Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator from Missouri. I would also note that the Committee Report expects the EPA to submit a report to the Committee by December 31, 1998, with a follow-up analysis by the General Accounting Office ninety days later. As the Senator may know, Senator Craig and I submitted language to the Interior Appropriations bill directing the Department of Energy (DOE) to submit a similar report, but this report is to be submitted in conjunction with DOE's Fiscal Year 2000 budget submission. Given the short period between the likely enactment of this Act and the December 31 deadline, would the Senator agree that it might be more reasonable for the EPA to also submit its report along with its Fiscal Year 2000 budget submission?

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 rise in support of the Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill. The $57.2 billion in new budget authority that this bill proposes will benefit millions of Americans, both urban and rural. In addition to funding food and nutrition programs such as Food Stamps, WIC, and the school lunch program, the bill funds almost $1.7 billion worth of badly needed agricultural research and extension programs to improve the productivity of our farmers as well as the nutritional value of our food supply. It allocates $1 billion for farm assistance programs such as farm ownership and operating loans. It helps restore and protect our farmlands and watersheds by designating $792 million for conservation programs. It ensures the safety of our nation's food and medicine by allocating $952 million to the Food and Drug Administration. Finally, by providing $2.1 billion for rural development programs, the bill addresses one of my long-standing priorities--implementing and maintaining basic community infrastructure. This bill will bring water and sewer systems to 840 small rural communities. It will allow almost 62,000 of rural America's working families to purchase homes, and, by providing funding for the construction or rehabilitation of 6,900 rental units, this budget addresses the desperate need for affordable housing in America's heartland. For my own state of West Virginia, this bill provides an increase of $1,250,000 for research on Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture at Leetown, West Virginia which includes $1,000,000 to initiate trout genome research. The bill also provides an increase of $300,000 for the Appalachian Fruit Research Station at Kearneysville, West Virginia to improve profitability of this important part of the West Virginia farm sector. In addition to these and other research programs important to my state, this bill also includes a number of important conservation measures. Among these include assistance for the Knapps Creek watershed project, flood control in the Tygart River and Upper Tygart Valley watershed, continuation of the important Potomac Headwaters project, funding the grazing lands initiative in West Virginia, and many other programs important for West Virginia farmers, rural communities, and protection of our environment. The chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture Subcommittee, Senators Cochran and Bumpers, are very knowledgeable of the many competing interests that require funding in this bill. They are to be commended for their ability to craft a bill that meaningfully addresses the challenges confronting our farmers, rural communities, and the Food and Drug Administration, given the budgetary constraints within which they had to work. I applaud their efforts and that of their staff: Galen Fountain and Carole Geagley for the minority and Rebecca Davies, Martha Poindexter, and Rachelle Graves for majority.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, we might pause tomorrow, July 17, to remember that it was on July 17, 1789, 2 years later, that the Senate of the United States passed the Judiciary Act. The Senate was not expected to originate legislation. That didn't mean it could not, but it was anticipated that the House would originate about all the legislation and the Senate would tamper with it, improve it, refine it, and so on. But in the U.S. Senate, on July 17, 1789, history will always mark the passage of the Judiciary Act, which created the judicial system. Oliver Ellsworth was a key player in that matter. He later became Chief Justice of the United States. But he was never as a justice what he was as a legislator. Oliver Ellsworth. It all causes one to marvel at how that first Senate came to grips with these problems and legislated for the first time on so many of these things. And it was in that first Congress that the two Houses learned to work together and have conferences on bills, where they resolved the differences between the two Houses. Our forebears were remarkable men. That was a remarkable time in history. I will never fail to believe that Providence had its hand in the destiny of this country when those marvelous things happened in Philadelphia. When one pauses to think about it, the real miracle--and there were many miracles that happened there--was when men of different minds and different experiences, different temperaments, viewpoints, and attitudes, were able to mold their opinions and give and take, compromise, and come to a conclusion. That was a miracle in many ways. It seems to me that the greatest miracle of all was the convergence of circumstances and people that took place with the Convention. Perhaps 5 years earlier it would not have happened, because the country had not yet fully experienced all of the weaknesses and shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation. A consensus had not yet formed as to the necessity for a new Constitution. Its experiences under the Articles taught it many things to avoid in this new Constitution. And it was fortunate that the Convention was not delayed until 5 years later, as we consider the events that occurred in France with the French Revolution and all of the horrors that took place there with the execution of King Louis XVI. The fruit ripened just at the right time. That, to me, showed the hand of Providence, and that was somewhat of a miracle in itself. I thank the Senator and I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today marks the 211th anniversary of one of the more momentous, but little-understood, perhaps, events in our country's history. I will just take a few minutes to remind ourselves of that event and to consider just how the course of this Nation's history might have been forever altered if not for what transpired on July 16, 1787. It should be of special significance to Members of this body, because it was, fortunately for us, that those who attended the Philadelphia Convention were some of the ablest, brightest figures of the time; in fact, of any time. Ah, Mr. President, to have been a fly on the wall at that gathering! Truly, this was a gathering graced by an accumulation-- nay, an abundance--of wisdom, learning, grace, and dignity of a like not seen since the conclaves at Mt. Olympus! From Virginia alone, there were Washington, James Madison, George Mason, and Edmund Randolph; from Massachusetts, Elbridge Gerry and Rufus King; from Pennsylvania, James Wilson, Gouverneur Morris and Benjamin Franklin; and from New York, Hamilton. Here was a constitutional dream team for the ages! And what a starting five! What foe could resist a lineup featuring Wilson's full- court vision, Madison's patience and tactical prowess, Hamilton's aggressive offense, Franklin's experience, and George Washington's dominating presence in the center, as the one who presided over the gathering. These five were just the tip of the iceberg. Fifty-five men in all presented themselves at the Convention, representing every State, save one--Rhode Island. And with passion and gusto they soon set about devising a plan to guide the country past the shoals and rocks and storms that beset it and into a new sea of tranquility and prosperity. Nowadays, many of us overlook the tremendous physical and mental effort that were expended in drafting the Constitution. In reading this short document--here it is, I hold it in my hand--in reading this short document, with its precise and careful phrases, it is easy to forget the toil, the sweat, the frustration, the shouting, the argumentation, the thinking, speechifying, and the pleading that went into its creation during that hot Philadelphia summer. For progress was unavoidably slow, and the greatest sticking point--``the most threatening that was encountered in framing the Constitution,'' according to Madison--was the question of whether States should be represented in Congress equally or on the basis of population. This question was far from academic, of course. In order to create a Constitution acceptable to the States, the delegates needed to assuage the fears of the small States that they would be swallowed up in a more centralized union. The smaller States looked to Virginia, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania, with fear and with distrust. The small States feared that a Congress based on population would soon fall under the sway of the large States. New Jersey's delegates declared that it would not be ``safe''--the word is theirs, not mine--they would not be safe to allow Virginia 16 times as many votes as Delaware. They rejected the Virginia Plan, which was presented by Governor Edmund Randolph, with its legislature of two houses, and instead proposed a Congress with a single legislative chamber in which the States had an equal vote. The Continental Congress, of course, had been a single Chamber, a unilateral legislative branch. It was followed by the Congress, under the Articles of Confederation, again, one body. It was legislative, executive and, to some considerable part, judicial all in one. There was no Chief Executive in the form of an individual. It was the Congress under the Confederation. Days, and then weeks, of prolonged and acrimonious debate failed to resolve the issue. Some suggested redrawing State boundaries so that all the States would be of roughly equal size. The Convention considered, and then failed to agree upon, equal representation of States in the lower House of Congress. Several times, Connecticut advanced a proposal, initially made by Roger Sherman, calling for equal representation of States in the Senate. This, too, failed to win support. Madison--James Madison--labeled it unjust. Massachusetts' Rufus King angrily announced that he would not, could not, listen to any talk of equal representation in the Senate. James Wilson declaimed that the small States had nothing to fear from their larger brethren in the large States. To this, Delaware's Gunning Bedford retorted, ``I do not, gentlemen, trust you!'' and warned his colleagues that the small States might themselves confederate or even find ``some foreign ally of more honor and good faith who will take them by the hand and do them justice.'' Bedford was roundly rebuked for his words, but the threat of foreign alliances lingered in the stale and sticky summer air. There was no air-conditioning, much like it was in this Chamber up until 1929, when air-conditioning first came to this Chamber. Efforts to resolve this question ``nearly terminated in a dissolution of the Convention''--it came that close; the effort to resolve this question--according to Luther Martin of Maryland, whose own impulsiveness and heated language did little to calm matters. Washington, that charismatic sphinx who presided over the Convention but kept his thoughts mostly to himself, confided to Hamilton in July that he ``almost despaired'' of success. And Sherman of Connecticut lamented that ``[i]t seems,'' he said, ``we have got to a point that we cannot move one way or another.'' On Monday, July 16--Monday, July 16--some 2 months after the Convention began--the question was finally resolved. Perhaps it was fear of failure that led the delegates to settle, for they knew that the country's future was in their hands--their hands. Perhaps it was exhaustion, for they had already spent many long days and weeks in earnest debate. It may have been because of the heat that had tormented them for so long. Maybe that finally broke that day. Or perhaps the open exchange of opinions, that wrenching but vital process of questioning, debating, and argumentation--that process had successfully whittled away extraneous detail and opinion to arrive at an essential verity. Franklin had described the Convention as ``groping . . . in the dark to find political truth''; perhaps they had at last stumbled upon it. In any event, this day, 211 years ago, the delegates agreed that Congress would be composed of a Senate with equal representation for each State and a House based on proportional representation. This was the Great Compromise, as it was, and has ever since been, called. Perhaps, Mr. President, we would do best to avert our mind's eye from the horrors that might have befallen this country had the framers not struck the Great Compromise. Perhaps we would be better off simply to thank them, and to also thank Providence, for the miraculous document-- the miraculous document; there it is in my hand--the miraculous document that is our Federal Constitution. Perhaps . . . but one thing is clear; without the Great Compromise, the Senate as we know it would not exist. Without that compromise, without that Great Compromise, the Constitution might not even exist; the Senate, as we know it, you can be sure, would not exist. For this body was conceived that day, 211 years ago today, in Philadelphia when the framers agreed to an upper House of Congress in which each State--each State--had an equal number of votes, each State had equal representation. This is the forum that was born on that day. This is the body--the unique; the body sui generis--that was born on that day, the Senate of the United States. But for the Great Compromise, the Senate--that beloved institution to which so many of us have dedicated our lives, our hopes, our reputations, our strength, our talents, our visions--might never have seen the light of day, let alone played an often pivotal and dramatic role in our national history over the course of more than two centuries. Mr. President, we would all do well to recall from time to time that the chamber in which we sit owes its existence to a remarkable instance of compromise and conciliation. Senator Dale Bumpers of Arkansas, Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia might never have met, might never have known one another, might never have had an opportunity to work together in the interests of our respective constituencies, in the interests of this great Republic. When next we in the Senate are unable to reach agreement--when we find ourselves plagued by seemingly insurmountable obstacles--when we become frustrated at the obduracy and narrow-mindedness of our opponents--perhaps then, we should remember that minds far more intelligent, visions far more far seeing, persons far more learned--Ah, that learned group of men, they knew about the classics. They knew about Rome and Athens, Persia, Polybius, Plutarch. They knew about Montesquieu. They knew about the colonial experience, the history of England, the history of the ancient Romans. They were able to find common ground on a matter of far greater import and controversy than much of what we discuss here today. And we should then think to ourselves that just maybe we, too, can find some compromise, some meeting of the minds such as our framers found on that day so long ago in Philadelphia. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, although I have great respect for the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, and I recognize that he is one of the Senate's foremost experts on matters that affect the Nation's farmers, I nevertheless strongly oppose the pending amendment. The amendment merely expresses the ``Sense of the Senate,'' and in so doing would not, if adopted, result in any legislative action in any of the areas addressed by the amendment. Nevertheless, in my years of service in this body, I cannot recall having seen an amendment that attempted to address so many diverse issues at one time. It amounts to a virtual smorgasbord, a Dagwood sandwich, a grab bag, a hodgepodge designed to enable one to issue a zillion press releases rolled into one. It is intended to be all things to all people. It is analogous to wearing a pinstripe suit, a plaid tie, paisley trousers, and a polka-dotted shirt at the same time. The amendment raises ten very important matters and expresses the Sense of the Senate that each of these ten matters should be enacted or undertaken by the President and Congress in short order. I will not take the time of the Senate to address in detail each of the areas contained in the amendment. But, for the interest of the viewers who may be following this debate, it urges the President and Congress to pass fast track trading authority--which authority, in my view, would grossly undermine the constitutional prerogatives of the Legislative Branch to oversee trade agreements; it states that Congress should pass and the President sign S. 2178, the Farm and Ranch Risk Management Act; it calls for full funding of the International Monetary Fund--some $18 billion--over which there is substantial controversy at this time as to how much funding should be given to IMF and what reforms should be undertaken by that organization in order to be able to access any appropriations that may be provided to them; it states that Congress should pass and the President should sign sanctions reform legislation so that the agricultural economy is not harmed by sanctioned foreign trade; it urges Congress to uphold the Presidential waiver of the Jackson-Vanik amendment to the 1974 Trade Act relating to normalizing trade relation status to China; it calls on the House and Senate to pursue a package of capital gains and estate tax reforms; it calls on the President to pursue stronger oversight on all international trade agreements affecting agriculture; it then shifts to the question of providing full deductibility of health care insurance for self-employed individuals--urging the President to sign such legislation; it then calls on Congress and the Administration to pursue efforts to reduce regulations on farmers--never mind what regulations, it just says to reduce regulations on farmers; and finally the tenth matter in the amendment calls on the President to use administrative tools available to him to use Commodity Credit Corporation and unused Export Enhancement funds for humanitarian assistance. Mr. President, this is an amendment which is ill-conceived and should not be attached to this Agriculture Appropriation Bill. It is a very far-reaching resolution, basically outlining an ambitious agenda for the Senate on a number of very contentious issues. I do not want to prematurely endorse action on all the items on this list, particularly before I have had a chance to study the actual language on which he proposes we act. I remind my colleagues of the old adage, ``Act in haste, repent at leisure.'' Each of these matters in the amendment is very important and deserves extensive consideration and debate by the Senate. We should not attempt to address them in this manner at this time. I urge Senators to oppose this amendment. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not, of course.

Mr. BYRD. I apologize to the leader for interrupting him.

Mr. BYRD. Then the leader did not mean to include in his unanimous consent request that it would be a recorded vote.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, earlier today, the Senate voted on a motion made by Senator Daschle, the distinguished Minority Leader, which would have waived the Budget Act with respect to a point of order raised against his tobacco amendment to S. 2159, the Department of Agriculture appropriations bill. I voted against the Daschle motion because I believe that, after having debated tobacco legislation for nearly four weeks, the time has come for the Senate to move forward on the pending appropriations bills. Although I appreciate the Minority Leader's heartfelt desire to see a tobacco bill enacted during this Congress, I also appreciate the fact that that goal is not likely to be met in the few remaining days before adjournment. Thus, prolonging this issue is not, in my opinion, in the Senate's best interest. Mr. President, while I could not support the Minority Leader's motion to waive the Budget Act in this particular case, I will not, of course, rule out supporting such a motion in the future. Should we, as the minority Members of this body, continue to be effectively precluded from offering amendments, I would then be willing to join my colleagues in seeking to have those amendments debated on any available legislative vehicle.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, much has been said about the so-called ``lost art'' of writing. The ubiquity of telephones and, more recently, electronic mail, or ``cyber-chat,'' as well as the acceptability of alternative presentations in lieu of written essays in schools, can all be cited as contributors to the growing inability of many people to compose and edit well-organized and effective written documents. E- mail, which is daily becoming more and more common, a common method for communicating, is an easy, instant way to get a message out, but the very quickness of the transmit inhibits the kind of thoughtful consideration of the message and care in editing that are the hallmarks of good letters and great literature. Someone has said that letters are our personal ambassadors. We politicians need to be very much aware of that. Letters are our personal ambassadors. And the trend toward relying more and more exclusively on e-mail means that the future's historical archives will become littered with broken sentence fragments, incomplete thoughts, and embarrassingly ignorant spelling. Think about it. Mr. President, can you imagine the Federalist essays by Jay, Madison, and Hamilton-- can you imagine those Federalist essays, had they been typed in such a stream-of-consciousness manner and then spewed across the fiber optic web the way some messages are nowadays? I am sure that Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, the authors of the Federalist Papers, did not speak as cogently and fluidly as they wrote. Perhaps nobody does, or very few persons do. But they were no slouches at the speaker's rostrum. I doubt that they would have been very good on television. I have thought about that a good many times, and wondered how Daniel Webster or Henry Clay or John C. Calhoun would have come across on television. How would they do on 20-second sound bites? They would do as poorly as Robert C. Byrd, I would anticipate. As Francis Bacon observed, ``Reading maketh a full man; conference a ready man; and writing an exact man.'' Think about that also. That is very true. ``Reading maketh a full man; conference a ready man; and writing an exact man.'' And so we write more exactly than we speak. These Founding Fathers were certainly well read and they were good writers and, therefore, very knowledgeable and exact, precise, weighing every word. When we speak of infrastructure, such as reservoirs and dams, we talk about the Army engineers. When we seek their recommendations about a particular dam or reservoir, they will give us advice, and it will reflect the B-C ratio, the benefit-cost ratio. Anything that is recommended by the Army engineers would have to have at least $1 in benefits for every $1 in costs. That is the benefit-cost ratio. Therefore, in speaking of the Founding Fathers, which is a term that needs to be examined--``Founding Fathers''--and especially those who wrote the Federalist essays, I think in terms of the benefit-cost ratio. They made every word count. Every word carried its full weight. It had a proper place in the construction of the essay. It wasn't used lightly. It was used thoughtfully. So there was the B-C ratio. Well, that is just a little idea of mine. But these men were knowledgeable, they were exact, and their writing was enhanced by their thoughtfulness, and, in turn, their speaking ability was enhanced by their writing, especially in the case of Daniel Webster. When Webster made a speech, when he spoke on January 26 and January 27, 1830, in his debate with Hayne--schoolboys all across the Nation, it used to be, were required to memorize some of Webster's speeches. I don't guess they are required to memorize those speeches anymore. As a matter of fact, memorization is not looked upon as being very beneficial or helpful in some schools, I suppose. Times have changed. But Webster was a good writer, and he memorized the speeches, many of them. Then he took them home, took them to his boarding house near the Capitol Building, and kept them for a few days, edited them, changed them, for the purposes of publication. Therefore, they were not exactly the speeches that we schoolboys memorized, they were not the exact speeches that Webster gave before the Senate. They were improved upon, just as we edit our own speeches. But we don't take them home. We don't take them to our boarding houses and keep them out several days. We edit them the same day. Many Senators probably have their staffs edit their remarks. But Webster, in doing so, had in mind exactly what Bacon referred to: ``Writing maketh an exact man.'' I said that the term ``Founding Fathers'' needed a little examination. Who were the Founding Fathers? Were they the signers of the Declaration of Independence? Were they the Framers of the Constitution? Were they the Framers of the first American Constitution, the Constitution under the Articles of Confederation? Were they the signers of the second Constitution, the Constitution of 1787? In those days, women did not participate in the conventions--but would the Founding Fathers also not include those individuals who met in the various State conventions to ratify the Constitution? Would they not include the writers of the Declaration of Independence? Would they not include the Members of the Congress under the Articles of Confederation? They surely debated much that went into the second Constitution. Would they not include the legislatures of the States that then existed? So when we talk about the Founding Fathers, many people associate that term only with the framers of the second American Constitution. And certainly the framers were Founding Fathers, but not all the Founding Fathers, I am saying, not all the Founding Fathers were framers of the Constitution. So there is a little difference. It isn't a serious matter by any means, and I am not taking issue with anyone, but I have thought about that term. It is hard to imagine that their spoken words could possibly be undercut by any of the all too common fillers that plague common conversation today, those ``ums'' and ``uhs'' and ``likes,'' and especially that inanity of inanities, ``you know.'' That is the most useless phrase. That is pure deadwood. It doesn't carry its weight in a speech, ``you know.'' Any time one turns on a television--which I don't do very often; perhaps that is why I have a lot of old ideas--he will hear a string of ``you knows'' from the anchormen and women, ``you know.'' What does it mean, ``you know''? What do I know? You know? That is taking advantage of the other person when you say, ``You know.'' ``You know.'' How silly, how useless a phrase. That certainly would not carry its weight under the B-C ratio--the benefit-cost ratio--that inanity of inanities; that inanity of inanities, ``you know.'' Oh, how I hate that pernicious phrase, ``you know.'' This is simply a filler. The tongue is operating in overdrive and the brain is somewhat behind the tongue, ``you know.'' We are told by Plutarch that--well, I am providing a rather good example of what Plutarch was saying. He said that Alcibiades was the greatest orator of his time. Plutarch wrote that Demosthenes said that Alcibiades was the greatest speaker of his time and that when he came to a place in his oration and was having difficulty remembering the exact word, he paused--he paused--he simply paused until the right word came. He did not fill the gap with ``you knows'' or ``ahs,'' ``uhs,'' or ``ums,'' and so on. He simply waited until the right word came. Try it sometime. Record your own remarks. See if you are using that phrase. Our remarks are awash in ``you knows.'' And they are uttered all around us by people who are unaware of how they are filling the time between words when the mind is still struggling to complete the thought. They are filling the time with that inanity of inanities-- ``you know.'' Speaking now as a listener, I contend there is almost nothing more irritating and distracting than suffering through countless ``you knows'' while trying desperately to discern what message the speaker is attempting--vainly--to convey. If I were teaching a class, that would be one of the things I would come down very hard on. I know that most people have no idea that their speech is packed chock-full of ``you knows,'' and it just becomes a habit. And if one listens to it very much, he will fall victim to the same bad habit. For the first thing he knows, he will find that his remarks are being filled with ``you knows.'' And these are sometimes strung together in staccato multiples: ``you know, you know, you know?'' It is simply filler--meaningless--sound to fill dead air while the speaker's unprepared brain hunts down the sentence's conclusion. Perhaps it is because Americans are such creatures of the television age, used to actors, or those who think they are actors, news broadcasters, even politicians, reading seamlessly from scripts, cue cards, and teleprompters. We are not used to hearing pauses of any length so we unconsciously try not to allow even a few seconds of quietude to fill the air. We have become unused to true public speaking and debate in which informed individuals prepared their minds with facts and arguments, listened to each other, and retorted and rebutted extemporaneously. Such debate demands close attention and even, shockingly, moments of silent, deliberate thought while a rejoinder is mentally composed. I never hear the senior Senator from New York, Mr. Moynihan, using that phrase. I have noticed that he pauses from time to time, but he does not use the phrase ``you know.'' I think of him as a fine example of a teacher at whose feet I would be honored to sit. These small pauses, like the quick closing and opening of the stage curtains between acts, allow the speaker to savor the argument he has laid out, while his opponent prepares a clever and pointed rebuttal. Few can do that anymore, even those so-called professional debaters-- the talking heads of media and politicians. If the response is quick, it is quite likely to be a prepared, canned, one-liner sound bite which sells the sender's message regardless of whether or not it is completely pertinent. It is possible to expunge ``you knows'' from public discourse. I have seen it done by conscientious individuals, as I indicated a little earlier, but it is no easy task. Like poison ivy, ``you knows'' are pernicious and persistent. It takes strong medicine to kill back that lush growth, and diligent weeding to keep opportunistic tendrils from creeping back into common use. To rid one's speech of ``you know,'' one must first learn to listen to himself or to herself. One must learn to train himself to recognize that he uses ``you know'' or other distracting filler words. As a test, ask someone to tape you or to count the ``you knows.'' Various members of my staff, as and when and if they hear another staff person saying ``you know,'' they point their finger immediately at that person. And in that way they help to break the habit. I think many people will be unpleasantly surprised at the results of such a test. Then enlist these same friends to alert you when an unconscious ``you know'' pops out. They will enjoy that part of the task. And then work at it, work at it, work at it. The more you do, the more you will notice just how often you use such needless and asinine fill-ins. Weed them out of your speech, and you will increase your reputation as a good speaker and a thoughtful person. There is a common saying to the effect that ``I would rather be silent and be thought a fool, than to open my mouth and prove it.'' Speech peppered with ``you knows'' has much the same effect. As I have observed already, Alcybides was noted for his practice of simply pausing silently when the chosen word momentarily escaped his mind's ability to marshal and bring it safely to his lips. Then, when he could continue, he simply resumed speaking. And he was the finest orator of his time. Clearly, a moment of silence is preferable to ``you know.'' Think of it: ``Four score and, like, seven years ago, you know, our Forefathers, uh, brought forth, you know, upon this continent, you know, a new nation, you know, conceived in, uh, liberty, and, you know, you know, dedicated to the proposition that, uh, uh, like, all men are created, like, equal.'' With that kind of delivery, President Abraham Lincoln could not have stoked the nation's determination to see the Civil War through to its conclusion. Or let's imagine Martin Luther King: ``I, uh, have a dream, you know.'' Not a very stirring message when it is lost in the verbal litter. Ridding your speech of such verbal trash may not make an individual a leader of nations or of men--that requires great thoughts as well as a clear and stirring delivery--but leaving them in can surely blight the path to greatness, you know. Mr. President, I have some remarks on another matter, but I see the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts, my friend, my true friend, Senator Kennedy is on the floor. I am going to ask if he wishes to speak at this time?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kennedy. As I have remarked before, and I shall say again, he is one who would have appropriately graced a seat at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. I can see him working in that audience on the floor and off the floor, arguing forcefully and passionately, and advocating his position on a matter and doing it well. So I will proceed. I will try to be brief, more so this time than other occasions.

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 have recently drawn much attention to the results of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study, released in February of this year. My visceral, my visceral reaction to the poor scores of high school seniors on the mathematics and science portions of this exam was one of great dismay and disbelief. How could United States students be performing so poorly given the massive amounts of money invested each year in our nation's education system? My spirits have since been lifted in the past month when hearing about the progress that my own home state of West Virginia is making on the education front. In my years as a United States Senator, my state has been scoffed at more times than I can remember, or want to remember. Well, today, I come to the floor to boast a little bit about what we are accomplishing back in the mountains and foothills of West Virginia. For the second time in a row, West Virginia has posted the highest education marks of any state in the ``Quality Counts'' report released annually by Education Week magazine. West Virginia has tied only with Connecticut for top honors in the study, which grades states on standards and assessments, quality of teaching, school climate, and adequacy, equity, and allocation of resources. In achievement, no grades were granted but states were ranked by the percentage of students who scored at or above the proficient level in mathematics and science on the 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Seven states, including West Virginia, made significant gains in the percentage of fourth graders who scored at the proficient level or above on the 1996 mathematics test. What is even more striking about these scores is the fact that West Virginia ranks forty-ninth in per capita income and family income, an economic statistic which is often correlated with lower student achievement. Earlier this year, West Virginia was recognized as a national model in geography education by the National Geographic Society. National Geographic Chairman Gilbert Grosvenor commended the state as ``one of the best examples in the country of putting essential geography into a statewide system.'' The Fordham Foundation, a private organization committed to quality-based reform of elementary and secondary education, conducted a recent study evaluating different geography standards used by states in setting their academic curricula. West Virginia was one of only six states that received honor grades for adopting excellent standards for geography that are clear, specific, comprehensive, and rigorous. Good students and teachers are an integral component of getting ahead in education. West Virginia could not have made the progress in education that it has made in the past few years without solid homes, ambitious students, and good teachers. The whole process depends, in great measure, on quality teachers, since even the most driven and ambitious students can falter at the hands of an unqualified, incompetent teacher. Just recently, Susan Lee Barrett of Nicholas County, WV, was named as the West Virginia Teacher of the Year. Ms. Barrett is a teacher at the Cherry River Elementary School. She was selected based on her leadership in education reform. I hope that many other teachers in West Virginia and around the Nation will emulate the ambition and dedication to her chosen field that Ms. Barrett has so evidently displayed. I also take great pleasure in learning of the headway West Virginia is making as a leader in education. Over the past few months, my office has been inundated with positive news about many West Virginia schools and students. These bright spots deserve recognition for their efforts and innovation. As Plato wrote in his day, ``Excellent things are rare.'' How true that is. Excellence is something that we all can recognize--the Nobel Prize or a play by Shakespeare or Aeschylus or Euripides or Sophocles; however, it is not something that most of us see or experience on an everyday basis. For that reason, excellence should be acknowledged and it ought to be rewarded. The Department of Education recently announced the selection of the 1998 national blue ribbon schools, which are recognized for strong leadership, high-quality teaching, up-to-date curriculum, policies, and practices. In West Virginia, Weir High School, which is in the northern panhandle of West Virginia, and Weir Middle School, both of Weirton, WV, were named for this award. Weir High School is unique for its active role in preparing students to meet the demands of today's high- tech society. With increased global competition and industry downsizing, Weir High School provides its students with many important resources, including a computerized library resource directory, Internet accessibility, satellite television access, computer-assisted drafting, laser disc technology, and electronic research. Weir High School students are making great strides as a result of such unprecedented use of technology, and I commend the school and its able faculty for its leadership in that area. When I went to school, we never heard of such things. We not only didn't have access to it, we never even heard of it. In addition to an educational technology focus, Weir High School should be extremely proud of its veteran teaching staff--a staff that demonstrates an unparalleled level of commitment and dedication. That is what it requires: dedication and commitment. Among its faculty members, the school boasts of a Tandy finalist, Ashland Teacher of the Year, West Virginia Math Teacher of the Year, West Virginia Biology Teacher of the Year--think of that--several Hancock County Teachers of the Year, Who's Who Among American High School Teachers, and West Virginia Governor's Honor Academy Favorite Educators. Following in the footsteps of its neighboring high school, Weir Middle School has made great progress in technology, curriculum, National and State test scores, community involvement, student environment, and meeting State and National education goals for all students. The school motto, ``An Open Door to New Beginnings,'' is observed and followed daily. Accordingly, Weir Middle School recently introduced a new program, WEIR, We Encourage Individual Responsibility, to encompass total staff and student involvement in promoting learning and the teaching of standards. West Virginia, with stars shining across its educational firmament, is home to many other schools producing excellent students. To name a few, Kiley Anne Berry, a sophomore at East Fairmont State College, in the northern portion of the State, is 1 of 20 distinguished students selected from across the Nation--not just across West Virginia, but across the Nation--to participate in an international Youth Science Festival in Seoul, Korea. Heather Wilson, an eight-year-old from Jefferson County, in West Virginia's eastern panhandle, was selected earlier this year as a National Runner-Up in the Reading is Fundamental 1998 National Reading Celebration, an annual reading program challenging students to meet or exceed an age-based reading goal. Several students at Clay County High School of Clay, WV, were distinguished in the ``We the People . . . the Citizen and the Constitution'' national finals. More than 250 other West Virginia students in grades five through eight were honored for their exceptional academic talents as part of the Johns Hopkins University Talent Search. And the list goes on. I could spend several more minutes, or even hours, talking about distinguished West Virginia students and West Virginia schools, and education in general. I will, however, conclude now. But I urge all schools, teachers, and students, nationwide and in my State of West Virginia, to follow these pacesetters--pacesetters. Our education system in the United States is ailing and we need to get back on track. These schools and students that I have talked about today are succeeding, and I encourage others to keep pace and emulate this progress. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may I inquire as to how long it will be before the vote? I can use this time that is being used in a quorum call; I can use it in making some remarks. But I will be glad to withhold my remarks.

Mr. BYRD. He has yielded that to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. BYRD. I yield.

Mr. BYRD. You are ready to go to a vote?

Mr. BYRD. I have the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I recently learned of an extremely alarming riot which occurred on the campus of Michigan State University. On May 2, 1998, nearly three thousand students abandoned their dorm rooms and various other corners of the university's massive campus to protest a university decision to end drinking at Munn Field, a popular campus spot where students gather before and after football games. Outraged students tore through a fence surrounding the field, thereafter charging into downtown East Lansing, home to the university, to set ablaze one of the area's busiest intersections. Police officers were pelted with flying bottles, rocks, and bricks, and were only able to quell the scores of protesting students with shots of tear gas. Michigan State University does not stand alone. Both Washington State University and Plymouth State College in New Hampshire have experienced similar protests. Mr. President, our Nation has a serious problem, which only continues to worsen with each passing day, yet, we in Congress have all but ignored this epidemic plaguing our nation's young people. Rather, we have stood on this floor ranting about the pernicious effects of tobacco, while its evil twin continues to rampage across college campuses throughout the country. I support the efforts we have undertaken to crack down on youth use of tobacco, but is it not time, I ask, to broaden the equally staggering problem of alcohol abuse among our young people? I hope that the President and the administration will engage in a similar crusade against alcohol abuse--similar to that which they have led with respect to the use of tobacco. I hear nothing said about alcohol--not a word. The country seems to be silent. It seems to have lost its voice when it comes to alcohol abuse. Alcohol, Mr. President, is the drug of choice--the drug of choice among teenagers and college students--not tobacco, not marijuana, not heroin, but alcohol. Surveys show that over 85 percent of all college students imbibe alcohol. That is a disgrace. Let me read that again. Over 85 percent of all college students imbibe alcohol, whether it be a beer, wine, or some other potent concoction tossed together at a fraternity party. More than 40 percent consume five or more drinks at one sitting within a 2-week period, otherwise defined as ``binge drinking.'' It really isn't the ``in thing,'' Mr. President, and I hope that young people will learn that. In the past year, the media have reported several incidents in which college students have tragically died due to alcohol poisoning or excessive inebriation, including deaths at Louisiana State University and the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In Virginia alone, five students died within a one-month timespan in alcohol- related accidents. If this were some new plague that was being visited upon the country, people would be asking for a remedy. The amendment I have included in the managers' package recognizes ten universities, colleges, or community colleges across the nation that have responded to this crisis with innovative and effective alcohol prevention policies. Under my amendment, each institution receives a grant of $50,000 in recognition of its efforts, subsequently to be used to help maintain and improve each respective program. In addition, my amendment requires the Department of Education to distribute a publication identifying these schools and their policies to high school counselors for the information of prospective college-going students and their parents. It is my hope that parents and responsible students--I should say responsible parents and responsible students-- will use this information to select schools that are most active in helping students to be students, not drunks--students. Mr. President, over the years, the culture of college has gradually changed from one of academics and concentrated study to one consumed with partying--partying, and nobody benefits from it. Gathering at the library with classmates to prepare for an exam has taken a backseat to sitting around swilling beers at keg parties or ordering a round of shots at the closest bar. Sadly, the process does not always begin in college. Often times, experimentation with alcohol begins in high school, or even earlier in the homes. That is where it begins many times. The examples are set by parents. According to the 1995 ``Monitoring the Future'' study conducted by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, 55 percent of 8th graders have experimented with alcohol--55 percent of 8th graders have experimented with alcohol. When I was attending a little two-room school back in the mountains of West Virginia, it would never have been thought of, nobody would think of a student's going to school experimenting with alcohol. According to the study, 71 percent of 10th graders and 81 percent of high school seniors have experimented with alcohol. What are they doing in school? What do their parents think about that? What are their parents doing about it? Are the parents doing the same at home? Even more alarming, perhaps, is the widespread occurrence of binge drinking--measured by five or more drinks in a row at least once in the prior 2-week period. As indicated by the Monitoring the Future study, binge drinking stands at 15 percent for 8th graders, 24 percent for 10th graders, and 30 percent for high school seniors. What a shame. Today, alcohol is infesting the lives of vulnerable young children at the hands of irresponsible parents and schools, and students are not just walking away from the empty beer bottle with a so-called ``buzz.'' In 1996, approximately 2,315 drivers between the ages of fifteen and twenty lost their lives in alcohol-related traffic deaths. Yet, all the rage is about tobacco. I don't have any criticism of that rage, but why not alcohol also? Nobody hears a peep, not even a peep, about alcohol abuse. More than 40 percent of all 16- to 20-year-old deaths result from motor vehicle crashes, about half of whom die in alcohol-related crashes. Nobody reads about tobacco-related crashes. These are alcohol- related crashes. Where are the administration speakers? Why don't they speak out about alcohol as well? Where are the churches? Where is the great moral force of the churches in this country anymore? Alcohol is a factor in the three leading causes of death for 15- to 24-year-olds--accidents, homicides and suicides. There you have it. In approximately 50 to 60 percent of youth suicides, alcohol is involved-- not tobacco, but alcohol--booze. That is stuff that inflames one's mind. Furthermore, links have been shown between alcohol use and teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. So, Mr. President, with the drinking onset age becoming younger and younger, colleges each year face an influx of students who already know this drug all too well. Students walk on to college campuses today with booze on the brain--we have heard of water on the knee or water on the brain; these students have booze on the brain--completely apathetic to curriculum, major requirements, and freshman seminar choices. Fraternity parties run amuck with students hankering to get their hands on a beer or whatever may be the alcoholic beverage of the night. According to a national survey recently released by researchers at Cornell and Southern Illinois universities, nearly three of every four fraternity leaders engage in binge drinking, averaging approximately fourteen drinks per week. Fourteen drinks per week! Student alcohol abuse is the number one problem on college campuses across the nation, yet, precious little is being done to combat this destructive trend. In 1989, as part of the amendments to the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act, Congress passed a minimum set of requirements for college substance abuse policies as a condition of receiving funds or any other form of financial assistance under any Federal Program. These regulations require institutions of higher education to certify to the Department of Education that they have implemented a policy that prohibits the unlawful possession, use, or distribution of drugs or alcohol on college property, or as part of a college activity, and to distribute to college students a document describing campus policy on alcohol and other drugs. While many schools reluctantly meet these minimum federal requirements, there are a select few that go far beyond the call of duty to combat alcohol abuse on campus. It is these schools, these candles that are glowing in the darkness, that deserve recognition for their efforts. I have read articles highlighting a northeastern school which has implemented substance-free housing on campus, reducing binge drinking by as much as 30 percent in the past few years as a result of the program. It is this kind of progress which must be sought by parents and educators. However, such significant headway does not happen overnight, and certainly requires much work and dedication. Again, my amendment names ten institutions of higher education each year with proven effective alcohol prevention policies and awards each a grant of $50,000 to help get at the root of the problem. These awards would not be conferred haphazardly to schools that craft a pretty brochure on alcohol abuse, but do virtually nothing to enforce what has been put down on paper. Vacuous words do not have much meaning, but action does. There are some terrific programs out there, such as the one at the aforementioned northeastern school, which should serve as models for other schools still grappling with alcohol abuse problems. My amendment awards those schools that make a difference. Accordingly, my amendment lays forth explicit criteria which schools must meet in order to be eligible to receive a National Recognition award. Applicant colleges must have specific policies implemented on campus, including restrictions on alcohol advertising in campus publications and at sporting events, the establishment or expansion of alcohol-free living arrangements for all students, and the development of partnerships with community members and organizations to further alcohol prevention efforts on campus. In addition, my amendment creates a review board, with members to be appointed by the Secretary of Education, to review and evaluate the applicant's implementation of these policies on campus. Earlier this year, Secretary Shalala urged members of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) to sever their ties with the alcoholic beverage industry, and called on colleges to eliminate alcohol advertising from sporting events. I second that motion. After all, this is simple common sense. It is unequivocally evident that alcohol and sports do not mix, yet colleges continue to endorse alcoholic beverage sponsorship of athletic events. One particular school, until recently, actually herded basketball players from the locker room onto the home court by way of an inflatable silver tunnel resembling a can of beer! My amendment included in the Higher Education Act begins to touch upon some of the fundamental areas which must be addressed in halting this deadly substance from further permeating college campuses. As we have learned this year from the tragic deaths of several promising young students at some of our finest universities just this past year, the decision to drink alcohol can sometimes mean life or death, even when an automobile is not involved. Mr. President, I would like to acknowledge Senator Wellstone, and thank him for his work on the Labor and Human Resources Committee in addressing the issue of college drinking prior to S. 1882 coming to the floor. Senator Wellstone was successful in including an extremely important counterpart to my amendment which creates a grant program for colleges to establish alcohol and drug treatment, counseling, as well as alcohol and drug education. I want to commend Senator Wellstone for his efforts and dedication to fighting alcohol abuse on college campuses. Mr. President, when I was a member of the West Virginia State Senate, 48 years ago, I was a witness to the execution of a young man named James Hewlett at the West Virginia State Penitentiary, in Moundsville. I asked to be a witness because the law at that time required a certain number of witnesses, to an execution. I asked to be a witness and the warden accepted me as a witness. Before the execution, I told the warden that I wanted to talk with this young man who was going to be executed at 9 p.m. He had shot a cabdriver in the back and left the cabdriver to die by the side of the road after robbing him and then drove off with the cab. This young man was later apprehended in a theater at Montgomery, WV, and was convicted and sentenced to die in the electric chair. He did not wish to have a Chaplain in his cell. He scoffed at the idea of religion. But, as the days and weeks wore on, he asked for a Chaplain, because the Governor did not commute his sentence. And, so, the young man knew that he was going to die. I went into the doomed man's cell that evening and shook his hand. He was perspiring. I said, ``I often speak to young people, 4-H groups, Boy Scout groups and Girl Scout groups, and I thought that you might have a message that I could pass on to these young people.'' He said, ``Well, tell them to go to Sunday school and church. If I had gone to Sunday school and church, I probably wouldn't be here tonight.'' I turned to go after a few more words. He said, ``Wait a minute. Tell them something else. Tell them not to drink the stuff that I drank.'' Those were his very words. That was almost 50 years ago, but I have told that story over and over to young audiences. ``Tell them not to drink the stuff that I drank.'' I said, ``Why do you say that?'' The chaplain in his cell spoke up and said, ``Do you see that little crack in the wall up there?'' I looked up at the wall and said, ``Yes.'' He said, ``If he were to take a couple of drinks, he would try to get through that little crack in the wall. That's what alcohol does to him.'' I said goodbye and left, went back over to the warden's office and, at the stroke of 9, we were back in the death house where we watched the execution. That was the story of Jim Hewlett, ``Tell them not to drink the stuff that I drank.'' About 30 years later, I was visiting in the northern panhandle of West Virginia and someone said to me, ``Why don't you pay a visit to the home of Father so-and-so. He's very ill, and it might help if you just stopped by and said hello.'' I personally did not know the clergyman. I said, ``Well, tell me where to go,'' and I went. And the priest was there. He was very ill. I don't know how the subject matter arose, how I came to tell this story to him, but I told this same story of having talked with Jim Hewlett just before the execution. I told it in greater detail than I am now telling my colleagues, and the priest just sat and listened. He never said anything. When I finished, he said, ``Yes. That's the way it was. You see, I was the chaplain in that cell that night when you came to visit Jim Hewlett.'' That young man said to me--those words I will never forget --``Tell them not to drink the stuff I drank.'' So I plead to our young people, those young pages who are here in this great Chamber and those who are listening and watching on television: Avoid alcohol. Stay away from it. There is nothing good in it. And the point is, you may get into an automobile and kill an innocent person--a woman taking her children to school, to the library, to the hospital or to church. You may kill them. Smoking tobacco is bad, but tobacco won't cause you to drive while drunk. I am not upholding tobacco, but what I am saying is, in this country, we have been engaged in a great crusade against tobacco, but nobody lifts a finger, nobody says a word, there is not a peep said about alcohol abuse. I implore the young people in this country to stop, look and listen before you ``drink the stuff'' that Jim Hewlett drank. I thank the managers for accepting my amendment, and I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished Senator from Florida.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, does the distinguished Senator from Florida need an additional 2 or 3 minutes or so? I will be glad to wait.

Mr. BYRD. How long is a moment?