Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Well, you got a courteous answer, but an answer that was to the point, I guess. I saw this conversation going on over here, and I thought I might as well be speaking.

Mr. BYRD. Well, I am not accustomed to that, may I say. Washingtonian magazine says when I start speaking, it is hard to stop me.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Has time been allotted to the Senator?

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object, may we have a reading of those Members who signed the cloture motion.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Romulus was the legendary first King of Rome. It was said that he went up to Heaven during a storm. Others have drawn the conclusion that it was during an eclipse of the Sun. In any case, it was a historic event. When Joshua had his men march around the walls of Jericho, they blew their trumpets at a given signal and the walls came tumbling down. We are told in the Scriptures that it was a long day, a long day, a significant event, perhaps a scientific event, one about which there has been some debate. I have been informed of a truly significant recent event. I wouldn't say that it is Earth shaking, but who knows? It could eventually be looked back upon as an earthshaking event. Now, what is this all about? The Senator from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, is watching and listening with great interest, and so are others. This event, I want to say in the Record and for all those who are watching through that electronic eye, this event was about the coming of Chester Trent Lott III, the first grandchild of our distinguished majority leader, and the baby came with the angels on last Saturday evening. He weighed 7 pounds and 7 ounces--so, you see, those are mystic numbers, 7/7--7 pounds, 7 ounces. He was 19.5 inches in length. Now, these weights and measures are important. They were even important to the barons who forced King John on the meadow at Runnymede on June 15, 1215, to sign the great charter, the Magna Carta, which required that there be a system of weights and measures in the Kingdom. And our illustrious forebears who wrote the Constitution of the United States said that Congress would have the power to fix the standard of weights and measures. So here to live by that system of weights and measures is a new man, a nova Homo sapiens named Chester Trent Lott III. That is a matter of great significance in the life of our leader. I congratulate Senator Lott on this most felicitous happening, this most felicitous occasion. Mr. President, there is nothing, may I say to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, so wonderful as cradling in your arms--oh, many times I have done it--cradling in your arms a swaddled baby. It awakens in one such an amazing range of emotions. There is nothing like it. It is an experience sui generis-- one of a kind. Upon the birth of one's own child, the tremendous joy and relief felt in meeting for the first time this tiny, new person is tempered by a measure of fear. You gaze down at this fragile baby and realize what an awesome responsibility you have assumed. Your baby is small, maybe 7 pounds 7 ounces--and there are smaller babies. They are all small and so fragile, so helpless, and so dependent upon you for their survival. His skin is as soft as a butterfly's wing, his fingernails as translucent as scraps of rice paper; yet those minute, perfect little fingers grasp yours with such fierce determination! I can feel those little fingers closing around my fingers with such fierce determination--although that experience of having my own daughters do that is now 60 years gone. But the memory is fresh in my mind. But to become a grandfather--now, that is a higher plateau. Mr. Leader, you are walking a higher plateau of immortality. It is not your first taste of mortality--that came with your son or daughter--but now a more inspiring, promising taste of immortality. To become a grandfather is a completely different experience. There is none of that fear, but all of the joy. That joy is heightened by a deep conviction-- a deep conviction that ``this is in my image'' and in its grandmother's image, too. But it has my genes, it has my chromosomes, it is part of me. I can see it going on into the future and carrying on through life. Robert Byrd will never die, I would say. I can say that in more ways than one, but in this situation, my grandchild is part of me. Tennyson said, ``I am a part of all that I have met.'' But this was known before Tennyson. A grandfather, when he looks upon that child, can say with joy: ``This is a part of me; it will never, never die.'' That joy is heightened by a deep connection that you feel to the long continuum of countless generations, stretching all the way back from Adam and Eve to you and through you to your child, and now to your child's child. And you can feel the pull of the ancient echoes from the dim and distant past as your arms adjust to the weight of this little, new life in your arms. And you can see into the hazy unknown and murky distant future of continuing, endless generations, when this child of your child will have children who will carry a part of you and a part of everyone in this chain before you into the next century, and beyond. There is a sense of connectedness and timelessness that allows you to understand your place in the long, slow march of generations that is as difficult to express as it is wonderful to experience. That political treatise, The Policraticus, was written by John of Salisbury in the early part of the 12th century. It told of Prothaonius, who said it was glory enough for him that he had lived a life, of which his ``grandson need not be ashamed.'' It was glory enough for him that he had lived a life of which his grandson need not be ashamed. We grandfathers should try to emulate Prothaonius. Well, I offer my sincere congratulations to Senator Lott and best wishes to his new grandson; and, of course, I congratulate Mrs. Lott, about her new grandson, and my wife joins me. I hope the duties of the ``grandfather's office'' will not prevent the Senator from Mississippi from spending many happy hours with the newest member of the ``House of Lott.'' We read about the House of David. This is the ``House of Lott.'' And, as the days and months go by, when this grandfather holds his new grandson, I hope that Senator Lott will appreciate the emotion that is expressed by these few lines of verse, which I did not write, but which I dedicate to Chester Trent Lott III. First, in thy grandfather's arms, a newborn child thou didst weep, while those around thee smiled; so live, that in thy lasting sleep thou mayst smile while those around thee weep.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may consume as much time as I require.

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, 11 months ago, this body resoundingly passed S. Res. 98, a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, cosponsored by the distinguished Senator who presently presides over the Senate, the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Hagel, and myself. The Byrd-Hagel Resolution sent a strong message to the Administration regarding the then- impending Kyoto Protocol. The Resolution directed the Administration not to submit the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate for its advice and consent until developing countries, especially the largest emitters, make ``new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions'' similar to those to which developed nations would be bound if the Protocol were implemented. The resolution also called on the Administration to show that such a Protocol ``would not result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.'' In anticipation of the President's trip to China, I recently sent a letter to him urging him to use his influence to persuade the Chinese to take ``a progressive leadership role among the developing world'' so that we can begin to fully address this complex and serious issue. I noted that, ``after 2015, China is expected to surpass the United States as the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases. While the Chinese contribution to global emissions in 1995 was 11 percent, it is expected to reach 17 percent by percent by 2035. In that same time period, the U.S. emissions will shrink from 22 percent to 15 percent.'' While the international effort to bring China on board may seem like a difficult task, it is still possible if we seek win-win opportunities. While China has taken a number of steps to clean up its own environment, China's domestic efforts must increase given the serious nature of their environmental problems. I urged the President to encourage China to support the market mechanisms that were successfully incorporated in the Protocol by the Administration's negotiators. Through flexible, market-based mechanisms, we have a tremendous opportunity to work with the developing world, allowing for economic growth and also reducing world, allowing for economic growth and also reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. As I have previously said, the United States and the rest of the developed world is not attempting to limit the economic growth of China or any other developing nation. China has the right to develop economically. But, based on the growing body of evidence and the potential consequences of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, all economic development should be done in a responsible manner. The Chinese must recognize the importance of their role, and they should not ignore their responsibilities in addressing this shared problem. Global warming is a global problem. It is not just an American problem. It is not just a European problem. It is a global problem. And as such, it requires not just an American solution, not just a European solution, but a global solution. I wrote the President stating that, ``the combination of these efforts would be the right course of action and underscores how the Chinese could accept binding commitments to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Taken together, these steps would lead to a real reduction in emissions as well as global participation in the Kyoto Protocol.'' Mr. President, I believe we should challenge the Administration to recognize the concerns of the Senate and the American people with regard to the Kyoto Protocol and its possible impact on the U.S. economy, but in saying this, I am also willing to seek a constructive dialogue focusing on addressing this important issue. Of all the significant concerns that the President will discuss with the Chinese during his visit, I believe that this is one of the most critical for the long-term relationship of both our nations. We have to begin to work together because our shared environmental futures are at stake, and the well-being of our people's futures--these are at stake.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on still another note, it seems like such a short time ago that we rang in the New Year. It is almost July, and the midpoint of the year has passed. How quickly we have gone from gray skies, lowering clouds, and seemingly incessant rain, with some snow, some hail, strong winds, to bright sunshine and the first fruits and vegetables of the season. Already the brief moment of the wild strawberries, those tender morsels of condensed sunshine and spring showers, has passed, but juicy blackberries are ripening along their protective bramble arches, ready for picking in time to fill a pie that may grace a festive Fourth of July picnic. In West Virginia, whole families can be spotted, buckets in hand, along the fence rows where brambles grow, especially those old rail fences, gathering blackberries for pies and jam. Of course, the younger the picker, the more blackberries that end up inside the picker rather than inside the bucket, but that is just one of the messy, finger-staining joys of summertime. And the fingers are stained, as are the lips and the chins and the drippings on the clothing. When I think of the Fourth of July, visions of family picnics crowned by the very literal fruits of that berry-picking labor are among the many happy thoughts that surface. Like that blackberry pie topped with melting vanilla ice cream, Fourth of July memories are a sweet blend of small town parades with volunteer firemen in brightly polished trucks and high school marching bands bedecked in their finest regalia; of local beauty queens sharing convertibles with waving mayors and Congressmen and Senators; and flags . . . flags everywhere, waving in the sweaty palms of excited youngsters and proudly flying before houses on quiet side streets where no parade will ever pass, but where grandpa might sit on the porch in his World War II service cap and wave to the passing neighbors. That is the American scene. Although cheapened by holiday sales that commercialize the occasion, like all holidays, the Fourth of July has somehow remained triumphantly above it all, like the flag so gallantly flying over Fort McHenry that inspired Francis Scott Key to write ``The Star Spangled Banner.'' More families and friends gather for picnics or reunions and an evening spent watching fireworks than spend the day in the mall and the evening before the television set. Most people still know that the Fourth of July celebrates the declaration of our nation's independence from Great Britain, though other historical facts concerning our battle for freedom and the establishment of our government are fuzzy though these are facts, and out of focus but not the Fourth of July. Most people consider themselves patriotic, though I suspect that a substantial percentage could not clearly define what it means to them to be a patriot. To be a patriot is much, much more than to be a fan of, say, a football team. To root for one's country is part of being a patriot, but that support can be shallow, like the hurrah of a sports fan that turns all too quickly to boos--boos, b-o-o-s--when the team's record loses a certain winning luster. Those cheers, those hurrahs, change to boos, b-o-o-s. It might have been some other spelling of ``booze'' imbibed during the game. We will leave that for another day. To be a patriot is to reach into the deep current that has carried our nation through history, and not be distracted by the ephemeral eddies of scandal that ripple the surface. To be certain, a part of that definition is the quiet willingness to set aside one's own plans and don the uniform of a nation that calls for your service. But one need not only wear a uniform to be a patriot. Nor is it enough simply to pay your taxes, obey the speed limit, and memorize the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic--not the democracy--to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God. I am proud of the fact that I was a member of the other body, and I'm the only Member of Congress who still serves in the Congress of the United States who was present there when the words ``under God'' were included in the Pledge of Allegiance on June 7, 1954. Interestingly, exactly 1 year from that day, on June 7, 1955, the House of Representatives--I was a member of the House at that time--the House of Representatives enacted legislation providing for these words ``In God We Trust'' to appear on the currency and the coin of the United States. Those words had appeared on some of the coins previous to that time, but on June 7, 1955, the House enacted legislation providing that the currency and the coin of the United States would carry the words ``In God We Trust.'' To be a patriot involves understanding, appreciating, and protecting that which gives our Nation its unique spot on the compass of the world--our Constitution. It has been much in the news the last 24 hours. And that cannot be condensed onto a bumper sticker. In establishing a government that adroitly balances the minority against the majority, the small or less populous States against the larger, the executive against the legislative against the judicial, and that preserves individual liberty and opportunity, our Founding Fathers truly delivered on the promise embodied in the Fourth of July. The Declaration of Independence was a clarion call in the wilderness, a defiant shout down the echoing canyons of history, saying, ``We can do better.'' The Constitution gave that call that was issued in the Declaration of Independence substance, and the more than 200 years of history since that time have done little to erode the triumph of that achievement. The Constitution of the United States of America is a remarkably compact document. This is it--this little, tiny document. Of course, this particular booklet also contains the Declaration of Independence. But that is it. That is the Constitution of the United States. Think of the struggles, think of the sacrifices of men and women, think of the battles, think of April 19 when Captain Parker stood on the greens at Lexington with his men and bared their breasts to the British redcoats, and then at Concord, and then Bunker Hill, and King's Mountain. And think of the battles during the War of 1812, on the sea, on the land, the carnage, the blood that was shed in the Civil War by men on both sides, who fought for the Union and who fought against the Union. All of these, and more, gave their lives. The Constitution still lives! The men who wrote the Declaration of Independence--Jefferson, Franklin, Sherman, Adams, Livingston--their lives were at risk. Their lives were at risk. They could have been hanged. That was treason--treason--to write that Declaration of Independence! They could have been taken to England and tried and executed there. That was treason! Think of the sacrifices that have gone into the creation of that little booklet--the history, the events, the treasures that were at risk, the fortunes that were lost, the lives that were lost, the blood that was shed, the families that were destroyed, the properties that were confiscated--all of these and more. What did we get out of it? We got this--the Constitution of the United States! The Constitution's beginnings go back for years, for decades, for centuries, back a thousand years. American constitutionalism began at Runnymede on the banks of the Thames in June 1215 and before. It had its roots in the English struggle when Englishmen shed their blood at the point of a sword in their efforts to wrest from tyrannical monarchs the power of the purse. So there it is. That little document is all we got out of it. But what that contains! More than the Magna Carta. That is what we will be celebrating on the 4th of July--that Declaration of Independence and that Constitution. Too soon we have forgotten, haven't we? This is a remarkable document. Every schoolchild ought to study it, and every schoolchild ought to be required to memorize it. The Law of the Twelve Tables, created in Rome in the year 450 B.C. A delegation was sent to Athens to study the laws of Solon--that remarkable man who is one of the seven wise men of Greece--to study the laws and to bring back to Rome the ideas and the provisions that could be put into a law, which the Plebeians would understand as well as the Patricians. The delegation went in 454 B.C., and they came back to Rome and began this work in 451 B.C. In 450, they completed the work: The Law of the Twelve Tables. They inscribed these laws on tables, and those tables were destroyed in the year 390 B.C. by Brennus and the Gauls. The Gauls conquered Rome and destroyed much of it and, along with it, destroyed the Law of the Twelve Tables. But so what? Cicero said that the young people had been required to memorize the Law of the Twelve Tables, and therefore, even though the Gauls destroyed the Twelve Tables, the Law of the Twelve Tables lived on in the memories of the schoolchildren. Hence, the Romans hadn't lost the Law of the Twelve Tables. The Schoolchildren had been required to memorize the Law of the Twelve Tables. Cicero also had this to say about the Constitution: It is necessary for a Senator to be thoroughly acquainted with the Constitution, without which no Senator can possibly be fit for his office. Those who wish to find that quotation may look in Blackstone, the first book of Blackstone, section 1, paragraph #10, I believe it is. Blackstone quotes Cicero and what Cicero said about the Constitution. This is it. Let us all think about that on the 4th of July. Let us think about those who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor for that document. It is not lengthy. What does it weigh? Put it on the scale. Put it on the scales of time, on the scales of history, on the scales of liberty. Its weight cannot be measured. Every schoolchild ought to study this, and every adult ought to know so instinctively that any challenge to the balance of powers outlined in this document should be instantly identified and resisted. If only cultural antibodies could be developed that would allow the people of this Nation to acquire an immunity, and would allow the Members of this body and the other body of the Congress today and forevermore to acquire an immunity, to constitutional cancer--it is a vaccine that I would gladly take. Then, perhaps, I and others like me would not have to struggle so hard to excise the melanomas of balanced budget amendments and line-item acts that periodically threaten to overturn the safeguards established by the Framers to ensure that the people and their elected representatives have recourse against an ambitious power grab by the executive, or by any political party. Like the wild strawberries and blackberries that sweeten a country stroll on a Sunday afternoon, our republican form of government is a natural treasure of a generous and bountiful land. But, like the delicate wild beauties of vine and bramble which are too easily overlooked amid the garish profusion of plenty that surrounds us, so must we be alert to often subtle presence of Constitutional safeguards embodied in our complex profusion of laws and governmental structures. We must guard against a complacency that would trample them under foot or mow them down in a fervor of thoughtless modernization for the sake of change or in the name of some soul-less efficiency. This Fourth of July--this Fourth of July--let us put aside for a moment the bright display of fireworks, the inspiring ring of martial music, and listen for the timeless song of our past. Listen for the courage and determination in the solemn opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence where it is said: ``When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.'' Mr. President, on July 4, 1776, the thirteen united states of America committed themselves to a bold new course, at great risk. It is no small thing to break away from centuries of tradition, in the face of overwhelming military might, and the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence make it clear that our Founding Fathers knew full well the seriousness and the risks of the course they had embarked upon. They recognized the challenge laid out for them in establishing a new and better form of government. This Fourth of July, I will happily watch the parades and the fireworks and, with luck, perhaps enjoy with my wife of 61 years and my daughters of many years and my grandchildren of several years a piece of blackberry pie with ice cream. But I will also take the time to pull out my little copy of the Constitution that I carry with me, near to my heart. I will take a few minutes to marvel again at the skill and economy with which the Framers outlined a government that has so well provided for our nation through the centuries. We who enjoy the freedom, the independence, the security, and the prosperity of 1998, owe a great debt of gratitude for the courage and the commitment of those patriots of 1776, and an equal debt to the men, some of them the same individuals, who followed through on that promise in the Constitutional Convention of 1789. We honor them best, I think, by preserving their legacy for the patriots of the 21st Century, our children and grandchildren. The legacy bequeathed to us in trust to our children and grandchildren is, Mr. President--I say to the very distinguished patriotic Senator, who is from Wyoming, and who graces the Presiding Officer's chair in the Chamber today--simply the most richly endowed nation on the face of the Earth--rich in land, in opportunity, in liberty. We are the inheritors of plenty, thank God, merciful Providence. I have had the great fortune to travel widely during my life. I have visited with kings, queens, shahs, prime ministers, presidents, and premiers of many lands. I have seen the beauties of Europe, the mysteries of the Orient, the crumbling ruins of once-mighty empires in the Middle East. They have all left me with wonderful memories and great stories. But when I travel, I pine for home. I took a trip around the world along with six colleagues in the House of Representatives in 1955. That was 43 years ago. We traveled around the world in an old Constellation. We traveled for 68 days. That would have been called a junket today. We were a subcommittee of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. And so I traveled in many wonderful lands, but the most beautiful sight that I saw in that entire 68 days, having seen the Taj Mahal, having seen Sun Moon Lake in Taiwan, having seen the other wonders and beauties of the world and of nature, the most inspiring and gratifying thing that I saw were the two little bright red lights flashing at the top of the Washington Monument when we returned to the good old United States of America. We had been in lands where there was no fresh, clean water to be drawn from the faucets. We so much take America for granted today, but what a wonderful experience it was anew to be able upon our return to go back to a faucet and see come from that faucet water--clear, pure, good water--that we could drink without fear of becoming ill. So I have been left with many wonderful memories, but never shall I forget those two red lights at the top of the monument to the greatest President of the greatest country in the world, the Washington Monument. I miss when I travel the comforting presence of friendly West Virginia faces, the soft breeze that carries their cheerful hellos, the warm smiles that brighten the day and lift my heart. I think that I never appreciate home so much as when I am away from it. I suspect that you, Mr. President, and most Americans feel that way, too. That great poet Henry Van Dyke certainly did, and he used his facility with words to capture the feeling in his poem, ``America For Me.'' `Tis fine to see the Old World, and travel up and down Among the famous palaces and cities of renown, To admire the crumbly castles and the statues of the kings,-- But now I think I've had enough of antiquated things. So it's home again, and home again, America for me! My heart is turning home again, and there I long to be, In the land of youth and freedom beyond the ocean bars, Where the air is full of sunlight and the flag is full of stars. Oh, London is a man's town, there's power in the air; And Paris is a woman's town, with flowers in her hair; And it's sweet to dream in Venice, and it's great to study in Rome But when it comes to living there is just no place like home. I like the German fir-woods, in green battalions drilled; I like the gardens of Versailles with flashing fountains filled; But, oh, to take your hand, my dear, and ramble for a day In the friendly western woodland where Nature has her way! I know that Europe's wonderful, yet something seems to lack: The Past is too much with her, and the people looking back. But the glory of the Present is to make the Future free,-- We love our land for what she is and what she is to be. Oh, it's home again, and home again, America for me! I want a ship that's westward bound to plough the rolling sea, To the blessed Land of Room Enough beyond the ocean bars, Where the air is full of sunlight and the flag is full of stars! Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on another item, I take this opportunity to speak about him during his absence, and I am referring to the distinguished Senator from Indiana, Mr. Coats. Mr. Coats will be leaving the Senate after this year. He is voluntarily doing so. He is a very able member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I serve on that committee with Senator Coats. He is very knowledgeable about national defense, about military matters. He takes his responsibilities seriously. He is extremely articulate in his exposition of the problems and the defense needs of our country, and he is quite influential among the other members of the committee and of the Senate on both sides of the aisle as well. I admire him. He was a very dedicated protagonist--a very dedicated protagonist of the line-item veto, and it was on those occasions when we would debate back and forth between us, and among us on both sides of the aisle, that I learned to respect Senator Coats--learned to respect him for his ability to debate, for his equanimity, always, in debate. He is always most charitable, very deferential, and courteous to a fault. He has always treated me fairly and kindly. On yesterday, when we discussed the Supreme Court's decision--which I favored, and which did not follow the viewpoint of Mr. Coats--Mr. Coats was most magnanimous in his words concerning those of us who opposed the line- item veto. So, basically he is a gentleman, and what more can one say? A gentleman; he considers the views of others, he listens to the words of others patiently and with respect, and is much to be admired. I admire him. He has indicated, along with Senator McCain, that it is his--it is their intention to come forward with another proposal. And of course I will respect their viewpoint and listen to what they have to say and read carefully what they propose, and will again oppose anything that purports to shift the people's power over the purse as reflected by their elected Representatives in this body and in the House of Representatives--shift that power to any President. Yesterday was a great day in the history of our Nation, an exceedingly important day, because, beginning with President Grant after the Civil War, all Presidents, with the exception of William Howard Taft, have endorsed and espoused the line-item veto. For much longer than a single century, Presidents have wanted the line-item veto. George Washington, the first and greatest President of all Presidents, in my viewpoint, recognized the Constitution for what it was and for what it is. He said that when he signed a bill, he had to sign it or veto it in toto, he had to accept it or veto it in its entirety. Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention that met in Philadelphia in 1787. He presided. He listened to all of the debates. He, obviously, listened and joined in the conversations that went on in the back rooms and the meeting places of Members when they were not in convention session. He knew what their thoughts were. He knew what Madison's thoughts were; he knew what Hamilton's ideas were; he knew what Elbridge Gerry's feelings were; he knew what Governor Edmund Randolph's ideas were. But George Washington knew that that Constitution did not allow, it did not permit, it did not give the line-item veto to any President. I am grateful to the majority on the Supreme Court for having acted to save us from our own folly. I am somewhat disappointed and amazed that there would even be a minority on the Supreme Court on this issue. I cannot comprehend a minority of the Members of the Supreme Court seeing any way other than as the majority saw it. I voted against Clarence Thomas to go on the Supreme Court, but Mr. Justice Thomas yesterday saw clearly what the Constitution requires. Who yesterday stood to defend this unique system of checks and balances and separation of powers? Clarence Thomas was one of the six. He redeemed himself in great measure, in one Senator's eyes--my own! I was proud of Chief Justice Rehnquist who agreed with Mr. Justice Stevens in the majority opinion. I was proud of Mr. Justice Kennedy in his concurring opinion. For the first time, Congress had committed this colossal error of shifting to the President a power over the purse that he does not have under the Constitution. Congress failed the people of the United States, in whom all power in this Republic resides and from whom all power is given. And the Senate failed. For the first time in more than a century and a quarter, the Congress yielded to political impulses and gave to the President a share in the control of the purse that the Constitution does not give him. For those who have read Madison, who have read the Federalist essays, they saw in Federalist 58 Madison's words when he said, ``This power over the purse may in fact be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any Constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.'' Those are Madison's words. So, Mr. President, where are our eyes? Read the Federalist essays, read the debates that took place in the convention--according to Madison's notes and the notes of others who attended that convention. Where could we possibly imagine that that Constitution gives to us puny pygmies--the power and the authority or the right to attempt to end run the Constitution by giving to the President the line-item veto by statute? What a shame. What a shame. How would those framers look upon us? But the framers wisely provided for that eventuality when they created the judiciary. And our forebears in the first Senate, which met in 1789, also provided for that eventuality when they enacted the Judiciary Act and created the court system. I am a more exalted admirer of the Supreme Court today than I have ever been in my 29,439 days of life. It isn't my birthday; I have just lived 29,439 days. I keep count of my days, take my life one day at a time--29,439 days. And yesterday I became a more enthusiastic and avid admirer of the Supreme Court of the United States than ever before because, to me, this, this decision by the Court preserved the system of checks and balances and separation of powers. So God bless America. God bless this honorable Court. I also pause to thank those 28 other Senators who, on March the 23th, 1995, stood with me in voting against that inimical, perverse Line-Item Veto Act that sought to give the line-item veto to the President of the United States. And I thank those 30 other Senators on both sides of the aisle who stood with me in voting against the conference report on that legislation, the Line-Item Veto Act, on March the 27th, 1996, a year and 4 days later. That was when the Senate stabbed itself in the back. Those 31 who stood in defense of the constitutional system of checks and balances and separation of powers on that day, those 31 were vindicated by the Supreme Court's decision on yesterday. Thank God for the United States of America! God save the Supreme Court of the United States! (Mr. ENZI assumed the Chair.)

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate adopted the amendment I submitted to S. 2057 that puts the Senate on record in opposition to the attempt being made to increase the number of military stores that sell wine and beer. Although alcohol is available for sale on military bases, it is not for sale in the commissary stores along with the groceries. Specifically, my amendment would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from conducting a survey of commissary patrons to determine whether or not they would support the sale of beer and wine in commissaries. In addition, the amendment would prohibit a demonstration project to evaluate the merit of selling wine and beer in commissary stores at exchange store prices. Mr. President, that is the wrong direction in which to take our military. We should be trying to deglamorize alcohol, not taking steps that tend to promote its use. An expansion of accessibility will likely lead to an increase in the military of all the problems that go hand and hand with alcohol use in civilian life; the negative health consequences, the loss of productivity, the cost to society, the increase in violence and crime, and the increase in sexually transmitted diseases. Why in the world would we want to embrace such a policy as expansion of access to alcohol as official government policy! Life in the military already has its share of stress--long hours, a rigid hierarchy of command, constant training, travel, and long deployments overseas. Let us not expand the opportunities to pour more fuel on any smoldering embers of alcohol abuse in our population and add to these stresses and strains. Let us keep our soldiers fit and sober, clear-headed and ready to defend our national security interests, and hope that such a policy sets an example which other entities in our society will embrace.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, is there an amendment pending?

Mr. BYRD. That amendment is open to an amendment in the second degree?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will have an amendment in the second degree. First, I will talk about my amendment. Mr. President, earlier this month, Secretary of Defense William Cohen announced a plan that he believes will improve initial entry training programs and policies of the U.S. military services. Secretary Cohen's plan will implement about 95 percent of the recommendations put forth by the Kassebaum-Baker panel. The 95 percent I refer to is not an exact mathematical term here. It is just a figure of speech to indicate that the great majority of the recommendations that were recommended by the Kassebaum panel will be put into effect. This was a panel directed to assess the current training programs and policies, with an eye to correcting the structural problems that had allowed truly scandalous situations to occur involving the harassment of female recruits. The membership of former Senator Kassebaum's panel was selected directly by Secretary Cohen himself. While many of the policies under the Secretary's plan are to be commended, debate has been brewing over those core recommendations that remain and that were not put into effect by Secretary Cohen. That deviation pertains to Secretary Cohen's support, in the face of the report of the Kassebaum Commission to the contrary, for continuing the practice of men and women undergoing basic training together, and allowing coed barracks. Not only does this stance counter specific recommendations made by the Kassebaum/Baker panel, but it counters legislative provisions approved by the House of Representatives. In my view, it also counters plain common sense. Similar to recommendations in the Kassebaum report, the House of Representatives' Fiscal Year 1999 Department of Defense (DOD) Authorization Bill includes provisions that would require separate living facilities for men and women during basic training; prohibit after-hours access to barracks by the opposite sex, including drill sergeants; and separate training of men and women at the basic level. Senator Brownback yesterday offered an amendment to the Senate Defense Authorization Bill that would require separate barracks for men and women, and limit access to these barracks by members of the opposite sex. Secretary Cohen has announced that he is strongly opposed to the House provisions. But regardless of the Secretary's position in the debate, one looming fact remains: Sex scandals are plaguing our military training facilities. The papers are filled with headlines involving sexual misconduct in the services--misconduct involving extensive investigations and trials, and high-profile ends to military careers. This is a serious situation, a situation that, in all probability, must have negative ramifications for our overall national security. That is what we should be concerned about, not political correctness, not social engineering, not social theory, not social planning--not political correctness, but the military security of our country. That is why we have a military. While some may claim that most of the sexual misconduct is not occurring during basic training but during follow-on training programs, that claim misses the point. It is my opinion that day 1 of training is a good place to start--day 1. I strongly support a policy that directly states the rules and values of our military services to new recruits on day 1. This policy should clearly dictate to new recruits that the U.S. military is about service, honor, and integrity. The sad sagas in the press about sexual misconduct in the military and the sorry disrespect on the part of some members for the dignity of and the courtesies owed to other members of the military, including women recruits, can only serve to undermine the appeal of the U.S. military to our young men and women. If we want the brightest and the best recruits, we must be committed to ensuring that the U.S. military service delivers on its recruiting promises of outstanding career opportunities. The best and the brightest will demand no less. But that is only part of the issue, as far as I am concerned. While we must implement policies that attract cream-of-the-crop recruits and that carry through on the promise of providing them with world-class training, we must also remember that the objective of military service is the defense of the Nation. That is the objective of the military service. That is what it is all about. That defense, that security, must be the paramount aim of the Military Establishment. All other goals must be secondary to the goal of establishing the best fighting force that our Nation can field. I have grave concerns--particularly in light of the Kassebaum report--that our current policy is failing to keep its eye on that paramount concern. The Kassebaum panel stated: There is no more valuable military resource than its personnel, making training indisputably a top priority. The panel further noted: The principal objective of the military's training programs is to produce an effective, efficient, and ready force. In order to achieve this objective, the training programs must, first and foremost, emphasize and instill discipline. I heartily agree with those conclusions. And the Kassebaum report's recommendations supporting separate barracks for men and women during basic training, as well as calling for some same-gender platoons, seem to me to be in the best interest of the troops, as well as providing the right atmosphere for sound and serious training. I believe we need to do what is best for our national security and what is best for the men and women who join our military forces and whose very lives depend upon the quality of the training they receive. Mr. President, last year, I worked with Senator Kempthorne on the Senate Armed Services Committee. I joined with him on an amendment to the fiscal year 1998 defense authorization bill that created an independent blue-ribbon body to thoroughly examine, review, and evaluate the reasons for the ongoing number of sex scandals in training commands. This blue-ribbon panel is also chartered to examine fraternization and adultery issues. This panel has been created with unquestioned credentials. I believe that the report generated from this group will be a significant contribution to the body of work on gender policy. I regret that that report will not be completed until next year. And if its recommendations mirror, or reflect, those of Kassebaum-Baker, it is likely also to be ignored by the powers that be. I also favor the language included in the House of Representatives fiscal year 1999 Department of Defense authorization bill that provides for the separation of men and women in training at the basic level. Echoing my priority in this regard, the Kassebaum report concludes: . . . separating the recruits at the operational training unit level should provide a better environment for teaching military values, including professional relations. Again, the bottom line must be about ensuring that military service is a profession of service, honor, and integrity. Let us also remember this--let me say it again--the purpose of our Military Establishment, which costs us scores of billions of dollars, is to protect the national security of these United States, the security interests of the United States of America. Our military is not an equal employment opportunity commission. It does not exist to ensure perfect political correctness by responding affirmatively to the demands of this group or that interest group or some other interest group. It is the ultimate protector of the sovereignty of this mighty Nation and the ultimate protector of the freedoms of her people. That is quite a heavy responsibility and one that needs the most conscientious and vigilant attention to be adequately addressed. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in taking a constructive first step towards cleaning up the mess in the military and putting some common sense back into the service training regime. I like the way the Marines do it. And I think we ought to take a page out of their book. Mr. President, I will have more to say possibly on this amendment. As of now, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield without losing the right to the floor on my own part, Mr. Moynihan's and Mr. Levin's, until the colloquy and the action that is about to be taken has been taken. Privilege of the Floor Meanwhile, I ask unanimous consent that during the remarks of Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Levin, and my own remarks, former counsel for the U.S. Senate, Mr. Michael Davidson, be allowed the privilege of the floor of the Senate.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for his statement, for standing with the small group, small band, on March 23, 1995. He perhaps did not at that time follow the will of his people, but his people were served best by his decision, by the stand that he took, and in the long run I am sure they will admire him for it and respect him for it and reward him for it. His full reward comes from his conscience, his conscience that he did the right thing, that he helped to preserve the liberties of the people of his State and the people of the United States. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, would the Senators allow me to close our comments on this highly important subject? I will be brief.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona. I also thank the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Coats, for their steadfast support of that in which they believed and concerning which we disagreed. I have, from time to time, found myself wrong in life, and I have learned some lessons in being wrong. But Senators Coats and McCain never faltered in their efforts. They were very worthy protagonists of their cause. I salute them, admire them, and respect them. Mr. President, if I may add just this: we should learn a lesson by this experience. We have a duty as Members of the Senate to support and defend the Constitution. Some of us read it differently, understand it according to our own lights differently, perhaps. We should understand that it is up to us to fight to preserve that Constitution, to protect it, to support it, to defend it. We should not pass off to the Supreme Court of the United States the duty that is ours as elected representatives of the people in this country--a duty which is ours, to study the Constitution, to study its history, the constitutional history of America, study the history of American constitutionalism, to study the history of England, to study the history of the ancient Romans, to study the colonial experience, to reflect upon the church covenants, to reflect upon the Bible and its teachings of that federation, the twelve tribes of Israel. We should do our very best to uphold that Constitution and again not to depend upon the Supreme Court of the United States to do our work. We should not hand off our responsibility to the Supreme Court. In this instance, I am proud of the Supreme Court. At no moment in my life have I ever been more proud of the Supreme Court of the United States than I am today. God save that honorable Court! I close, if I may, with the lines written by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow in ``The Building of the Ship.'' I think they are most appropriate for this occasion: Thou, too, sail on, O Ship of State! Sail on, O Union, strong and great! Humanity with all its fears, With all the hopes of future years, Is hanging breathless on thy fate! We know what Master laid thy keel, What Workmen wrought thy ribs of steel, Who made each mast, and sail, and rope, What anvils rang, what hammers beat, In what a forge and what a heat Were shaped the anchors of thy hope! For not each sudden sound and shock, 'T is of the wave and not the rock; 'T is but the flapping of the sail, And not a rent made by the gale! In spite of rock and tempest's roar, In spite of false lights on the shore, Sail on, nor fear to breast the sea! Our hearts, our hopes, are all with thee, Our hearts, our hopes, our prayers, our tears, Our faith triumphant o'er our fears, Are all with thee,--are all with thee!

Mr. BYRD. Will the distinguished Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.