Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Texas and I expect this bill to be referred to the appropriate committee.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the bill that I introduce today, on behalf of the distinguished Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, and myself, is an attempt to reduce the American portion of the NATO deployment to Bosnia and Herzegovina. It does so in a carefully staged manner over the next 2 years, going from the administration-planned force size of 6,900 ground troops at the end of this June, to 2,500 troops in February, 2000. In the interim, the amendment calls for a force size of 5,000 U.S. troops to be arrived at by February 1999, and 3,500 by July 1999. This is a gradual drawdown to a level which more accurately approximates the size of the forces of France and Germany at this time. The United States would continue to honor its commitment to NATO to play an appropriate role in the Bosnia stabilization force, but the amendment provides crucial leverage on our allies in Europe to assume the leadership role that is appropriate for them in an operation near their borders in Europe. The current plan by the administration, including the requirement for meeting a series of general benchmarks in the areas of democratization, an independent press and judiciary, and other reforms, could keep the United States with the leading force in Bosnia for an indefinite period. I do not believe the American people will support the proposition of a semi-permanent deployment with no end-game. Nevertheless, this year, for the first time, the President has said that there is no definite end-game, or exit schedule which he would propose. Thus, the pressure is off our allies to pick up more of the leading role, and our allies are perfectly content to keep the United States spending some $1.8 billion per year on this operation, in addition to the funds we contribute to NATO on an annual basis. My good friend from the state of Michigan, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Levin, has also been concerned over the permanent nature of the American deployment and the lack of leadership being displayed by our European partners. He has offered a proposal, as a provision in the supplemental appropriations bill, which was approved by the conference committee on that bill, to urge the President to reach an agreement on the deadlines for closure on the various benchmarks in the President's report. This is a good amendment by Mr. Levin, and it is a very good starting point, and I am supportive of it, but I am afraid that it does not contain the kind of pressure that would cause the administration to act decisively with our allies on the matter of sharing the burden of leadership in Bosnia. I do not think that the Levin amendment, which, as I say, I strongly support, goes far enough. The administration seems not to work very effectively, except under the pressure of explicit deadlines and an explicit schedule with specific numbers, dates, and goals. This specificity is provided by the amendment which Mrs. Hutchison and I presently intend to offer to the fiscal year 1999 Department of Defense authorization bill when it comes to the floor. I hope that my colleagues will have a careful look at the details of the amendment. I believe that it deserves strong bipartisan support. It is a responsible approach, and it provides the time and the impetus for our allies to get their acts together and begin to take responsibility for the peace of the European Continent. The United States will continue to play an important supporting role in this effort, but I hope we will begin to wean our allies from the overdependence upon the United States that they currently exhibit. Reports over the last few days on the very disturbing developments in the Serbian province of Kosovo need the focus of the Senate and the administration and of all Americans. These events demonstrate my point. We may well have a catastrophe in the making, and the question of heading off, or at least containing ethnic unrest in Kosovo must be addressed by the administration, as well as by NATO. I don't see any evidence that the administration is moving in the direction of providing that kind of address. There may be steps that we need to take right now to prepare for worst-case eventualities. The administration needs to inform the Senate in detail on its policy regarding the possible scenarios involving the situation in Kosovo. The amendment offered by Senator Hutchison and myself does provide that the forces which we move out of Bosnia proper can be redeployed to the periphery of that troubled region--into Hungary, for instance, and particularly into Macedonia, in an effort to demonstrate to the Serbs and other parties that NATO will not stand for the spreading of the ethnic conflict beyond the borders of Bosnia and Serbia. But the spread of the ethnic conflict in Kosovo is a separate issue which must be addressed by the administration, and I hope that the administration will get busy and give us just such an address. Everything possible should be done to forestall a spread of the ethnic conflict in Kosovo. Bosnia and its violent disposition must be contained and must not be allowed to infect the rest of Europe. We cannot countenance the spread of the ethnic violence into the southern Balkans, and we must do everything that we can to forestall the involvement of Greece and Turkey in future instabilities caused by the Bosnia and Kosovo situations. The reduction in U.S. forces over a two-year period arranges a sure but gentle glidepath during which a reconfiguration of the composition of allied forces can be accomplished without opening up vulnerabilities for U.S. forces or causing uncertainties on the part of Serbian elements as to the staying power of NATO, while Bosnian unrest remains a threat to the peace of the continent. Yet, history must move in Europe, and the role of leadership on the ground, through the presence of American armies, must transition to one where a healthier balance of responsibility is created. This transition is especially important in light of the recent developments in Kosovo. In the long run, in an era where new states are being incorporated into NATO, and new practices of consensus-building and peacekeeping must be developed among the states of the alliance, Europe must begin to get a surer grasp of its own destiny through a spirit of close cooperation among its European NATO partners. Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues will review the details of the amendment, and will choose to co-sponsor it. Mr. President, I send the bill to the desk on behalf of the distinguished Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, and myself and I ask that the title be stated.

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.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Texas and I expect this bill to be referred to the appropriate committee.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the bill that I introduce today, on behalf of the distinguished Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, and myself, is an attempt to reduce the American portion of the NATO deployment to Bosnia and Herzegovina. It does so in a carefully staged manner over the next 2 years, going from the administration-planned force size of 6,900 ground troops at the end of this June, to 2,500 troops in February, 2000. In the interim, the amendment calls for a force size of 5,000 U.S. troops to be arrived at by February 1999, and 3,500 by July 1999. This is a gradual drawdown to a level which more accurately approximates the size of the forces of France and Germany at this time. The United States would continue to honor its commitment to NATO to play an appropriate role in the Bosnia stabilization force, but the amendment provides crucial leverage on our allies in Europe to assume the leadership role that is appropriate for them in an operation near their borders in Europe. The current plan by the administration, including the requirement for meeting a series of general benchmarks in the areas of democratization, an independent press and judiciary, and other reforms, could keep the United States with the leading force in Bosnia for an indefinite period. I do not believe the American people will support the proposition of a semi-permanent deployment with no end-game. Nevertheless, this year, for the first time, the President has said that there is no definite end-game, or exit schedule which he would propose. Thus, the pressure is off our allies to pick up more of the leading role, and our allies are perfectly content to keep the United States spending some $1.8 billion per year on this operation, in addition to the funds we contribute to NATO on an annual basis. My good friend from the state of Michigan, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Levin, has also been concerned over the permanent nature of the American deployment and the lack of leadership being displayed by our European partners. He has offered a proposal, as a provision in the supplemental appropriations bill, which was approved by the conference committee on that bill, to urge the President to reach an agreement on the deadlines for closure on the various benchmarks in the President's report. This is a good amendment by Mr. Levin, and it is a very good starting point, and I am supportive of it, but I am afraid that it does not contain the kind of pressure that would cause the administration to act decisively with our allies on the matter of sharing the burden of leadership in Bosnia. I do not think that the Levin amendment, which, as I say, I strongly support, goes far enough. The administration seems not to work very effectively, except under the pressure of explicit deadlines and an explicit schedule with specific numbers, dates, and goals. This specificity is provided by the amendment which Mrs. Hutchison and I presently intend to offer to the fiscal year 1999 Department of Defense authorization bill when it comes to the floor. I hope that my colleagues will have a careful look at the details of the amendment. I believe that it deserves strong bipartisan support. It is a responsible approach, and it provides the time and the impetus for our allies to get their acts together and begin to take responsibility for the peace of the European Continent. The United States will continue to play an important supporting role in this effort, but I hope we will begin to wean our allies from the overdependence upon the United States that they currently exhibit. Reports over the last few days on the very disturbing developments in the Serbian province of Kosovo need the focus of the Senate and the administration and of all Americans. These events demonstrate my point. We may well have a catastrophe in the making, and the question of heading off, or at least containing ethnic unrest in Kosovo must be addressed by the administration, as well as by NATO. I don't see any evidence that the administration is moving in the direction of providing that kind of address. There may be steps that we need to take right now to prepare for worst-case eventualities. The administration needs to inform the Senate in detail on its policy regarding the possible scenarios involving the situation in Kosovo. The amendment offered by Senator Hutchison and myself does provide that the forces which we move out of Bosnia proper can be redeployed to the periphery of that troubled region--into Hungary, for instance, and particularly into Macedonia, in an effort to demonstrate to the Serbs and other parties that NATO will not stand for the spreading of the ethnic conflict beyond the borders of Bosnia and Serbia. But the spread of the ethnic conflict in Kosovo is a separate issue which must be addressed by the administration, and I hope that the administration will get busy and give us just such an address. Everything possible should be done to forestall a spread of the ethnic conflict in Kosovo. Bosnia and its violent disposition must be contained and must not be allowed to infect the rest of Europe. We cannot countenance the spread of the ethnic violence into the southern Balkans, and we must do everything that we can to forestall the involvement of Greece and Turkey in future instabilities caused by the Bosnia and Kosovo situations. The reduction in U.S. forces over a two-year period arranges a sure but gentle glidepath during which a reconfiguration of the composition of allied forces can be accomplished without opening up vulnerabilities for U.S. forces or causing uncertainties on the part of Serbian elements as to the staying power of NATO, while Bosnian unrest remains a threat to the peace of the continent. Yet, history must move in Europe, and the role of leadership on the ground, through the presence of American armies, must transition to one where a healthier balance of responsibility is created. This transition is especially important in light of the recent developments in Kosovo. In the long run, in an era where new states are being incorporated into NATO, and new practices of consensus-building and peacekeeping must be developed among the states of the alliance, Europe must begin to get a surer grasp of its own destiny through a spirit of close cooperation among its European NATO partners. Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues will review the details of the amendment, and will choose to co-sponsor it. Mr. President, I send the bill to the desk on behalf of the distinguished Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, and myself and I ask that the title be stated.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I understand that Senator Kohl wishes a few minutes on another matter. Whatever remaining time remains under our request, I ask that the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, have the remaining time.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I trust that my colleagues will indulge me just for a few minutes. I thank the majority leader and the minority leader. I am grateful to the two leaders, Mr. President, for their generous expressions of praise and affection. I thank all of my colleagues for the many courtesies that they have extended to me over these, now going on, 40 years in this body. Majorian, who became Emperor of the West in 457 A.D., referred to himself as ``a prince who still glories in the name of `Senator.''' That is the way I feel about it. I am grateful to the good people of West Virginia for trusting me with this honor for nearly 40 years now. I carry this title with great pride. Sometimes my constituents say to me, ``Do you ever get used to it?'' as they look about this marvelous building, and the truth of the matter is that I haven't gotten used to it. Each time I walk through these doors, I feel a sense of great pride in being a Member of the United States Senate, and a sense of satisfaction in knowing that I have tried to do my best, and that the people of West Virginia have recognized that, and that they have continually shown their faith and confidence in me. There have only been 1,843 men and women who have graced these desks, and those in the old Senate Chamber down the hall, those on the floor below, those in Philadelphia, and those in New York City where the first Senate met in 1789--1,843 Senators. These 15,000 votes that we have just heard about, if we allow 15 minutes per vote, and if we allow the average number of 148 days per session, as has been the case over the past 10 years, and allowing for 8-hour days, it would require constant consecutive votes expanding over 3 years and 24 days to cast these 15,000 votes, back to back, doing nothing other than voting. Three years and 24 days. I am thankful for the opportunity to have cast these votes. But it isn't the number of votes that really counts so much; it is the substance of each vote and the quality of judgment that is brought to bear in reaching a decision thereon. There have been a few votes that I regret having cast. But, in regard to the overwhelming majority of votes, I would not change them if I had the opportunity to do so. And so I trust that I can help other Senators from day-to-day to feel great pride in their having been selected by the people of their States to serve in this great body. It is the highest legislative office in the land. I do not consider a Senator as someone who serves under any President. Senators serve with Presidents. The Presidency is the highest office in the executive branch. I respect the Presidency always, whether the holder of the office is a Democrat or Republican. But a United States Senator has no superior in any other office of Government. That is the way we should feel about it. After all, this Senate is the pillar upon which the Constitution really rests, because it was on July 16, 1787, when the Great Compromise occurred, and out of that compromise came the United States Senate--the forum of the States. It is the only forum in the Nation in which the States themselves are recognized on the basis of equality. And each Senator is fortunate that his or her constituents have chosen him or her to represent them in this great forum of the States. The other night I was proud to look around and see all Senators sitting in their seats as they arose to answer the rollcall. After that rollcall was announced, several Senators came to me and expressed the fact that they had been greatly impressed by the dignity and the performance of the Senate as it voted on that occasion, which was a great occasion, an outstanding one. But I suppose that what touched me most was afterward, when I started to leave the Chamber, a number of these pages came up to me and one said, ``Gee, that was cool''; another said, ``that was great.'' Still another said, ``I couldn't keep the tears from rolling down my cheek as I watched the Senators cast their votes.'' The pages were genuinely touched by the dignity and performance of the Senate on that day. The people of the United States watch this Senate every day. They see us if we are milling around in the well. Legislators in State legislatures are accustomed to voting from their seats. Many of you have been members of the State legislatures. So have I. Those members remain in their seats and they vote there. We may sometimes forget that the world is watching us. But the people in whom sovereignty resides are watching. They see us. As the premier legislative body of the Nation, it seems to me that we should all take great pride in this institution and realize that we are the people who, perhaps more than any others in Government, set the standards. Who else sets the standards? Where have all our heroes gone? Babe Ruth used to be my hero. Lou Gehrig was my hero. In 1927, Babe Ruth broke his previous record with 60 home runs. But where do our young people go now to find their heroes? Back in my days the baseball players didn't spit in the face of the umpire, or choke the coach. We looked up to those athletes. We had our heroes. Perhaps we Senators can fill the place of heroes for our young people so they can have someone to whom they can look and emulate. I am proud of all of my colleagues. I have often remarked about the high intelligence of the Members of the Senate. I hope we will be reinspired to serve with high purpose knowing that we have no particular right to this office except the fact that the people of our States trust us for a limited time with it. And, in that limited time, it is my desire that we do our best, and that we set a high standard of performance so that the American people will regain their confidence in government. If I might be pardoned for taking a few more minutes, Pyrrhus was a great Greek general. Hannibal said that he was one of the three greatest generals of all time--Pyrrhus. He defeated the Romans at the Battle of Heraclea in 280 B.C., and he paid a great price, from which we get the term ``a Pyrrhic victory.'' He knew he was going to have to fight the Romans again because they weren't conquered, by any means. So Pyrrhus sent Cineas, the philosopher, to the Roman Senate. And Cineas went with jewelry, and exquisite robes and other gifts, hoping to corrupt the Roman Senate, and, persuade the Romans to become an ally of his. After Cineas had observed the Roman Senate, he reported to Pyrrhus that the Roman Senate was no mere gathering of venal politicians, no haphazard council of mediocre men, but in dignity and statesmanship, veritably it was an assemblage of kings. About 175 years later, Jugurtha, a Numidian prince, came to Rome and connived in the assassination of a Roman leader. He was ordered to leave Rome. He walked through the gates of Rome and upon several occasions paused to look back. Suddenly, he exclaimed, ``Yonder is a city that is up for sale, and its days are numbered if it finds a buyer.'' The Roman Senate had deteriorated to that extent in one and three quarters centuries. I don't believe this Senate's days are numbered. But it is going to depend upon the Members of the body--not the number of votes that they will cast but the quality of the Senators, their high purpose, their dedication. I salute my colleagues and thank them for all of their kindnesses to me. Now I am off to my second 15,000. As Oliver Wendell Holmes said, ``The rule of joy and the law of duty seem to me all one.'' (Applause, Senators rising.)

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New Jersey for his overly gracious and more than charitable remarks. I am grateful for them. I hope that he will never have cause to have a second thought about what he has just said. I hope that I can justify his faith and his confidence and his high estimation of me and my work here. May I say that I won't ever forget his kind words. I am grateful for them. I am glad to be in the Senate with Senator Lautenberg. He has been my friend, he is my friend, and he will always be my friend. I thank the Senator very much.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I congratulate all the conferees on this very important disaster assistance supplemental appropriation bill, and in particular, the chairman and ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, Chairman Livingston and Mr. Obey, as well as Senator Stevens, who chaired the conference, for the successful completion of what has been a very difficult conference. Many of the issues that came before the conference and required extensive debate were extraneous matters that had nothing to do with the primary purposes of the bill, to provide emergency appropriations for our men and women in uniform in Bosnia and Southwest Asia and to provide emergency disaster assistance to those of our citizens who have suffered from the devastating series of natural disasters that have beset the country in recent months--from the ice storms this past winter in the northeast to the flooding in the western and southern portions of the nation, as well as the recent killer tornadoes throughout the southern states. There was very little disagreement on these matters among the conferees. We all understood the urgency of providing the necessary resources for these emergency purposes. Nevertheless, as I say, we were faced with a number of potential controversial, extraneous legislative riders which had to be debated and disposed of. Those issues ranged from whether to include language in this conference agreement that was in neither version of the bill relating to such things as: interest rates on guaranteed student loans; whether to insert portions of the recently-completed Agricultural Research Conference Report; and whether to override the President's Executive Order prohibiting the importation of assault weapons. Such extraneous issues consumed a considerable amount of time but, I am pleased to say, most were not adopted by the conference. In all, the bill contains some $2.86 billion to cover the cost of the military operations in Bosnia and Southwest Asia, together with $2.6 billion in emergency disaster assistance payments, principal among which are $1.6 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, $259 million in emergency Federal-aid highway relief, and $130 million for community development block grants. The appropriations for the Department of Defense, as well as the disaster assistance payments were requested by the President as emergency appropriations and, as such, under the Budget Enforcement Act, require no offsets. The Senate version of the bill, therefore, contained no offsets for any of the aforementioned emergency items. Nevertheless the House conferees insisted that the appropriations totaling $2.6 billion for emergency assistance for natural disasters be offset, in budget authority only, by rescissions of $2.3 billion in Section 8 Housing authority reserves and $241 million in excess contract authority in the FAA Airport Improvement Program. I am pleased that the conferees accepted the Senate amendment which provided the full $550 million request of the President for veterans compensation and pensions. These funds were not included in the House version of the bill before the conferees. The funds are needed to accommodate the additional costs associated with the 1998 cost-of- living adjustment of 2.1 percent for compensation beneficiaries; an increase in the estimated number of compensation beneficiaries; and an increase in the average payments to compensation and pension beneficiaries. It is important that we keep faith with our veterans, who have sacrificed so much in their service to our country, and I am delighted that the conferees agreed to provide these funds on a timely basis so that there will be no interruption in these payments to our veterans. In addition, the bill also includes some $142 million in appropriations for various agencies to enable them to continue their operations throughout the balance of the fiscal year. These latter amounts are appropriately offset by rescissions. I am pleased that the conference accepted my amendment to the Senate- version of the bill, which was cosponsored by the distinguished chairman of the committee, Mr. Stevens, and which requires the President to seek support aggressively from our allies and friends to share the burden of containing the Iraqi menace in the Middle East. In my view, Mr. President, this provision is essential as I do not believe that we should shoulder this burden alone. To this end, I note that the distinguished chairman of the committee, as well as selected other members of the committee, will shortly depart for the Middle East in order to impress upon the leaders of our allies in that area of the world the importance that we place upon increased burdensharing by our allies in this very critical aspect of international peacekeeping that is so important to stability in today's world. Finally, Mr. President, I am disappointed that the House conferees were unable to accept a Senate amendment offered by myself, Senator Dorgan, and other Senators to establish a congressional commission to study causes and consequences of our trade deficits. I have noted that the trade deficit numbers for February are now at a decade-high monthly level, primarily as a result of the Japanese economic problem. We have not had a comprehensive review of our national trade policies since 1970--nearly 30 years ago. This legislation has been 3 years in the making, and my Senate amendment would have established a congressional commission composed of twelve members--six members nominated by the Senate and six members nominated by the House, four of whom shall be Members of congress. Nevertheless, the conferees did agree in the Statement of Managers to include the following: ``The managers considered, but did not adopt, language that would create a Trade Deficit Review Commission, as proposed by the Senate. The conferees agree that serious concerns exist regarding continuing trade deficits and intend to work with the legislative committees of jurisdiction to establish such a Commission, including in the context of the fiscal year 1999 appropriations process.'' Mr. President, this is a matter of high priority. Senator Dorgan and I will be monitoring this important matter closely. We hope that the various legislative committees of jurisdiction will take up this issue at a very early date. In any case, the members can count on Senator Dorgan and me to revisit this matter on a timely basis later this year if no action has been taken in the interim. I know that the administration is disappointed that the conference has not chosen to include payments to the International Monetary Fund. This matter was debated at great length during the conference and it was determined that the House, at this time, was not prepared to yield on this issue. I, again, thank all conferees for their diligent efforts throughout the past week in resolving all of the difficult issues faced in the conference and particularly the chairman of our committee, Senator Stevens, who chaired this, his first supplemental appropriations conference, with great patience, skill, and good humor. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader for yielding. I also thank the distinguished majority leader for calling to the attention of Senators the following standing order, which I hope that Senators will contemplate. And I congratulate the majority leader for enforcing this regulation. Any Senator may ask the Chair to enforce this regulation at any time. I have often thought about it. I think we ought to follow this regulation, Mr. Leader, and I hope that we will establish this as a practice and continue to do it. The Senate would make a much better impression, not only upon the visitors but also on Senators themselves, if they learn to sit in their seats to answer the rollcall. And they will take greater pride in this institution. I guarantee that, watching from the galleries, it would be a much more impressive sight during rollcall votes than what we have been accustomed to seeing down here in the well, which looks like the floor of a stock market. I have been to the stock market on a few occasions. It doesn't look any worse. Let me read this standing order of the Senate. It is on page 157 of the Senate manual. All Senators who wish to read it, here it is. It is only three lines. The heading, ``VOTES SHALL BE CAST FROM ASSIGNED DESK.'' Resolved, that it is a standing order of the Senate that during yea and nay votes in the Senate, each Senator shall vote from the assigned desk of the Senator. This was by Senate Resolution 480 in the 98th Congress, the Second Session, October 11, 1984. This is a great day for me. I am glad to see the leader asking that Senators abide by this regulation, which we voted on, those of us who were here in 1984. I thank the leader.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate is considering whether Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary should be admitted to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). This is one of the most important foreign policy issues to be considered by the Senate in recent years, and the outcome will shape the future direction of NATO and our military relationship with our European allies. In addressing this question, we should begin with the fundamentals, by examining the past and future purpose of NATO. NATO is a collective security military alliance, with the original purpose of defending Western Europe from a possible attack by the Soviet Union and its allies in the Warsaw Pact. When considered from that perspective, NATO stands as one of the most stunningly successful alliances ever conceived. Not just because it maintained the peace for over forty years--other alliances in human history have kept the peace for longer periods of time. The success of NATO cannot be judged merely by time, but also by the scope of its mission. For, unlike previous military alliances, NATO was not intended merely to prevent another conventional war, but also to deter nuclear war. At stake was--and still is--nothing less than the preservation of global civilization, and the world owes a debt of gratitude to the alliance and its leaders for maintaining the peace. Some have argued that NATO also serves to maintain democratic traditions, since its original purpose was to protect Western democracy from an attack by an authoritarian Warsaw Pact. Today, NATO continues to defend those democratic values, which are part of the criteria in the decision to expand the membership of the alliance. Nonetheless, NATO continues to be, first and foremost, a defensive alliance. Critics of NATO expansion question whether Russia perceives NATO to be defensive or offensive, and argue that the admission of the these three new members will ``alarm'' Russia. These critics believe that Russian nationalists will perceive the expansion of NATO to be the enlargement of an offensive alliance aimed squarely at the heart of Russia, rather than the enlargement of a defensive agreement among nations inclined to keep, not break, the peace. The question of Russian nationalists, and their future role in their own country, speaks to the core of the issues surrounding the future of NATO. The question is not only how Russian nationalists react today, but also whether the most militaristic and virulent nationalists might gain power in the future, and whether that could pose a renewed threat to peace in Europe. Russia is unstable in virtually every societal area--her economy is weak, her military in shambles, and civil order is increasingly dominated by violence and corruption. Although we all sincerely hope that this wounded bear will regain her health and settle into a peaceful way of life that protects the interests of all her citizens and which deals fairly and openly in the community of nations, it is not at all clear that democratic traditions will survive within that nation for the next ten years. Some have argued that the expansion of NATO could be a factor in bringing the nationalists to power. The available evidence suggests that this is not the case. The Yeltsin government has publicly accepted the expansion of NATO, and public opinion polls indicate that the Russian populace is barely aware of this question, and everyday Russians do not have strong opinions on the question of NATO expansion. They are far more concerned about bread and jobs than they are about NATO. If authoritarian nationalists are to gain power in Russia in the future, that sad scenario will be caused by the fundamental instability of Russian democratic institutions, and the general collapse of the economy, not by NATO expansion. If nationalists seize power, and impose a new militaristic dictatorship upon Russia, it will pose a new threat to the peace of Europe, and the continuation of NATO will be essential to again preserve that peace. We might again face the question of a newly hostile Russia that possesses a still formidable arsenal of nuclear-tipped missiles. I would also note that critics of NATO expansion argue this question both ways. They argue that we dare not enlarge NATO because it might irritate or anger the most virulent of the Russian nationalists, yet those same critics do not address the question of the threat posed by a future rise to power of those very same nationalists. In the event of the rise to power of authoritarian nationalists in Russia, NATO would be strengthened by the admission of these three nations. Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic occupy key geopolitical positions in the heart of central Europe. For that reason alone, their addition to NATO is of strategic importance. These three nations have also met the criteria for membership, and their inclusion in NATO would more firmly cement their ties to the U.S. and Western Europe. Another related question is whether we should enlarge NATO now, or wait until some undefined future date. There is little to be gained through delay, since the Russian government has largely accepted the addition of these three countries to NATO. The diplomatic and political conditions are not likely to be any better in the future, and there is a serious risk that circumstances may only worsen. For example, if militaristic nationalists gained power in Russia in the future, they would likely vehemently object to any expansion of NATO. NATO would likely not act to expand the alliance in the face of such Russian opposition, fearing that it might lead to renewed cold war tensions. The bottom line is that we would not be able to expand NATO at the very time that such enlargement would be in our national interest. Under such circumstances, NATO might deeply regret not including Poland, with the geopolitically important Polish plain, as part of NATO. It is probably true that some xenophobic Russian nationalists will tell their people that NATO enlargement poses a threat to their country. But we know, as do they, that this argument is entirely false. NATO is inherently a defensive alliance. Its military structure revolves around the defense of its own territory, and not around the launching of offensive operations aimed at subjugating Russia. We cannot base our foreign policy upon the paranoid concerns of the opponents of democracy in Russia. They will advance arguments to undermine democracy and U.S.-Russian relations regardless of what we do. Another important question is whether there should be another round of NATO enlargement, and if so, which nations should be included. Critics of NATO expansion have argued that a decision to admit Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic implies yet another round of expansion, and that if we start down this path, we will inevitably include even more nations into NATO. In my opinion, there is nothing inevitable about this at all. I am voting on the admission of three nations, and only three nations. My vote to admit those three does not imply either approval or disapproval for any other nations. If this or any future administration decides to recommend another round of countries for admission to NATO, that recommendation must receive the consent of the Senate to become a reality. I want to clearly separate our vote on enlargement today from any vote in the future on other nations. I recognize that there are deep- seated concerns about the possible future admission of the Baltic nations of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania. These are important questions, which would be carefully evaluated by the Senate, and any decision involving the admission of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic stands by itself. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has performed a vital role in maintaining the peace and deterring catastrophic nuclear war. I believe that the enlargement of NATO, by including Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary, will further strengthen that role in the future. Therefore, I will cast my vote in favor of expansion.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I speak with reference to the amendment offered by Mr. Craig that would, if adopted, require that the United States adopt a specific authorization for the continued deployment of U.S. forces now in Bosnia prior to the deposit of the U.S. instrument of ratification of the protocols for NATO expansion. I have long supported an active Congressional role regarding the ongoing U.S. mission in Bosnia. Congress does have a responsibility to carefully oversee that mission, to ensure that it stays on track and that limits are placed on the U.S. role there that will safeguard our troops from being consumed in an ever-expanding nation-building crusade. So, I support what I think is the Senator's intent, which is to apply pressure to the Administration and the Congress to fulfill their oversight responsibilities with respect to Bosnia. However, that being said, I do not believe that this amendment is necessary. The Fiscal Year 1999 Department of Defense Authorization bill is likely to be considered by the Senate within the next several weeks, and the corresponding appropriations bill will also be taken up before we adjourn. These bills are the appropriate vehicles on which to debate and act to place limits on the U.S. mission in Bosnia. They provide a vehicle for establishing policy and then backing up the will of Congress with the power over the purse. We do not need this amendment today to force us into taking action on Bosnia. We do not need to hold these nations--Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic-- hostage to any perceived inability or lack of will on our part to act independently on Bosnia. So I say to my colleagues that this Senator from West Virginia does not lack the will to work to establish a policy and a specific, detailed authorization for the U.S. mission in Bosnia. I do not favor open-ended commitments to deploy forces to Bosnia, and I do not favor giving this administration or any other administration a free rein to involve our men and women in uniform in the kind of policing actions that got us into such trouble in Somalia. I am already working on such an amendment in concert with other Senators, with the intention of offering it to the Department of Defense Authorization bill or perhaps some other vehicle. I welcome the participation of Senator Craig and his cosponsors in this debate. But we do not need to act on this amendment at this time. We do not need to leave this protocol bound and gagged in some dark closet until we ransom it with a debate and legislative action that, I assure you, will take place without a hostage on another occasion on another day and on another measure. Although I will vote against this amendment, I assure my colleague from Idaho, and the other supporters of his amendment, that it is not because I do not wish to have a concrete policy regarding Bosnia. I urge Senators to vote against the amendment offered by Senator Craig. I thank the Chair, and, Mr. President, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator who is ranking member of the committee who is managing this business in the Chamber.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thought I heard the distinguished Senator say that treaties override the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. BYRD. Did I hear him correctly?

Mr. BYRD. No, treaties don't override the Constitution of the United States. Under the Constitution, treaties are a part of the law of the land, the supreme law of the land. They don't override the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. BYRD. I hope the Senator will take that out of his written speech.

Mr. BYRD. Yes; but they don't override the Constitution.

Mr. BYRD. They become part of the supreme law of the land. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on Wednesday evening, the committee of conference on the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, or ISTEA, had its first opportunity to sit down in full conference and discuss the differences between H.R. 2400 and S. 1173, respectively, the House- and Senate-passed highway bills. As a Senator who is not a member of the conference committee but as a Senator who is, nevertheless, deeply committed to increasing substantially the size of our national investment in transportation infrastructure, I rise to urge the conferees to complete expeditiously their deliberations on the highway reauthorization bill. The conferees and all Senators are fully cognizant of the imminent--the imminent-- arrival of May 1, the date beyond which all States will be prohibited by law from obligating any Federal-aid highway funds. Senators will recall that, during the months of February and March, I and a number of other supporters of the Byrd/Gramm/Baucus/Warner amendment, spoke on the Senate floor on a daily basis to discuss the critical need for the Senate to turn immediately to the ISTEA, or the highway, reauthorization bill. I thought it was extremely important that all 100 Senators, all 50 Governors, and the thousands of State legislators and mayors and transportation agencies throughout our Nation were fully aware that the Surface Transportation Extension Act-- the short-term ISTEA extension bill passed at the end of last year-- includes a deadline on the authorization of our federal aid highway and transit programs. That short-term bill, P.L. 105-130, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 1997, includes the following passage, and I quote from the law of the land. The Magna Carta of 1215, which the English barons forced King John to sign at Runnymede on the meadow near the Thames River, had a phrase within it, ``the law of the land.'' That was the phrase, ``the law of the land.'' And our own American Constitution later used the phrase ``due process.'' ``Due process.'' We speak of the due process law. Due process is an evolution from the law of the land in the Magna Carta. So I want to read this following passage from the law of the land: A State shall not obligate any funds for any federal aid highway program project after May 1, 1998. There is no equivocation. There are no ifs, ands, or buts. Let me read it again. This passage is from the law of the land, the statute that Congress passed last November: A State shall not obligate any funds---- That is pretty absolute, pretty final. There are no doubts that arise from reading that language. A State shall not obligate any funds for any Federal aid highway program project after May 1, 1998. The short-term bill also includes other provisions which, in effect, limit our States to obligating no more than $9.8 billion through May 1 on our Federal-aid highways. Even though the Transportation Appropriations Act for the current fiscal year provided a total obligation limitation of $21.5 billion, a historic 16 percent increase above the prior year's level, the short-term authorization bill effectively capped that amount at $9.8 billion, roughly 45 percent of the allowable appropriation. It will be necessary for a new highway bill to be enacted into law in order for the States to spend the remaining $11.7 billion allowed under the appropriations act. I recently contacted the Federal Highway Administration to find out how States are progressing in the obligation of this $9.8 billion and how their obligations compare to amounts they have obligated in prior years by this time. As of Wednesday evening, the States had obligated roughly $8.5 billion, or 86 percent, of the total $9.8 billion permitted under the short-term extension law. The Federal Highway Administration expects, however, that almost all of the $9.8 billion will be obligated by the time the clock strikes--by the time that clock just above the Presiding Officer's Chair strikes midnight one week from today. Indeed, this rate of obligations is consistent with the amounts the States customarily obligate by this point in the year. We now find ourselves in a situation where the Federal spigot will be shut off without even a dribble of funding going to States to continue the annual construction process beyond the end of next week. States will not be allowed to enter into any new obligations. It will be anything but business as usual in our Nation's highway construction enterprise. Roughly $11.7 billion in potential highway construction funds will be frozen at the Treasury until a new highway bill is signed into law. And if that highway bill is not signed into law soon, the States will be required to lay off highway workers and bring their planning and engineering activities to a halt. The longer it takes to get a new highway bill enacted, the greater the likelihood that a good part of the spring and summer construction season will be lost. I remind my colleagues that the Federal Highway Administration estimates that every billion dollars in federal highway spending generates 42,000 jobs throughout our economy. This $11.7 billion in construction funds that will be withheld from our States after May 1, pending the enactment of a new highway bill, thus, represents almost 500,000 jobs. Put another way, Mr. President, our failure to enact a highway bill in the near term could result in layoffs approaching half a million workers over the long term. I do not believe that any Senator or any Member of the other body wants to see half a million highway workers thrown off the job. The sooner the Congress sends a highway bill to the President and the sooner the President signs that bill, the sooner we will ensure that this does not happen. Mr. President, I am hopeful that the conferees on the highway bill will complete their work promptly. Through the intervention of the bipartisan leadership of both the House and the Senate, each body has now passed a comprehensive surface transportation bill with substantially increased resources. This accomplishment was long overdue and I commend the leadership of the House and the Senate, as well as the leadership of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, in passing bills that will finally authorize the obligation of all new revenues to the highway trust fund. I do not mean to belittle the task that is before the conferees in the development of the final conference agreement on the ISTEA reauthorization bill. There are significant differences in approach and policy between the two bills. I am confident, however, that under the leadership of Chairman Shuster and Chairman Chafee and their Democratic counterparts, Congressman Oberstar and Senator Baucus, these differences can be resolved so that we can adopt a conference report as close to the May 1 deadline as possible. So I implore all conferees to work diligently, as they always do, to ensure that our States, and our local communities, see no interruption in the flow of critically needed highway investment dollars. (Mr. Hagel assumed the Chair.)

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Now, Mr. President, on another matter, I desire to compliment Senator Ted Kennedy on his stalwart, unstinting, and unyielding support of public education. I, on yesterday and on previous days, voted in opposition to Senator Kennedy's position on amendment after amendment to the education bill that was before the Senate, the bill which passed the Senate last evening. But Senator Kennedy never falters--never falters. I did not agree with him, and that is why I voted differently on some of the amendments and on the passage of the bill. But I, nevertheless, never hesitate to admire his supreme dedication to the education of our children and to the support of the public school system. He has done a magnificent job over the years. When I was majority leader, he was just as magnificent, just as unyielding in his support of public education, always a superb committee chairman and today a superb ranking member of the committee. He is undaunted always. He is always constant. You know where he stands. How hard it is---- As we read from Caesar: How hard it is for women to keep counsel! But I am constant as the northern star, Of whose true-fix'd and resting quality There is no fellow in the firmament. That is pretty constant, isn't it? Let us go over it again. How hard it is for women to keep counsel! Now that is not a part of my thinking in this instance, but that is part of the quotation. Now I am thinking of Senator Kennedy. But I am constant as the northern star, Of whose true-fix'd and resting quality There is no fellow in the firmament. So even though I differ in my position, especially with respect to this bill that was passed yesterday, differ in some respects from my colleague, Senator Kennedy, I admire him and commend him and salute him for his constancy in standing for what he thinks is the best for our young people. And, of course, in differing with Senator Kennedy, I, too, stood for what I thought was best for our children. I deplore some of the things that are being said in an attempt to equate highways with schools or with education. The country needs both. The country is in dire need of investment in infrastructure in this country. Both highways and education, the education of our young people, both constitute infrastructure. And I think it is unwise to attempt to equate one with the other and say, ``Oh, we are spending billions of dollars on highways. Why should we not spend like amounts on education?'' I am for both. But why equate education with highways or highways with education? We cannot have one without the other. We have to have both. And so I hope the administration will get off that tack of trying to equate highway funding with education funding. We can be for both roads and schools and be for our children in being for both, without speaking disparagingly of either. My concerns, as I stated yesterday, grew out of the deplorable state of elementary and secondary education as we view it today and as we view its results. And as I cited on yesterday, certain reports indicate that we are not doing very well in the education of our young people. And while some people seem to be saying just spend more and more money, we cannot continue to just throw money at the problem and expect to resolve it. I have been voting for more money for elementary and secondary education now for 33 years, since the legislation was first passed in 1965. For decades I have always been found at the gate protecting and supporting Federal funds for public schools and for our education programs. But when one goes the last mile of the way and concludes from what he sees, from what he hears, and from what he reads, concludes from analytical reports about public education that we are not doing well, that there is something wrong, then it seems to me that, in the interest of the public school system, we may have to try a little different approach, else the confidence of the American people in that system and the support of the American people for that system are going to erode. We see that happening. One of the things that I am greatly concerned about is the kind of textbooks that our children are being given in the schools--books that are almost devoid of history, according to one of the reports yesterday. Many teachers are putting textbooks aside, not using them, and depending upon materials that they--the teachers--develop for themselves. That is a sad commentary. One of the reports indicated that in many States the subject of history is no longer being taught. That is a tragedy. How are we going to be able to judge current events if we have no knowledge of what happened yesterday or in yesteryear or a decade ago or a century ago? These are guideposts, and history will help us to determine, with some amount of knowledge and wisdom, the solutions that are needed concerning events and problems of today. Byron, in speaking of history, said, ``History, with all her volumes vast, hath but one page.'' ``History, with all her volumes vast, hath but one page.'' Now, what did Byron mean by that? He meant that history does really, essentially, repeat itself. And I think it does. Why? Because human nature has never changed. When God created the world and the solar system and all of this universe and other universes--and he is still creating the universes, still creating stars, God created man, and gave him a will. If we read Milton's ``Paradise Lost,'' we read much about man's having been given the faculty of reasoning and having been given the power of the will. He may exercise his will. He has been given a memory. History is a compilation, in many ways, a compilation of memories. And if we don't have any sense of history, then we will find ourselves lacking. Cicero said with respect to history, ``To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child.'' I recall that Herodotus, the father of history, who lived circa 484- 424 B.C., wrote about Cyrus the Great of Persia. He wrote about Cyrus and Darius and Xerxes. Writing of Cyrus, he told the story of how Cyrus had been very successful as a ruler of Persia. Cyrus ruled in Persia, ruled as the king of Anshan, from 559 B.C. to 550 and then as the king of Cyrus, all the Persians and the Medes, from 550 to 529 B.C. As Cyrus was nearing the end of his reign, he desired to enlarge upon his provinces and he conceived the idea of going into the area of the world northeast of the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, which was the land of the Scythians. The ruler of the Massagetae was a woman. Her name was Tomyris. Cyrus came to a great river. He called about him his wise men, his seers, his soothsayers and top generals, and asked them for their opinions as to whether or not he should cross the river and pursue his dreams of adding to his mighty provinces by defeating the Scythians. His advisors urged him to cross over the river. Some years earlier, Cyrus had defeated Croesus at the battle of Thymbra, in 546 B.C. Croesus was at that time the ruler of Lydia--Croesus, the richest man in the world, I suppose. But Cyrus didn't execute Croesus as one whom he had defeated, but he took Croesus into his court and used him as an advisor. On this occasion, Cyrus got one piece of advice from his generals, and he then asked Croesus what his opinion was. Croesus said this: ``There is a wheel on which the affairs of men revolve but its movement forbids the same man to be always fortunate.'' What was Croesus telling Cyrus? He was saying that history repeats itself. And in my own life, in my perception of things, I have seen men successful for a while, but it doesn't always last. Croesus gave to Cyrus this good advice, which, indeed, was a warning. Let me just say briefly that Cyrus disregarded the advice of Croesus and crossed the river. And Tomyris, the ruling queen of the Massagetae, sent word to Cyrus, urging him to go back into his country, telling him that he had been a successful king; but promising him that, if he continued in his efforts to subjugate, to conquer, the Massagetae, he would get his fill of blood. Cyrus disregarded the words of Tomyris and there was a great battle. Cyrus lost the battle. Herodotus tells us that after the battle, Tomyris sent her men around the field to find Cyrus. They found his body. Tomyris prepared a large bag of skins and filled that bag with blood. When the body of Cyrus was brought to her, she had the head severed from the body. She thrust Cyrus' head into the bag that was filled with blood, and said, ``I promised you that, if you persisted in attacking my people, you would get your fill of blood. I have kept my pledge.'' Now, Mr. President, I believe that history is exceedingly important for people who wish to become statesmen, for people who wish to become teachers, lawyers, ministers, doctors. Why would we want in our country to put history aside and to substitute social studies? One of the reports that I referred to on yesterday indicated that history had become a ``curricular swamp'' and indicated also that in many States among the 50, history is not even being taught as a study. What is happening to America? No wonder our children are going to grow into men and women without any idea as to what happened before they were born. Cicero would not have thought very well of that. There are people who think that we ought to get away from memorizing things. Well, how could I ever instantly come up with the answer to the question, ``How much is eight times nine?'' or ``How much is six times seven?'' if I hadn't memorized my multiplication tables? History, as I said yesterday, is a matter of dates and heroes. That was my own way of putting it. As a boy, I walked the red clay roads of Mercer County in southern West Virginia and attended a little two-room schoolhouse and studied Muzzey and his history of the American people. I studied Muzzey by the light of an old kerosene lamp--I memorized my history lessons. My first heroes were men like Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, Thomas Benton, Nathanael Greene. I studied about the Revolutionary War. We read about Francis Marion, the swamp fox, and Daniel Morgan. We read the story of Nathan Hale, who said, ``I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.'' Those were our heroes. Are we reaching a point in American history when young people no longer have heroes, except what they see on TV? Is that going to be the history that they will remember? As the story in the Washington Post had related, to which I referred on yesterday, textbooks are being written in ways that seek to avoid offending this little interest group or that little interest group or some other little interest group, as a result of which the pages are becoming so bland and meaningless that they end up offending everybody. If we want to really improve the public school system and the education received in the public school system, then we ought to demand textbooks that are meaningful and not just filled with pictures. ``A picture is worth a thousand words,'' but not a whole book of pictures. There has to be some substance that goes with the dessert--some beans, potatoes, cabbage, and corn bread to go along with the dessert, some substance that teaches high morals and teaches the basics, teaches our children to read and to write and to spell, and teaches them about arithmetic, science, history, and geography. We used to have our little spelling matches on Friday afternoons back in that little two-room schoolhouse. I always looked forward to Friday afternoon. I looked forward to those occasions when I would be able to stand up with other boys and girls and see who was the last to be left standing. He or she was the champ. And then we would have contests in addition and multiplication, with a piece of chalk on the blackboard. Who was the best math student? Those teachers were dedicated when I was a boy. They loved us and we loved them. They inspired us and we, each of us, wanted to get that pat on the back, that pat on the shoulders from the teacher, saying, ``You did well.'' We were inspired by those teachers. They weren't paid much. I can remember that, during the Great Depression, teachers had to give up a certain percent of their paychecks in order to get them cashed. They were dedicated teachers. That was their life. We had great teachers. We had good textbooks. We had discipline in the schoolroom. My foster dad was not my natural father, but he raised me. He always told me that if I got a whipping at school, I would get another whipping when I came home. You will find most people of my age who received the same warnings from their parents. ``If you get a whipping at school, we are not going to the schoolhouse and beat up on the teacher. We are going to see you in the back room.'' We knew they meant business. The parents supported the teachers. They supported discipline in the school. How can children learn and how can teachers teach unless we have discipline in the schools? They can't do it. There has to be discipline in the schoolrooms. There is something more than just money that the public school system in America needs today. And the public school system had better get its act together. Here I am, after 33 years of giving solid support to the public school system in America, saying if there is another approach that will work. Let's try it. We are not doing too well, as it is, plowing this same old furrow. We have to make some changes. I think we need to start with the textbooks. Teachers ought to be paid well. Not all teachers are good teachers. Not all Senators are good Senators. People will take care of that sooner or later, hopefully. But not all teachers are good teachers. Yet, there are a lot of good teachers and there are a lot of good students. In speaking of good students, let me brag about my grandsons and granddaughters. I have a grandson named Darius, who has a doctorate in physics, a pretty tough subject, I would say. I doubt that his grandfather could do that well. Darius has a degree, a Ph.D. in physics. He was married recently. He married a young lady who is working on her Ph.D. in physics at the University of Virginia. I have another grandson who will receive his Ph.D. in physics just within a few weeks, before the summer is over. I also have a son-in-law who is a Ph.D. in physics. I could speak at great length about my sons-in-law and daughters and grandsons and granddaughters. I will not do that today. But I have made my point. Those grandsons who have received Ph.D.s in physics didn't get those Ph.D.s in physics watching television. They didn't get those Ph.D.s reading trash. They read good books. They were taught by good teachers. We have a lot of young people in this country who want to learn. I have tried to encourage young people. My wife and I sent a young Chinese orphan through college some years ago. We paid her tuition and for her books because her mother had died of cancer. My wife and I knew that the mother, who had discovered that she had terminal cancer, was very concerned about her daughter. They were no relation to us. We happened to get acquainted with them because we visited in those days, a lot of restaurants in the area. At one point we had visited over 100 restaurants in Northern Virginia and Maryland and the District of Columbia. We came to know this Chinese couple. When they were faced with this tragedy, my wife and I said to the woman, ``We are going to see that your child has a college education. If she continues to make good grades in school and graduates with good character, and if she will go to American University, we will see that she has her tuition and her books paid for.'' I chose American University because I had graduated from there with a law degree at the age of 45. I never intended to practice law. Nobody told me to do it. I wanted the experience of being in a classroom with other law students. I went to law school for 10 years at night while serving in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. In fact, I just received my baccalaureate in political science from Marshall University in Huntington, West Virginia, in 1994. It never gets too late to learn. Solon, that great lawgiver who was one of the seven wise men of Greece, said, ``I grow old in the pursuit of learning.'' One never gets too old to learn, and it is one of the best ways to stay young--continue to study, to learn. As I was saying yesterday, in 1969 I decided I wanted to establish a little recognition for the high school valedictorians in West Virginia. I came up with the idea of having a ``Robert C. Byrd Scholastic Recognition Fund.'' At that time I bought, out of my own pocket, a $25 savings bond for each high school valedictorian. It only cost $18.75, I believe. But if and when it matured it would be worth $25. It wasn't a great amount of money. Nobody gave me a bond when I graduated from high school. But I wanted to give a little recognition to the exceptional students in the high schools of West Virginia. I remember in one high school there were seven students, I believe, who tied with a 4.0 average. I gave seven $25 bonds to the students in that school. A little recognition like that is what our young people need. In recent years, I have established a trust fund, and the bond is a $50 bond. I often talk with the pages here. I try to take a little time out of my day once in a while to tell them some good stories written by Tolstoy or by other great authors, like Chaucer. We talk about wholesome, good works by great authors; a little encouragement along that line. We never know when we toss a pebble in the water where the ripples will end. They go on and on. We don't know where a little word of encouragement to these young people might take them. Then a few years ago, I devised legislation that would provide for a national scholarship of $1,500 to be awarded to the same number of students in each State as there are representatives from each State in the House of Representatives and the Senate. The criteria require that those children excel in scholastic studies. What they do as athletes doesn't count. Neither do extracurricular activities. There is a rightful place for sports. But the country's values are made to stand on their heads when people revere a little too much the athletes while not recognizing the young people who are working in the laboratories and in the libraries and in the schoolrooms poring over textbooks day and night. So what I am saying is, we ought to readjust our values. Let each have its proper place. But no ball game ever changed the course of history. I do not say that disparagingly about ball games. We all like to watch them. But it is the young people who study science, math, algebra, history, physics, these other disciplines; they are the people who keep this country with its finely honed cutting edge in technology; they are the people who put an American on the Moon. Let's get back to basics. Let's recognize our young people and encourage them to study, to read good books, get away from the trash that is on TV. It might be a good thing for some adults, too. Get off that couch and quit watching so much of that junk. It is junk, most of it. I have seen some good movies on television. Alistair Cooke used to have some great movies. But for the most part, TV programming is lousy. I am not sure, if my daughters were growing up today, that I would even have a television set in my house. It is a great medium for good, but it is very destructive, the kind of programming of which we see all too much today. I have taken some time this afternoon because I wanted to compliment Ted Kennedy. I also wish to compliment Senator Coverdell and all those who worked hard for the bill yesterday as well as those who opposed the bill. They all have at heart the welfare of the children of this country. I thought a little bit of my own homespun philosophy thrown in while no other Senator seeks the floor this afternoon, wouldn't hurt either. A Builder builded a temple, He wrought it with grace and skill; Pillars and groins and arches All fashioned to work his will. Men said, as they saw its beauty, ``It shall never know decay; Great is thy skill, O Builder, Thy fame will endure for aye.'' A Teacher builded a temple With loving and infinite care, Planning each arch with patience, Laying each stone with prayer. None praised her unceasing efforts, None knew of her wondrous plan, For the temple the Teacher builded Was unseen by the eyes of man. Gone is the Builder's temple, Crumbled into the dust; Low lies each stately pillar, Food for consuming rust. But the temple the Teacher builded Will last while the ages roll, For that beautiful unseen temple Was a child's immortal soul. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.