Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator for speaking on this subject. We have developed a strong moral sense of outrage against smoking. We have talked about the effects of smoking on health. The administration has picked it up, and there has been a great crusade in this country against smoking. There have been laws passed against smoking. And there have been bills passed against this or that aspect of smoking. Tobacco is a very unwelcome--we have a good many tobacco farmers in West Virginia. We have tobacco farmers in many States that make their living farming tobacco. I am not opposed to this crusade against smoking. I am not opposed to that at all. But why not have an equally strong crusade against drinking? When I am called upon to participate in any program before Christmas or before any holiday or before school graduations in which the thrust of the message is: ``Don't drink and drive,'' I do not say it that way. I say, ``Don't drink, period.'' When is the country going to develop a sense of moral indignation and outrage at drinking? Those who smoke may injure their own health. I hear a great deal about secondhand smoke. I do not know how much of that can be proved. But drinking alcohol injures the health of the person who drinks. All of us can say, ``Well, our granddaddies or great granddaddies drank a little toddy each morning, put a little whiskey in the coffee, and so on.'' But that is as far as it went. We have conducted a great war against drugs in this country, illegal drugs. The most popular drug in this country is alcohol. When are we going to say, ``Stop it''? When are we going to teach our young people not to drink? It is not good for them. It will get them into trouble. It has been the cause of unemployment for tens of thousands of men and women in this country. It causes men who drink to go home and beat up on their wives and to mistreat their children. Not only does it injure the health of those who drink, but it also constitutes a threat to others. The person who drinks may pick up a club and beat you to death. He may pull out a gun and shoot you. He may get behind that automobile wheel, because he is already inebriated. But if he had been taught, if it had been ingrained into him by his parents in the home to ``Stay away from that drug. Stay away from it. There is nothing good in it, nothing!'' If he had been taught to stay away from it, he would not be drunk when he gets behind the wheel of an automobile. When is a sense of moral outrage and indignation going to rise in this country to the point that people will teach their children not to touch it? ``Stay away from it. Don't drink.'' I would be very happy to see this administration, and other administrations in our party and other parties, join in a crusade against strong drink--against alcoholic beverages. But there is no sense of outrage, no sense of outrage about this drug. It is a drug. And it is habit forming. And there is no good in it. When one gets on that path, it has an unfortunate end. It costs money. It costs jobs. It breaks up families. It destroys homes. It destroys marriages. And it kills people. And many times, the people who are killed are the innocent people --the wives, the children--who are out there going to the grocery store or going home from school or going to the child-care center. And they are killed by a drunk driver. We talk about people who have been charged with drunk driving 13, 14, 15 times. That is outrageous! When are we going to have judges and people who enforce the law in this country throw the book at them? We should simply not tolerate this drug. I don't want to be an extremist about anything, and I'm not one who would see harm in an old person that takes a little ``toddy'' as we say, a little whiskey, but we don't look at it that way. We look at it with an attitude that there is nothing wrong with drinking alcohol, it is the thing to do, it is the ``in thing.'' How many students at the universities around this country have lost their lives, who have committed suicide or died in automobile accidents as a result of binge drinking? We have read about it in the papers--the University of Virginia and other universities. It is bad. When are we going to teach our children that it is bad? Don't follow the crowd. It is not the ``in thing'' to do. It is a drug that kills. It may kill you. It may kill someone else. You will have the blood of that person's life on your hands. Why don't the legislators of this country get up and talk about it? Talk about booze, booze that kills people. They don't want to talk about it. We would not hear anything about drunk driving if people would teach their children not to drink. There wouldn't then be any problem with drunk driving. It is not the ``in thing.'' It is a drug that kills, and it is America's most popular drug. So count me as one who feels that we ought to have a crusade against booze--not just a crusade against smoking, but also a crusade against booze. I hope my fellow legislators will rise and stand with me. It may not be a very popular thing to say but it is right. I'm right in saying that. I'm not right in everything I say, but alcohol is destructive. The sooner we teach our young people by our own example not to drink, the sooner we won't have as many drunk drivers. I smoke a cigar, and have been smoking cigars for more than 35 years, but I am supportive of the crusade against smoking. It is not good for one's health, but neither is alcohol. I will be happy to have others join me in cracking down on drinking and in really, really making it tough on drunk drivers. Why should they be allowed to continue to drive an automobile if they are going to drive while drunk? Why not take that driver's license away? Why not put them in jail, too? And if they insist on driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquors, put them in jail, fine them. Make it tough on them--the tougher the better. Just stop them from driving at all. If they kill other people, they might as well have had a pistol. I might as well carry a pistol around, just pull it out, shoot anywhere, just let the bullets fly in any direction and kill somebody--I ought to go to jail. Let the drunk drivers go to jail. Put them in jail and keep them there until they dry out. Let's try in our churches to create that moral indignation against drinking. I cannot compliment the distinguished Senator too highly for what he has said on the floor today. He has a story that all people ought to hear and I commend him for what he has said. Now, with respect to the bill, the bill is a good bill but it doesn't go far enough. Those who have joined with me in offering the Byrd- Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment are saying let's take that money the people pay as a tax when they buy gasoline, and spend it on highways and mass transit. We are not doing that. The American people, I think, are very supportive. I know they are. Our amendment would do just that. It would provide that the 4.3 cent per gallon gas tax go for highways and mass transit. I have no doubt the American people want it to be that way. That is the purpose of our amendment. So it is a good bill but we are trying to make it better. I hope we will have the support of all our colleagues. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. And the chances are that the drunk driving escape with only a few bruises.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank my friend from Virginia, Mr. Warner, who has been a participant in this matter from the beginning. I am sure he will agree that until he and Senator Gramm and Senator Baucus and I came up with this amendment, the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment, until we came up with that amendment, there wasn't any idea as to how we were going to get more money above the reported bill for the States. It is only because our amendment was prepared and 53 cosponsors are on it today, that any of the States have real prospects for getting more money for highways. Is that an accurate statement?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I see Mr. Warner has come on the floor. Would he like any time at this point? Our friend, Mr. Gramm, and I have been discussing this highway bill. I think the Senator who has just walked on the floor would be pleased with what we said.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will yield back that time. Before I do, I thank all Senators for listening. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I just close by thanking the people out in the country who have shown great interest in this amendment, who have discussed it, Senators in their home States with the people, and people who are in the construction business, people who are in the highway construction business, people who are in the cement-asphalt business, other related industries that see the imperativeness of having this highway bill called up, acted on, in time, that it can be acted on in the House, in time, that both Houses can go to conference, in time, that we hopefully can get a signature on the bill by May 1. I thank those groups, as well. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator. Until we brought out our amendment there was no other game in town, no game in town, for increasing highway spending in the States over what was in the reported bill. I had various Senators come to me and say, ``We need more money.'' I'm not the chairman of any committee at this point, but I said why not spend this money that the American people are putting into the highway trust fund? So I came forward with the amendment to do that, together with Senators Gramm, Baucus, and Warner. Each time citizens go to the gas tank, as gasoline comes out of that nozzle and goes into the tank, the American people see a little cylinder that turns round and round. They should also, in their mind's eye, not only see the gasoline coming out of that nozzle into their tank, they should also see the money which they are paying as an additional tax on gasoline go into that trust fund. As they watch that cylinder, let them think in those terms--there is money going into that trust fund, and they have been told, there are some who don't like to admit this, but they have been told that this money will be spent on highways. Now, that can be discussed because there was a period when they were not told about a particular portion of that money, the 4.3 cents, there was a brief period when that was not going into the trust fund for highways. Because of the action by the distinguished Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, and the Finance Committee, that money, the 4.3 cent tax, is not going into the highway trust fund but it is just sitting there. We are saying in our amendment, let's spend it, because the American people think that is what they are getting when they go to the gas tank. Don't let anybody tell you they don't think that. I was in this Congress in 1956--I was in Congress before that--but in 1956 we created a highway trust fund. That was during the Eisenhower administration. It was during his administration that his great and good idea concerning an interstate highway system came into being. In order to fund that highway system, Congress created a trust fund. The people were told that the moneys that they were putting into that trust fund in 1956 would go for highways, and they have been under that impression for 42 years, except for a couple of years, perhaps, beginning in 1993 or some such. Mr. President, the people ought to have faith in their Government and that is what this amendment is all about, a faith-in-Government amendment. Build highways. And the Department of Transportation tells us that only 39 percent of the highway systems throughout this great country stretching from the Atlantic to the western waters and from the border of Canada to the Gulf of Mexico can be considered in good condition. The highways are rapidly deteriorating. So are the bridges. We have over 580,000 bridges and 180,000 of them are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. The American people want to see their highways and their bridges built back up. We talk a lot about child care. We see people spending their time in the long lines because of congestion. They ought to be home taking care of the children who have just come in from school. They have to have good highways in order to do that. It took me an hour and 15 minutes to get from my house, 10 miles away, to my office yesterday morning. What are we talking about? What are we kidding the people about? That is our purpose. Now, I hope, as do my colleagues, that we can reach an agreement among the principals. I am encouraged by this morning's meeting, very much encouraged, by the attitudes and presentations of all who were there. I want to express my compliments and my thanks, again, to the majority leader and to the chairmen of the committees who were there, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Chafee, and to the ranking members who were there. Everyone participated. Mr. President, I hope we will be able to continue these discussions. The majority leader is going to ask us to come back tomorrow, and in the meantime we will be talking. But there is no deal, and I hope people will debunk some of such wishful thinking from their minds. We have yet to see where we are going to go and how we are going to get there. We are making progress but we are not there yet. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BYRD. Absolutely.

Mr. BYRD. Exactly.

Mr. BYRD. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. So as far as our amendment is concerned, all States benefit--not just West Virginia, not just Texas, not just Montana, not just Virginia--but that will be discussed at another point. I just want to stress that again.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Texas. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BYRD. I had 20 minutes originally out of the order that was previously entered.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I prefer that the Senator would go ahead first, if he will.

Mr. BYRD. I yield 5 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak out of order. I yield--how much time does the Senator wish?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may control 20 minutes in that debate and have 10 minutes now for other purposes.

Mr. BYRD. In that debate?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. I believe that under the order that was entered into with respect to the line-item veto debate, I had 5 minutes, did I not?

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I will be happy to.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be recognized for the 20 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Do I have any time under a previous order?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the pending situation in the Senate?

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