Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner. I have some remarks, but they are not on the bill, and I will be happy to wait until others have had a chance to speak on the bill, if it is so desired. I wanted to address some remarks to West Virginia's birthday which is on the morrow and also to Father's Day, which is on Sunday. But I will be very happy to delay my remarks until a later hour, if I can just get some indication of when I might be able to have the floor. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Michigan, if he can enlighten me on this point.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on Sunday, June 21, Americans will take time to honor the Nation's fathers. The Bible tells us to ``honor thy father and thy mother.'' But at times, fathers have received less public attention and appreciation than mothers. Mother's Day, after all, has been recognized on a continuing basis since 1914, while Father's Day has only been an official holiday for a little over 25 years. Mr. President, my State has a proud, though little noted, role in the history of Father's Day. According to the American Book of Days, Fairmont, WV, held a church service honoring fathers in July 1908. The idea did not begin to catch on, however, until a woman by the name of Sonora Smart Dodd launched a campaign the following year to establish a day celebrating fatherhood. A resident of Spokane, WA--one of Washington's diligent, able, and respected Senators presently presides over the U.S. Senate--Mrs. Dodd reportedly wanted to honor her own father, a widower who raised her and her five brothers by himself on a farm in eastern Washington State. As I mentioned, a Senator from Washington State is presiding over the Senate, Senator Slade Gorton. He is the chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee in the Senate and is one of the most knowledgeable Members on the subject matter of that subcommittee. He is an excellent chairman. But we are talking today about a lady from his State, the State which he so honorably represents, the State of Washington. Thanks to Mrs. Dodd's efforts, the first official Father's Day was held in Spokane on June 19, on the third Sunday in June 1910. President Woodrow Wilson, who fathered three daughters, and President Calvin Coolidge, who had two sons, endorsed the concept of Father's Day, and various Congresses considered different resolutions making Father's Day an official holiday. Finally, in 1972, Congress passed and President Nixon signed into law a bill making Fathers' Day a national holiday. I remember as a child watching my stepfather, my uncle, who was the only dad I ever knew, Titus Dalton Byrd. I remember watching him set forth to toil in the mines, a hard way to make a living, no future, sometimes $2 a day, working in the black bowels of the Earth, in water holes, under mountains of rocks overhead, loading coal. I saw him set forth to work. I suspect that much of what I have achieved in life can be traced to the example of patience, tireless diligence, that he set for me. He was a poor man, a humble man, a quiet man. I never heard him use God's name in vain in all my days with him. And when he left this world, he left owing no man a penny. He was an honest, hard-working man, one who accepted his lot in life without complaint. I never in my life saw him sit down at the table--no matter how meager, how humble, the fare--and utter the slightest complaint, never a complaint about mom's cooking, although she was an excellent cook, never a complaint. He never complained about anything. Like so many children with their fathers, I continue to be indebted to that man, one of the greatest men that I have ever known in life. And I have known a lot of so-called great men, statesmen, leaders, Senators, Governors, shahs, kings, princes. My dad was a truly great man, great because he symbolized the great things in life: honesty, integrity, respect for his neighbor, love for his God, faith in his country. He loved his family. He loved me. I shall always be indebted to him for teaching me by his conduct the virtuous and proper path to take in life, not that I have always followed that path. But if a parent will ingrain these principles in his children, the child may from time to time wander from the righteous path, but in time he will return because the old lessons, the old verities, the eternal values, taught and inculcated into the minds of the children, will always, always remain and will become a part of that life and a part of the next generation. The Bible tells us in Ecclesiastes, chapter 9, 10th verse, ``Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might.'' That old dad taught me that. And I took the maxim seriously because he took it seriously. He worked hard, very hard. Senators can't know it unless they lived in the mining towns. They can't know the hard drudgery, the discouraging life of the coal miner and his family. And my old dad always strove to do his very best, no matter how simple or unexciting the job in the mines. Many men's lives--my neighbors, my friends, fathers--depended in a very literal sense upon the quality of each other's work and upon the carefulness of each other's work. A careless lighting of a match might snuff out the lives of the fathers of hundreds of children. Think of Monongah, WV, where more than 300 lives were taken in one day by an explosion, an explosion in a mine. I recall now how late in the afternoon I would go out on the porch and look up the railroad tracks and wait for my uncle, my dad. I never lived with my natural father. My mother died with the influenza epidemic in 1918. I lacked just a few days being 1 year old. I never lived with my father after the day she died. And I never saw him during the next 15 years, and then I was able only to visit with him 1 week. That was my natural father. I had three brothers and a sister, but only recently did I learn that I had a fourth brother, who died at childbirth. I grew up in the hands of these wonderful, wonderful people, this old couple who had had one child before I was born. He died of scarlet fever. This old couple took me on my mother's leaving this earthly life. And they brought me from North Carolina to West Virginia. So this was my dad. This was my mom. I have no recollections of my natural mother. But these were the people who raised me. They didn't have much, but they had love for me. I never heard them quarrel at any time in their 53 years of marriage. Not a quarrel did I ever hear. My wife and I have been married 61 years. I can't say we haven't had a few spats. But my old mom used to say, ``One thing you must remember, both of you, don't you both get mad at the same time.'' When one gets mad, the other shouldn't get mad. The other shouldn't say anything. Just sit down, be quiet. So that was her recipe, and it worked. I used to look up the railroad tracks and wait for my dad to return from his day in the mines, swinging his dinner bucket beside him. I treasured my time with him. He encouraged me to read, to draw, and to learn music. Like so many fathers, he wanted me to have a better life than he had had. He set about encouraging my interests and in building my confidence. I suspect that many of my colleagues learned to throw a ball or to fly a kite under the tutelage of their fathers. Fathers played such an integral role in many of the memories that many of us have of our childhood. We picture those fathers tending the weekend barbecue, fork in one hand and a plate of hot dogs or hamburgers in the other, sitting patiently in the stands of the Little League ball game cheering our successes, consoling us afterwards about our less than successful efforts; or teaching us with a mixture of stern caution and warm affection how to drive the family car. That is not an experience or memory of mine. But I know that it is with many others. Such moments are as precious as pearls, and we string them together in our minds to make a beautiful necklace of memories. Fathers can be stern, of course, but what father is more worthy than the one who selflessly serves as a garden stake for his young child? I grow a few tomato plants, and I always have a stake to hold those tomato plants until they are strong enough that they can climb and make it with the help of still larger stakes. So, what father is more worthy than the father who serves as a garden stake for his child, using his own example to encourage the tender young sapling to grow up straight and to grow tall? Good fathers are like good gardeners. They prepare the soil carefully and they coddle the seedlings before handing them off and planting them in the soil of life. And, even then, they weed out the bad influences, prune the bad habits, support and train the tender shoots with discipline and order and fertilize with affection. Let me close, Mr. President, with a short poem by Grace V. Watkins entitled, ``I Heard My Father Pray.'' Once in the night I heard my father pray. The house was sleeping, and the dark above The hill was wide. I listened to him say Such phrases of devotion and of love, So far beyond his customary fashion, I held my breath for wonder. Then he spoke My name with tenderness and such compassion. Forgotten fountains in my heart awoke. That night I learned that love is not a thing Measured by eloquence of hand or tongue, That sometimes those who voice no whispering Of their affection harbor love as strong, As powerful and deathless as the sod, But mentioned only when they talk with God. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Fiscal Year 1999 Energy and Water Development appropriations bill. This is a bill that addresses many of our Nation's most critical water infrastructure requirements, as well as important energy research functions, and management of our nuclear waste and environmental remediation programs. This bill is also a component of our national security portfolio, due to the atomic weapons production programs of the Department of Energy that are funded in this bill. In approving the recommendations of the subcommittee, the committee has reported a bill that does an excellent job of balancing the many competing demands which fall within the jurisdiction of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee. I wish to commend the subcommittee chairman, Senator Domenici, for all his hard work in crafting the bill brought before the Senate, together with his very able counterpart, Senator Reid. While both of these Senators come from the arid west, where the water management issues are very different from the challenges facing other regions of the country, they have been very responsible in trying to maintain critical investments in flood control and navigation and irrigation, while also ensuring that our energy research and nuclear waste management and weapons production responsibilities are met. Their task was made particularly difficult this year by the disgraceful budget request for Fiscal Year 1999 put forward by the administration for the Army Corps of Engineers. Despite strong support for an aggressive Corps construction program from both sides of the aisle and all regions of the country, the administration proposed a significant reduction in spending for Corps construction--some $689 million, or 47 percent, below last year's funding level. This budget gap created a huge hole that needed to be filled, and I commend our committee chairman, Senator Stevens, for his sensitivity to the challenges presented to the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee by the President's request. Senator Stevens knows all too well the value and need for critical infrastructure investments that will help communities enhance their economic opportunity. I was pleased to join with the chairman in recommending a 302(b) allocation to the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee which was substantially above the President's request and above a freeze for the non-defense discretionary portion. Nonetheless, the requests for funding far exceeded the subcommittee's allocation. Nearly every state had ongoing water projects that the Corps expressed a capability of being able to execute at a program level far in excess of the President's request. So to try and maintain ongoing projects, as well as to protect investments, funding was added to many of these projects. The costs associated with the administration's short-sighted proposal were considerable. Not only would there have been increased costs due to the additional time it would have taken to complete projects, but there would also have been considerable contract termination costs associated with ending or reducing work that had been initiated recently. So I commend the subcommittee members for their fine work. Their responsiveness to local concerns will mean a great deal to the communities in my state that were on the short end of the administration's budget. In places like Marmet, the Greenbrier Basin, and the Tug Fork Valley, where people have been waiting years for assistance from the Federal government to improve upon flood control and enhance navigation channels that feed our economy, this bill will be of great assistance. I have seen the mud, muck, and misery that accompany flooding when the waters rise in the creeks and streams and rivers that flow through the mountains of West Virginia. Some criticize these types of projects. I contend that they are critical to improving the lives and enhancing the safety of our constituents. Mr. President, as is true with most appropriations bills, not every Senator has 100 percent of his or her priorities addressed fully. That is the very essence of compromise and balance, which are at the center of what it takes to produce an acceptable, and signable, appropriations bill. The President, in gutting the Corps' construction program, proposed significant increases to programs favored by the administration. But every Senator should be clear that, to pay for those increases, the President proposed reductions in funding requested for flood protection and other water infrastructure development. I commend Senator Domenici and Senator Reid for trying to maintain stability across the multitude of programs funded in this bill. Finally, I wish to acknowledge the very fine work done on this appropriations bill by the majority and minority staff of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee--Alex Flint, David Gwaltney, Greg Daines, Liz Blevins, Lashawnda Leftwich, and Sue Masica. There are many details associated with all of the water projects and energy research items in this bill, and this team does an excellent job of serving not only Senators Domenici and Reid, but also all other Senators.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, in view of the fact that my statement may require more than 10 minutes--it may not--that I may use as much time as I may consume, with the understanding that I will not use more than 15 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the state of things at this point?

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it seems that concern with so-called ``political correctness'' has been elevated to a near religion in recent years. I thought it might be well to speak on this subject this afternoon when we are not overly busy with other matters. I am sure it is a subject on which not everyone will agree with me. But that doesn't necessarily concern me. I feel that I have something to say, and I am going to say it at this point. It seems, I say, that concern with so-called ``political correctness'' has been elevated to a near religion in recent years. Well, I have long been puzzled by the doctrine, if it may be termed as such, the doctrine of political correctness. When it comes to benefits of this overtly patronizing assault on thought patterns and contemporary speech, I have to admit that I guess I just don't get it. It has always seemed to me that one of the intrinsically valuable things about America is its ``melting pot'' aspect. I heard about the melting pot when I was a boy, and there have been many, many, many valuable aspects of the melting-pot policy. The phenomenon of American life and culture has been its uncanny ability to absorb a reasonable number of people from all around the globe of different races, religions, nationalities, abilities and talents, and inspire them to embrace the ideals of freedom, and work toward the common good of the Republic, without destroying their individuality. But today's trendy, misguided urge to vigorously emphasize in contemporary thought, and speech, not the value and worth of individual difference, but merely the inoffensive security of ``sameness'' seems to be going against the time-honored grain that has facilitated the successful achievement of a richly diverse, yet united nation. The gross, linguistic overreaching for the goal of being perfectly politically correct that goes on in most public discussions, both written and spoken, is not only insultingly gratuitous, but, at times sublimely ridiculous as well. It is as if everyone who writes or speaks in the public arena today is making a concerted and rather forced effort to banish from the face of the Earth the obvious differences in gender, race, religion and genetic codes inherent in all human beings through the clumsy device of disavowing verbally all dissimilarities. And the results are often either humorous or downright sad. In order to avoid offending anyone in anyway we have come up with such linguistic acrobatics as Chair or Chairperson to replace chairman. When I think of the Chair there in the front of the Chamber, I think of the position. I address the Chair. I am thinking of the position. But the person who is in the chair is not a chair. He is not a piece of wood; he is not a piece of furniture; he is the chairman. Well, one may say what if it is not a ``he,'' what if it is a lady? Then I would say ``Madam Chairman.'' I would still refer to the person as the chairman. That has been the case for centuries --eons of time. And here in this latter part of the 20th century we have decided we have to change all that. So, I don't think of the distinguished Senator from Ohio, who presently presides over the Senate in a very dignified and efficient way--I don't think of him as a piece of wood. If I would refer to him personally, I would not call him ``the Chair.'' I would just as soon that nobody referred to me as a piece of wood, as a ``chair.'' I was the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. If we want to address the Chair, that is the position. I have no problem with that. But don't refer to me as ``the Chair.'' I may object to it. I see letters that come to my office with reference to the ``chair.'' And I have told my staff, when you respond to such a letter, you should use the word ``chairman.'' Don't use the word ``chair.'' I am not going to get in that parade and go down that road, falling into that pothole of ``political correctness.'' So, we have come up with other linguistic acrobatics, in order to replace any reference to skin color other than white; and Native American to replace American Indian. Well, I am a native American. I was born in North Carolina. If I am not a native American, of what country am I a native? I am a native American. I have no problem with referring to the Indians as ``original'' Americans. But when they are referred to as ``Native'' Americans, I think that is demeaning to the Indians. I am a native American. But I don't pretend to be an original American--the American Indian. Some day, in the misty future when political correctness is dead and gone, (may that day come with all speed) our descendants may remark on the peculiarity of such terms as ``Chairperson.'' Did it mean that the poor unfortunate soul possessed a body like a chair? Could it refer to the quality of one's intellect? Or maybe it was related somehow to one's lack of mobility--perhaps akin to the popular expression, ``couch potato.'' Gender neutrality, which is an absolute fetish in our country at this time, produces a plethora of strange choices for its adherents. What, for example, to be gender-neutrally correct, do we call a man-hole cover? How do we neutralize the very necessary ``his'' and ``her'' designations on restrooms? And whatever do we do to purge such common expressions as ``man-alive,'' ``he's a macho-man,'' ``he's a ladies man,'' and ``man overboard'' from the population at large? If one stops to think about such things, it becomes absolutely ridiculous. It is laughable, indeed. This insane preoccupation has even been carried so far as to apply to the good Lord and his words as related in Holy Scripture, as some ``new age'' Bibles have done. I don't want any of them in my house. They won't find a resting place in my house. That kind of Bible will find its way to the wastebasket if it ever gets to me or to anybody in my family. We will stick with the King James version. Personally, I think enough is enough when it comes to political correctness. I think we should all stop this unhealthy preoccupation and consider what effect it has had on the content of public dialogue in general. Far from erasing differences from the public mind, I think political correctness in all of its suspect forms has tended to overly accentuate them. In order not to risk offending anyone, we spend so much time focusing on race, gender, country of origin or whatever aspects of an individual we have to tiptoe around, that we then tend to ignore all of the other truly valuable and important aspects of that individual, such as brainpower, level of achievement, talent or quality of character. In other words, our anxious efforts not to emphasize such surface differences as race and gender have, in my view, paradoxically, had precisely the opposite effect. On a more subtle level, political correctness has encouraged us to become much less honest with one another and with ourselves and, as a result, much less willing and able to come to grips with the troubling problems which beset our land. In our obsequious efforts not to offend anybody, we in public life thereby mentally partition our population into groups by race or by gender or by some other category, obscuring the inarguable fact that we are all citizens of the United States of America, that our fates hang together, and that public debate should, in the best of all worlds, be about what is good for the country, not what may appease this group or that group or this individual. That is one reason why I absolutely abhor hyphenated-American designations. They separate and divide us into arbitrary categories which are based for the most part solely on what the eye can readily see. And we find the same problem in our textbooks in the schools. How can we help the entire population of our land, the men, the women, the blacks, the Hispanics, the white or the Asian populations, if we submerge honest and forthright discussions of what is best for the Nation in favor of pandering to the sensibilities of this group or that group? The answer is we can't. And the real answer is we don't want to. It is far easier to observe the customary taboos and the popular, awkward, and thoroughly phony norms of political correctness than to actually grapple with real problems in a meaningful and substantive way. Personally, Mr. President, I hope that ``political correctness'' will soon go the way of high-button shoes or the lace-up corset. It is shop- worn window dressing far, far too constraining for a fast-moving, difficult age, crying out for courageous leaders, frank discussion, and innovative solutions. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Louisiana. I thank him for his kind words, and I thank him for his support all along the way which greatly helped us in bringing this legislation to its fruition. I thank him again.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the conference agreement on ISTEA now before the Senate, which will appropriately be entitled ``The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century'', is a magnificent accomplishment for those of us who have labored many long months to achieve the enactment of this truly monumental highway bill. Today is the day that we have all been hoping for lo these many months. Today is the day Congress will send to the President a 6-year ISTEA reauthorization act that truly keeps faith with the American traveling public. In adopting this conference report, the Senate will make two profoundly important statements to the American traveling public. First, we are telling the American public that we are finally prepared to guarantee that the revenues collected at the gas pump will indeed be spent for the purpose for which they are collected; namely, the maintenance, upkeep, safety, and expansion of our national highway and transit systems. Second, we are telling the traveling public that we are determined to reverse the Federal Government's chronic underinvestment in our national highway needs. We are about to send to the President a highway bill calling for a full $216 billion in transportation investments over the six years, 1998 through 2003. Of that amount, $173 billion is provided in contract authority for our national highway system. Senators will recall that the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 assessed a new 4.3 cents gas tax, solely for the purpose of deficit reduction. That was the first time since the Highway Trust Fund had been established in 1956, that a permanent gas tax was put on the books for a purpose other than for transportation investments. In May of 1996, our former colleague, Senator Dole of Kansas, rekindled the debate on the appropriate use of the 4.3 cents-per-gallon gas tax. At that time, I signaled to my colleagues my intent to offer an amendment to transfer this 4.3 cents gas tax from the general fund to its rightful place in the Highway Trust Fund so that it could be used to help meet our ever-growing unmet needs in the area of highway construction and maintenance, as well as to rebuild the thousands of unsafe and overburdened bridges throughout the nation. In my view, the Federal Government has, for too long, held its head in the sand while our Federal investment in our nation's infrastructure declined, both as a percentage of our gross domestic product. As such, I was poised to offer my amendment to transfer the 4.3 cents tax into the Highway Trust Fund throughout the summer of 1996. At the behest of both the majority and minority leaders, I deferred offering my amendment on two separate tax bills. Unfortunately, another opportunity to offer my amendment did not arise during the 104th Congress. During debate on the budget resolution last year, Senator Gramm offered a Sense-of-the-Senate amendment supporting the transfer of the 4.3 cents-per-gallon gas tax from deficit reduction to the Highway Trust Fund, and the spending of that revenue on our highway construction needs. Senator Gramm was joined by 81 of our colleagues in support of this amendment. Later that year, when the Finance Committee marked up the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, it was Senator Gramm, who is a member of that committee, who successfully included a provision transferring the 4.3 cents to the Highway Trust Fund. That provision became law with the enactment of the Taxpayer Relief Act in August of 1997. Transferring this new revenue to the Highway Trust Fund was crucial, because it gave Congress the opportunity to authorize and commit dramatically increased resources on our National Highway System. Unfortunately, however, even with this new revenue coming into the Highway Trust Fund, the Environment and Public Works Committee reported a highway bill on October 1, 1997, that failed to authorize even one penny of this new revenue to be spent on our Nation's highways and bridges. Indeed, under the funding levels reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee for the highway program, the unspent balance in the Highway Trust Fund (including both the highway and transit accounts), was expected to grow from $22.9 billion at the beginning of 1998 to more than $55 billion at the end of 2003, the end of the ISTEA II authorization period. I found these figures to be grossly unacceptable. Senator Gramm and I did not successfully champion the transfer of the 4.3 cents into the Highway Trust Fund so that the revenue would sit in that Trust Fund, unspent. There was no question that these funds were sorely needed on our Nation's highways. I have taken to the Floor numerous times over the years to remind my colleagues of the hundreds of thousands of miles of highways in the nation that are rated in poor or fair condition, and the thousands of bridges across our nation that are rated as deficient or functionally obsolete. Following the Environment and Public Works Committee's action, I held several discussions on the subject with members of the committee, including Chairman Chafee, and the ranking member, Senator Baucus. As a consequence of these discussions, I prepared an amendment to the highway bill to authorize the spending of the full amount of revenues going into the highway account of the Highway Trust Fund. Given the continuing deterioration of our Nation's highways in all 50 states, and the growing volume of concern on the part of the Nation's Governors and State legislators regarding the Federal Government's underinvestment in our infrastructure, I felt that it was essential that the Senate have an opportunity to vote on whether or not we meant what we said when we placed these additional highway tax revenues into the Highway Trust Fund. I was pleased to have as the very first cosponsor of the amendment I had prepared my very good friend and colleague, Senator Gramm. Shortly thereafter, our efforts were given a great boost when we were joined by Senator Baucus, the ranking member of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee, and Senator Warner, the subcommittee's chairman. Senators Gramm, Baucus, Warner, and I diligently sought to obtain cosponsors for our amendment. In total, we were able to secure an additional 50 cosponsors, making a total of 54 cosponsors for the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus- Warner amendment. Our amendment authorized additional contract authority for highways over the period Fiscal Years 1999 through 2003, totaling $30.971 billion. At the time we introduced our amendment, that amount was the Congressional Budget Office's estimate of the revenue from the 3.45 cents portion of the 4.3 cents gas tax that would be deposited into the highway account of the Highway Trust Fund over that five-year period. In January of this year, the Congressional Budget Office re-estimated that five-year figure to a level of $27.41 billion, or a reduction of $3.561 billion from their earlier forecast. During Senate debate on the highway reauthorization bill, Mr. President, it appeared that a true battle was brewing. The Senate was divided into two camps--the camp of those that had joined with Senators Byrd, Gramm, Baucus, and Warner in support of authorizing the spending of the additional revenue to the Highway Trust Fund, and the opposition, led by Senators Domenici and Chafee, who opposed this approach. This division was causing a delay in Senate consideration of the ISTEA bill, a delay that made all Senators uncomfortable, since we faced the May 1 deadline beyond which most states could not obligate any federal aid highway funds absent a new authorization bill. The fact is, that the May 1 cutoff of highway obligation authority is still in effect and is a major reason why it is so critical that Congress get this legislation to the President's desk before the Memorial Day Recess. Ultimately, in an attempt to break the Senate deadlock on the highway bill, the majority leader, Mr. Lott, asked that all parties join him in his office for negotiations on this issue. And so, Senator Gramm, Senator Baucus, Senator Warner, Senator Chafee, Senator Domenici, Senator D'Amato, and I did join with the majority leader to discuss the situation. After several days of back and forth discussions, under the very adept moderating style of the majority leader, I was pleased that an agreement emerged that resulted in an amendment to the then-pending highway bill totaling $25.920 billion in additional highway spending. That amount represented 94 percent of CBO's most recent estimate of the revenue to the highway account, stemming from the 4.3 cents gas tax. On a matter that was of critical importance to me, the negotiated amendment included $1.89 billion for the Appalachian Development Highway System. Coupled with the $300 million already in the committee bill for this system, total funding over the 6-year ISTEA bill, for the Appalachian Regional Highway System equaled $2.19 billion, the full amount requested by the administration in their ISTEA proposal. Back in December--or January, rather, of 1997, I had met with the President with the goal of convincing him of the importance of completing the Appalachian Highway System. The completion of these highways were promised to the people of Appalachia more than 32 years ago. But as we enter the new millennia, we find that our Interstate Highway System is almost 100 percent complete while the Appalachian Highway System remains less than 78 percent complete. In my home State of West Virginia, we lag behind the average for the region. Our segments of the Appalachian Highway System are only 73 percent complete. I was pleased that, following our meeting, the President saw fit to include $2.19 billion for the Appalachian Highway System in his ISTEA reauthorization proposal. While this amount would not serve to complete the Federal contribution toward the system, it represented a substantial boost to the system and sent a signal to the entire Appalachian region that we are serious about completing these corridors. So the proposal also provided for the Appalachian States to be able to draw down contract authority from the trust fund in order to complete their Appalachian corridors. The $26 billion included in our amendment not only allowed for a boost to the Appalachian Highway System, it provided for substantial increases in highway funding for all 50 States and many other national highway initiatives. Perhaps, most importantly, it closed the substantial funding gap that existed in the total amount of funding in the Senate highway bill and the highway bill under consideration in the House of Representatives. It paved the way for a less contentious and more amicable conference. Put simply, by bringing the additional $26 billion to the table, our amendment better enabled the conferees to include many critical initiatives in the conference agreement-- initiatives that might otherwise have been left out of our Federal Aid Highway program for the next 6 years. This conference agreement includes an historic increase in the overall level of investment in our Nation's highways, a 44 percent increase over the levels authorized in the original ISTEA legislation for the years 1992 through 1997. The agreement includes a total of $2.25 billion for the Appalachian Highway System. Within that amount, West Virginia can expect to receive roughly $345 million to aid in the completion of Corridor H from Wardensville to Elkins and Corridor D in the Parkersburg area. The bill also includes specific earmarks for several high priority projects throughout the State. These include: $50 million for West Virginia Route 10 from Logan to Man and $22.69 million for the continued construction of the Coalfields Expressway in Southern West Virginia. Mr. President, I commend the conferees for their diligent efforts in reaching this historic agreement. I especially commend chairman Chafee and chairman Warner, as well as Senator Baucus, who have spent untold hours in negotiations with the House conferees in an effort to reach a fair and balanced conference agreement. I also commend chairman Shuster for his splendid efforts on the House side in chairing this very difficult conference and for bringing it to a successful conclusion in such an expeditious manner. Further, I want to especially commend my own Congressman, Representative Nick Rahall of the Third District of West Virginia in which my voting residence is attained. He served as one of the leaders of the House conferees and has been a stalwart ally in the effort to guarantee the American people that their gas taxes will be spent on our Federal highways. His wisdom and his experience have made West Virginia and the Nation proud. I also compliment the many members of staff--for example Jim English and Peter Rogoff--who have worked diligently over these many, many months, as a matter of fact, in helping to bring this historic bill to fruition. I must thank, again, both leaders, Mr. Daschle and Mr. Lott, for their support of the legislation. I thank all Senators who have participated one way or another in the working out of this agreement. And, again, I compliment and thank Mr. Shuster and the Members on the House side. It was a difficult bill. It was a difficult battle and a difficult conference. I close by thanking once more, Senator Gramm of Texas for his splendid leadership, for his unfailing courage, for his high dedication to the passage of this bill, and also for his determination to do everything possible to see to it that the moneys the American people spent on the gas tax when they fill their fuel tanks go into the highway trust fund and are spent on highways. I thank him for joining with me in seeing to it that the amendment which would provide for the expenditure of those trust fund moneys on highways and bridges was implemented. This was the goal that we sought. We thought it was right. We thought that it was being honest with the American people. I don't think I could have had a better supporter and compatriot and colleague in this effort than Senator Gramm. He is, indeed, a very able Senator, and has one of the brightest minds I have seen in my 40 years in this Senate. I salute him and express my gratitude for his steadfast support and his encouragement that he gave to me and to others of us who worked together in this matter. This conference agreement represents a remarkable accomplishment, long sought by the American people and those of us who are fortunate enough to represent them. I commend all those whose efforts have brought us to this historic day. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate?

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it is my sad duty to announce to the Senate the death on last Friday of our former colleague, U.S. Senator Jennings Randolph. With countless West Virginians, and with his many friends across America, I am saddened by the passing of my longtime friend. Jennings Randolph was a man possessed of a profound love for West Virginia and for the Nation. More, he was a man of seemingly boundless energy and limitless horizons. Both in Government and in his several other fields of interest and expression, Senator Randolph seemed constantly to be looking for ways to assist other people to achieve their own potential, or for avenues by which others might attain a better life for themselves. He was, paradoxically perhaps, an indefatigably optimistic realist. Jennings Randolph knew that life often demands struggle and many times ends in defeat; but for every problem, Jennings believed that good-willed, intelligent, and decent men and women could find solutions to their mutual and individual problems, if they united their talents in a mutual effort to overcome frustration or evil, or if they but reached into their deepest resources of character. An educator, writer, public speaker, aviation enthusiast, corporate executive, a Representative and a Senator, Jennings Randolph was a master of many talents. I was honored to serve with him as a colleague, and honored to call him my friend. If events can foreshadow destinies, perhaps Jennings Randolph's destiny was outlined at his birth, 96 years ago, in 1902. One of Senator Randolph's father's closest friends was the great William Jennings Bryan. Jennings was fond of recounting the anecdote that his father was with Bryan shortly after Jennings' birth. When told of the arrival of a new Randolph male, Bryan asked Mr. Randolph, ``Have you named this boy?'' ``No,'' the father replied. ``Then why don't you give him part of my name as a good Democrat?'' So Jennings Randolph received his name from the perennial Presidential candidate, William Jennings Bryan--a name that Randolph never tarnished and that he burnished brilliantly in his own career. I recall another story that Jennings Randolph sometimes told out of his boyhood in Salem, West Virginia. According to Jennings, Salem had a water tower that stood high on a hill above the town. Jennings said that he told his father and mother, ``If I could just get a long pole and * * * climb up on that tank, and hold out that pole, I believe I could touch the sky.'' That is a story that shows the theme of this man's life--the tale of a boy who wanted to touch the sky. And when that boy became a man, touch the sky he did. Jennings Randolph graduated from Salem College in 1924. From there he went into newspaper work in Clarksburg, West Virginia, and later in Elkins. A short step more took him onto the faculty of Davis and Elkins College as a professor of speech and journalism, and the director of athletics. Working in that capacity, in 1932 Jennings Randolph was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, entering as a strong supporter of Franklin D. Roosevelt's ``New Deal,'' and serving in the House until January 3, 1947. In 1947, he accepted a position as assistant to the President of Capital Airlines and Director of Public Relations. In 1958, however, Jennings Randolph returned to politics. He loved politics; he loved to ``Press the flesh.'' He couldn't get politics out of his blood. So he won election to the U.S. Senate to complete the unexpired term of the late Senator Matthew Mansfield Neely from West Virginia. On November 5, 1958, Jennings took the oath of office as U.S. Senator. Elected in that same election for a full Senate term, for 26 years, I shared with Jennings Randolph the privilege of representing and serving West Virginia in the United States Senate. That partnership I shall cherish always. No man could have asked for a more generous, dedicated, or thoughtful colleague than I had in Jennings Randolph. And I know from my own experience that Jennings Randolph was certainly a man whose touch reached the sky. In West Virginia to this day, thousands of people bless his name for the deeds that he did for them as a friend and as a faithful public servant. One of Jennings Randolph's greatest areas of ongoing contribution was to the development and advancement of air flight. Some may recall the ancient Greek myth of the flight of Icarus. According to that legend, Icarus attempted to fly, using wings attached to his body with wax. Icarus flew, to be sure. But Icarus flew too close to the sun. The sun melted the wax on Icarus's wings, and he fell into the sea. Early on, Jennings Randolph became interested in flight. Fortunately for him and for us, Jennings went about getting into the air more safely than Icarus did. As I mentioned, in 1947, Jennings Randolph became an assistant to the President and Director of Public Relations for Capital Airlines--one of the companies that later formed United Airlines. In that position, for the next eleven years, Jennings Randolph advanced the airline industry here and abroad. While Jennings was with Capital Airlines, however, he undertook one mission that places him on an equal footing with Icarus-- in bravery and, of course, Jennings was far more successful than Icarus. On November 6, 1948, with a professional pilot at the controls, Jennings Randolph flew from Morgantown, West Virginia, to the Washington National Airport in a propeller plane fueled with gasoline made from coal. Now, that was just like Jennings Randolph--out there pioneering, not only in flight, but also in the use of fuel in that plane that had a West Virginia Source--coal. Certainly, that project was an act of faith, for which many remember Senator Randolph. Not as well remembered is Congressman Jennings Randolph's introduction in 1946 of legislation to create a National Air Museum. Three decades later, on July 4, 1976, Senator Randolph dedicated the National Air and Space Museum complex on the Mall in Washington--noted today as one of the most popular tourist attractions in the Nation's Capital. Jennings Randolph was an advocate of numerous other items of vital legislation as well--legislation to aid the handicapped and black lung victims, legislation to promote clean water and clean air, legislation to provide vocational and career education, and the legislation that created the National Peace Academy in 1983. In announcing his decision not to run for reelection to the Senate in the 1984 race, Jennings said, ``* * * It's been a happy road. I have no regrets. * * * I believe the Bible says there is a season and a time for every purpose. It is time for me not to run for reelection.'' That ``happy road'' was an unparalleled example of citizenship and public service. In an era in which so many seem preoccupied primarily with grasping and grabbing for themselves, Jennings Randolph was committed to exerting himself--his intellect, his energy, and his considerable talents--on behalf, and in behalf, of his fellow citizens, his fellow West Virginians, his fellow Americans, his fellow human beings. Jennings lived a long time--a full and active life. But all of us, high and low, rich and poor, must one day say goodby to friends and loved ones in this earthly life and make our journeys to that unknown bourne from which no traveler returns. It was on last Friday morning that the pallid messenger with the inverted torch beckoned Jennings to depart. Jennings' passing reminds me of Thomas More's lines. When I remember all the friends so linked together I've seen round me fall like leaves in wintry weather I feel like one who treads alone some banquet hall deserted whose lights are fled whose garlands dead and all but he departed . . . Whether Jennings, on that last morning, saw a more glorious sun rise with unimaginable splendor above a celestial horizon; whether his dexterous and disciplined faculties are now contending in a higher senate than ours for supremacy; whether he yet remembers us as we remember him, we do not know. These questions are much like the question that came from the lips of that ancient patriarch, a man of Uz, whose name was Job, ``If a man dies, shall he live again?'' But we have the consolation expressed by that same man of Uz, Oh that my words were written in a book and engraved With an iron pen, and lead in the rock forever, For I know that my Redeemer liveth and that in the latter day he shall Stand upon the earth. So, Jennings Randolph has crossed the Great Divide. I think of others who were serving here when Jennings Randolph and I took the oath of office to serve in this Chamber. It was almost 40 years ago. I remember Senators on both sides of the aisle: Senator Aiken, Senator Anderson of New Mexico, Senator Harry Byrd, Sr., of Virginia, Senators Capehart of Indiana, Chavez of New Mexico, Cooper of Kentucky, Dirksen, Douglas of Illinois, Eastland, Ellender, Fulbright, Hayden, Hennings of Missouri, Hickenlooper of Iowa, Hill of Alabama, Holland of Florida, ``Scoop'' Jackson of Washington, Johnson of Texas, Johnston of South Carolina, Langer of North Dakota, McClellan of Arkansas, Magnuson of Washington, Wayne Morse of Oregon, Murray of Montana, Willis Robertson of Virginia, Richard Russell, Saltonstall of Massachusetts, Stennis of Mississippi, Symington of Missouri, and Milton Young. All of these, and others, were here. Of that illustrious band which sat in this Chamber when Jennings Randolph and I first entered the Senate, only Strom Thurmond and I remain here. They are drifting away, these friends of old Like leaves on the current cast; With never a break in their rapid flow, We count them, as one by one they go Into the Dreamland of the Past. Erma and I extend our condolences to Jennings' two sons, Jay and Frank, and to others of his family.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on behalf of Mr. Kerrey, who is the manager, the ranking manager on this side, I have been asked by him to state that the vote on the Faircloth amendment is a vote, in essence, quite similar to the vote that has already occurred on the amendment by Mr. Fred Thompson of Tennessee. Mr. Kerrey asked me to state that he would suggest, or even urge, Members to vote against the Faircloth amendment, the case already having been made, and in accordance with the request by Mr. Kerrey, I am authorized to yield back the time on this side.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the manager of the bill for the purpose of transacting three amendments, after which I be again recognized.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, we cannot hear what is being said. The Senate is not in order.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, we have heard much in recent years of the horrors and abuses inflicted by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on the American taxpayer. I have little cause for doubt, Mr. President, that there lies a certain degree of verisimilitude in these allegations and, further, that the pending legislation represents a necessary and overdue effort to ameliorate these abuses. Certainly, a portion of the criticism directed at the IRS has been justly earned by the officials and employees who administer and work at the agency. If but half of the concerns raised during the Finance Committee's recent hearings on these IRS abuses are true, there is indeed an immediate and overwhelming need to reform and restructure the IRS. However, let us remember, Mr. President, that the task to which the Congress has assigned the IRS has never been nor will ever be a popular one. The simple fact that few people enjoy paying taxes leads logically to the presumption that they will not embrace the very agency charged with collecting their taxes. Having said that, Mr. President, let me now turn my focus to the bill before us. As reported to the Senate by the Finance Committee, H.R. 2676, the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, would significantly alter the management, oversight, and basic structure of the IRS as we know it. By creating an IRS Oversight Board, this legislation aims to provide the strategic oversight and guidance that has been deficient or lacking at the IRS in previous years. As the National Commission on Restructuring the Internal Revenue Service concluded in its report to the Congress last year, the ``problems throughout the IRS cannot be solved without focus, consistency and direction from the top. The current structure, which includes Congress, the President, the Department of the Treasury, and the IRS itself, does not allow the IRS to set and maintain consistent long-term strategy and priorities, nor to develop and execute focused plans for improvement.'' Clearly, the drafters of H.R. 2676 have sought to provide the very ``focus,'' ``consistency,'' and ``direction'' that the IRS Commission concluded was necessary. I hope that the nine-member Board, as proposed, will be able to carefully and diligently clear a new path on which the IRS can tread the challenges that the 21st Century will bring as a more responsive, less intrusive federal agency that works for--not against--the millions of honest American taxpayers to whom we are all accountable. With regard to the composition of this Oversight Board, I voted against two amendments this morning that would have either directly or indirectly removed the union representative from this Board because I believe that such representation is crucial on a Board that will have so much influence in the actual workings of the IRS and the 100,000-odd actual workers who carry out its many tasks. I also opposed an amendment to remove the Treasury Secretary from this Board because I believe that, for any such Board to be truly taken seriously and command attention, the chief executive officer of the Treasury Department--the Secretary--must be able to offer his or her unique perspective on various IRS issues through a position on the Board. Furthermore, by serving on this Board, the Treasury Secretary will help ensure that the recommendations thus produced are not ignored or disregarded by officials of the IRS. Mr. President, I also want to convey my support for a number of other provisions of H.R. 2676. Specifically, I applaud the provisions of the bill providing for a National Taxpayer Advocate and an independent Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. The former office should help to better protect the interests of individual taxpayers who are often outmatched in their disputes with the IRS, while the latter will ensure that the office with responsibility for overseeing the IRS is independent of the agency itself. I further support the provisions of this legislation calling for increased use of electronic filing in the next ten years--the advent of electric filing technology cannot be ignored as we seek to find ways to make the IRS more responsive to the American taxpayer. Mr. President, the bill contains many other taxpayer protections that I believe will improve the way the IRS works. However, let me express my concern about a provision in the funding offset amendment agreed to by the Senate yesterday, without my support. Last night, the Joint Committee on Taxation produced calculations predicting that, while this provision will raise approximately $10 billion in the next ten years and thus protect this bill from a PAYGO point of order, it will lose a net $47 billion in revenues over the next twenty years. Clearly, this is an attempt to back-load the true cost of a tax provision to circumvent a budgetary point of order, and I hope that it will be dropped in conference negotiations with the House. Mr. President, my reservations about this particular provision of H.R. 2676 notwithstanding, I am prepared to support Senate passage of this important and much-needed legislation. As the elected officials of the people of the United States, it is our duty to ensure that the IRS--the very agency to which we have delegated authority to implement and enforce our constitutional prerogative to ``lay and collect'' taxes--does not harass, abuse, or otherwise place unnecessary burdens on the millions of honest, hard-working taxpayers to whom we are each accountable. This legislation, as a whole, represents a positive step in the direction of a more responsive, more accountable, and more efficient Internal Revenue Service that better serves the American people.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I commend the courage and decisiveness displayed by President Clinton and the Secretary of State, Ms. Albright, in attempting to get the Arab-Israeli negotiations back on track. The attacks by some in the other body are disappointing and not helpful. If there has been coercion and strong-arming or unreasonable tactics on the matter of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians over the last year or so, Mr. President, in my judgment, it has not been on the part of the United States. The unfortunate reality as I view it, is that the Israeli Prime Minister has pursued a policy of paralysis in the peace process. I think it is unwise for any responsible American leader to suggest that this practice should continue, and the United States should not intervene to get the negotiations underway again in a meaningful way. The Israeli Prime Minister has traveled to Washington before, totally empty- handed, with no proposal for moving the negotiations forward. In so doing, he has catered to the forces working against progress. He has embarrassed the United States, and all who have supported a peaceful constructive resolution of the issues on the table regarding Israeli and the Palestinians. It is no wonder, given his track record on the negotiations since he became Prime Minister, that the administration has seen fit to require some assurance that another visit to Washington will produce something more than empty rhetoric and more stonewalling. I cannot support more strongly the position of Secretary Albright, that if the Israeli Prime Minister is unwilling to accept some moderate specific American proposals for progress on the West Bank that there is not much point in another fruitless trip to Washington, which might further inflame the situation in the Middle East. As to the Israeli Palestinian problem, Mr. President, it has always taken three to tango. All parties, the United States, the Palestinians and the Israelis must want the negotiations to move forward, and it is only through compromise that success can be achieved. The United States has used its good offices to broker the negotiations and has burnished substantial financial resources to ensure the stability of Israeli on an unstinting basis. Any one of the parties can derail the negotiations and so it is a measure of the tremendous difficulty the United States has had with the Netanyahu government that the administration has felt it necessary to take specific steps to get the negotiations back on track. Therefore, Mr. President, I commend the President for this initiative in the interests of getting the negotiations jump-started. I hope that cooler heads will prevail and that all Americans will see the wisdom of supporting a reasoned but decisive approach to the negotiating effort. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I refer to the third chapter of Genesis, verse 20, ``And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.'' This coming Sunday, May 10, is Mother's Day. And, upon awaking that morning, some mothers will be treated to a lovingly prepared culinary surprise, and a glue-streaked--but treasured--handmade card. Others will be invited to brunch or to lunch or to dinner with their children and, perhaps, grandchildren, many of whom may have traveled long miles, some perhaps from one edge of the continent to the other, to help honor their mothers and grandmothers on this very special day, a day that originated in West Virginia, Mother's Day. In my own case, and that of my wife, we will be visited by our two daughters, Mona Carol and Marjorie Ellen, and their husbands, Mohammad and Jon, respectively. And we will also be visited by our five grandchildren. I will name them in the order of their ages: Erik Byrd Fatemi, and then Mona Byrd Moore, Darius James Fatemi, Mary Anne Moore, Fredric Kurosh Fatemi. They will all come to our house, the Lord willing, this coming Sunday, and they will bring flowers to my wife Erma. And we will sit and talk for awhile, and then we will have those beautiful flowers and those beautiful thoughts and those beautiful memories that will be with us for--in the case of the flowers, all summer; in the case of the thoughts and memories, as long as we live. Others of my colleagues will experience the same visits from their daughters and granddaughters. And this will go on all over the country, with children coming back home, the family circle again coming together. This weekend will be one of the busiest weekends of the year, one of the busiest for florists who deliver baskets and bouquets of long- distance love. As for telephone lines, they will be busy also, carrying the loving voices of sons and daughters, unable to make the long journey home. Some will be calling from foreign lands, but they will make those calls to mother. This annual outpouring of affection and appreciation gives me hope that the strength of family feeling in this Nation has really not diminished all that much, but ever how much, is too much. Yet, those feelings are still strong. Despite the afternoon hate- fests on television that sometimes pass for talk shows, in which high ratings are garnered by mother-daughter rivalries or mother-son conflicts that devolve into circus sideshows, caring and affection are still widespread among ordinary families like mine, and like the families of others here. I cannot adequately describe how proud I am that the strength, the character, and the devotion that my wife Erma instilled in our daughters have carried through their families and are manifested in the fine families that my grandchildren are building. And I know that other Senators are just as proud of their families as I am of mine. I have said many times that the love and confidence and support of my family have helped me through the hardest moments of my life--I have had some pretty tough moments--and have sweetened every victory, and there have been some victories. ``Simply having children does not make mothers,'' someone has said, but a good mother is a pearl without price, for a mother's role in maintaining a civil and decent society is incalculable. I say mothers here, not to denigrate the active role played by many fathers in the lives of their children today, but in recognition of that fundamental tie between a mother and her child--between a mother and her children. It is mother who wakes first at night to soothe the fevered brow. It is mother whose kisses are better than Bactine at taking the sting out of the tender skin. It is mother whom you call when things are really, really bad, no matter your age. It is mother who teaches us love. Mothers are our first and our best role models, whose wisdom and training guide us through our headstrong teenage years and comfort us when we are older. Napoleon Bonaparte said, ``The future destiny of the child is always the work of the mother.'' To raise children to become good citizens is a challenge, and it seems that today there are so many more malign influences out there, working to bend that childish twig into a blighted and twisted tree. ``As the twig is bent, the tree is inclined,'' it has been said. And, so, as I have stated, there are so many more malign, malignant influences out there everywhere, working today, than there were when I was a child, working to bend that childish twig into a blighted and twisted tree. When I was younger--I will not say when I was young, I am still young, as young in spirit as ever--but when I was a boy, there was no television, thank God; no television, and only very limited radio programming. That was back in the days when radio was good. We had an old Philco radio, just a little radio that sat on a shelf on the wall. Of course, during the years when I lived as a country boy ``out in the sticks,'' as we sometimes are prone to say, we had no radio at our house. We had no electricity in the house. No radio, no running water, no electric lights. But we moved later to a coal camp where we did have a radio, the Philco that sat on the wall shelf. A trip to the movie theater was rare. I remember that the strong man in the old silent movies was Joe Bonomo, and the cowboys were Tom Mix, Hoot Gibson, Jack Hoxie, and William Desmond. But there was no Internet and no video, not even a school library in the two-room schools that I attended. But later on when I was in high school, there was a school library. Then there was Bible class on Sunday. It was, in many ways, an easier time, a simpler time in which to rear children; it was much more easy to protect children against corrupting material. I am no Luddite opposing technology and progress. Isaiah said that we would have progress. He said: Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain: And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together. . . So Isaiah foresaw the diesel motor train, the submarine, the underocean cable. He foresaw television. He foresaw that wonderful nuisance, the telephone, and all of these inventions, of course, would level the hills and all flesh would see the glory of the Lord together. That was Isaiah. I am no Luddite opposing technology; I am for it. And progress, of course, I am for that, too. With the bad comes the good, and with the good comes the bad. Children, unfortunately, have access to pornography on the Internet, but they also have access to Shakespeare and to Milton and to Carlyle. They have access to their Government and to many other sources of useful and intellectually stimulating information. With television and with videos, our children can visit the world and see history in the making. But a parent's job, the mother's job or the father's job, is harder. It is more difficult to protect your children from material that may be too seamy or too misleading. It is more difficult to shield your children from language that is profane, offensive, vulgar. It is more difficult to demonstrate acceptable behavior when aggressive drivers, offensive song lyrics and violent behavior are present on the streets, in the air and on television, therefore, right in your living room. Seemingly everywhere, everywhere. When sports heroes spit in the face of the umpire or choke their coaches, their fans--some of them--may think it is all right, because one will probably also notice that not enough of a penalty was attached. When the news is full of lawyers or politicians or commentators throwing out slurs and wild allegations, youngsters may think that courtesy and respect are not needed in business or public life. By the way, John Locke wrote a constitution in 1669 for the government of the Carolinas. In John Locke's constitution, there could be no lawyers. No fees could be charged in John Locke's constitution. Every law would sunset at the end of 100 years. That was John Locke's constitution. Hence, when the kind of language that I have been discussing, when the kind of behavior permeates the schoolyard and the neighborhood, it soaks into youngsters like water into a dry sponge. When I see children of all ages celebrating their mothers on Mother's Day, I am encouraged. It means that many mothers and fathers are overcoming the difficult challenges placed before them. They are succeeding in building families. They are strong enough, caring enough, supportive enough to fend off the disrespect that surrounds them and who see no shame--no shame--in following the dictate of the Bible to honor thy mother and thy father. ``Honor thy father and thy mother.'' These surely are families that spend time together around the dinner table. I am overjoyed when I see my grandchildren come into my home. They are really, grown men and women. They still kiss me on the cheek. It does not make any difference how many people are around, they still kiss me on the cheek--that demonstration of heartfelt, genuine love and affection that can only come from children. Oh, as an aside, I might add, not altogether jokingly, but also from my little dog ``Billy.'' These are families that spend time around the dinner table. These are families in which the children do their homework, in which parents know their children's teachers and their friends, families in which the members help and encourage and support each other through triumph and tragedy. We spend a lot of time in the Senate talking about children, what priceless treasures they are, and the things we ought to do or ought not to do to help them. I am happy today to look past those young gems in our national treasury, to recognize and honor the mother lode from which they issue, the ore that shapes them--clear, flawless, and true in all of their colors--their mothers. I hope that the mothers on my staff enjoy their Mother's Day festivities, and that they, and my wife Erma, the mother of my daughters, who are the mothers of my grandchildren, and all mothers around the Nation, know that I salute them, encourage them, and honor them this Sunday and every day. I salute the mothers on my staff. It is very difficult for them and for mothers on the staffs of other Senators. They have to be dedicated, and they do make a sacrifice in order to serve. And it is a sacrifice that can never be retrieved or recouped. My admiration and respect go out to all of the young mothers who work in this great Senate family. Now, I lost my mother when I was 1 year old. She died in the great influenza epidemic in 1918. She died on Armistice Day. And I had what I thought were three brothers and one sister. Only about a month ago, I found that I had another brother, a fourth brother, who had died at childbirth. I did not know that until about a month ago. In 1918, times were very hard. My father worked in a factory that manufactured furniture. The Spanish flu killed 500,000 people in this country, and, according to estimates, more than 20 million people around the world. My mother knew that she might not recover, and so she asked my father to give me, the baby, to his sister Vlurma. I believe he had 10 sisters. And my other brothers were to be farmed out to others of his sisters. But I was given to my father's sister Vlurma and her husband, Titus Dalton Byrd, and they raised me. They did not have much of an education, but they gave me their love and they urged me to do right. They had the Holy Bible in the house. They could barely read, but the example that they set was a shining example of a couple who revered God. They did not wear their religion on their sleeves. They were not of the religious left or the religious right or anything of that nature; they were just good persons, trying to make an honest living and according to God's will. I can imagine my own mother, had she lived; I have no recollection of ever having seen her, naturally, by virtue of her having gone away when I was just a year old. But the woman who raised me gave me tenderness and love and affection. I can see her wearing her bonnet and her apron. She was a hard worker. I can see her, as others in this Chamber can see their own mothers, I am sure, especially as most Americans who are perhaps not as old as I am, can remember their mothers, especially those who lived out in the country, out on the farm, wearing their bonnets and their aprons as they worked in the kitchen. Those were old-fashioned mothers. We picture them in our minds. My mom, I used to watch her as she cooked the meals when I was a little boy. And I would hear her sing. And I would hear her use an expression: ``Well, you put in a pinch of this and a pinch of that.'' They did not have cookbooks. And my mom probably could not have read a cookbook, in any event. But I often heard her use that expression: ``A pinch of this, a pinch of that.'' They did not use recipes; they just knew about how much of this ingredient to put in, how much of that to put in, and how long to cook it. By experience, they learned to cook. They were great cooks--great cooks. Well, as I think of that woman who raised me, I think of the old- fashioned mother that most of us can remember. And I will close with a few lines that take off on my mom's expression, ``a pinch of this, a pinch of that.'' Now, I did not write this poem. I do not remember the name of the author. It is a fitting poem: When Mother use to mix the dough, Or make a batter--long ago; When I was only table high, I used to like just standing by And watching her, for all the while, She'd sing a little, maybe smile, And talk to me and tell me--What? Well, things I never have forgot. I'd ask her how to make a cake. ``Well, first,'' she'd say, ``Some sugar take Some butter and an egg or two, Some flour and milk, you always do, And then put in, to make it good--'' This part I never understood And often use to wonder at-- ``A pinch of this, a pinch of that.'' And then, she'd say, ``my little son, When you grow up, when childhood's done, And mother may be far away, Then just remember what I say, For life's a whole lot like a cake; Yes, life's a thing you have to make-- Much like a cake, or pie, or bread; You'll find it so,'' my Mother said. I did not understand her then, But how her words come back again; Before my eyes my life appears A life of laughter and of tears, For both the bitter and the sweet Have made this life of mine complete-- The things I have, the things I miss, A pinch of that, a pinch of this. And, now I think I know the way To make a life as she would say: ``Put in the wealth to serve your needs, But don't leave out the lovely deeds; Put in great things you mean to do, And don't leave out the good and true. Put in, whatever you are at, A pinch of this, a pinch of that.'' Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield back the balance of the time. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this request has been cleared with the leaders on both sides. I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, and I may proceed for not to exceed 35 minutes as in morning business for the purpose of introducing a bill and speaking thereon.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator from Texas for a very knowledgeable and forceful statement, well articulated, and one which shows a great deal of wisdom with respect to the impact upon the readiness of our military forces, the impact caused by having our forces in Europe under the circumstances which we have described. Mr. President, in order that Senators may be well informed as to the substance of the bill which the Senator from Texas and I are introducing, I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

Mr. BYRD. How much time remains?

Mr. BYRD. As of now, Mr. President, I yield the remainder of whatever time I would have had to Mrs. Hutchison, that she may add it to the amount of time that she would have had under the request. Let me express my appreciation for her cosponsorship of this amendment. She will work hard on its behalf as I will, and I feel honored and fortunate to have her as cosponsor of the bill. I yield the floor.