Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, could we have order in the Chamber?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in addition to thanking these many groups, I also deeply appreciate the efforts of the staffs of the principal co- sponsors of our amendment. They include Steve McMillin of Senator Gramm's staff, Tom Sliter and Kathy Ruffalo of Senator Baucus' staff, Ann Loomis and Ellen Stein of Senator Warner's staff, and Jim English and Peter Rogoff of my own staff. Also, the majority leader's staff, namely Keith Hennessey and Carl Biersack, deserve great credit for their efforts toward reaching a consensus on the critical funding agreement to this bill. Finally, I also thank the individuals at the Federal Highway Administration, who have toiled diligently outside of the limelight, in bringing this bill to closure. They include Jack Basso in Secretary Slater's office, as well as Bud Wright, Patty Doersch, and Bruce Swindford, at the Federal Highway Administration. Their assistance was instrumental in providing data and technical assistance in development of the Byrd/Gramm/Baucus/Warner Amendment, as well as for the underlying committee bill. This is a bill, of which I am proud, and of which all Senators should be proud, and for which I urge all Senators to vote aye.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1997, signals a significant accomplishment for this session of the 105th Congress. In passing this comprehensive six-year surface transportation bill, the Senate makes two profoundly important statements to the American traveling public. First, we are telling the American public that we are intent on using the revenues that we collect at the gas pump, from the American highway user, on the purposes for which they were collected; namely, the maintenance, upkeep, and expansion of our national highway and transit systems. Second, we are telling the traveling public that we intend to reverse the federal government's chronic underinvestment in our national highway needs. I want to take this opportunity to recount the major milestones of a multi-step process that brought us to this point where we will pass a highway bill calling for a full $173 billion of investment over the six years, 1998 through 2003. I also want to thank the many persons and organizations that have brought us to this point in time. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 assessed a new 4.3 cents gas tax solely for the purposes of deficit reduction. This 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 highway investment. 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 the 4.3 cent gas tax to the Highway Trust Fund so that it could be used for our ever-growing unmet needs in the area of highway construction and the maintenance of our nation's bridges. During the summer of 1996, at the behest of both the majority and the minority leaders, I deferred offering my amendment to transfer this tax into the Highway Trust Fund on two separate tax bills. Unfortunately, another opportunity to offer my amendment did not arise during the 104th Congress. Last year, at the beginning of the 105th Congress, I found a strong ally for my efforts in my colleague, Senator Gramm of Texas. During debate on the budget resolution last year, Senator Gramm offered a sense of the Senate resolution 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 resolution. Later that year, when the Finance Committee marked up the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, Senator Gramm, a member of that committee, 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. In transferring this new revenue to the Highway Trust Fund, the Congress was presented with an opportunity to authorize and spend dramatically increased resources on our highway needs. There is no question that these funds are sorely needed. I have taken to the Floor numerous times over the past three 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 structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Unfortunately, the highway bill, as originally reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee, did not authorize 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. Upon learning of this situation, I held several discussions on the subject with members of the Environment and Public Works Committee, including Chairman Chafee, and the Ranking Member, Senator Baucus. Following these discussions, I decided to prepare an amendment which would authorize 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, on 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 mean what we say when we place highway tax revenues into the Highway Trust Fund. I was first joined in the amendment by my 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. Despite substantial early opposition from certain Senators, including the Chairman of the full Environment and Public Works and Budget Committees, Senators Gramm, Baucus, Warner, and I diligently sought to obtain co-sponsors for our amendment. In total, we were able to secure an additional 50 co-sponsors, making a total of 54 co- sponsors for the Byrd/Gramm/Baucus/Warner amendment. Our amendment authorized additional contract authority for highways over the period Fiscal Year 1999 through 2003, totaling $30.971 billion. That amount was the Congressional Budget Office's estimate of the revenue from this 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 reestimated that five-year figure to a level of $27.41 billion, or a reduction of $3.561 billion from their earlier forecast. At the end of last month, 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 Dominici 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 continue to face the May 1 deadline beyond which most states cannot obligate any federal aid highway funds absent a new authorization bill. At the end of last month, the Majority Leader, Senator Lott, asked that all parties join him in his office for negotiations on this issue. While I must admit I was not inclined to negotiate in a manner that would cause us to abandon our principle of authorizing the spending of the Highway Trust Fund revenue, I, along with Senator Gramm, Senator Baucus, and Senator Warner, did join with the Majority Leader, and Senator Chafee, Senator Domenici and, at times, Senator D'Amato to discuss the situation. After many days of back and forth, and the very adept moderating style of the Majority Leader, I was pleased that an agreement emerged that enabled us to add an amendment totaling 25.920 billion dollars to the highway bill. This amount represents 94 percent of CBO's most recent estimate of the revenue to the highway account, stemming from the 4.3 cents gas tax. I was especially pleased that, as part of these negotiations, Senator Domenici, Chairman of the Budget Committee, committed himself to finding the outlays through the budget resolution process to see to it that these funds will not just be authorized, but will also be spent through the annual appropriations process. Further, I appreciate the support of the agreement by the Distinguished Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Chafee, as well as for his outstanding work in managing this complex bill over the several weeks that it has been before the Senate. I also wish to recognize the cooperation and support that I have received for many months on my amendment to this important legislation by our Distinguished Minority Leader Mr. Daschle. He joined as a cosponsor of the Byrd/Gramm/Baucus/Warner amendment early on and was a staunch advocate and supporter throughout. On a matter that is of critical importance to this Senator, this 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 six-year ISTEA bill, for the Appalachian Highway System, will equal $2.19 billion, the full amount requested by the Administration in their ISTEA proposal. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Jeffords be added as a cosponsor to amendment number 1397, the so-called Byrd/Gramm/Baucus/Warner amendment, to S. 1173.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank my friend. I have no desire for the floor. Amendment No. 1769 to Amendment No. 1676

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this amendment is designed to keep the Congress and the American people informed about the real condition of our National Highway System. Under current law, the Secretary of Transportation is required to sent a biannual report to the Congress on the performance and conditions of America's highways. Unfortunately, the report that was due at the beginning of last year was not completed and delivered to the Congress until last week, some 18 months late. Moreover, the new report uses an entire new set of measures that make it impossible to determine whether the condition of our roadways has improved or declined. Indeed, the new report abandons the format utilized in prior years which provided direct and clear data on the condition of our highways and bridges. This data enabled all citizens and policy makers to measure the progress of lack of progress that had been made on improving our highway system. This amendment would ensure that all future reports include data using the format that was used in prior years so that we can compare ``apples to apples'' when formulating our national policy on highways. amendment no. 1971 (Purpose: To improve highway safety) At the appropriate place, insert the following:

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I would like to briefly explain my vote on the motion to table the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague, Senator McConnell, to S. 1173, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. Despite my sympathy with the position of Mr. McConnell, and despite my reservations about the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program, I voted in favor of tabling the amendment. Like many of my colleagues, I encourage small businesses--including those owned by socially and culturally disadvantaged individuals--to take an active role in bidding for federally funded highway construction contracts. But, while I understand the goals of the DBE program, as set forth in Section 1111 of ISTEA, I do not support preferential treatment for certain businesses on the basis of the race, ethnicity, or gender of their owners. I believe that the Constitution, as amended by the 5th, 13th, and 14th Amendments, does not permit the government to discriminate or differentiate on the basis of race, ethnicity, or gender--regardless of whether the government's motive is malicious or benign. If the precepts of ``equal protection'' and ``due process'' are to mean anything, then they must ensure that no one in this country is granted favorable or unfavorable treatment on the basis of some single differentiating characteristic. My reading of the Constitution is supported by the Supreme Court's 1995 decision in Adarand versus Pena. In that decision, the Court rules that the DBE and other race-based affirmative action programs can only be upheld if they are narrowly tailored to meet a compelling governmental interest. This test, commonly referred to as ``strict scrutiny,'' makes it exceedingly difficult for any affirmative action program to pass constitutional muster. It should come as no surprise, then, that after the Court remanded the Adarand case, a federal district court judge found that the DBE program fails strict scrutiny, and thus is unconstitutional. Indeed, it is worth pointing out that the last time that the Supreme Court upheld a statute based on a racial- or national-origin classification under the strict scrutiny test was in 1944. In my opinion, the correct course of action is to award highway contracts on the basis of cost, performance, and the most efficient use of taxpayer's money. This merit-based approach is both fair and constitutionally appropriate. Despite these reservations about DBE, I also recognize that the courts have not yet definitively ruled on the constitutionality of affirmative action programs. The Adarand district court decision is currently on appeal, and I look forward to further clarification of the constitutionality of programs such as DBE. Furthermore, while I support the McConnell amendment in principle, I believe that further debate and scrutiny is necessary. This amendment has not yet been subjected to the committee process, which is so essential to determining the true merits and flaws of a proposal. Before we replace the DBE program with an Emerging Business Enterprise Program, we need to ensure that the replacement does exactly what we want it to do. Otherwise, we risk hurting some small businesses through rash, ill-considered action. For these reasons, I voted to table the McConnell amendment.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I trust there will be no interruption of my statement until the 7\1/2\ plus the 5 have run their course, Mr. President?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator, the offeror of this amendment, for yielding me time. I wonder if the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island would assure me of an additional 5 minutes if I need it?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Senator Bingaman has brought to the attention of the Senate a new and deadly twist on the idea of convenience stores. He has discussed the existence in some States of stores that sell alcohol at drive-up windows. That is simply amazing to me, a store that sells alcohol at a drive-up window. How can we take seriously any campaign to reduce the dangers of drinking and driving, while at the same time allowing sales of alcoholic beverages to people in their cars! It is crazy. I am sure that these drivers will, of course, always, personally, follow the guidelines to ``wait until you get home to drink these alcoholic beverages!'' I am just as sure of that as I am sure that everyone who buys take out food at a drive through window waits until they are safely off the highway before trying to eat a dripping burger or a hot, salty french fry, while simultaneously steering a three thousand pound automobile through traffic! I applaud the action being taken by my distinguished colleague, Senator Bingaman, to ban these alcoholic beverage sales at drive-up windows. There is no reason to take the concept of convenience to this extreme. I have been on the face of this beautiful Earth for a little over 80 years now, and I have seen a lot of new conveniences come into my life, but I can adamantly admit that this is not one that I welcome. I want to be able to enjoy life for many more years, and I do not want the prospect of a long life put into jeopardy so that some boozehound or drunk driver can have great convenience insatiating his or her desire for alcohol without even having to leave the car! There are just some things in this life that should not be easy to obtain--things that should not be so convenient. Easy access to alcohol means easy access to drinking and driving, and that is something to which I am vehemently unalterably opposed. The existence of this kind of easy-on, easy-off establishment only increases the potential for drunk drivers to purchase alcohol. An intoxicated person, sitting in a car, can easily avoid attracting the attention of the sales person by fiddling with the radio or finding some other type of distraction, thus preventing the sales clerk from noticing that the driver is inebriated, maybe even drunk. Observation of customers for clues to their sobriety, or lack thereof, is much easier if the customer has to park, get out of the car, and walk into the store. My strong opposition to establishments which offer drive-up alcohol sales is not only limited to my fear of drunk drivers, but also to the potentially illegal sale of alcohol to minors. The pitfalls of youth and inexperience behind the wheel of an automobile are only exacerbated when one throws alcohol into the equation. One question that comes to mind is: How does an employee at this type of alcoholic beverage store adequately make the comparison between a driver's identification and the person sitting in the car presenting that ID? That person is sitting in a car! This potential drunk driver could be 5 foot 10, he could be 5 foot 7 while his or her identification card might identify the person as a six-footer. Mr. President, I believe that in order to make a sound decision to sell alcohol to a person, the customer should be standing before the sales clerk, presenting the necessary documentation, and showing the essential sober characteristics that are legally required for that person to purchase alcoholic beverages. I am all in favor of making life more convenient. It is nice to have the liberty of going to a Quik-Mart when you need to purchase a candy bar pick-me-up, or for that gallon of milk that your family needs for breakfast the next day. But, I do not believe in making it more convenient for drunk drivers, potential drunk drivers, or our underage youth or anybody else, for that matter, to purchase alcohol. It is this type of convenience that can make life very inconvenient for the responsible individuals, families, wives, children, our staff people and other travelers who make the conscious decision to ``cruise without booze!'' Allowing this type of alcohol sales establishment is a leap backwards in the campaign against drunk driving. I fully support Senator Bingaman's amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I think of an old poem by Joseph Malins. I hope that I can recall it. I think it is very fitting here. It makes the whole point that Senator Bingaman's amendment is trying to accomplish: Twas a dangerous cliff, as they freely confessed, Though to walk near its crest was so pleasant; But over its terrible edge there had slipped A duke and full many a peasant. So the people said something would have to be done, But their projects did not at all tally; Some said, ``Put a fence around the edge of the cliff,'' Some, ``An ambulance down in the valley.'' But the cry for the ambulance carried the day, For it spread through the neighboring city; A fence may be useful or not, it is true, But each heart became brimful of pity For those who slipped over that dangerous cliff; And the dwellers in highway and alley Gave pounds or gave pence, not to put up a fence, But an ambulance down in the valley. ``For the cliff is all right, if you're careful,'' they said, ``And, if folks even slip and are dropping, It isn't the slipping that hurts them so much, As the shock down below when they're stopping.'' So day after day, as these mishaps occurred, Quick forth would these rescuers sally To pick up the victims who fell off the cliff, With their ambulance down in the valley. Then an old sage remarked: ``It's a marvel to me That people give far more attention To repairing results than to stopping the cause, When they'd much better aim at prevention. Let us stop at its source all this mischief,'' cried he, ``Come, neighbors and friends, let us rally; If the cliff we will fence we might almost dispense With the ambulance down in the valley.'' ``Oh, he's a fanatic,'' the others rejoined, ``Dispense with the ambulance? Never! He'd dispense with all charities, too, if he could; No! No! We'll support them forever. Aren't we picking up folks just as fast as they fall? And shall this man dictate to us? Shall he? Why should people of sense stop to put up a fence, While the ambulance works down in the valley?'' But a sensible few, who are practical too, Will not bear with such nonsense much longer; They believe that prevention is better than cure, And their party will soon be the stronger. Encourage them then, with your purse, voice, and pen, And while other philanthropists dally, They will scorn all pretense and put up a stout fence On the cliff that hangs over the valley. Better guide well the young than reclaim them when old, For the voice of true wisdom is calling, ``To rescue the fallen is good, but 'tis best To prevent other people from falling.'' Better close up the source of temptation and crime Than deliver from dungeon or galley; Better put a strong fence round the top of the cliff Than an ambulance down in the valley.'' I hope my colleagues will vote today to put a strong fence around the edge of the cliff, because that is all that is going to work. I commend my colleague for his foresight, for his courage, and for his good sense in offering this amendment. I thank, again, the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator and yield the floor. Mr. WYDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will only take 2 or 3 minutes. I thank the Senator from Oregon for letting me impose on him. I want to say that I am very sympathetic to the case that has been made by the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska. I hope we can do something to help him. He is chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and all of us who have anything in this bill at all, who are impacted by this bill, all of us who support this bill, are going to have to look at this chairman down the road to help us to implement what we are doing here. I hope we will find a way to help him. I am the only former House Member who is now serving in the U.S. Senate who voted for the addition of Alaska to the Union. I was sworn in with the late Senator Gruening, about whom Mr. Stevens spoke. That case has been made time and again. I want to say, Mr. President, I have never heard the case made better than Senator Stevens has made it. I can understand how his people feel. They need help. It seems to me that whatever helps Alaska helps West Virginia. That is the way I look at it. I want to be supportive of finding a positive response to the Senator's needs. I want to help him.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I take the floor because we are presently in a quorum call and I thought it might be a good time for me not to overly impose on the Senate, since the Senate is not having any debate at the moment anyway. Mr. President, Sir Francis Bacon, who was the Lord Chancellor and who ultimately went to the Tower--he wasn't executed, but he went to the Tower. In 1621, he was impeached and he was sent to the Tower for accepting bribes, which he admitted. He said there are three things that make a nation great and prosperous: a fertile soil, busy workshops, and easy conveyance for men and goods from place to place. The Persians knew the importance of good roads, and had a network of roads that connected Susa and Ecbatana and Sardis and Babylon and Ninevah and Carchemish. Cyrus the Great was the king of Anshan in 559 B.C., and he became the king of all Persia when he defeated the Medes in 550. From 550 B.C. until 529 B.C. Cyrus ruled. Cyrus was killed in a battle with the Massagetai, whose ruling queen was named Tomyris-- Tomyris. It's a very interesting story. Herodotus, the author of history, tells us about it. I won't repeat that part today. Cyrus was killed in 529 B.C. and Cambyses, his son-- Cambyses II--ruled from 529 to 522 B.C. Then Darius the Great ruled from 522 B.C. to 485 B.C. Darius the Great--and Herodotus tells us this--Darius became king upon the neigh of a horse. He and some others joined in a conspiracy and assassinated an imposter to the throne. Upon the death of the imposter, these seven conspirators, of which Darius was one, decided they had to make a decision as to who would rule. They had a very interesting discussion about democracy and aristocracy and monarchy. Herodotus tells us all about it. It would be interesting for Senators to read that, or to reread it in the event they have already done so. In any event, they decided at sunrise they would go out into the suburbs, these several conspirators, and that the first horse that neighed, the rider of that horse would be king of Persia. Darius subsequently told his groom, Oebares, about this and said, ``This is what we have agreed upon. Do you have any ideas?'' Oebares said, ``Yes, don't you be concerned about it. Your horse will be the first to neigh.'' That evening, Oebares took the favorite mare of Darius' horse into the suburbs and tied her to a tree. He then took Darius' horse to where the mare was tethered, and, after a little while, returned with Darius's horse into the city for the night. The next morning, Darius and the other conspirators rode out into the suburbs with their horses. As they came near to the area where the mare was still tethered, Darius' horse neighed. The other conspirators immediately fell down upon the ground and proclaimed Darius to be the new king of all Persia. This is according to Herodotus. Darius the Great built great roads. The Egyptians knew how to build good roads, the Etruscans, the Carthaginians, but the Romans were the truly great roadbuilders. Some of the roads and bridges that the Romans built hundreds of years ago are still in use. Many Senators who have visited Rome and have gone out to Tivoli--a few hours drive--have traveled the Old Appian Way, which was built by Appius Claudius Caecus, beginning in 312 B.C. and extending from Rome to Capua and on to Brundisium. The Romans knew how to build roads. They understood that in the center of the road there had to be a crown so that the water would drain off on each side and that on each side there had to be a ditch for the runoff water. These roads enabled the Roman legions to reach any part of the vast Roman empire. The Romans were great roadbuilders. And they built bridges, some of which are still in use today. Now, roads in our time are very important and we have heard the expression that America is a country on wheels. People are on wheels. They are going hither, thither and yon at all times. The Department of Transportation has indicated that the highways in all of the national system have deteriorated and that only 39 percent of the highways in the national system are in ``good'' condition. We now have this highway bill that has come to the floor and we have already discussed the amendment, how it came about, and the meetings that took place in the majority leader's office. I said before and I say again, the majority leader performed a tremendous service in inviting those who were participants in the discussions, inviting them to his office and sitting with us each day, assisting us in reaching an agreement which now takes the form of an amendment to the ISTEA II bill, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. I came into these meetings, in a way, as someone out of the highways and hedges. I am not on the Environment and Public Works Committee. I am not on the Budget Committee. The Environment and Public Works Committee has jurisdiction over this legislation. I am not on that committee. Mr. Baucus is the ranking member of that committee. Mr. Chafee is the chairman. Mr. Warner is a member of that committee and is chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee of that committee. Mr. Domenici is chairman of the Budget Committee, and Mr. Gramm of Texas is a member of the Budget Committee. Those were the participants. I believe Mr. D'Amato sat in on one or two meetings. He is chairman of the Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over the mass transit moneys. That was not part of our amendment. So, as I say, I was a stranger, in effect, to these meetings, not being a member of the committees that were directly involved. But I got into this thing because of Appalachia and because the moneys that were being deposited into the highway trust fund were not being spent for highways. And I talked with various Senators, upon one occasion with the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus. I said, ``We need help on Appalachian highways.'' He said, ``Well, we need more money, we need more money.'' I said, ``OK, let's spend the money that is going into the highway trust fund. That is what the people think it is being collected for; let's spend it.'' Mr. Gramm of Texas had offered an amendment last year in the Finance Committee to transfer the 4.3-cent gas tax, of which 3.45 cents is for highways and 0.85 cent, or a little less than 1 penny per gallon, is for mass transit. Mr. Gramm had taken the bull by the horns and had, in the Finance Committee, offered an amendment, which was adopted, to transfer the 4.3 cents gas tax into the trust fund. Senator Gramm's amendment was later adopted by the Congress in the Taxpayer Relief Act. Congress adopted that proposal, and that money has been going into the highway trust fund but not being spent. For those two reasons, I invited myself to the ``party.'' I came up with this fine team of Gramm, Baucus, and Warner, and we all said, ``Let's spend that money on highways and bridges,'' and we accordingly joined in sponsoring the amendment to do so. That is how the Romans would have spent it. That is how the Etruscans would have spent it. I think that if Darius and the Persians were here today, they would say spend it on roads. The four of us worked hard over a period of several weeks and months to get other cosponsors on the amendment. In the final analysis, we got 54 cosponsors in all. The day we reached an agreement on the amendment, may I say to the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, I received a call from a 55th Senator saying, ``I want to get on that amendment.'' So it is never too late--never too late, never too late--to go to the altar, never too late to get religion, never too late to join in a good cause. There were several Senators who said they did not want to cosponsor the amendment for various reasons, but if it came to a vote, they would support the amendment. I hope that will be the case. This bill does not please everybody. I have not talked about Appalachia because I sense that there is a tendency for some people to think that I am only interested in Appalachia. However, I listened to Senator Gramm just a little while ago make an excellent case for Appalachia. Many times I have read Daniel Webster's reply to Senator Hayne of South Carolina on Tuesday and Wednesday, January 26 and 27, 1830. It was on January 26 and 27 that Webster took the floor in the old Chamber just down the hall and made his magnificent reply to Senator Hayne of South Carolina. Many of the schoolboys in this country years ago memorized those speeches by Webster. We used to do those things. Webster spoke from about 12 pages of notes, one of the great, great speeches of all time, perhaps not the greatest. Demosthenes in his oration on the Crown probably delivered the greatest oration of all time. Cicero was once asked which of Demosthenes' speeches he liked best, and he said, ``The longest.'' Webster, in his debate with Hayne, made my case concerning ``a road over the Alleghanies.'' I have quoted him a number of times over the years. I will not do that today. The record has been made. But I could not have said it better than did Senator Gramm earlier today. So much for Appalachia at this point. I came here today to speak on the overall amendment. The adoption of this amendment signals a critical milestone in restoring integrity to our highway trust fund and the trust of the traveling public--the trust of the traveling public in their Federal Government. You drive up to the gas tank and you buy gasoline; you pay 18.3 cents on every gallon of gasoline in Federal tax--18.3 cents. The ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, who knows a lot about these things--I am not supposed to know a lot about this subject; don't know a lot about anything probably, not as much as I used to know on many subjects. The Senator from Montana will correct me if I make a misstep here. The American people when they drive up to that gas pump see the little cylinder running round and round and round, and they know that the gas is flowing out of that nozzle into the tank of their car. As that cylinder rolls, the gas is pouring out of the nozzle. In their mind's eye, they should also see that as that cylinder rolls and the gas flows into the tank, there is also money flowing from their purchase into the highway trust fund. Just as the cylinder rolls, that money is flowing right into the highway trust fund. So, there is 18.3 cents on the gallon that they pay in Federal tax. As Senator Gramm has put it a number of times--the only part we are talking about here is the last 4.3 cents permanent gas tax that was added by the Congress--we are not talking about the cattle that were rustled before the 4.3 cents tax was enacted, we just want you to stop rustling the cattle. In any event, we are talking about the 4.3 cents. Actually, in our amendment, we are talking about the 3.45 cents of that 4.3 cents, and we say that the people believe that that money is going into the construction and repair and maintenance of the highway system. That trust fund was created in 1956. I am probably the only Member of the Senate who was in Congress at the time that trust fund was created. That was during the Eisenhower administration, when the interstate system of highways was created, all of which has been completed. That trust fund is what we are talking about. The 4.3 cents gas tax is going into the trust fund, and it should be spent on highways. My colleagues and I who cosponsor this amendment are simply saying let's keep faith with the American people. Senators Gramm, Baucus, Warner and I have toiled mightily over these last several months to boost the resources available over the next 6 years to better meet the needs of our Nation's transportation infrastructure and better spend the resources that are collected from the public and deposited in the highway trust fund. Over the last several years, spending on our Nation's highways has been restricted so severely that the highway account of the highway trust fund now shows an unspent balance of more than $12 billion, money that sits idle in the trust fund, serving only the purpose of offsetting the Federal deficit at a time when our roadways and bridges are deteriorating at a rapid rate and our constituents are required to sit in ever-worsening traffic jams. This past summer, the Senate adopted the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 which, through the efforts of my colleague Senator Gramm, took the 4.3 cents gas tax initially levied for deficit reduction and moved that revenue into the Highway Trust Fund. As I indicated earlier, of that 4.3 cents, 3.45 cents was newly-deposited into the highway account of the highway trust fund. However, the ISTEA II bill reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee, S. 1173, did not authorize one penny--one penny--of that additional revenue to be spent on our Nation's highways and bridges. It was at this time--part of this is a repetition of what I have said earlier--it was at this time that Senator Gramm and I joined forces to mount a campaign to amend the committee bill so as to allow the spending of the resources of the 4.3 cents--spend it. We were very pleased to be joined in our efforts by Senators Baucus and Warner, respectively, the ranking member and chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee. It has been a vigorous battle that we have waged here over the past several weeks trying to gain the minds and the hearts of other Senators. Up to one week ago we had 54 cosponsors, and then we got a 55th one. But we were faced with very able adversaries in these meetings in Senator Lott's office--very able adversaries in Senator Domenici and Senator Chafee. One week ago, the majority leader, Mr. Lott, invited us to his chambers in an effort to negotiate a compromise on this issue. And I have commended and will commend again the fair-minded manner in which the majority leader presided over those negotiations. Senators Baucus and Gramm and Warner and I were not inclined to negotiate a solution that in any way abandoned our principle of authorizing the spending of the revenue in the highway account of the highway trust fund. And we made that point very clear. Even so, there were other factors that appropriately were brought into the discussion and merited the attention of all participants. Specifically, the Congressional Budget Office has reestimated the revenue stream of the 4.3 cents coming into the trust fund, as well as the overall cost of the committee-reported ISTEA bill. It also reestimated the total amount of new revenue coming into the trust fund over the life of the next highway bill, 1998-2003. The changes reflected in this amendment, in comparison to the original Byrd-Gramm- Baucus-Warner amendment, largely reflect the appropriate differences in CBO's estimates. The original Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment authorized $30.9 billion, an amount equivalent to CBO's original estimate of the revenue to the highway account of the trust fund for the period, fiscal years 1999-2003. CBO reestimated this revenue stream to be a level of $27.4 billion. This amendment that we are cosponsoring, that we are presently considering today, totals $25.9 billion of the $27.4 billion that we had asked for. So we came down from $27.4 billion to $25.9 billion. And, as such, this amendment covers 94 percent of our initial goal. Now, Mr. President, I have been in several high-level negotiations in my public career of 52 years. It is rare that I am offered 94 percent of my original position and, as such, I, along with Senators Gramm, Baucus and Warner, embraced this final compromise. And as was true under the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment, every State--every State; every State; every State--will see substantially increased highway funding authorized in this bill. Now, we brought money to the table. And I can understand how everybody now wants a chunk of that money that we brought to the table. And they should have a chunk. I came to the Senate from the House of Representatives when there were 48 States in the Union. And when I was sworn in on January 3, 1959, the two Alaska Senators were sworn in with me. There were 96 Senators, and those two Alaska Senators that were sworn in with me made 98 Senators. Later that year, the two new Hawaii Senators came in to make a total of 100 Senators. Well, 50 States in the United States are benefiting under this amendment. I wanted to see the tide rise for every State--the tide would rise and lift the boats for all the States. I wanted to see that money taken out of the trust fund and spent for highways and bridges in all 50 States. And I wanted the people of Appalachia, who have waited 32 years, to see their boats rise. I wanted to see a consistent, secure source of funding for those Appalachian highways. Appalachia consists of 13 States, 200,000 square miles, 22 million people in Appalachia. We are all concerned about helping the disadvantaged and minorities. Well, here is a whole region of people, stretching from southwest New York down the spine of the Appalachians into northern Mississippi and Alabama, people who have been disadvantaged. Yes. We are also a minority in some ways, a minority of people for whom the general prosperity of the Nation has not been fully enjoyed. I was here when Congress passed the legislation authorizing the Appalachian Development highway system in 1965. For the entire Appalachian region, 78 percent of the highways have been completed--78 percent. In West Virginia, only 74 percent of the Appalachian highways have been completed. West Virginia is the only State among the 13 States that is wholly within Appalachia. The people of Appalachia have been promised this a long time. It, too, is a part of the Nation. So, out of the roughly $26 billion in our amendment, yes, $2.5 billion is for Appalachia. Not just for West Virginia, but the 13 States of Appalachia. I am proud of Appalachia, proud to be a West Virginian. I asked for only a small portion, $2.5 billion, for the 13 Appalachian States, and all the rest of the money that I helped to bring to the table can be spread throughout the 50 States. Every State--every State--will see substantially increased dollars as a result of this amendment. Moreover, Senator Domenici's participation in these negotiations has given rise to an understanding that additional outlays will be found through the budget resolution to enable the Appropriations Committee to fund these additional authorizations. I thank Senator Domenici, who brought his considerable expertise on budgetary matters to the negotiating table. Here is a little bit more about Appalachia. I have already spoken about Appalachia, but I will read it. It won't take long. Regarding the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS), I have worked long and hard to secure contract authority authorizations for the program in the new highway bill. Let the States in Appalachia draw down contract authority from a reliable source of funds and complete their system, and in doing so, they, too, will lift all the books of the Nation. In January of 1997, over a year ago, I visited the President in the Oval Office and urged him to include contract authority authorizations for the Appalachian Highway System in his ISTEA II proposal. He expressed his support for my position and, subsequently, did include $2.19 billion in contract authority in his ISTEA II proposal. Under the agreement that has been reached, authorizations of contract authority for the Appalachian Highway System will result in a total of $2.19 billion in authorized contract authority over the six years, 1998-2003. This is the same amount as requested by the President, a compromise which I am willing to accept. Let me emphasize that these funds will not be earmarked in any way. They will be allocated to the states on the basis of the mileage yet to be completed and on the cost to complete that mileage. At markup the day before yesterday, the Environment and Public Works Committee utilized the new resources that were agreed to in the negotiations to satisfy the concerns of several other members from several other regions of the country. The amendment includes additional authorizations for the donor states, for parks and refuge roads, and for a new ``density'' program. As I say, each of us would like to have more in this bill. I don't watch TV very much. I am very selective about what I watch on that magnificent medium, but I do watch these presentations that come along from time to time that show us what is happening out in animal country. I see a group of animals chasing another animal. I see the powerful lion, a herd of lions, and they are stalking, stalking, stalking a poor gazelle, a zebra, or some other animal. Finally the lion--ah, the king of beasts! I remember the old fable in which a fox and a lion were having a discussion, and the fox said, ``Look, I have many whelps, and you have only one.'' The lion answered and said, ``Yes I have only one, but that is a lion.'' The lion closes in for the kill. The lion attacks the victim, and then all the other lions rush in and seize a share of the kill. They want in on the kill. That is like it is sometimes in politics. I hope that with the adoption of this amendment the Senate will move rapidly to debate the remaining amendments to the bill so we can ensure the earliest possible opportunity to send a comprehensive 6-year transportation bill to the President. I remind my colleagues that, including today, there are 33 sessions remaining through May 1. Come the stroke of that clock, 12 o'clock midnight on May 1, no State can obligate an additional dollar for highways. We have to move rapidly to adopt a highway program. We must remember that our colleagues in the other body have yet to act on a 6-year highway bill. With the breaking of this logjam, I hope our colleagues in the other body will move expeditiously to pass a robust multiyear highway bill that meets or exceeds the levels authorized here today so that the authorizing committees can get to conference and send a bill to the President prior to May 1. Before I yield the floor, I want to thank sincerely our minority leader, Senator Daschle, who carefully monitored our progress and supported our efforts. Again, I thank my principal cosponsors, Senators Gramm, Baucus and Warner. We did not allow ourselves to be divided in this effort, and the level of funding in this amendment reflects the success we enjoy by remaining united. Finally, let me thank Senators Domenici and Chafee, two fine committee chairmen, who are equally able today as allies as they were as adversaries at an earlier time. This is an important bill to you who are listening and watching via television and radio. This is for you and it is for your children--your children. An old man traveling a lone highway Came at evening, cold and gray To a chasm vast and wide and steep, With waters rolling cold and deep. The old man crossed in the twilight dim; The sullen stream held no fears for him. But he turned, when he reached the other side, And he built a bridge to span the tide. ``Old man,'' said a fellow pilgrim standing near, ``You are wasting your strength in building here. Your journey will end with the passing day, And you never again will travel this way. You have crossed the chasm deep and wide; Why build you a bridge at eventide?`` The builder lifted his old gray head. ``Good friend, in the path I have come,'' he said, ``There followeth after me today A youth whose feet must pass this way. This chasm, which was but naught to me, To that fair youth might a pitfall be. He, too, must cross in the twilight dim. Good friend, I am building this bridge for him.'' Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this amendment, and I wish to thank my colleague from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, for his efforts in this regard. These new rules, which modify the ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter, would severely impact West Virginia. Up to ten counties in my home state might be thrown into nonattainment under these rules, and a large number of industries might be adversely affected, including chemicals, construction, steel production, glass manufacturing, coal-fired utility power plants, pulp and paper mills, and commercial trucking. On a national level, the impact of these rules is even greater, with early estimates from the President's Council of Economic Advisors that these rules might cost $60 billion annually. Many major urban areas have not yet complied with the current ozone standard, and are not even close to being able to do so. These urban areas have not even completed their plans on how they will comply with the current standard. Basic logic would dictate that these states should first finish these plans, and enforce the current standard, before moving on to even more ambitious proposals. Instead, these states must constantly revise their air plans, even while never completing those plans. As I stated in an earlier letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), these states are trapped in the clean air version of the perpetual motion regulatory machine, where replanning becomes as important as actual implementation and enforcement. In the area of particulates, there is almost no national monitoring data, and there is weak scientific and technical support for the rule. The EPA and the environmental community refer to a small number of studies that support the rule, but there is room for serious debate about whether a clear connection between PM 2.5 and health-related problems has been established. The amendment before us is actually quite modest in its goals, and unfortunately does not address many of these broader problems with this air rule. The amendment codifies promises made by the Administration with regard to the time schedule to implement the new rules, and also codifies provisions for funding a nationwide network of monitoring stations for particulate matter. The Administration's proposed time schedule is not legally binding, and this amendment will ensure that the EPA cannot later alter the terms of the implementation package that it has offered to state governments. Despite these modest goals, this amendment holds the EPA's feet to the fire, and will ensure that promises made to the states will be honored. I am pleased to cosponsor the amendment offered by Senator Inhofe, and ensure that promises made to West Virginia are promises kept by the EPA.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank my friend. Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield or if I may have some time?

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, we have completed today what I consider to be one of the most remarkable group of meetings that I have participated in during my nearly 40 years in the Senate. Those meetings were called by the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Lott. What brought us to the meetings were these circumstances: A 6-year highway authorization bill had been reported to the floor. Numerous Senators came to me and said to me, ``Senator, we need more money.'' I am not on the Environment and Public Works Committee. I am not on the Budget Committee. So I suppose I am a player who, in a way, has just come in from the outside. But working with the distinguished Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, whose amendment in the Finance Committee last year effected the transfer of the 4.3-cent gas tax into the highway trust fund, he and I and Senator Baucus and Senator Warner joined together in an amendment which would have provided $30.9 billion in additional contract authority for highways and bridges. Am I correct? It was our desire to see this money that was building up in the highway trust fund spent on highways and bridges. Now, of the 4.3-cent gas tax that goes into the highway trust fund, 3.45 cents is intended to go for highways and bridges and 0.85 cents goes for mass transit. Senators Gramm, Baucus, Warner, and I worked hard last fall in an effort to get cosponsors of our amendment. As a final result, we got 50 other cosponsors which, added to the four of us, made a total of 54 cosponsors of the amendment. And we had a good many Senators who told each of us that they would vote for the amendment even though they would not cosponsor it, if and when it came to a vote. The majority leader then made the highway bill the pending business, and called certain Senators to meetings in his office, and we have had several such meetings. The participants have been the majority leader, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Warner, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Baucus, and myself. On at least one occasion, Mr. D'Amato was included. In any event, those were difficult meetings. In the final analysis, everybody sacrificed something. In the end, we agreed to increase the amount in the bill $26 billion for highways. I ask my colleagues, am I correct?

Mr. BYRD. Twenty-six. All right. I thank from the bottom of my heart my friend, that old crusty New Englander who wins our admiration and respect, Mr. Chafee. He and I have gone round and round about this, but in the final analysis, we have joined hands. So, the people of Appalachia, who constitute 22 million people in 399 counties of 13 States--those people who have been promised these corridors now for 32 years--can now see the light at the end of the tunnel, because what we have agreed to here will be the $300 million that is already in the reported highway bill, plus $1.89 billion, which will be added according to our agreement, thus making a total of $2.19 billion, which conforms to the President's request. For the entire cycle 1998-2003, then, there will be $2.19 billion for Appalachian highways. That is not going to be earmarked money. That money is going to those 13 States on the basis of the Appalachian highway mileage that remains to be constructed and considering the costs of completion. Throughout the region, of the total Appalachian development highway system, 78 percent of the system has been completed or is under construction. Beside and beyond the Appalachian portion, this agreement will benefit every State in the Union in terms of additional dollars for highways. I believe I am making a correct statement. The distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Chafee, is nodding his head in the affirmative. Let me close by thanking him again and by thanking the majority leader, by thanking Mr. Gramm of Texas, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Domenici. It has been a beautiful exercise in give and take and finally coming to a consensus and shaking hands and saying, ``We are going to stand by this agreement.'' I thank all Senators, and I thank the Chair. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. BYRD. He will receive an invitation.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have no objection, but I would like to be recognized at the conclusion of his remarks. I will seek recognition at such time.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. May I assure the distinguished Senator that this Senator is always patient, never in too big a hurry. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as I grow older I am obliged to bid farewell to some friend almost every day, and thus does the circle gradually and all too rapidly diminish. That great New England poet James Russell Lowell said it well: As life runs on, The road grows strange With faces new, And near the end The milestones into headstones change, `Neath everyone a friend Mr. President, it is with sadness that I take the Floor today to pay tribute to the memory of a departed former colleague, Abraham Alexander Ribicoff, with whom I served from January 3, 1963, to January 3, 1981. Senator Ribicoff was a man of many talents. And he was a man who had been honored by the people of his State and country many times and in many ways. After graduating from the University of Chicago Law School in 1933, he was admitted to the bar the same year. He became a hearing examiner, under the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act in 1937, and he became a member of the Connecticut legislature in 1938, a judge of the Hartford Police Court in 1941, Chairman of the Assembly of Municipal Court Judges for the State of Connecticut in 1941, and he was elected to the 81st and 82nd Congresses, a service which extended from January 3, 1949 to January 3, 1953. He was Governor of Connecticut during the years 1955-1961, and he was sworn in as Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in the cabinet of the late President John Kennedy. Abraham Ribicoff was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1962, reelected in 1968 and again in 1974, and served until January 3, 1981, not being a candidate for reelection in 1980. During this period of Senator Ribicoff's service in the Senate, I served in the Senate leadership as Secretary to the Democratic Conference, Democratic Whip, and Senate Majority Leader, during which time Abe Ribicoff was my close friend and valued advisor. Abraham Ribicoff was a man of high character, great character, sterling integrity, excellent judgment, with an unusual sense of history and with excellent political instincts, and with uncommon ability. His advice was widely sought by other Senators, and it was always kindly given. He was a popular Senator, and could easily have won reelection to a fourth Senate term. His career of public service spanned 42 years. Abe Ribicoff had a very rare sense of timing and political judgement. He was among the first to endorse Senator John F. Kennedy for President. He nominated John F. Kennedy for Vice President in 1956, and was his convention Floor Manager for the, now legendary, successful presidential nomination in 1960. Abe Ribicoff had the air and dignity of a Senator in a classic sense. He always dressed impeccably, he possessed faultless manners, and he was a gentleman in every sense of the word. Yet, he spoke forcefully, and he was unafraid of advocating politically difficult positions-- unafraid. He was among the first to break with the strong-armed tactics of certain Israeli lobby groups, and he willingly paid a political price for his courage. In 1978, he conducted the first major Senate investigation, and produced the first Senate report on the difficult problem of global warming. His report on the subject could well have been written today, some 20 years later, when global warming has now become fashionable as an issue. He was also an expert on international trade. I have spoken of his service during the time I was Majority Leader. He was then the Chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, as well as second ranking Democrat under Senator Russell Long on the Finance Committee. I relied heavily on Abe Ribicoff's advice on a broad range of issues, from the creation of the cabinet level Department of Education to the fashioning of major energy legislation during the energy crisis of the late 1970's. Abe Ribicoff was a persuasive speaker, and always gave as well as he got in Senate debates, during the days when the Senate really did debate issues. Yet, his strength was as much in his ability to sense the appropriate compromise, and he knew how to build consensus, and to craft sound solutions to highly contentious issues in Committee and on the Senate Floor. His passing, at a ripe old age, is another chapter, rounding out a history of remarkable men who have graced this chamber, and who have made their individual marks on the minds and memories and hearts of their colleagues and they have done it on the basis of their character, their instincts, and their talents. Senators would do well to read the story of Abraham Ribicoff's life. He came from humble beginnings and he made a success from his own resources, his own grit, and his own instincts. His life was one which can be used as a model by others on both sides of the aisle. He stood his ground when it really counted, and consequently he claimed the high road in his political life. I have missed Abe Ribicoff's counsel since his retirement, and I wish he had remained longer in this body. I wish he were here today. Abe Ribicoff waged many political battles in life. The battle with death he finally lost, as we must all finally succumb to the onslaught of that grim and unrelenting enemy: death. But though that grim reaper may lay claim to ending the battle of this life, the claim of victory has always and will always elude death, even though it stalks each of our lives from the cradle to the grave. How sweet the words of thy great Apostle Paul in his first epistle to the Corinthians: O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? Mr. President, man was not created an animal, as we are taught in our universities and our high schools. Man was not created an animal, but as a living soul within which there is embedded a spark of the Divinity, a nexus with the Creator. It is that spark that lives on, a soul that an animal does not have, a soul that goes back, when one departs this earthly life, to the presence of his Maker. And we all have that journey to travel. Great Grecian and Roman philosophers, by pure reason and logic, arrived at the conclusion that there is indeed a creating, directing, and controlling Divine power, and an immortality of the soul. Throughout the ages, all races and all peoples have instinctively so believed. It is the basis of all religions, be they heathen, Mohammedan, Hebrew, or Christian. It is believed by savage tribes and by semicivilized and civilized nations, by those who believe in many gods and by those who believe in the one God. Atheists are and always have been few in number. But beyond all credulity is the credulousness of atheists, who believe that chance can make the world, when it cannot build a house! So, Mr. President, as Longfellow said: There is no death! What seems so is transition; This life of mortal breath Is but a suburb of the life elysian, whose portal we call death. Mr. President, we have heard the story of an old king in the Middle Ages who had his barons at a great banquet. They were quaffing their bumpers of ale. It was a bitter night outside. The storm raged. The snow was falling furiously. Suddenly, into the rude chamber in which they were gathered there flew through some crack or crevice in the roof a little bird. Blinded by the light and perplexed, it flew wildly here and there and beat itself against the rude beams. Finally, it found another crevice and out it went into the night again. The old king, advanced in years, spoke to his barons and said: That bird is like a life; it comes from out of the night, it flits and flies around a little while, blinded by the light, and then it goes back out into the night again. So, Mr. President, my friend Abraham Ribicoff has gone to what Hamlet said was ``the undiscovered country from whose bourne no traveler returns,'' but I have no doubt that the Creator, who stoops to give to the rose bush whose withered blossoms float upon the autumn breeze the sweet assurance of another springtime, has received into His bosom a man who was my friend, who loved his country, and who loved his fellow man--rich and poor, high and low, who neither looked up to the rich nor down on the poor--Abraham Alexander Ribicoff. To his dear wife Casey, a graceful, charming, and noble woman, my wife, Erma, and I extend our sympathy and our love. Let fate do her worst, there are relics of joy, Bright dreams of the past that she cannot destroy, That come in the night-time of sorrow and care, And bring back the features that joy used to wear. Long, long be my heart with such memories filled, Like the vase in which roses have once been distilled, You may break, you may shatter the vase if you will, But the scent of the roses will hang round it still. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.