Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. The Senator did not complete his reading of the benchmarks.

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I agree with the distinguished Senator from Michigan as to his resolution. I agree with him on that. But from his reading of the benchmark items and the language that was in the President's report, it seems pretty clear to me that conditions that need to exist in order that we no longer keep our troops there are conditions that the President expects to be achieved before we remove our troops. And those conditions, as the distinguished Senator has pointed out, many of them are impossible within my lifetime, if I live to be as old as Abraham, that was 175 years; and if I live to be as old as Isaac, that is 180; if I live to be as old as Jacob, that is 147 years; if I live to be as old as Joseph, that is 110 years. So I have a pretty long while to go to make that. But sincerely, and seriously, I thank the distinguished Senator for his comments.

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the original amendment by Senator Hutchison and myself does not set troop levels. The original amendment offered by Senator Hutchison and myself does not cut off money for the troops. The original amendment by Senator Hutchison and myself does not withdraw troops from Bosnia. The original amendment by Senator Hutchison and myself sets no termination date for withdrawal of American troops from Bosnia. It does not jerk the rug out from under our troops. The amendment which the distinguished Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, and I would have offered and may offer at another time on some bill provides that the President--the Commander in Chief, if you will--submit to Congress a report, a plan, no later than February 2, 1999, for reducing the military personnel of the United States in Bosnia to an average of the numbers of troops that Great Britain, France, Italy and Germany have in Bosnia, the other members of the contact group--an average--and that that reduction occur by February 2 of the year 2000. That is not setting troop levels. That is not withdrawing American troops. We are saying, ``We'll stay there with you; we'll stay there, but it's about time that the other members of NATO take on a greater part of the burden.'' After all, this situation has developed in their own backyard, not in ours. We are not saying we are going to withdraw. We are not suggesting that the money be terminated. We are not suggesting that American troops get out lock, stock, and barrel. We are simply saying that we should at least be able to reduce our troops, now that there is stability in Bosnia, we should be able to reduce our troop level to an average, we would say, of the troop numbers that are involved from the other members of the contact group. I think Great Britain has 5,000 involved. France has something like 2,500. Germany has something like 2,500. Italy has fewer. And we are saying to the President, ``Now you submit us your plan--your plan. Submit us your plan, and you don't need to submit it tomorrow or the day after tomorrow or next month. Submit it by February 2 of next year, just the plan. Tell us how you, Mr. Commander in Chief''--that magic term, that all-encompassing, worshipful term, ``Commander in Chief''-- ``you tell us how you can get our troop levels down to an average of those of Great Britain and Germany and France and Italy, and by February 2 of the year 2000.'' What is wrong with that? Is there someone here who would say to me that the Congress under the Constitution doesn't have a right or doesn't have a duty even to submit such an amendment calling on the Commander in Chief to do that? ``Just let us have your plan, Mr. President. You have lots of time now. We're putting our allies on notice that we want our troop levels to be down to an average of what theirs are. It doesn't have to be an exact average. Certainly, instead of 7,000, it could be 3,500 by then, but we'll still be there with you.'' What got us into this situation, Mr. President, I have heard it said that our military leaders, our generals, our Commander in Chief, have to make these decisions as to troop levels. I don't quarrel with that, but these are the same people, these are the same individuals--there may have been some changes since 1995 and 1996, perhaps some changes in the identity of the personnel in those respective positions, but it is the same administration that got us where we are, the same administration that misled the Congress, misled us into the belief that our troops would be there no longer than 1 year, roughly a year. We were told that. We were told that on the Armed Services Committee. The distinguished Senator from Indiana and the distinguished Senator from Michigan were there when the committee discussed this matter. That is what the administration told us, and the distinguished Senator from Indiana has set forth a litany of the dates and the things that were said in keeping with the idea that the United States would be involved there roughly only a year. He has done that for the record, and I consider that to be a service. That is what was there. They are the very people who misled us in the beginning. That is why some of us feel that we haven't been dealt with fairly from the beginning, and that it is about time that the administration come forward and give us some reliable statements, give us some reliable data upon which we can depend and the American people can depend. I don't think I have voted at any point against the funding or any authorization of troops in Bosnia. I don't think I have. I am going to check to make sure, but I was misled along with everybody else. I doubted, at the time, that the administration would have us out in a year. I was listening to the Commander in Chief through his Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, through his Secretary of Defense, in their appearances before the Armed Services Committee. I listened. We took them at their word. You see where we are today. That was 1995, and now this is 1998. I just want to shed a little history for the record--for the record--not necessarily for all Senators. Some Senators probably know more about the record than I do. Certainly several of them are in a good position to remember as much about it as I can. But for the record, I want to state a little of the history of this situation. To begin with, in a nationally televised address on November 27, 1995, President Clinton justified dispatching U.S. troops to Bosnia as part of IFOR by saying U.S. engagement was needed to stop the great suffering caused by the war, to bring stability in Europe, a region vital to U.S. interests, and to maintain U.S. leadership in NATO. President Clinton said that the deployment would last--and I quote-- ``about one year.'' In subsequent statements, administration officials asserted that U.S. forces would be out of Bosnia by the end of 1996. President Clinton decided on April 30, 1996, to keep U.S. forces in IFOR at full strength through the Bosnian election on September 14 in order to support the election process. He said the United States would maintain a robust force in Bosnia until IFOR's 1-year mandate expired on December 20, 1996. However, administration officials continued to insist that U.S. forces planned to leave Bosnia within a few weeks after December 20, 1996. On November 15, 1996, President Clinton said that the administration had agreed in principle to send U.S. troops to Bosnia as part of a new NATO-led peacekeeping force for Bosnia. President Clinton said the force would remain there until June 1998. Now, let me read that again. On November 15, 1996, President Clinton said the administration had agreed--the administration had agreed; did not say that Congress had agreed; the administration had agreed--in principle to send U.S. troops to Bosnia as part of a new NATO-led peacekeeping force for Bosnia. President Clinton said the force would remain there until June 1998. So there the administration had already changed their position. No longer was it said that we would be there about a year. Then it was said by the President that we would remain there until June 1998. On December 18, 1997, President Clinton announced that he had agreed in principle that U.S. forces should participate in a Bosnian peacekeeping force after the mandate of the current SFOR expires in June 1998. He did not set a new departure deadline, but said the force would leave only when key peace implementation milestones have been achieved. This follow-on force has been unofficially dubbed ``deterrent force'' or DFOR by some observers. So it went from IFOR, which was ``intervention force''; to SFOR, which was ``stabilization force''; to DFOR, which was ``deterrent force.'' Mr. President, this is the administration. It was they who said, in the beginning, that American forces would be in Bosnia for about 1 year. We took them at their word. But then, as time went on, the administration, the President, the Commander in Chief, set new dates. After all, Congress sometimes is faced with a very difficult situation. And that is what we are faced with. Things are more complicated than they were in 1787 at the time the Constitution was written. Things are very complicated. Here is what Congress is faced with. The administration uses the cloak ``Commander in Chief'' to put our men and women in foreign areas, in foreign countries where they are in danger; takes them away from their families, away from their loved ones, away from their hearthstones, away from their homes--puts them in foreign countries where they are in danger. They may never come back. They go, and they are there because the Commander in Chief sent them, whoever he is--it may be a Democrat or it may be a Republican. I respect the Commander in Chief, whoever he is, be it Mr. Reagan, be it Mr. Bush, be it Mr. Clinton. I respect that office. But our troops are sent overseas. Congress did not vote to send them overseas. We are told they will be there about a year. The year comes and the year goes; they are still there. Then we are told they will be there until June 1998. It is now June 1998, and June is about gone. Then we are faced, we in the Senate, we in the Congress are faced with the choice of providing money for the military that has been sent abroad. They did not ask to go abroad--these soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. They have been sent by the Commander in Chief. Then we are faced with the dilemma. The administration knew that when it told the Congress that our men and women would be there about a year. The administration knew that once they were there, Congress would be faced with a dilemma. And, of course, Congress--we are going to support our military people wherever they are. The administration knows that. They knew that back in 1995. We had our doubts on whether we were deliberately misled, the administration knowing that they could not do this within a year. How am I to know? Some of us are becoming aware of the fact that we have been dealt that hand more than once. We had the same hand dealt to us in Somalia-- the same hand. And there have been other places as well. But I think this is why the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, and I, and others, are just becoming a little distrustful of what the administration says about these matters. And we want to have a hand at the end of the leash. We want that constitutional leash to be there. The power of the purse, of course, is the most fundamental, the most basic, the greatest power in Government--the power of the purse. We want a hand at the end of the leash. We are not saying, you have to take the troops out. We are not saying, you have to set certain levels. We are just saying, as I indicated earlier, let us know by February 2, 1999, Mr. President, how you would suggest that we reduce those to a certain level that is more in keeping with what the other major parties are doing in Bosnia. And you reach that level by February 2, 2000. Now let me lay the predicate by reading into the Record what the Constitution says. Now, how much responsibility, how much power, how much authority does the Commander in Chief have? After all, the framers had in mind making doubly sure that the Commander in Chief was a civilian, not a military officer; and that this civilian, the President, would have the authority over the military. The framers were determined that a civilian would have supreme authority over the military. They placed that authority in the President. He would be the Commander in Chief. He would be superior to the military. It would not be a military officer who would be Commander in Chief. It had to be a civilian officer, selected by the people through electors who, in turn, would elect a President. A civilian would be the Commander in Chief. The framers were very jealous of that power. They knew the history of England. They knew that the King was the Commander in Chief and the admiral in chief and that the King in England raised armies and maintained navies, that the King in England declared war and declared peace, and that the King in England made the regulations for the governance of the Armed Forces. They were determined that no King would do that in this country. They were determined that no President would sit as a King in this country. The President, a civilian, was to be the Commander in Chief. Now, I want to read for the Record everything that is in this Constitution with respect to the powers of the President--the Commander in Chief--when it comes to the military. So I look to Article II of the United States. Here it is, Article II of the Constitution of the United States. ``The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.'' That sentence vests the executive power in one person, the President of the United States. It is just that simple. There is your separation of powers. Now, I want to read everything that is in this Constitution that has to do with the Commander in Chief and his power. Here we go. Section 2, Article II: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; Now, who provides for the calling of the militia into the actual service of the United States? The Congress. I will read that a little later. The Congress provides for the actual calling of the militia into the service of the United States. Then in the second paragraph of section 2: He [meaning the President, the Commander in Chief] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; In England, the king could make treaties, but the framers decided that that power in this country, under this Republic--it is not a democracy, it is a republic--under this Republic, would be shared between the President and the Senate. Continuing to read: and he [the President, the Commander in Chief] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors . . . [and other public officers]. So, there again, the King in the motherland from whom most of the Members came either directly or by their ancestors, the King appointed the officers. But in this Republic, the President can appoint them by and with the consent of the Senate. So that is a power that the framers decided to share. Now, there is one more phrase. Section 3, the President, the Commander in Chief, ``shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.'' Now, there it is, lock, stock, and barrel, every bit of it, all of it. There is the Commander in Chief's powers with respect to war. There it is. I have read all that the Constitution says regarding the Commander in Chief. He shall be Commander and Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and of the militia of the several States when called into the full service of the United States; he shall have power by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice of the Senate shall appoint, ambassadors; and, finally, he shall commission all the officers of the United States. That is it. So the President is Commander in Chief. The Constitution doesn't say what his powers are as Commander in Chief. He is Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy if Congress provides an Army and Navy for him to command. So much for the Commander in Chief. Now, let's read what the war powers of the Congress are, according to the Constitution. Here they are with regard to warmaking: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect Taxes . . . to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense . . . Section 8, the very first sentence. I will go ahead: The Congress shall have Power To . . . borrow money . . . The President doesn't have that power. The Congress shall have Power To . . . regulate Commerce with foreign nations . . . That is a very important power in peace and in war. Continuing, still, in section 8 of Article I of the Constitution: The Congress shall have Power To . . . define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations . . . Continuing: The Congress shall have Power To . . . declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water . . . The Congress shall have Power To . . . raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years . . . The Congress shall have Power To . . . provide and maintain a Navy. The Congress shall have Power To . . . make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces . . . The Congress shall have Power To . . . provide for calling forth the Militia . . . The Congress shall have Power To . . . provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress . . . Continuing in Article I, section 8; The Congress shall have Power To . . . exercise like Authority over all Places . . . for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards . . . The Congress shall have Power To . . . make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. Including the Department of Defense, or officers thereof, which includes the Secretary of Defense. So there you are. Then in Article I, section 9: No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law . . . Congress makes the law. So I have taken the time of the Senate--and Senators have been very kind to listen--to read into the record that which any Member of the Congress, or any individual, can at any time he or she wishes to read for himself or herself from the Constitution of the United States. All of the authority of the Commander in Chief is there in the Constitution. That is all. And all of the authority is there in that Constitution for the Congress, when it comes to warmaking. From my reading of those portions of the Constitution, it appears to me that Congress has the authority and the duty, on behalf of the people from whom all power comes, in whom all power resides, under this Constitution--Congress has the responsibility and the duty to ask questions and to make laws, and to make appropriations, and to draw lines in the sand. Yes; Congress has the authority there to decide overall troop levels. One will find that most of the lawmaking powers, most of the authority and the powers that deal with the military forces and with military actions, rest in the Congress of the United States. Don't blame me for that. You are not arguing with me, you are arguing with the Constitution. I have read the pertinent parts of the Constitution into the Record.

Mr. BYRD. I simply wanted to say to the Senator from Indiana and the Senator from Michigan, I think I was the first to raise questions about benchmarks. In so doing, I did not mean to imply that I was against the amendment that Senator Thurmond has offered. I don't mean that at all. I just picked up on Senator Levin's reference to benchmarks and asked some questions about them. I intend to support the amendment. As to the distinguished Senator's reference to the military leaders, our military leaders, in part, helped to get us right where we are now. We were misled by some of our military leaders at the very beginning of the discussions concerning Bosnia. I have great respect for our military leaders, but I don't accept their word as having come down from Mount Sinai, as being engraved in stone. They listen to the President. They say whatever the President thinks. They all do. And very seldom will they venture to say something that isn't in accordance with the administration's viewpoint. I intend to say something about this subject matter later, but I wanted to wait to listen to what the distinguished Senator from Texas has to say first. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I certainly do not wish to speak in advance of the Senator from Texas. I very much appreciate the courtesy, but I am very content to wait and listen to the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Arizona, I believe, has an amendment. Does he wish to call that amendment up at this time?

Mr. BYRD. No, no, I am recognized. I am not yielding the floor. I am merely asking the Senator from Arizona if he would like to call his amendment up.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator is pressed for time right at the moment, I will be glad to yield to him for that purpose. Let me say, before I do so, I congratulate the distinguished Senator from Texas on her statement and on the work that she has done in preparing legislation on this very issue that has been discussed. I also congratulate the distinguished Senator from Virginia for his work on the committee and I commend those who have prepared the Amendment that has been offered by Mr. Thurmond, which I intend to support, and I hope it will be unanimously agreed to. I think it goes in our direction, but I don't think it goes far enough. But I think it is moving in the direction that Senator Hutchison and I favor. Mr. President, I have waited 3 hours to address the Senate. I want to speak on the same subject. I have had my share of entries into the colloquy by interrupting others and asking questions. I am perfectly content to desist and await just a few minutes longer, if the distinguished Senator from Arizona wishes to call up his amendment.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time would the distinguished Senator from Arizona need? Mr. President, I yield the floor for not to exceed 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Arizona, and I ask unanimous consent that I may regain the floor at that time.

Mr. BYRD. I am saying the Congress has not done its duty, and I am taking my responsibility along with others. We have not done our duty. Congress has the responsibility not to follow along after the President like my little dog Billy follows after me. The Commander in Chief is just a man like I am. I respect the Presidency. I respect the President of the United States. I have never served under any President--that is the way I look at being a Senator--but he puts his britches on just like I do, one leg at a time. No more. And he is there for 4 years, unless the House impeaches him. He can't impeach us, but the House can impeach and we can convict him and take him out of that office, and we can also provide that he can never again hold an office. I am not one who bows down to the President, who bows down to any Commander in Chief. I am not one who believes we have to do what the Commander in Chief says, but I respect the Commander in Chief. I haven't cast a vote, I don't think, against our having personnel in Bosnia. I haven't done that. But I am certainly not one who says that Congress has to follow the Commander in Chief. Now, if the Commander in Chief is ever a Republican again, I daresay there won't be as many people on that side who will stand up and challenge his powers as I stand up and challenge the powers of a Democratic President. As far as I am concerned, under this Constitution there is no Democrat; there is no Republican. He is the President of the United States. He is in there for 4 years, and that is it, unless he is reelected. I have been here for 40 years. I hope to be here 40 years more, if the Good Lord lets me live that long. But don't look at this Senator and say I am picking on the President. I am not picking on the Commander in Chief. I am simply saying that we here in the Congress have not stood up to our duties under this Constitution. And I do not read under this Constitution where we have to follow any President lock, stock, and barrel, line, hook and sinker. We do not have to do that. We can set a line, and we can say ``this far and no farther. If you want to keep our troops in Bosnia longer, come back, Mr. Commander in Chief, come back and we will decide whether or not we want to open the purse strings and provide more appropriations.''

Mr. BYRD. I hope the Senator doesn't think he has to respond.

Mr. BYRD. I am not challenging the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. I am talking about the Commander in Chief, in the abstract. I haven't said anything about the Senator from Indiana. He shouldn't feel he has to respond to me. He has a right to if he wishes, but I hope the Senator will know I haven't challenged him.

Mr. BYRD. The Senator apparently doesn't believe the Congress has the authority to do what the Hutchison-Byrd amendment would require. I hope he does. I think it does. Congress can limit troops by limiting funds for missions. No one questions that. There is great reluctance to placing limits on missions. But when we come to a place where an administration doesn't level with the Congress, then it is about time that the Congress thought about putting some limits on missions, and Congress has the constitutional authority to do it. Don't think it doesn't. I have been around here for 40 years in this Senate and 6 years in the other body, and as far as I am concerned I am getting a little tired of Presidents and Commanders in Chief and their administrations misleading Congresses. This isn't the first time it has been done. It has been done before. Madam President, I think I have said about everything already that I have in my prepared remarks. I have read the pertinent parts of the Constitution that deal with the Commander in Chief's war powers and the war power and authority that rests with Congress. I do not say this disrespectfully towards our Commander in Chief. I would say the same if he were Republican. The Constitution is not partisan. I hope that we can be able to agree on some legislation--and it is extremely difficult under the circumstances--particularly in regard to the situation we have in the Balkans. And I agree with the distinguished Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison. In my own mind, I can keep separate the circumstances and conditions that we face in regard to Bosnia from those which we might have to face in Kosovo. I don't understand what our security interests are in relation to Bosnia. But I do understand what our security interests can be when it comes to Kosovo. I think Congress has to recognize it has a duty here, not just to let the administration do whatever it alone thinks best. And I think we owe the President that kind of consideration. I would hope that we could come out with some kind of proposal, certainly in the long run, that would clearly state what the exit strategy is or what the limitations are, what is the deadline, what are the phases by which we reduce our forces. I do not have the magic bullet. I don't claim that the Hutchison-Byrd amendment has the magic bullet. I have taken the time at this point to quote the pertinent provisions of the Constitution for the Record, Madam President. I don't claim to add to them or to subtract from them. Here they are. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BYRD. It is not a good analogy, if I may say so most respectfully.

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 wish to make a couple of corrections in the Record of Friday, June 19. In the middle column on page S. 6661, where I quote Tennyson, the Record indicates that I quoted Tennyson as saying, ``I am a part of all that I have met, and we are all a part of each other.'' Mr. President, only the first clause is an accurate quote by Tennyson. The second clause was an editorial comment of my own. It should not be included in Tennyson's quote. So I ask unanimous consent that in the permanent Record Tennyson's quote as quoted by me read, ``I am a part of all that I have met,'' and take out the quotation mark at the end of the sentence which appears in the Record in the middle column. The next correction I should like to make is in the same speech, the same page, S. 6661, middle column. I am quoted as saying, ``The Bible says, `see us now a man diligent in his business; he shall stand before kings.' '' That is a misquote. I did not say, ``See us now.'' I said, ``Seest thou.'' ``Seest thou a man diligent in his business; he shall stand before kings.'' I ask unanimous consent that that correction be made in the permanent Record. Sometimes in talking I sound like I have my mouth full of turnips, and I am sure it is hard for the Official Reporters to catch the diction correctly. So I ask that those corrections be made.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nebraska allow me to respond just briefly to the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner? I want to express my gratitude to him for his very lavish and profuse words with respect to me. He shares with us great riches, as we enjoy his friendship and work with him. I look upon him as a great American. He is on the Armed Services Committee, a former Member of a President's Cabinet--Secretary of the Navy. He has demonstrated by his patriotism and public service the kind of service that we should try to emulate. I thank him very much for his kind words. They mean much to me.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if I may just comment briefly, Tennyson said, ``I am a part of all that I have met, and we are all a part of each other.'' I am a part of Carl Levin. Carl Levin is a part of me. I am proud to serve in this body with Carl Levin, Senator Levin. He is a man who when he studies a bill, studies it with infinite care, dissecting each comma and period, semicolon, colon, each word, each phrase. The Bible says, ``See us now a man diligent in his business; he shall stand before kings.'' Senator Levin is a man with diligence and ability, and I am proud to know him, proud to serve with him. He is the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee on which I serve with Senator Warner, who is the ranking member on the Republican side. I thank him. He has always been very generous, very kind, very thoughtful to me. And I hope to predict that within just a few weeks he will join me in lauding the Supreme Court of the United States for holding that the Line-Item Veto Act is unconstitutional. He has fought that battle with me, and I hope we are able to join in triumph as Roman Emperors on that great day. May it come.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if I may again claim the floor just for 2 or 3 minutes, I thank the senior Member of this body for his preeminently gracious and charitable remarks. There is a place named Thurmond in West Virginia. It is down on the New River, and it is a very historic place, an old railroad town. There was a poker game there that continued for several years. I have heard various stories about this poker game that lasted 7 years. Some said it lasted 10, 11 or 12 years. It was evidently a long, long time in its existence. Thurmond is just a small town now--not to be called even a town. But I am very proud that Senator Thurmond of South Carolina has reminded me of Thurmond, WV. I hope Senators will travel through Thurmond at some point. It is on one side of the river, and on one side of the railroad tracks. One can see the beautiful mountain peaks on each side. I thank the Senator, too, for his services to his State and to his country. If one reads his biography, one will find that he is truly a remarkable Senator who has led an extraordinary and remarkable political career, a career in public service. He honors me with his kind words, and I am thankful to the divine hand that guides us all for having let me live and serve in this body with Strom Thurmond now for 40 years. I am grateful for my friendship with him and most appreciative of his kind words this morning. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, for his kindness. And I also thank the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, for his consideration and courtesy and kindness as well.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on June 20, 1863, in the midst of the great Civil War, in which father fought against son and brother fought against brother, a new star in the constellation that we see on that flag was born. It was the 35th star. The great State of West Virginia became a separate government. Its motto, quite appropriate, considering the history of its birth, is ``Montani semper liberi''--``Mountaineers are always free.'' And so I salute my State on its birthday, which will be on tomorrow, as I said; 1863-1998, 135 years, its 135th birthday. Happy Birthday, West Virginia! Mr. President, I invite my friends in the Senate to visit West Virginia. When I was in the State legislature, 52 years ago, we had only 4 miles of divided four-lane highways. Think of it--4 miles of divided four-lane highways in all of West Virginia, 52 years ago. Then commenting on that fact was Raul Tunley, writing in the Saturday Evening Post of February 6, 1960, when he said, with reference to West Virginia's highway system, that it was not to be compared with the highway systems of its neighboring States. His exact words were ``Its [highway system] is decades behind that of its neighbors.'' That was 1960. I was in the Senate at that time, and those words were seared on my memory. ``Its highway system is decades behind that of its neighbors.'' Well, Mr. President, come to West Virginia now. Many times I have stopped in hotels and motels in West Virginia. I have met travelers from other States, tourists who have come to West Virginia to see its majestic mountains, its viridescent hills and its iridescent sunsets, and they have commented to me, glowingly, upon our highways, the highways that we now have in West Virginia, the State which Raul Tunley disparagingly wrote about in 1960, saying that ``Its highway system is decades''--not years --``decades behind that of its neighbors.'' Well, Mr. President, we in West Virginia welcome visitors from other States. I trust that Senators at one time or another will have traveled in West Virginia, and that they will have met its fine citizens and tested their hospitality and seen the beauties of nature, all of God's creation, in those mountains. I have visited over 800 of the 1,000 post offices in West Virginia. So I have had an opportunity to get up the hollows and visit up the creeks and over the hills and in the mountains. I have had an opportunity to see much of West Virginia by virtue of my travels. And interestingly, Mr. President, West Virginia's post offices, the names of communities and places in West Virginia, tell many stories. If you travel through West Virginia, you can go from Acme to Zenith, from Pax to War. You can sample Justice, Independence and Liberty without leaving your car, and you can drive in Harmony or Confidence, or, if traffic is bad, in Shock. You may even choose to settle in New Era or perhaps in Paradise. Maybe Friendly or Hometown is where you want to sink your roots. On the other hand, Odd may suit your fancy, if Looneyville, Pickle Street, Pinch, Droop, or Left Hand fail to meet your requirements. These are all place names in West Virginia--towns, cities, and small communities whose names still reflect the hopes and humors of those who settled my quirky but wonderful home state. Some of these new inhabitants clearly had been elsewhere, or perhaps had missed the homes they left behind, for the map of West Virginia reads like a world atlas. You can tour the sights of Athens, Belgium, Cairo, Turkey, Ireland, London, Rangoon, Shanghai, Waterloo, Medina, Vienna, Congo, Glasgow, Ghent, and Genoa without a passport--without crossing more than a county line! You could even Tango in Montecarlo. You can see much of the United States as well, including Auburn, Augusta, Bismark, Cleveland, Miami, Dallas, Newark, Denver, Washington, and Wyoming. And if these big cities overwhelm you, the lower key attractions of Minnie, Little, or Peewee might be soothing, but if your dreams and fantasies are truly wondrous, then Cinderella--Cinderella, Cinderella--is the place for you. Some names are more evocative of the settlers' beautiful and wild new surroundings, such as Grassy Meadows, Green Valley, Clear Creek, Deepwater, Lake, Limestone, Shady Spring, Cold Stream, Coldwater, Three Forks, Falling Waters, and even Falling Rock. And speaking of Three Forks, West Virginia's schoolchildren are good in math. When I was a boy, we had the old spelling matches and the arithemetic matches on Friday afternoons. So we are good in math. So there is Onego, there is Two Run, there is Three Forks, there is Three Mile, Three Churches, there is Four Mile, Four States, Five Forks, and Six and even Hundred. Speaking of falling rock, in fact, rocks figure rather prominently in my state of old mountains. West Virginia communities include, simply, Rock, as well as Rock Camp, Rock Castle, Rock Cave, Rock Creek, Rock Oak, Rockport, Rockcliff, Rockford, Rock Gap, Rock Lick, Rock Valley, and Rock View, in addition to the more flavorful Salt Rock. And of course the trees and animals are not to be overlooked, trees and animals discovered by the settlers are also recorded on the maps--Apple Grove, Birch River, Oak Hill, Paw Paw, Piney View, Willow Island, Beaver, Bob White, Pidgeon, Buffalo, Panther, Wildcat, Deerwalk, Trout, Pike, Wolfcreek--Wolfcreek Hollow is where I spent my boyhood years-- Elk Garden, Crow, Duck, and of course, as was already mentioned, Turkey, West Virginia. I am proud to say that in West Virginia, sites as pristine and beautiful as those discovered over two centuries ago can still be savored by today's generations. I proudly offer the spectacular chasm of the New River Gorge, the monumental beauty of Seneca Rocks, the ecological rarity of Dolly Sods, the unique variety and interest of Canaan Valley, where, when I was minority leader, I took all of the democratic Senators there on a weekend for meetings. Sometimes these meetings are called retreats. I think I was the first Senate leader to take Members of the Senate to retreats and especially to the choice, unique retreat, sui generis, in Canaan Valley, WV. There are the scenic and historic virtues of Harpers Ferry at the confluence of two famous rivers--the gentle Shenandoah and the mighty Potomac. The Potomac River rises where? In the highlands of West Virginia. This is just a short list of West Virginia's many natural treasures. Of course, West Virginia and King Coal were once nearly synonymous, and the importance that mining played in the life and economy of early West Virginia is also evident in her place names. Alloy, Coalburg, Coal City, Coalfield, Coal Fork, Coal Mountain, Coalton, Coalwood, Coketon, Colliers, Lead Mine, Montcoal, Nitro, Petroleum, and Vulcan, West Virginia, all clearly pay homage to the valuable natural treasure that underlies West Virginia's beauty. Romance--Shakespeare--had he lived in a later time--may have been thinking of Romance, WV, when he wrote ``Romeo and Juliet.'' Romance has its place as well, both as a community and in the affection of the early settlers for their lady loves, enshrined in countless communities named after them, from Alice and Rachel and Sarah to Minnie and Dollie and Naoma, West Virginia. But some of the most interesting place names relate to the concern that our forebears had to pay to the weather and atmospheric conditions in those days before electricity, central heating, and air conditioning. Ah, what a world it was! West Virginia has towns named Cyclone, Hurricane, Mt. Storm, Skygusty, Tornado, Sun, Twilight, Snowflake, Frost, Mud, and Windy. Clearly, El Nino is not the only weather phenomenon to etch a name for itself in people's memories. If West Virginia had much to offer those who ventured into her steep mountains, followed her coursing streams in those early days, she has so, so much more to offer the world today. Instead of 4 miles of four- lane, divided highways, as in 1947, she today has 900 miles of four- lane, divided highways. In addition to her stunning good looks, this lady State of the mountains offers the brawn, the brain, and the talents of her hard-working and thoroughly modern populace. In towns and cities dotted with institutions of higher learning, West Virginia produces the intellectual firepower to combine with the fabled brute strength of her coal miners, her ``John Henrys'' of old. The transportation system, including the interstate highways and connectors, rail, air, and even river routes, is increasingly interconnected and modern. For those who do not wish to transport goods or to commute in traffic, West Virginia offers an extensive fiberoptic telecommunications network that allows today's cyber workers to combine high-technology jobs with an uncrowded pastoral setting--imagine that, an uncrowded pastoral setting; how majestic, how beautiful West Virginia seems--a low crime rate, and great family life. By this fall, West Virginia will even boast eight distance learning nodes, allowing her citizens to maintain and expand their high- technology edge. In West Virginia, you can surf a standing river wave in a brightly colored kayak or surf the net through a computer modem. Well, Mr. President, may I say to my good friend from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey, I have spent my career in public service, and the underlying theme of that half-century of labor is one of nurturing the infrastructure that will allow the natural talents of West Virginia's people to flourish, providing the support and encouragement for West Virginians of all ages to come, come to West Virginia, come to seek a good education, and the necessary transportation links and other services to attract businesses to the State so that these skilled and devoted sons and daughters of the mountains might remain close to home. While my work has required that I spend much of my time away from the hills and hollows of my youth, I cherish every report of new businesses choosing to establish themselves in West Virginia and West Virginia companies adding jobs and products to their operations in the State. These reports mean that my dreams for West Virginia are coming true, that the dream of so many West Virginians to remain in West Virginia and to raise new generations of mountaineers is becoming a reality. I see that energy and optimism throughout the State as new opportunities, new roads, and new buildings rise alongside the gentle reminders of the great and historic legacy of West Virginia's earlier settlers. It is, after all, proof that Confidence and Paradise can still be found in West Virginia, not far from Prosperity in Raleigh County, WV. So, Saturday, June 20, is the 135th birthday of West Virginia's establishment as the 35th star in the constellation on our national flag. I know that God's blessings have shone down on her people, on her mountains, on her green hills, and on her green valleys, and that I have been blessed to be a part of securing for her a bright future. Happy birthday, West Virginia, and best wishes to you always! Montani semper liberi--mountaineers are always free! Mr. President, take that message to China: Mountaineers are always free.