair. I have been in the Chair many times, and sometimes it is a little difficult to really determine which Senator spoke first. I just wanted to establish again--and once in awhile we have to do this--that it is a matter of following the rules of recognition, and that it doesn't matter what Senator came before or what Senator is seen standing first, or what Senator may have his name on a list at the desk. I do not recognize a list at the desk. Never have. I try to stick to the rules. I thank the Senator. I know I have delayed his speech.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I note on the floor the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Nickles, who is the assistant majority leader. I wonder if he has a plane to catch? I am sure he may have some Senate business. If he does, I will be happy to defer. I have no particular time problem myself. I will be glad to defer to the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be recognized immediately after Mr. Nickles is recognized, at which time I will proceed with the remarks. I ask unanimous consent that at that time I may consume such time as I may desire, but not to exceed 25 minutes.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, last week, I took the Senate floor to call attention to reports that the Secretary of Defense was prepared to offer a proposal that would ease the penalties for adultery in the military. The report set off alarm bells in my own mind because moral responsibility in the military cannot be compromised without undermining the core values of the services --values such as honor, integrity, and loyalty. As a result of my remarks, Secretary Cohen called me at home on Sunday--I believe it was Sunday--to assure me that he had no intention of watering down the Defense Department's policies concerning adultery and fraternization. In fact, he said, the new rules he was considering would strengthen those policies. I appreciate the seriousness with which Secretary Cohen views this matter, and I applaud his efforts to come to grips with policies that have precipitated uneven treatment of military personnel and have resulted in morale-damaging charges of double standards. The proposed new Pentagon policies were announced earlier this week, and I commend Secretary Cohen for upholding the military code of justice and resisting pressure to reduce the penalties for adultery. I wish I could have confidence that the new policies are sufficient and will fulfill Secretary Cohen's intent of ensuring even-handed treatment of adultery in the military. Unfortunately, I fear that the new policies fall short of the mark in that respect. Moreover, I fear that these new guidelines send conflicting signals to commanders in the field: Yes, on the one hand, adultery is still a crime in the military; but no, on the other hand, it will not be criminally prosecuted unless it is so flagrant that it disrupts or discredits the military. I fear that some could read into these guidelines a message to the troops that lying and cheating are okay as long as you don't get caught. I do not for a moment believe that that is the message the Defense Department intends to communicate. The stated intent of the new policies is to standardize good order and discipline policies among the Services, and to clarify guidance on the offense of adultery under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In the case of fraternization, the new guidelines seem clear cut--they will impose a military-wide ban on fraternization, bringing the Army into line with the fraternization policies currently enforced by the Navy, Air Force, and yes, the good old Marine Corps. The impact of the guidelines as they apply to the handling of adultery cases in the military is where the message gets muddled. The new guidelines, according to the Pentagon, do not change the Uniform Military Code of Justice. They do not lower the standards of conduct demanded of America's military forces. They do not preclude a court martial or dishonorable discharge for adultery. That's what the guidelines don't do. What they do accomplish, in my opinion, is much harder to quantify. Under these guidelines, adultery would remain a crime in the military, but it would only be criminally prosecuted if it brought discredit to the military or disrupted the good order and discipline of the armed services. That caveat, while currently an element of proof of the offense of adultery under the Uniform Military Code of Justice, is given added weight and emphasis under the new guidelines. Now, I have been accused, from time to time, of being old-fashioned, strait-laced, and of wearing 19th century clothes and a stickler for the rules and a stickler for propriety. I plead guilty on all counts, other than the 19th century business with respect to my clothing, but I do not believe that one has to be old-fashioned to recognize that adultery is a dishonorable act that intrinsically brings discredit to the offending party and, in the case of the military, to the uniform that he or she wears. I do not believe that honor and integrity anywhere, especially in the military, have ever gone out of fashion. And I do not believe that one has to be strait-laced to recognize that lying, cheating, and deceiving--all elements of adultery--intrinsically subvert good order and discipline. Yet it seems to me that these guidelines shift the emphasis of adultery in the military from the crime to the consequences. Rather than clarifying the offense of adultery, it seems to me that these guidelines confuse the issue. What constitutes ``discredit to the armed forces'' if not a crime--and adultery is a crime in the military? What constitutes the disruption of ``good order and discipline'' if not lying, cheating, and deceiving in the commission of a crime? Honor, integrity, and decency are universal values and principles. They are absolute. They do not fade with the passing of time or cease to matter behind closed doors. When a person takes an oath before God and country, as the military do, that oath is taken without qualification or reservation. It is not limited by time or place or who knows about it. Mr. President, I believe that Secretary Cohen is dedicated to maintaining the high standards of the United States military. I know that he has put a great deal of time, thought, and effort into restoring consistency to the application of the military code of conduct. I commend him for his efforts, and I urge him to continue working on this extremely important and sensitive aspect of military service. The men and women who serve in the United States military are remarkable individuals. They willingly endure the hardships that military life imposes on them and their families. They willingly sacrifice personal freedoms for the good of the nation. They willingly take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend this great nation, with their lives if necessary. For the life of me, I cannot square that level of total commitment with official guidelines whose recommended remedies for the crime of adultery include ``counseling'' or ``an adverse fitness report.'' I cannot square the core values of the United States military with a guidance regarding adultery that appears to encourage commanding officers to overlook the crime of adultery if it is ``remote in time.'' Mr. President, how remote is remote? What kind of clarity does that guidance impart? Is last month remote enough in time to avoid a criminal prosecution for adultery? How about last week--is that enough? Last month? Last year? Would this ``clarification'' have salvaged Air Force General Joseph Ralston's nomination to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Would this guideline let Army Major General David Hale off the hook for abruptly retiring while he was under investigation for alleged sexual misconduct? Is discretion what we are really talking about here? Do these guidelines send a signal to our troops that the crime of adultery is not really that bad as long as you are discrete and don't disrupt your unit? Are we giving a whole new meaning to the sentiment, ``The better part of valor is discretion''? I do not for a moment believe that this is Secretary Cohen's intent. I do not for a moment believe that our Nation's military leadership wishes to erode the standards of conduct for the military. But I do express a warning that these guidelines, well-intentioned though they may be, will not solve any problems. These guidelines will not erase the perception that the military applies a double standard to senior officers and enlisted personnel. And most important, these guidelines will not strengthen the necessary trust and cohesiveness that help to make America's military forces the finest in the world--we think. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me some time?

Mr. BYRD. How much time remains?

Mr. BYRD. I wish to thank the opponents for offering 10 minutes to me, but I feel that I will just ask that my speech be printed in the Record. On a matter of this gravity, I am disappointed that the Senate has entered into an agreement to speak for what would amount to about 1 hour and 15 minutes for both opponents and proponents. Of course, the distinguished Senator from Illinois is preeminently correct in what he has said about the Constitution and what he has said about the efforts toward aggrandizement on the part of this administration and most recent administration when it comes to the war powers. We have in the Senate particularly, may I say, additional responsibilities over those of the House in this area of war powers because of the Constitution and provisions therein, and it seems to me that we ought to take a little more time when it comes to debating an amendment of this importance. This is an amendment that is calculated to protect the prerogatives of the Senate when it comes to our constitutional powers and duties, and here we are limited to 1 hour and 15 minutes. In saying this, of course, I am complaining, but I also want to thank Mr. Durbin and I want to thank Mr. Stevens for their consideration and kindness in offering to give me some additional time.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I can't get started in 9 minutes on this subject.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I was not in the Chamber when the agreement was entered into. My friend knew of my interest in speaking on the amendment, and I wish I had been protected.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I don't know how much time the opponents of this amendment will require. Mr. President, I think I will just ask for 2 minutes.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am pleased that the President has nominated Brigadier General Allen E. Tackett for the rank of Major General. Brigadier General Tackett, a resident of Miami, West Virginia, graduated from East Bank High School and earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Charleston, Charleston, West Virginia. He began his military career over 35 years ago as a Private in the Special Forces. Advancing from a Private to a Major General is an accomplishment which exemplifies his dedication to the National Guard, our country, and our State of West Virginia. Brigadier General Tackett is a military graduate of the Special Warfare Center, Jumpmaster Course; Infantry Officer Basic and Advanced Courses; Command and General Staff College; and the Special Warfare Center, Techniques of Special Operations. Brigadier General Tackett's major decorations include the Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, National Defense Medal, Humanitarian Medal, and the Armed Forces Reserve Medal. He was awarded, through rigorous training and proven efficiency, the coveted Special Forces Tab and Master Parachutist Badge. Three years ago, Brigadier General Tackett assumed his current prestigious command as Adjutant General, West Virginia National Guard, with leadership responsibility for six thousand men and women serving in the West Virginia National Guard. Mr. President, I am pleased to cast my vote for the confirmation of Brigadier General Allen E. Tackett as Major General, and I urge my colleagues to support this nomination.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article from the July 20, 1998, edition of U.S. News & World Report and an article from the July 20, 1998, edition of Newsweek be printed in the Record. The two articles are relevant to the speech that I delivered on Tuesday this week entitled ``Man's Longing for Immortality Shall Achieve Its Realization.'' I understand the Government Printing Office estimates it will cost approximately $1,283 to have these articles printed in the Record.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, August is from the Latin Augustus, the eighth month of our calendar year, a time of harvest and of plenty, named after Augustus Caesar. Augustus Caesar, or, more formally, Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus. He was the grandnephew of Julius Caesar, and he was the first emperor of Rome, from 27 B.C. through 14 A.D. August is also an adjective, derived from the Latin verb meaning to increase, and in English meaning: to inspire awe and reverence, impose, something that is imposing and magnificent, or dignified and majestic. The adjective augustan refers also to the age of Augustus Caesar and his reign and suggests that anything so described is classical and elegant. The term Augustan age specifically refers to a period of Latin literature during the reign of Augustus Caesar, when elegance and correctness were highly valued. Oh, that we might return to that age at least in one sense, when elegance and correctness--not political correctness, but correctness--were highly valued. Augustine, a diminutive form of Augustus, was the name of two saints, Saint Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.), a Latin church father and bishop of Hippo, in northern Africa, known for his ``Confessions'' and his work ``The City of God.'' The second Saint Augustine--the dates we are not sure of but we can believe that he lived until about 604 A.D. He was a Roman monk who went to spread Christianity among the English and who was the first Archbishop of Canterbury. We can see from this that the name Augustus is fraught with significance and with portent. It is a name to be lived up to with great deeds and great learning. It is also the name conferred upon the newest member of Senator Ted Stevens' growing family, Augustus Engleken Stevens. My guess would be the middle name is Anglo-Saxon. And this is the third child of Senator Stevens' third son, Ben. It is also the tenth grandchild to join the impressive Stevens clan. This newest Caesar to rule with his chubby and imperious fist, and to issue edicts in a piercing wail, was born on Monday, July 27, at 3:20 p.m., weighing in at a healthy 7 pounds, 10 ounces. I congratulate Senator Stevens and his wife, Catherine, on this blessed addition to their family. As they well know, there is no greater joy than to gather into one's arms a tiny, peaceful bundle, and to gaze down upon that small, sleeping face, to gently stroke the soft, velvety down of hair and rounded cheek, and to listen closely for the faint murmurs and coos that slip almost unnoticed from that perfect cupid's bow of a mouth. What happier moment could there be, than to see that little mouth open in a sleepy, toothless yawn, or to catch a glimpse of a little foot--not much longer than a peanut, with toes so small that they could not possibly have working bones inside them-- kicking out on bowed leg from within the folded blanket? In choosing a name as ancient and as illustrious as Augustus, his parents--I surmise--have high hopes and grand ambitions for their infant son. I am sure that grandfather Ted has great, grandiloquent schemes afoot as well, to bounce him on a hobbyhorse knee, or to take him salmon fishing in pristine Alaskan waters. I suspect that those who see Ted on the Senate floor, shepherding appropriations bills through contentious debate to final passage--fists pounding and voice booming-- might not recognize Senator Stevens in his happier and more serene role as grandfather. But to be a grandfather is to be a happy man. And what feelings of immortality, to be a grandfather. Holding this youngest member of his family, born in the waning days of this second millennium, the namesake of one whose life spanned the opening days of the first millennium, and poised to come into his own birthright in the third millennium, Senator Stevens can see history unfold into the coming ages. Through children and grandchildren, one has a glimpse of the glorious future, the immortality of the human race, tinged with the bittersweet sorrow of time passing too swiftly and of children who grow up much too quickly. Lest I overwhelm young Augustus with the great weight of such high expectations and such intimations of immortality, I hasten to wish him a happy childhood, complete with much exploring, great adventures, barked shins and skinned knees, of quiet moments of wonder and learning, of great books to be shared with his parents and grandparents, and of countless hugs and kisses. Be a boy, Augustus, with moments good and bad, tender and terrible. Be like the Augustus in these lines by Heinrich Hoffman (1809-1874), who said: Augustus was a chubby lad; Fat ruddy cheeks Augustus had: And everybody saw with joy The plump and hearty, healthy boy. He ate and drank as he was told, And never let his soup get cold. But one day, one winter's day, He screamed out, `Take the soup away! O take the nasty soup away! I won't have any soup to-day.' Welcome, young emperor, and carry on, bringing ever your illustrious grandfather under your sway with the dictatorial charms of a much loved child. I yield the floor. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I, first of all, wish to thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona for withholding his motion. I would probably need 25 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator allow me to speak on this amendment before he moves to table?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank all Senators, and I, again, thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, for offering this amendment regarding the continued participation of U.S. forces in the NATO operation in Bosnia. She has been a persistent and thorough overseer of the situation there. I share her concern that Bosnia not become another forgotten war, another long term military mission whose purpose and even existence is largely ignored, unremarked upon unless something terrible happens. In that unhappy event, of course, much shouting and finger-pointing would ensue, amid calls to ``bring our boys home, now.'' It is Congress's Constitutional duty to provide for the maintenance of the military, as we are doing in this bill, and that includes those instances in which U.S. troops are pressed into service. We have an obligation to the men and women in our military services not only to provide for them, but also to provide our concurrence and oversight on the ways and places that they are employed. I believe that that calls for something more compelling than Sense of Congress resolutions, such as those that have been passed, one that has been passed during the debate on the Department of Defense Authorization bill last month, but I recognize that, sadly, the majority of my colleagues do not share my opinion. So I applaud Senator Hutchison for steaming ahead on the strength of her convictions, despite the somewhat daunting odds. U.S. troops have been in Bosnia since the Dayton Peace Accords were signed in December 1995. Some 25,000 U.S. troops formed the U.S. contingent of the NATO-led force that replaced the failing United Nations peacekeeping effort there since 1992. The original mission of the NATO force was quite limited--to separate the warring factions, contain the heavy weapons that were bombarding defenseless towns and cities, and begin to mark the hazardous and indiscriminately strewn minefields so that civilians could take over the arduous task of clearing mines. The U.S. had to lead, because our European allies would not rally behind anyone else. This task, we were assured at that time, would take ``about one year.'' And that was in 1995. As that initial year drew to a close, the military tasks were declared essentially complete, and the situation on the ground was, indeed, transformed. While far from enjoying the kind of security that we in the United States take for granted, people could at least seek water without dodging shells and gunfire. The civilian efforts to reestablish Bosnian society, however, had barely begun. NATO leaders agreed to leave substantial numbers of troops in place to keep the peace while the civilian rebuilding effort continued. That is understandable. Again, the U.S., we were assured, must take the lead, because if we left, our European NATO allies would march out right behind us. We were told that the troops would be needed only through June 1998. That was in 1996. Now it is July 1998, almost August. We have been told that the considerable progress being made in rebuilding a government and civilian infrastructure requires the continued reassurance of a NATO peacekeeping force. Elections are scheduled for September, and more work needs to be done to establish a competent and impartial justice system that has the trust of the populace. Therefore, the Administration announced a substantial shift in U.S. policy on Bosnia in December 1997--there would be no further estimates regarding the end of a U.S. presence in Bosnia. The U.S. and NATO would leave when sufficient progress was made in achieving certain benchmarks. The complete and detailed benchmarks are classified, but the unclassified summary that I have seen is fairly lengthy. It basically says that when Bosnian government and institutions resemble those of the United States, then our troops might leave. Mr. President, that is a pretty big order. Bosnia has never previously resembled the United States, with free press, alternative media, free and fair multiparty elections, a clean and impartial judiciary, free access throughout the country, and so forth. For most of this century, Bosnia was part of communist Yugoslavia. Prior to that, it was part of a monarchy, and before that, it was part of the Ottoman Empire. This leads me to suspect that U.S. troops might be in Bosnia for a very long time, indeed, before Bosnia becomes a happy, peaceful, multi-ethnic republic. And this assumes, of course, that everyone in Bosnia shares this same aspiration, and that no one will try to undermine the progress towards this utopian vision. Now, Mr. President, I do not want to create the impression that I am against helping the suffering people of Bosnia to establish a sound government that can lead them into a peaceful and prosperous future in the family of nations. The amendment of the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, also does not call for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Bosnia. This amendment appreciates the investment that has been made for peace in Bosnia and does not jeopardize that still fragile situation, but it also recognizes the considerable costs of that investment. I believe that Senator Hutchison's effort addresses three very basic questions regarding the continuing role of U.S. forces in Bosnia. These are the questions: First, does this Senate really want to acquiesce to an open-ended commitment in Bosnia for the foreseeable future? The United States has spent $8.6 billion, or about $2 billion a year, to maintain our presence in Bosnia from Fiscal Year 1996 through Fiscal Year 1999. If you include the U.S. share of the United Nations operation in Bosnia from 1992 through 1995, the total cost is about $9.5 billion. That is a lot of money. That is $9.50 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born, 2,000 years ago. For every minute since Jesus Christ was born, 2,000 years ago, $9.50. For every minute. That is what it equals. This bill provides $1.86 billion for Bosnia operating costs for Fiscal Year 1999, under an emergency declaration. There are approximately 6700 troops inside Bosnia now, down from almost 10,000, and another 3,000 more are supporting them from bases in Hungary, Italy, and on ships in the Mediterranean. These troops and these funds are not available to meet other crises that might arise, such as that developing in Kosovo, and they are not available to protect U.S. core national security interests. Further, the support troops employed in this mission are drawn heavily from the Guard and Reserves, creating hardships for our part-time military and their employers. The President will need to request continued Reserve call-up authority in August to maintain the Bosnia operation. These readiness questions must be measured against the estimate of how many troops are needed to provide continued reassurance for civilian reconstruction in Bosnia--what is the minimum number of troops required to provide that reassurance? And for how long? And at what cost? Let us not be satisfied with the status quo, if a lower number is adequate or if a shorter time is sufficient. There are too many other demands being placed upon U.S. Armed Forces for us to be spendthrifts in this regard. Second, does the Senate wish to continue to allow the United States to be led by the reluctance of others? Must the United States continue to provide a substantially greater number of troops than any of the other NATO allies, as is now envisioned? If we cannot pass the baton of leadership because our European allies will not lead, then should we not at least push them into carrying an equal military burden for a situation that is, after all, on their borders, not on ours? I know that it is easier to be a follower than a leader, easier to be a critic rather than a playwright, but as the Bosnia operation settles into a routine, surely some of this burden could be assumed by our allies. Third, does the Senate want to abstain from placing limits on the role that U.S. forces should play in Bosnia? Or do we want to enhance the safety of the men and women we are supporting on the ground there by prohibiting them from performing the kinds of activities that put them in harm's way by making them appear to side with one ethnic group over another? NATO forces have played an increasing role in the capture of war criminals, and have taken over radio transmission towers linked with propaganda practices. A news story from early July reported that U.S. special operations teams came very close to mounting a ``snatch and grab'' exercise designed to capture Serb military leaders before commanders on the ground declared that the intelligence was insufficient to ensure a reasonable chance of success. The longer we stay in Bosnia, and the more manpower we have to spare, the more such jobs we will be drawn into doing. It is the American way, to say, ``we'll pitch in.'' And we are suckers for the underdog. But that can be dangerous in a place as rife with centuries- old animosities as Bosnia. These ethnic and religious factions know how to carry a grudge, how to nurse an injustice, through centuries if need be. With these questions in mind, consider the current situation in the Balkans, as Senator Hutchison has. Bosnia is relatively stable. No one is shooting at each other, and no one is shooting at the NATO forces. But, Kosovo, on its borders, is not stable. There, the situation is rapidly degenerating. Already more than 10,000 refugees have fled into neighboring Albania to seek refuge from Serbian dominated Yugoslav military forces who are ruthlessly squashing a separatist movement in ethnically Albanian Kosovo, which had been an autonomous region of Yugoslavia until 1989. The situation is complex and, frighteningly, contains the potential to draw in neighboring nations and even NATO members. This is the dreaded ``spillover'' that was much discussed when the ethnic conflagration in Bosnia erupted in 1992. NATO officials have already contemplated what forces might be necessary to contain the conflict in Kosovo. Even with over 20,000 troops spread along the mountainous border between Kosovo and Albania, they concluded, the probability of success would be low. Air strikes are under consideration. Diplomatic efforts are ongoing, but the Yugoslav leader, Slobodan Milosevic has an unsavory history of playing both ends against the middle to achieve his goals. It is clear that the cost of maintaining a large presence in Bosnia could be fairly high if forces are needed to contain the conflict in Kosovo and keep it from engulfing a large part of the Balkans. Our NATO allies will happily continue to let the U.S. carry the heaviest load in addition to the burdens of leadership, if all it takes is to threaten to beat us through the exit door, should we decide to leave. To hear them say it, it would be quite a stampede, no matter what the consequences are for Bosnia and their own continent's future. The amendment offered by Senator Hutchison calls for a gradual ramping down of the U.S. presence in Bosnia, reducing our forces there to 5,000 by October 1, 1999, a number roughly equivalent to that of Britain, the next largest contributor to the NATO mission. The amendment of the Senator from Texas also limits the mission of those remaining forces to the security role assigned to them in 1995. This honors U.S. NATO commitments in Bosnia, protects our men and women in the military from being put in a position of playing favorites and therefore creating enemies, while freeing up troops, energy, and funds for other pressing security matters. The United States cannot continue to pick up the largest burden of every NATO military mission. While our allies have been reducing their military budgets and forces since the cold war ended, the United States military has been strained by the increasing number of calls to respond to crises around the world--in Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, Iraq, Bosnia, and next, perhaps, in Kosovo. Our generosity in picking up the bulk of the tab has, I fear, marked us as a patsy, a patsy who can be suckered into bankrolling everyone's problems with funds and troops. If we keep doing it, what incentive is there for anyone else to develop the expertise, training, and tools to take over appropriate parts of that role? I wish that the administration would put its support behind this amendment. I think it would strengthen the administration's position in talking with our allies in Europe, and it would seem to me that would be a very beneficial thing, insofar as the administration is concerned. Mr. President, I believe that Senator Hutchison has offered a blueprint for the continued U.S. participation in Bosnia that supports our NATO commitment, even our leadership role, but not at the cost of maintaining a disproportionate force size. The most important thing we can do here today is to let the soldiers and airmen out there so far away know that we are watching, and that we care enough about them to act in their best interests. They are not America's forgotten heroes, out of sight and out of mind unless trouble comes their way. We are there with them, in thought and in deed, and we will not keep any more of them engaged in lengthy and lonely overseas deployments for any longer than is absolutely necessary. I will vote for the Hutchison amendment. I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, earlier today I voted to table an amendment to the Treasury-Postal Service appropriations bill that had been offered by the distinguished Democratic leader, Senator Daschle. So there will be no confusion with respect to my position on this issue, I wish to advise my colleagues of the reason for my opposition. First, I am, as are others, deeply concerned with that anomaly in the tax code known as the ``marriage penalty.'' I can think of no rational reason why two individuals--individuals who have vowed a lifelong commitment to each other through the sacred institution of marriage-- should, in certain cases, have their combined income taxed at a higher rate than that of two unmarried persons. At a time of declining social values, it simply does not make sense for the Congress to sanction policies which clearly work to the detriment of family stability. However, despite this concern, I could not, in all good conscience, support the Daschle amendment for the most basic of reasons, namely, that Article I, section 7 of the Constitution of the United States requires that all revenue bills originate in the House of Representatives, not here in the Senate. As I am sure my colleagues know, that is a prerogative that the House vigorously defends. Consequently, I believe that had the Daschle amendment been adopted to the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill, which is a Senate-originated bill, that that bill would have been subjected to a constitutional point of order in the House. In short, adoption of the Daschle amendment would have killed this very important appropriations measure. Again, Mr. President, notwithstanding my vote earlier today, I wish my colleagues to know that I remain committed to working toward the goal of alleviating the marriage penalty in the tax code.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I shall not object--I don't like to have voice votes by unanimous consent. I don't believe we should do that, but we can have a voice vote.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, we have just returned from a most moving ceremony in the great Rotunda of the Capitol. The flag-draped coffins of Officer Chestnut and Officer Gibson, who died while doing their solemn duties protecting the public, the employees, and the members of the institution they served, rested imposingly on catafalques, mere yards from where these two brave men were brutally cut down by an armed assailant on last Friday. The sublime majesty of the great marble dome rising above us was somehow magnified by the solemn and eerie silence which was broken only by an occasional cough. The sense of loss was palpable. Sadness permeated the very air. Such times as these cause all of us to ponder anew the fragile brevity and uncertainty of the human condition. Officer Chestnut was apparently writing directions for a tourist--doing a kind deed--when his life was suddenly ended. I am sure that when he arose and dressed for work on Friday morning he expected nothing more than an ordinary day, followed by a night at home with his family and the simple pleasures of a sunny weekend. Officer Gibson, as he began his day, likewise, probably had no expectations of the bloody gun battle which would, in just hours, mean his death. It is at times like these, when we witness the anguish of families and friends trying to cope with the incomprehensible reality of brutal and sudden death, that some may wonder how a just God could allow such seemingly mindless violence and misery. In the face of such tragedies, some may even question the very existence of a Creator. We reach for answers that elude our grasp. Why do such things happen? What, after all, is the point of human existence? It seems that our faith is tested most severely when good men senselessly die. Yet, the proof of a living Creator is in abundant evidence all around us. It is in the perfection and order of the natural world in which we live. It is in the beauty and endless variety of the millions of species which inhabit the planet. It is in the mystery and complexity of the human genetic code. It is in the intangible and unconquerable bravery of the human spirit. It is in the magnificence of the wonders which modern science daily unveils. And I, for one, find no disparity between scientific discovery and God's living word in the Holy Bible. Genesis, the first book of the Bible, gives the account of all Creation, tells of the establishment of the family, the origin of sin, the giving of divine revelation, the development of the human race, and the inauguration of God's plan of redemption through its chosen people. Genesis takes the reader to the moment when the omnipotent Creator spoke into being the matchless wonders of sun, moon, stars, planets, galaxies, plants, and moving creatures, and man, whom He made in His image. It is the first book of the Pentateuch, which both Scripture and tradition attribute to Moses. If a student expects to find in Genesis a scientific account of how the world came into existence, with all questions concerning primitive life answered in technical language familiar to the professor or student of science, he will be disappointed. Genesis is not an attempt to answer such questions. It deals with matters far beyond the realm of science. Yet, I have not personally read of any disagreement within the science community concerning the chronological order of the events of creation as set forth in the book of Genesis. Instead of disagreement, it has been my perception that there is agreement. The opening sentence of the first chapter of Genesis states, ``In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.'' That is as far back in time as one can get--``in the beginning.'' And it could include a billion years or ten billion years or 500 billion years. The second sentence of Genesis, Chapter 1, reads as follows: ``And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.'' I doubt that any scientist would disagree with this. According to the account in Genesis, God then divided the light from the darkness, and scientists agree that there could have been cosmic light before the sun, moon and stars were created. The Creator then proceeded to divide the waters and to let the dry land appear. The dry land was called ``earth,'' and the gathering together of the waters was called ``seas.'' The next step as related by Genesis was the bringing forth of grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit. Then, according to Genesis, God said, ``Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that have life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. ``And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind.'' On the scientific side, facts from fossils, plus other data, have shown that mammals (animals with solid bones, warm blood, lungs that breathe air, and nourish their young with milk) form the final stage in a long series of development, which began with tiny sea-dwelling creatures. Scientists seem to think that an early type of fish was the ancestor of amphibians and thereafter evolved into mammal-like reptiles. The primitive amphibians also branched into creatures with wings and thus became birds and other fowl. Great changes occurred over time. Primitive true mammals, according to science, lived during the age of reptiles and these were the probable ancestors of the mammals alive today. Returning, now, to the biblical account of Creation, by the conclusion of the ``fifth day,'' God had said: ``Let the earth bring forth the living creatures after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind,'' and, in the ``sixth day,'' God said: ``Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.'' We have reached the ``sixth day'' in the biblical account. A day, in God's divine revelation to Moses, evidently meant a period of some undetermined length. In Psalm 90--a prayer of Moses--we are told: ``Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. . . . For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.'' Regardless of the length of the Creation ``days'', in the sixth, all preparations had been completed for the advent of man. ``So God created man''--we are told--``in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.'' On the seventh day, God rested from his work. Hence, both science and the Bible seem to agree, in broad terms, regarding the chronological order of the events of Creation. The modern explanation of evolution dates from 1859, when Charles Darwin published the ``Origin of Species.'' According to Darwin, members of each species compete with each other for a chance to live, as well as with members of different species. In this competition any helpful variation gives its owner an advantage over others in the species that are not so well adapted. Members with such variations, therefore, will win the struggle for existence. They will live and reproduce their kind, while forms not so well equipped will die. Darwin called this process natural selection; it is also referred to as ``survival of the fittest.'' According to a national poll that was published earlier this year, only 40% of the nation's scientists are said to believe in God. I was amazed that 60% of the scientists, according to the poll, share no belief in a Creator. Darwin, however, apparently did not share such disbelief. Some years ago, I read his ``Origin of Species.'' In this brilliant work of a great British naturalist, I came across this incisive question, posed by Darwin himself: ``Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?'' What a pertinent question? I think we human beings are prone to forget that the Creator, as Darwin observed, may work by intellectual powers unlike those of man. In comparing the eye of a human being to an optical instrument made by man, Darwin had this to say: ``If we must compare the eye to an optical instrument, we ought in imagination to take a thick layer of transparent tissue, with spaces filled with fluid, and with a nerve sensitive to light beneath, and then suppose every part of this layer to be continually changing slowly in density, so as to separate into layers of different densities and thicknesses, placed at different distances from each other, and with the surfaces of each layer slowly changing in form. Further, we must suppose that there is a power, represented by natural selection or the survival of the fittest, always intently watching each slight alteration in the transparent layers; and carefully preserving each which, under varied circumstances, in any way or in any degree, tends to produce a distincter image. We must suppose each new state of the instrument to be multiplied by the million; each to be preserved until a better one is produced, and then the old ones to be all destroyed. In living bodies, variation will cause the slight alterations, generation will multiply them almost infinitely, and natural selection will pick out with unerring skill each improvement. Let this process go on for millions of years; and during each year on millions of individuals of many kinds''--this is the question that Darwin poses--``and may we not believe that a living optical instrument might best be formed as superior to one of glass, as the works of the Creator are to those of man?'' Thus, Darwin appears to acknowledge a Creator back of the Creation--a master mind back of the work. I suggest that the 60% of today's scientists today who, according to the poll, doubt the existence of a Creator, read what Darwin has to say in this regard, if they have not already done so, and if they have already done so, it may be valid for them to read Darwin's observation again. Darwin's work is sprinkled throughout with conjecture, assumptions, presumptions, and, in some cases, just plain guess work. For example: the reader often finds such words and phrases as: ``Has probably played a more important part'', ``there can be little doubt'', ``we may infer'', ``seems probable,'' ``I have come to the conclusion,'' ``it cannot be doubted,'' ``I am fully convinced'' --this is Darwin talking--``it must be assumed,'' ``seems to have been,'' ``appears to have played an important part in the origins of our breeds,'' ``seems to have been the predominant power,'' ``it is probable that they were once thus connected,'' ``thus it is, as I believe,'' ``bearing such facts in mind, it may be believed,'' ``we may conclude,'' ``seem to have been the chief agents in causing organs to become rudimentary,'' ``is probably often aided,'' ``is perhaps intelligible by the aid of the hypothesis of pangenesis, and apparently in no other way,'' ``it may be,'' ``every character, however slight, must be the result of some definite cause,'' ``one chief cause seems to be,'' ``some additional rudimentary structures might here have been adduced,'' ``we have only to suppose that a former progenitor possessed the parts in question in a perfect state,'' ``the more complex instincts seem to have originated independently of intelligence,'' ``appears to have been gained,'' ``such variations appear to arise from the same unknown causes,'' ``it is not improbable,'' . . . and so on and so on. Darwin, posing the question, ``whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the universe,'' responds. Listen to his response to his own question: ``And this has been answered in the affirmative by the highest intellects that have ever lived.'' Twelve years after the publishing of the ``Origin of Species,'' Darwin published ``The Descent of Man.'' In his second book, Darwin applied his theory of evolution to the human race. In Chapter IV, Darwin makes an interesting admission. Here is what he said: I now admit . . . that in the earlier editions of my ``Origin of Species,'' I probably attributed too much to the action of natural selection or the survival of the fittest. I have altered the fifth edition of the Origin so as to confine my remarks to adaptive changes of structure. . . . I may be permitted to say as some excuse, that I had two distinct objects in view, firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change, though largely aided by the inherited effects of habit, and slightly by the direct action of the surrounding conditions. . . . Hence, if I have erred in giving to natural selection great power, which I am far from admitting, or in having exaggerated its power, which is in itself probable, I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations. Darwin was not alone in his effort. Since the earliest days of man's exploration of his universe, science and religion--when not simply ignoring each other--have often been at odds. Throughout the ages, it seems that the more man has learned about the physical nature of the universe and its creatures, the greater the gap between religion and science has become. To many in the scientific community, the world has largely become divided between that which can be scientifically and mathematically explained away, and that for which the mathematical equation or scientific basis has not yet been discovered. The Creator has had no role. He has been left out. The fabulously intricate pattern of occurrences, which had to exist in order to account for the strictly scientific view of the creation of the universe, has been viewed as merely chance--a lucky shot!--with no connection to any sort of greater intelligence. How absurd! Mr. President, I have in my pocket a gold watch and a golden chain. Watches are not in the habit of assembling themselves. There has to be a designer. There has to be a maker back of the watch, a creator back of the chain. There has to be a greater intelligence, a Creator. On the other side, to many of those in the religious community, too tightly held religious doctrine has precluded all possibilities suggested by scientific investigation of the physical world. Happily, however, scientists and men of the cloth both appear to be rejecting doctrinal absolutism and discovering some common ground. Recent articles in Newsweek and U.S. News and World Report, point to a change in attitude among scientists and theologians. Rather than opposing one another, the study of science and the practice of religion may at last be able to enhance one another. Science may be recognizing that rules, or tangible events, or even the laws of physics may not always be entirely explainable. As we search for scientific truth we may also provoke a faith that instills in the previously cynical, a wonder for the unexplainable and a tacit admission that there must be a higher power. In innumerable cases, science is apparently unearthing instances of perfection in the physical world which are so far beyond even the wildest imaginings of the human mind that chance could not account for them, and even nondevout scientists have tended to conclude that such minute miracles can only have been wrought by some form of divine design. Newsweek, in its edition of July 20, said, ``Physicists have stumbled upon signs that the cosmos is custom-made for life and consciousness. It turns out that if the constants of nature--unchanging numbers like the strength of gravity, the charge of an electron and the mass of a proton--were even the tiniest bit different, then atoms would not hold together, stars would not burn, and life would never have made an appearance.'' As Nobel-prize-winning Physicist and Christian Charles Townes put it, ``somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe.'' And, consider the words of Physicist-turned- priest John Polkinghorne, who said that the most fundamental component in the belief in God ``is that there is a mind and a purpose behind the Universe.'' Similarly, Newsweek and U.S. News and World Report relate the story of Allan Sandage, one of the world's most preeminent, respected, and accomplished astronomers, who spoke at a recent meeting of cosmologists gathered together to consider the theological implications of their work. Sandage, who reportedly admits to having been ``almost a practicing atheist as a boy,'' has come to the conclusion through his work that Creation can only be explained as a ``miracle''. ``It is my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science. It is only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of existence.'' I find it rather exhilarating that men like Sandage and Townes and Polkinghorne, who have devoted so much of their lives to questioning their universe in order to discover its secrets, have come to a conclusion that to me was answered long ago through simple, basic, unquestionable faith, and simple, common-sense reasoning. There are those who will only ever be comfortable with a world of rules and measurements, in which events are quantifiable and reliable, and a ``miracle'' is defined only as that which has not yet been thoroughly dissected and concretely explained. There are also those who will always reject scientific theory if it seems in any way to challenge their religious doctrine. But it seems to me that scientists such as Allan Sandage, who embrace both religion and science, can teach a valuable lesson to us all. A black-and-white science of stiff rules and blinders is fatally flawed. It is the scientist who looks to the heavens for divine intervention and is willing to admit that not all things are explainable, who has the greatest opportunity to achieve medical breakthroughs, uncover the mysteries of outer space and develop life-changing technologies. His is an intellect which is truly free, for he allows for all possibilities. The two great disciplines of the world, science and religion, represent the ceaseless human probing for answers to the mysteries of life. They are, at their cores, nothing more than man's quest for truth. As we search, may we never close our hearts to the abundant evidence of His love and his miracles all around us. Even in the midst of great sorrow and profound tragedy, He is there and His love will prevail and will triumph. So my heart goes out today to the families of the two brave men whose lives and dedication we honored today in this magnificent Capitol, itself a symbol of man's belief in things which cannot be seen. And I hope that these loved ones will remember the words of hope from the Scriptures and the words of William Jennings Bryan: If the Father deigns to touch with divine power the cold and pulseless heart of the buried acorn, to make it burst forth from its prison walls, again the mighty oak, will He leave neglected in the Earth the soul of man, created in his own image. If He stoops to give to the rosebush whose withered blossoms float upon the autumn breeze, the sweet assurance of another springtime, will He refuse the words of hope to the sons of men when the frosts of winter come? If matter, mute and inanimate, though changed by the forces of Nature into a multitude of forms, can never be destroyed, will the imperial spirit of man suffer annihilation when it has paid a brief visit like a royal guest to this tenement of clay? No, I am sure that He who, notwithstanding His apparent prodigality, created nothing without a purpose, and wasted not a single atom in all His creation, has made provision for a future life in which man's universal longing for immortality will find its realization. I am as sure that we live again as I am sure that we live today. With those words of William Jennings Bryan, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

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

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