Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. While the distinguished Senator from Virginia is on the floor, I disagree with the Senator in suggesting that we all ought to enter into some kind of an agreement with the White House as to what the criteria ought to be in applying the line-item veto. I think if we do that, we are further legitimizing what is an illegitimate end run around the Constitution. I'm not for entering into such agreements concerning criteria. While I have the floor, I am not supporting this measure because it has an item in it that was wrongfully vetoed by the President and because that item is now included in this resolution. I'm supporting it because I think the administration was arbitrary and capricious in exercising the line-item veto in the way it used it. That is why I have said that Senators can vote for this resolution even though they support the line-item veto. A vote for this resolution doesn't mean they support the line-item veto, nor does it mean they are against the line-item veto. It says that Senators believe that the administration, in applying the line-item veto, acted capriciously, acted arbitrarily, acted without justification, acted without a credible basis. That is what Senators are voting on. That is why I hope they will all vote for the resolution. May I say to the distinguished Senator from Virginia, don't count me in when it comes to helping the administration to establish criteria by which it will apply this infernal, nefarious line-item veto.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair, and I thank all Senators who have spoken on this important matter. I thank those who take the position contrary to the position I have taken. I appreciate the opportunity to close the debate on this matter along with my dear friend, the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens]. Mr. President, Cato, the Elder, lived between the years 234 B.C. and 149 B.C. He was a great Roman statesman, and he once went to Carthage and viewed the operations of the Carthaginians and saw the progress they were making in building a prosperous regime and one that had considerable warmaking power. Cato brought back to the Roman Senate some figs that had grown in Carthage just to demonstrate the fact that Carthage was ``not very far away, gentlemen. This is a country you had better keep your eye on. You had better watch these people. They are growing stronger every day and they don't live very far away, as evidenced by these fresh figs from Carthage.'' And, indeed, that great statesman, Cato, the Elder, henceforth closed every speech, every communication, every letter, with the words, ``Carthage must be destroyed!'' I shall close this speech now and perhaps some future ones with the words, ``The line-item veto must be repealed!'' I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Two minutes to each side.

Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. We are talking about two different powers. We are talking about the powers that the 47 Governors have, dealing with the so-called line-item veto. Those are powers under their State constitutions. But the Senator from Virginia is no longer a Governor; he is a Senator. The Senator from Florida is not a Governor any longer, and he is not to be governed in his actions here by the constitution of the State of Florida; he is to be governed here by the oath he took to support and defend the U.S. Constitution--not the constitution of the State of West Virginia, not the constitution of the State of Virginia, but the United States Constitution. That is the Constitution by which we are governed here. The line of demarcation, the line of separation of powers, the line of checks and balances is more strictly delineated at the Federal level. It is more strictly drawn, more finely drawn at the Federal level than it is at the State level.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent I may speak out of order.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, some days ago, the two distinguished Senators, Mr. Chafee and Mr. Domenici, offered an amendment which they proposed to call up at some point during the debate on the highway bill. There has been no floor discussion of that amendment. I have seen and read various things that are being written about the amendment and in criticism of the amendment which Senators Gramm, Baucus, Warner and I have offered for printing. My colleagues and I had offered an amendment several days ago and indicated we were offering it for printing, and that we intended to call it up at such time as the amendment tree was dismantled, and we would have an opportunity to call up the amendment. There have been some discussions of our amendment, but I think it is appropriate to talk about the amendment now that has been offered, I assume, as an alternative to our amendment. I don't know what the prognosis of this bill is--whether it will be taken down and no action taken on extending the highway bill, or whether there will be a 6-month extension, or whether there will be a 6-year bill. I should think that the chances for the latter are diminishing with every passing minute. In any event, it seems to me that there ought to be some discussion about the Chafee-Domenici amendment. I have spoken to Mr. Chafee a number of times about the amendment and have indicated to him that I thought we ought to have some discussion of it so that certain questions might be clarified. I personally have a few things to say about the amendment. I think the public is entitled to some enlightenment as to what it does and what it does not do. So that is the reason why I have chosen to take the floor at this time. The sponsors of this amendment, my friends Senators Domenici and Chafee, have brought forward an amendment that claims to be an alternative to the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment. I think when all Members thoroughly review the Domenici-Chafee amendment they will find that it is not an alternative at all. Rather, it is an effort designed to obfuscate and confuse Senators into thinking that they, the authors of the amendment, have accomplished the same ends as the Byrd-Gramm amendment. Senators ought not be confused. I can understand how they are being confused, however. There have been no discussions of the Chafee- Domenici amendment on the floor. There has been discussion of it in memos that have been passed around, letters, articles in various publications, one of which was Congress Daily on yesterday, which was not accurate in many ways. Inasmuch as there has been considerable discussion of the Byrd-Gramm amendment, I think there ought to be an explanation of the Chafee-Domenici amendment and it ought to be out here on the floor in open view where everybody can see what is being said and hear what is being said and make up their own minds. I feel very much like I am being shot at by someone behind a barricade. They don't come out in the open in public view and take their shots at the Byrd-Gramm amendment there, but I am being shot at. All kinds of things are being said about this amendment that I have offered, many of which things are absolutely not true. Also, many things are being claimed on behalf of the Chafee-Domenici amendment that are likewise inaccurate. So I think that there ought to be more discussion regarding the Chafee-Domenici amendment. Let's talk about it. The differences between these amendments--the Chafee amendment on the one hand; and my amendment on the other--are as simple as they are stark. The Byrd-Gramm amendment authorizes an additional $31 billion in contract authority for investment in our Nation's highways over the 6 years covered in the underlying ISTEA bill. The Domenici-Chafee amendment authorizes not even one, not even one additional dollar in contract authority for this 6-year period. The Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment authorizes the spending of a 4.3-cent gas tax that is now going into the highway trust fund on our transportation needs over the next 6 years. The Domenici-Chafee amendment does not authorize any of this gas tax revenue to be spent on our highway, bridge and safety needs. That is a big difference. Our amendment authorizes the spending of the 4.3-cent gas tax that is now going into the highway trust fund. We say it ought to be spent. The American people are being told that that is what it's for. They are not being told that if it goes into the general fund, it will be spent on the various and sundry other programs, such as Indian roads, research, Head Start, education, parks, or just put into the General Treasury. They are not being told that. They think it is going into the highway trust fund to be spent on transportation needs--highways, mass transit, bridges. I think we owe them, in all honesty, an explanation. We ought to try to see to it that that money is spent for highways, mass transit, bridges, and so on. We are not saying in our amendment that it ``shall'' be spent. But we are authorizing contract authority, and then come next spring when the Appropriations Committees meet and we have debate on the budget resolution, we will get into discussions as to whether or not there will actually be obligation authority to spend that money and, if so, how much, and so on. We are saying if savings are there, from which the $31 billion will come, and if we are going to spend those savings, then, transportation needs are top priority. But the Domenici-Chafee amendment does not authorize any of this gas- tax revenue to be spent on our highway, bridge, and safety needs. Members should not be surprised by this. My friend, the Senator from Rhode Island, had stated in earlier debate on this bill that he does not believe that the 4.3-cents gas tax should be spent on our transportation needs. That is his view, and I respect him for that. He isn't running for a rock to hide under. He is just announcing from the steeple tops that he doesn't believe that the gas tax ought to be spent on transportation needs. He thinks it ought to go toward reducing the deficit. He is very plain and open about that, and you have to admire him for that. That is his view, and I respect that. However, that is not my view. It was not the view of the 83 Senators who voted in favor of an amendment on this floor on May 22 of this year that called for the 4.3 cents to be transferred to the highway trust fund and spent on our transportation needs. The Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment keeps faith with our vote on May 22. It keeps faith with the millions of American citizens who fill their gas tanks and pay their gas taxes, with the expectation that these funds will be spent on the construction and rehabilitation of our highways and mass transit and bridges. The Domenici-Chafee amendment tells those millions of Americans and those 83 Senators that they must wait for another day, wait until next spring, wait until we have the next budget resolution before the Senate, and, perhaps, maybe--we don't know--we might consider authorizing the spending of your gas taxes on the Nation's highways and bridge needs, and then again, we might not. We don't make you any promises. But, by all means, don't do anything on this bill; don't take action on this bill, the highway authorization bill. Wait. The Domenici-Chafee amendment says that notwithstanding the fact that we are currently debating a 6-year highway authorization bill, now is not the time to decide the authorization level for highway spending for the next 6 years. Don't do it now--not now, not here. Wait. You Members here who are waiting with open mouths and open arms to see legislation pass that will assure your State and your State's transportation department of so much contract authority so that they can at least begin to think about it and plan about it, all of you just wait, don't do anything now. This is that old 6-year highway bill that comes out of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Wait. Don't do it on that bill. Wait. Wait until some day in the future--maybe never. I have said as clearly as I can what the Domenici-Chafee amendment does not do. Allow me to take a moment to explain what the Domenici amendment does do. The Domenici-Chafee amendment seeks to establish a complex and convoluted process that basically enables the Senate to hide under a rock when it comes to the issue of highway taxes and our highway needs. The Domenici amendment proposes a new, Rube Goldberg, fast-track process for each of the next 5 years that would allow the Congress to increase highway and/or mass transit authorizations in some yet-to-be-determined amount each year, if the budget resolution for any such year allows it. You can just forget about this highway bill. Just wait, wait until another time, and if the budget resolution allows it, then we might increase highway and/or mass transit authorization. That will be determined next year--maybe, but not now. Not surprisingly, the amendment would also allow the Congress to ignore all those new procedures and do absolutely nothing. Members know that I am not in favor of fast-track procedures. I don't favor fast track on trade, and I am not going to vote for fast track. I don't favor fast-track procedures. We have too many of them now. In my view, they trample on the rights of all Senators and they cut off meaningful debate. When it comes to the Domenici-Chafee amendment, I think all Members should cast a careful eye on this so-called fast-track procedure, because this fast-track amendment may very well be the slow track to additional highway spending. So they say, take a look at our amendment, and if you are going to increase contract authority for your State and your State and your State and your State, we will know that at some point next spring--not now. This is the highway bill. That is the way we have been accustomed to doing it. But forget it, that is that old 6-year highway bill. Don't fool with it or pay any attention to that. I am quite surprised that Senator Chafee, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, would go along with that idea. His committee has been the key committee when it comes to jurisdiction in authorizing contract authority. But now he has joined in an amendment that says: Not now, maybe next year sometime--maybe. There is no guarantee. Maybe next year and, if next year, we are going to have a fast-track procedure. When I was a boy, I read a book called ``Slow Train Through Arkansas.'' Well, that was in the old days when they believed in voodooism and snake oil and patent medicines that were sold by traveling con salesmen, and so on. So, next year, under the Chafee- Domenici amendment, we will have a fast track--not the ``Slow Train Through Arkansas,'' but a fast track. If Senators vote for the Domenici-Chafee amendment, you are not voting for a single dollar in your State for contract authority over the next 6 years--not a single dollar. The Chafee-Domenici amendment is saying: Wait until next year, we will take a look at it then. And then in the budget resolution, when that comes along, we will take a look at it then. Mind you, we are not saying in the Chafee-Domenici amendment that we are going to spend any of that gas-tax money on highways. We are going to let that stay in the Highway Trust Fund. Let that money accumulate, and next spring, other governmental needs can compete with highways in the use of that money in the trust fund. Mr. Chafee and Mr. Domenici are not assuring you Senators that that money in the highway trust fund is going to be spent on highways. They are saying we are not even sure we can do that at all. We are not assuring you that you are going to get any extra money. We are going to wait until next year, they say. When the budget resolution is up here next spring, then we will talk about it, they say. Then we will decide what we do with that money. We may spend it on highways; we may not. We may spend it on Indian roads; we may not. We may spend it on parks and recreation. We may spend it on the national forests. We may spend it on Head Start. We may spend it on welfare. There are a lot of things we may spend it for, they say. But we don't make that decision here. Mr. Chafee and Mr. Domenici say that we will make that decision when we have the budget resolution. So if you are on the Budget Committee, you are going to have control of that. The Domenici-Chafee amendment says that on this 6-year highway authorization bill we should do nothing, nothing, nothing toward authorizing additional highway funding. We should put that decision off until another day. That other day may never come. That other day need never come. If Members want to know how the authorized spending levels contained in the Domenici-Chafee amendment differ from the levels in the Byrd- Gramm amendment, they need look no further than the first section of the Domenici-Chafee amendment. I say the same to Commerce Daily. When Commerce Daily gets ready to write again, I suggest they look at the Chafee-Domenici amendment. Look at it. Don't take somebody else's word for it. Don't take some aide's word for it. I am not speaking disparagingly of aides. We have to have them, and I have some excellent aides on my staff, and so have other Senators. But go look at the amendment yourself. Look at the Chafee-Domenici amendment. Read it. They will find it stated very clearly there. That amendment reads, and I quote from section 3001(A)(2) of the Chafee-Domenici amendment: (A) For fiscal year 1999, $0. (B) For fiscal year 2000, $0. (C) For fiscal year 2001 [guess what?], $0. (D) For fiscal year 2002 [guess again, and I'll give you three guesses], $0. In fiscal year 2003, try again. What is your guess? How much do you guess? Zero dollars. That is a joke. Members, if you want to vote for the Chafee-Domenici amendment, do you know what you are voting for? Zero dollars--next year, the next year, the next year, and the next year. Look at it. Don't take my word for it. Read it. Get that amendment and look at it. Members will find that same paragraph repeated throughout the amendment when it refers to each of the highway and mass transit components of the amendment. Here on the chart to my left is the difference between the two amendments. Here is the difference between the Domenici-Chafee ISTEA II amendment and the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner ISTEA II amendment. Let me read it. It is in fine print. Maybe we ought to read the fine print, or just plain read the print instead of taking somebody's word for it. Go get the amendment. Read it for yourself. Don't read the propaganda that comes to you in a memo or a letter. But get the amendment, and read it yourself. Don't take everything the preacher says for being true. Read the Bible yourself. Go to the basic text. All right. Here it is. ``Comparison of authorization of levels for highway and bridge construction Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA II).'' I am going to ask my assistant to point out what I am reading so that the viewers can look through that electronic eye up there and follow me and see if I am reading it correctly. I do not want to mislead you. ``Fiscal year 1992-1993 total.'' For those 5 years, what is the total under the Domenici-Chafee ISTEA II amendment? What is the total additional contract authority for highways during those 5 years? Let's see. Under the Domenici-Chafee ISTEA II amendment, the total for those 5 years that you will be voting for, if you vote for the Chafee-Domenici amendment, you are going to be voting for zero dollars. There it is right there, a big cipher! All right. What about the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner ISTEA II amendment? What additional contract authority are you voting for? $30,971,000,000 over a period of 5 years. That is the difference. The difference between $30.971 billion, and zero--zero. That is the difference between the two amendments. Members will find that paragraph, as I say, repeated throughout the amendment when it refers to each of the highway and mass transit components of the amendment. Now, later in the amendment, we read that all those zeros--zero for 1999, zero for 2000, zero for 2001, zero for 2002, and zero for 2003; all those zeros we find, if we read the Chafee-Domenici amendment--we read that all those zeros may be further amended someday in the future under a ``fast track'' procedure, or they may not. And the funding levels that may substituted for the zeros throughout the amendment can be found later in the amendment under the heading ``additional highway funding.'' So if Senators look later in the amendment, you will find the funding levels that may be substituted for these zeros for the 5 years--``may be substituted'' for the zeros. You will find those funding levels that may--may--at some time in the future be substituted for the zeros. You get the zeros now. But maybe sometime in the future there will be funding levels substituted. What are the numbers that may be substituted? Well, you will find them in the Chafee-Domenici amendment under the heading ``additional highway funding''. That part of the amendment--let's take a look at it--reads as follows: Section 3001(a)(2) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1997 is amended-- (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``$0'' and inserting -- How much? ``blank''; So maybe sometime in the future we will substitute for this old big zero--hold your breath. We are going to substitute for that zero--get ready now. I am going to pull a rabbit out of the hat. We are going to substitute for that zero--``blank.'' Let me see it. Could I be telling the truth here? That is what it says here on page 7. Is that the Chafee-Domenici highway amendment? Yes. On page 7: Section (1). Additional highway funding. In subparagraph (A), by striking ``$0'' and inserting . . .'' Well, there is a dollar sign--dollar sign, and a long line -- ``blank.'' Paragraph (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``$0'' and inserting ``blank''; And so on for all the paragraphs, A, B, C, and D. So the amendment strikes ``zero'' and inserts ``blank'' in each paragraph. You strike the zero. We had five zeros up there earlier, but maybe sometime in the future, if Senators vote for this amendment, we will substitute at some time in the future for that zero, we would substitute a dollar sign. This says ``zero'' dollars. We will leave the dollar sign, take out the zero, and just draw a straight line, and substitute ``blank.'' Well, that sums it all up, Mr. President. The Domenici Chafee amendment is shooting blanks. We shoot real bullets in ours--Mr. Gramm, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Warner, and I--no blanks. That sums it up. The Domenici-Chafee amendment is shooting blanks. That is about all that these publications, commenting on the Chafee- Domenici amendment, will find in the amendment. Have they taken a look at the Chafee-Domenici amendment? Go see it for yourself. Read it. It is a public matter. There is no real new contract authority in the Chafee-Domenici amendment. It is an amendment about process. And, if any of you Senators want to know how much of the additional 4.3-cents gas tax this Chafee-Domenici process may spend on highways, the answer is we don't know. We can't tell you. Maybe some of it will be spent. Maybe none of it. Maybe a little of it. Maybe a lot. Maybe a lot one year, and none the next year. Under the Chafee-Domenici proposal, who will decide whether any additional funding is authorized over the next 6 years? Certainly not the Environment and Public Works Committee. No, no, no. That committee might as well disband as far as this subject matter is concerned. Who will decide? It will be the Budget Committee. The Domenici amendment says that, depending on what the ``budgeteers'' decide in the budget resolution every year between now and 2003, we may be able to get considered in the Senate a new fast-track highway and transit funding joint resolution. So it will be the Budget Committee, not the authorizing committee, not that old Environment and Public Works Committee, and not the Appropriations Committee. Take your choice. It won't be either of them. Am I right? It is going to be the Budget Committee. We will not need the authorizing committee. We will just let the budget committee decide it all. They will decide whether it is going to be zero dollars or whether it is going to be ``blank'' dollars. And then, whatever it is going to be, that committee will decide whether we are going to have a fast track, a slow track, or no track. And each year that budget resolution may or may not spit out a new kind of joint resolution, a highway and transit funding joint resolution. If the budget committee decides that there should be such a joint resolution, then it would be treated under a very tight fast-track procedure. It would be unamendable, except for amendments to either raise or lower the dollar amounts. Then, after no more than 10 hours of consideration, the Senate would proceed without intervening action or debate to vote on the final disposition of highway and transit funding joint resolutions to the exclusion of all motions except a motion to reconsider or to table. Finally, a motion to recommit would not be in order, and all points of order against these funding joint resolutions would be waived. That is the fast-track procedure that Senators will find outlined in the Chafee-Domenici amendment to the highway bill. There are no procedures expedited or otherwise for our colleagues in the other body to take up such a joint resolution. We are just going to bind and gag the Senate, you understand; that is all. Senators will be limited to 10 hours. And Senators can only offer certain amendments to raise or lower the dollar level. But if Senators are not satisfied with the formula, forget it. You can't offer an amendment to our fast-track bill dealing with formulas. If any of you are unhappy about formulas, you can't offer an amendment on that bill. That is a fast-track bill. And, besides, there is nothing outlined in this so-called ``fast- track'' procedure that guarantees Senators of anything once the bill is passed by the Senate and sent to conference, or sent to the other body. If Senators turn to the very end of the Domenici-Chafee amendment, they will see subparagraph 3. That subparagraph reads as follows and I quote: In the House of Representatives.--``Blank.'' There it is again. More blanks. There are no procedures for this so-called ``Highway and Transit Funding Joint Resolution'' to be considered in the other body. So, if such a joint resolution gets out of the Senate, it might just sit in the other body until the end of the Congress or until the crack of doom, whichever comes first. Or the House might amend the resolution and insert new substantive legislation--perhaps a complete new highway formula. Even though Senators would be strictly limited in the amendments they can offer to this resolution, there is no limit to what changes and amendments might be entertained in the other body. Of course, we don't have jurisdiction over their procedures. But why should we bind and gag and virtually blindfold Members of this Senate when it comes to fast-track procedure? We could be required to have a formula fight with the House over highway funding each and every year for the next 6 years if we wanted to authorize additional spending for the highway bill. Well, I hope that all of my colleagues are carefully following this process. This is the process that they are being asked to vote for under the Chafee-Domenici amendment. The Byrd-Gramm amendment doesn't bind you to any fast track. The Byrd-Gramm amendment simply says let's authorize the new gas-tax revenues in the trust fund to be spent over the next 6 years on our highways and other transportation needs. That is it, pure and simple. We believe that. Most Senators believe that. They have said so. They voted so. The Domenici-Chafee amendment calls for a 17-step process with 11 contingencies which, in the end, might not authorize one, not even one, might not authorize one--this is a $1 bill with George Washington's picture on it--might not authorize even one additional trust fund dollar for our highways. Now, that is the Chafee-Domenici amendment. Why don't you come out here and talk about your amendment? Read it. Read it to the other Senators. It is a process that is designed to continue to allow us to hide under that rock--hide under that rock--while our highway needs go wanting, while our bridges deteriorate, and while our traffic jams worsen. It is a process that will only heighten cynicism of our constituents and continue to undermine the trust of the American people in the highway trust fund. My colleagues, I am not fooled by this amendment, and you should not be fooled either. Get it and read it. This amendment is not about spending our trust fund dollars on highways. It is not about restoring the trust of the American people in our highway trust fund. This amendment is about ignoring the usual authorization-appropriations process and substituting a burdensome, multistep process designed to confuse the American people and enable the Congress to do absolutely nothing when it comes to authorizing additional highway spending. I am sure that Senators Domenici and Chafee had nothing but the best of intentions in offering this amendment. Unfortunately, their proposal is an unnecessary and unwarranted intrusion on the existing authorization and appropriations processes and provides no assurance whatsoever--none--that any additional highway or transit spending will be authorized. It is in violation of the Budget Act--a 60-vote point of order will lie against the Chafee-Domenici amendment. The Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment, on the other hand, is in keeping with the existing budget, authorization, and appropriations processes. Although our amendment is also subject to a 60-vote point of order, it is due to the increased authorizations contained in our amendment. The question of the level of highway obligation limits and whether the discretionary spending caps will be raised are left to the appropriations and budget processes. Our amendment does not resort to any new, highfalutin, confusing, fast-track resolution process which I fear will allow Senators the opportunity to hide under that rock and ignore both our highway needs and the skyrocketing balances in the highway trust fund. Now, I say what I have said with the greatest respect for the authors of the amendment. I have sought to get an explanation of the amendment. I want an explanation that is a public explanation. I do not want an explanation by somebody who has not even read the amendment. I do not want an explanation by a publication that does not bother to read what the amendment says. I do not want that kind of an explanation. I want an explanation of the amendment here on this floor. I do not want to be shot at from behind a barricade; I cannot see who is shooting at me. Besides, that person may be wearing black glasses. From time to time, when I am out on the hustings, it happens in every crowd. I'll bet the Presiding Officer has had this same thing. Somebody will walk up to me with dark glasses, black glasses: ``Bet you don't know who I am, Senator. Bet you don't know, Senator. Bet you don't remember me.'' Well, of course, I don't. I can't see you. I can't see your eyes. I urge that we have a public explanation of the Chafee-Domenici amendment in this forum. Explain these zeros. Explain these blanks. And tell other Senators how your amendment compares with the Byrd-Gramm- Baucus-Warner amendment. Explain it. How is your State going to get more money under your amendment? How is your State going to get any money out of the Chafee-Domenici amendment? Explain it out here in public view. So while I have great respect for these two fine Senators--and they are. They are fine Senators--I nevertheless urge all Senators to join me in voting, if we ever come to a vote, to sustain the point of order against the Domenici-Chafee amendment. Sustain the point of order. And I hope that the point of order on my own amendment will be waived. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table proposed by the Federal Highway Administration, which compares the authorization levels contained in the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment with the levels contained in the Domenici-Chafee amendment, be printed in the Record.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President I thank the Chair. Mr. President, has the time under the Pastore amendment run its course?

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate and what is the pending question?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I was saddened to learn that Don C. Womack, who served as superintendent of the U.S. Senate Press Gallery from 1973 to 1981, died of cancer Thursday morning at his home in Arlington at the age of 87. Don was born in Danville, Virginia August 22, 1910. He moved to the Washington Area in 1935, and attended the Corcoran School of Art and George Washington University. He managed a string of movie theaters in Northern Virginia before taking a job as staff assistant in the House of Representatives Periodical Press Gallery in 1948, beginning a 33- year career as a press liaison on Capitol Hill. Don began working in the Senate Press Gallery in 1951. He briefly left to serve as superintendent of the House Periodical Gallery in 1954 and 1955, then returned to the Senate to be deputy superintendent, and continued in that capacity until his promotion in 1973. Don became superintendent of the Senate gallery during a tumultuous time--the beginning of the Watergate hearings. He weathered the storm, and received a commendation from the Standing Committee of Correspondents, the governing body of the Congressional press galleries, for his handling of the hearings. During his tenure as superintendent, Don presided over press coverage of the Senate during such major events as the end of the Vietnam War, the Panama Canal Treaties debates, and the ABSCAM hearings. He assisted with media arrangements for the Republican and Democratic Conventions and the Presidential Inaugurals from 1948 to 1988. He was a tremendous help to Senators, staff members and the members of the press. A Southern gentleman with a quick wit and warm sense of humor, Don was one of the true characters to roam the halls of Congress. He was beloved by reporters and Senators alike for his storytelling, his affable nature, and his seemingly endless repertoire of jokes. He will be greatly missed. My deepest sympathy goes out to his wife, Mary Womack; his two daughters, Kay Duda of Alexandria and Patricia Fair of Eatontown, New Jersey; his five grandchildren; eleven great grandchildren, and his great-great grandson.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. The ISTEA bill. Mr. President, I have a feeling that the leader is probably not prepared to go back on that bill at the moment, so I will ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for such time as I may consume out of order.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Gorton today in bringing the conference report on the fiscal year 1998 Interior appropriations bill before the Senate. The Senate completed its action on this bill in September. The formal conference was completed on September 30, and discussion and negotiation regarding a limited number of outstanding items was finally completed just a few days ago. The conference report was filed on October 22, and was approved by the House last Friday by a vote of 233-171. Inasmuch as we are now several weeks into the fiscal year, I hope that the Senate will be able to complete its consideration of this appropriations measure expeditiously, so that the bill can be presented to the President and the agencies can begin implementation of the programs funded for fiscal year 1998 once this bill is enacted. The agreements before the Senate today total $13.8 billion in budget authority, and $13.7 billion in outlays, as scored by the Congressional Budget Office. This conference agreement substantially fulfills the commitments for Interior bill programs included in the bipartisan budget agreement of which I had no part and which personally I don't recognize, and incorporated into the budget resolution earlier this year. Mr. President, as with nearly every conference, reaching agreement on this conference report required difficult choices and a search for balance between competing priorities of the House, the Senate, and the administration. This bill provides important resources to address important needs for our public lands and natural resources, as well as for Indian programs, energy research and development, and our core cultural programs. The major legislative provisions of concern have been modified to address some of the concerns of the administration. Mr. President, Senator Gorton has done an excellent job of summarizing the many factors at work in reaching the agreements contained in the conference report now before the Senate. The negotiations over the special $700 million land acquisition account were protracted, with each side giving some in order to reach a final agreement. We do not yet know whether the President will approve or veto this legislation. As Senator Gorton has suggested, many changes were made to this bill to reflect the concerns of the administration, while protecting Congress' role--while protecting Congress' role in determining the expenditure of funds and proper oversight responsibilities. Just as no Member of Congress got everything he or she might have wanted from this appropriations measure, neither did the administration. But the overall product is a good one, and I hope it will be enacted. I do not believe that closure on further issues of concern will be easier if the bill is vetoed. Among the highlights of this conference report are these: Funding for the National Park Service remains a priority. The recommendation includes an operational increase of $79 million over the fiscal year 1997 level. Other significant park increases are provided for construction and land acquisition. A significant initiative to focus attention on the operational requirements and habitat restoration and maintenance backlogs of our national wildlife refuges is supported, with increased funding of $40.8 million above fiscal year 1997. As to our Nation's energy research and development programs, the investment in those programs is continued. Fossil energy research and development is funded at $362.4 million, which is $2.3 million below the fiscal year 1997 enacted level. Increases above the budget request are provided to sustain technology development programs intended to produce environmental benefits while improving energy efficiency. On another matter, the conference agreement fully funds the President's request for tribal priority allocations at $757.4 million, an increase of $76.5 million over fiscal year 1997 levels. As to the National Endowment for the Arts, the conference agreement includes $98 million to continue the National Endowment for the Arts. A package of reforms is included in the bill to address concerns over the use of Federal funds in support of the arts. These reforms include an increase on the amount of funds allocated directly to the States; a cap on the amount of funds that can be awarded to each State from the competitive grants pool; changes in the structure and composition of the National Council on the Arts; prohibitions regarding grants to individuals; and an emphasis on arts education. With reference to land acquisition, this bill provides a special land acquisition account as recommended in the budget resolution. The account is funded at a level of $699 million, which includes $315 million for the Headwaters Forest, CA, and New World Mine, MT; $22 million in special payments for affected local areas in California and Montana; and the balance is available for priority land acquisitions, exchanges, and maintenance to be identified by the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service, and for which the committees on appropriations will have final approval. The conference agreement includes legislative language establishing initial parameters for the completion of the two large exchanges. Mr. President, it is my privilege and great pleasure to serve as the ranking member at the side of our very able chairman, the senior Senator from Washington, Mr. Gorton. We have worked closely, as we always have, on the product that we present to the Senate today. In his stewardship of this bill as chairman of the committee, Senator Gorton has been very fair, he has been bipartisan in his handling of the many programs and issues which were negotiated in the conference. I commend this conference report to the Senate and urge Senators to support its approval. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. I ask unanimous consent that the time be charged against both sides.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, for how long does the distinguished Senator wish to speak? I have no objection. I just think we should know how long he expects to speak.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have no objection.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. My colleague, Senator Gorton, is correct.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I take the floor at this time for several reasons, one being that the Senate would be on the ISTEA bill if the regular order were called for at this point. No other legislation is before the Senate. Consequently, I feel it is appropriate to be talking about the ISTEA bill. Second, three of my colleagues, Senators Gramm of Texas, Baucus, and Warner, and I have introduced an amendment to the ISTEA bill and we have explained that amendment and discussed it upon more than one occasion. As we have explained, our amendment provides that 90 percent of the funding will be distributed on the same basis as in the ISTEA bill before us, and that 10 percent would be allotted for discretionary as is the case in the ISTEA bill before us. In the amendment, which I have coauthored with the other three Senators, I have provided that in the 10 percent discretionary portion, $2.2 billion would be allotted to the Appalachian regional highways--$2.2 billion of the $3.1 billion in discretionary funding. The overall amount of funds that would be provided by our amendment would be $31 billion. The basis of our amendment is that inasmuch as the 4.3-cent gas tax has been ordered by the Senate to go into the trust fund as of October 1 this year, that money should be spent for transportation purposes. The American people, being under that impression, and having every right to be under that impression because of the legislation that was passed recently stating that the 4.3-cent gas tax would go into the highway trust fund, that would be broken down as follows: 3.45 cents for highway funding and 0.85 percent would be for mass transit. There is a considerable amount of confusion, some of which I think has been deliberately spread, some of which may be accidental. There is some misinformation that has been spread about the amendment that my three colleagues and I have sponsored. So I believe at this time, there should be some discussion so as to clarify our amendment, what it really will do, what it will not do, and also it is my opinion that we should understand what the Chafee-Domenici amendment will do and what it will not do. My colleagues who are coauthoring my amendment and I have taken the floor on at least two occasions to describe our amendment. And most recently, during the time of the last discussion of my amendment, Mr. Chafee presented me with a copy of the Chafee-Domenici amendment. However, I haven't heard any explanation of that amendment as yet. I think we ought to have an explanation before we act on the bill, one way or another, and certainly before sine die adjournment. I hope that we will get a 6-year highway bill, but with each passing day, the prospects of such are by that degree diminished. But in any event, I would want Senators to have a better understanding of my amendment and certainly the amendment by Senators Chafee and Domenici before we go out or before we leave this subject entirely. I have called for Mr. Chafee and Mr. Domenici. I wasn't able to contact Senator Domenici, but I was able to contact Senator Chafee. I wanted to let them know that I hoped we could use this time, when no other Senator is seeking recognition, to discuss this matter and particularly to have some explanation of the Chafee-Domenici amendment. Mr. Chafee was in the Intelligence Committee at the time and was busy there, but he very kindly came to the floor and has indicated to me--he is here on the floor now and he can speak for himself--that on tomorrow, he will seek some time to discuss and explain the amendment that he and Mr. Domenici have offered. At this time then, Mr. President, I want to say a few words about the Appalachian Regional Highway System, because that figures very importantly in the amendment which I have offered for printing, and I think that the Members of the Senate ought to have a better understanding of the background of that particular subject matter. I also want to direct some comments to today's edition of Congress Daily to an item therein which bears the headline: ``DOT Study, Domenici- Chafee Letter Hit Gramm-Byrd Plan.'' There are some inaccuracies in that article, and I hope to address some of my remarks to those inaccuracies. I also would be pleased if the other three cosponsors of our amendment could come to the floor and, likewise, make some remarks. All three offices have been alerted, and it is my understanding that those Senators will come at such times as they can be free from other appointments. I apologize for, in a way, for taking the floor at this time. I know that the other cosponsors are very busy, and I know also that Mr. Chafee and Mr. Domenici are busy, but I shall proceed. First of all, let me address my comments briefly to the Appalachian Development Highway System. Mr. President, when I was a member of the West Virginia House of Delegates 51 years ago, West Virginia had only 4 miles of divided four- lane highways--4 miles! Let me say that again. The entire State of West Virginia had only 4 miles of divided four-lane highways in 1947, the first year in which I served as a member of the West Virginia Legislature. I can remember an article that appeared in the Saturday Evening Post by a Mr. Roul Tunley, on February 6, 1960. I was a Member of the U.S. Senate then. That was my second year in the U.S. Senate. In Mr. Tunley's article, he said this: ``Its''--meaning West Virginia's--``Its highway system is several decades behind that of its neighbors.'' I haven't forgotten that quotation. I have been carrying it around up here somewhere in my gray matter now for these 37 years. I cannot forget it. It is etched into my memory. The Saturday Evening Post, a national publication, said, in an article by Roul Tunley, with reference to West Virginia's highway system: ``Its highway system is several decades behind that of its neighbors.'' Now, Mr. President, those words have, as I say, been etched into my memory. They have been burned into my memory, virtually seared into my memory. I was a Member of the other body when the Interstate System was inaugurated. President Eisenhower was in his first term. In any event, in 1956, which was during the 84th Congress, Congress passed legislation to provide for a gas tax to be placed into the highway trust fund. I was a Member of Congress at that time. In 1965, 9 years later, Congress passed the Appalachian Regional Development Act. It provided for an Appalachian regional highway system. That was 1965. It was fiscal year 1966; in other words, calendar year 1965, when Congress appropriated its first moneys toward the Appalachian regional highway system--1965, fiscal year 1966. It has been a long time ago. So, over 30 years ago, Congress enacted legislation saying to the people of Appalachia, the people of the 13 States in Appalachia, that an Appalachian highway system was going to be established and funded. West Virginia is the only one of the 13 States that is wholly within Appalachia. But contrary to the understanding of a good many people, I suppose, West Virginia is not the only State in Appalachia. During these intervening 32 years, West Virginia's Appalachian system has become 74 percent complete. For the entire Appalachian region, however, the highway system is something like 78 or 79 percent complete. Now, the Interstate System all over this country is 100 percent complete--virtually 100 percent. That is something like 43,000 miles, I believe. But the Appalachian highway system remains, a good bit of it, yet to be completed. West Virginia, as I say, is 74 percent complete. The other States in the Appalachian region are about 78 or 79 percent complete. So West Virginia is behind the region as a whole. A great many people have criticized me over the years for acting in my Appropriations Committee to get moneys for West Virginia's Appalachian corridors. But as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I provided not only money for West Virginia's Appalachian corridors but also funding for Appalachian corridors in all of the 13 States of Appalachia. Nothing was said about that by my critics. But that is neither here nor there at the moment. I just mention it in passing. The point is that while the Interstate System has been completed all over this country, the Appalachian highway system is yet to be completed. The people in Appalachia have been promised for 31 years that that system would be completed. It isn't completed yet. So they have been living on a prayer and a promise, in considerable degree. About one-fourth of the system--one-fifth to one-fourth of the system-- is not yet complete. And I think it is about time we fulfilled our promise that Congress made to the millions of people who live in Appalachia that their system at some point would be completed, too. Now, Mr. President, I see on the floor my friend, Senator Gramm. If he would like to speak for a moment----

Mr. BYRD. He indicates that I should go ahead. So, with the passage of the Appalachian Regional Development Act by Congress in 1965, the Appalachian Development Highway System got its start by providing smaller regional centers in the Appalachian region with four-lane expressway links to the Interstate Highway System. The new corridors were devised to open areas with development potential where commerce and communication had previously been inhibited by a lack of access. On June 17, 1965--32 years ago, and then some--the first Appalachian corridor construction project in West Virginia was contracted for a section of corridor D, U.S. 50 in Doddridge County that is between Parkersburg, WV, and Clarksburg, WV. The Appalachian corridor highway construction era really picked up steam in West Virginia following the November 1968 approval by the voters of a $350 million road bond, the proceeds of which were used to provide the State's matching share for corridor construction. During these years, for the most part, funding has been directed toward all four uncompleted corridors, D, G, H and L. When the Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act, ISTEA of 1991, came along, I asked that language be included authorizing the completion of the Appalachian system. And that was done. The Appalachian Development Highway System in West Virginia comprises a total of 428.9 miles of roadway, completed or under construction, in design or in corridor location study phase. In the case of the Appalachian system, I think it would be informative to point out that Appalachia's rugged terrain has made roads very expensive to build. Early roads usually followed the topography, that is, they followed streams, valleys and troughs between mountains, and the resulting highways were characterized by very low travel speeds, long distances due to winding road patterns, often very unsafe road conditions, roads built to poor design standards, unsafe, short-sight distances, and extremely high construction costs which further discouraged commercial and industrial development. Now, I should say that miles constructed, alone, do not really measure the impact of a development highway system. Its success is measured in how it allows the region to be opened up for development and how it allows for the improvement of its inhabitants' condition. A 1987 survey taken by the Appalachian Regional Commission showed that between 1980 and 1986, 560,000 jobs were created in the Appalachian counties with a major highway, compared with 134,000 jobs created in those counties without a major highway. It is clear the highways are the lifeline and the lifeblood of the Appalachian region. The idea of a regional interconnected network of highways is as vital today as it was in 1965. It has the same purpose as the Appalachian corridor system which was created 32 years ago. The National Highway System was designed to provide an interconnected system of principal arterial routes which would serve major population centers--water crossings, ports, airports, other intermodal facilities and travel destinations--while meeting national defense requirements and serving interstate and interregional travel. A factor which is often overlooked in connection with Appalachian regional highways is the factor of safety. It is important that States in Appalachia have modern, safe roads. Current accident rates on the highways in the area of corridor H --if I may take one example, in West Virginia--are above the Statewide average. The accident rates along in that area are above the Statewide average. The State of West Virginia itself has accident rates which are above the national average. Because much of the State's road system was built in the 1930s, the existing roads reflect a happenstance response to topography rather than strategic planning. Shortly, I will yield to Senator Gramm, but while I am on this aspect, namely, the Appalachian highways in the ISTEA amendment which Senator Gramm, Senator Warner, Senator Baucus, and I have introduced, the Appalachian regional highways, along with various trade corridors and bridge repairs constitute 10 percent of the total--the total being $31 billion; 10 percent being $3.1 billion--the 10 percent being precisely the same breakdown as in the ISTEA bill that is before the Senate. In that bill, 90 percent goes to formula funding and 10 percent to discretionary to be determined by the Secretaries of Interior and Transportation. So, I simply wanted to say for the record that Congress and the Federal Government promised to the people in the 13 States of Appalachia 32 years ago a highway system that would be modern, that would be safe, and that would contribute to the commerce and communication, economy and upbuilding of that region and the well-being of its people, and that promise has not been fulfilled yet. I think it is about time we consider fulfilling the promise that Congress made to the people of Appalachia. That is what I am attempting to do in this amendment, to go a long way in halfway fulfilling the promise. The promise--$2.2 billion, and $300 million in the bill itself--is $2.5 billion, and it is estimated that the total cost of completing the Appalachian regional system in the 13 States of Appalachia is something like $6 billion to $7 billion, the Federal share, and the Federal share is 80 percent. So in this particular ISTEA bill, which would be for the next 6 years, of course, we would only take advantage of 5 years because the first year of the 6 years is already underway. It started on October 1 of this year and the gas tax just began going into the trust fund as of October 1 of this year. Consequently, we would not see that money until next year, so it would be 5 years out of the 6-year life of this ISTEA bill that we would provide something like $2.5 billion for the Appalachian Regional Commission highways in 13 States--not just in West Virginia, 13 States. Hopefully, the next ISTEA bill, 6 years down the road, would make further provision and perhaps at some point in the not-too-distant future the people of Appalachia could look up and see their modern, safe, highway system completed, and the rest of the country, including the Congress, could look the people of Appalachia in the eye and say, ``We kept our promise.'' That is what I am fighting for here today. That is why I hope to reach the ears and the hearts of my colleagues so that they have a better understanding of why this money is being provided in our amendment. Mr. President, there may be an attitude around, and at times I have sensed an attitude, to the effect that the people of Appalachia have no right to expect appropriations for an Appalachian Regional Commission system, and that moneys spent in one region of the country for highways is to the disadvantage of the voters, the taxpayers, the people of other regions of the country. There seems to be such an attitude in editorials and columns and so forth over the years; that what the people in Appalachia are getting by way of highway funding is pork and that they were actually getting more than their share. A lot could be said about that. But this attitude that appropriations projects in one section of the country benefit only that section, they don't benefit the whole country, and, therefore, should not be made, and that it is unfair to focus funds on a particular area, a particular State or a particular region of a country, that that is an unwise, unfair and unjustified expenditure of the taxpayers' money, I want to address that. I want a Senator who is far better known than I am to address the matter for me, and I will call on none other, therefore, than Daniel Webster. I refer to his reply to Hayne. He took 2 days to reply to Senator Hayne, namely on the 26th and 27th of January, 1830. Hayne had spoken on Thursday and Friday of the previous week. Webster had taken 12 or 13 pages of notes, and over the weekend, he thought about his speech, and then on the following Tuesday and Wednesday, the 26th and 27th, he made his speech. He addressed Senator Hayne, as well as Senator Hayne's statements and charges, namely that the people of the whole country should not have to pay for internal improvements that occur in a particular State. So Webster took the floor on that occasion and spoke as follows. I have gone back and read Webster's speech, and I will quote from it precisely. This is Daniel Webster: I look upon a road over the Alleghanies, a canal round the falls of the Ohio, or a canal or railway from the Atlantic to the Western waters, as being an object large and extensive enough to be fairly said to be for the common benefit. Let me say that again: I look upon a road over the Alleghanies-- He is talking about my country when he talks about a road over the Alleghenies, the Allegheny Mountains. That is a part of Appalachia. Appalachia extends farther, a larger area than the Alleghenies. But Webster said: I look upon a road over the Alleghanies, a canal round the falls of the Ohio, or a canal or railway from the Atlantic to the Western waters, as being an object large and extensive enough to be fairly said to be for the common benefit. The gentleman-- Meaning Mr. Hayne-- thinks otherwise, and this is the key to his construction of the powers of the government. He may well ask what interest has South Carolina in a canal in Ohio. On his system, it is true, she has no interest. On that system, Ohio and Carolina are different governments, and different countries; connected here, it is true, by some slight and ill-defined bond of union, but in all main respects separate and diverse. On that system-- Mr. Hayne's system-- On that system, Carolina has no more interest in a canal in Ohio than in Mexico. The gentleman, therefore, only follows out his own principles; he does no more than arrive at the natural conclusions of his own doctrines; he only announces the true results of that creed which he has adopted himself, and would persuade others to adopt, when he thus declares that South Carolina has no interest in a public work in Ohio. May I interpolate. The same thing has been said about the Appalachian Highway System, or at least implied. Why should people build highways across those rugged mountains, those stream valleys that have been there for millions of centuries? Why should the taxpayers of America pay for highways to cut through those Allegheny Mountains? Why should we have to do that? Webster says, as he said to Hayne, ``the gentleman thinks otherwise.'' And he said: Sir, we narrow-minded people of New England-- Webster is referring to himself and others from that area-- Sir, we narrow-minded people of New England do not reason thus. Our notion of things is entirely different. We look upon the states, not as separated, but as united. We love to dwell on that union, and on the mutual happiness which it has so much promoted, and the common renown which it has so greatly contributed to acquire. In our contemplation, Carolina and Ohio are parts of the same country; states, united under the same general government, having interests, common, associated, intermingled. ``Having interests, common, associated, intermingled.'' In whatever is within the proper sphere of the constitutional power of this government, we look upon the states as one. That's Webster. ``. . . we look upon the States as one.'' Now listen to what he says to those who would criticize the expenditure of public moneys for internal improvements. By the way, that was one of the main planks in Henry Clay's ``American System,'' which advocated a national tariff, internal improvements, and a national bank. Clay was instrumental in getting funds for the old Cumberland Road, the old national road. The next time that the distinguished Presiding Officer drives from Washington over to Wheeling, WV, he will travel on the old national road, the old Cumberland Road. It was begun in the year 1811, and that was the gate to the Midwest and the West. By 1838, Congress had appropriated a total of $3 million--think of it, $3 million--toward the construction of that old national road, the old Cumberland Road. Begun in 1811, by 1838, Congress had appropriated the enormous sum of $3 million of the national taxpayers' money for construction on the old Cumberland Road. And Henry Clay had a great deal to do with the appropriations of those funds for that old Cumberland Road. Well, now continuing with Webster. I am sure that Henry Clay, if he were in the Senate, would make my case for the Appalachian regional highway system. Clay on one side--oh, I would like to have him here; that great Senator from Kentucky would make my case--and Webster would also make my case, those two great Senators, because they saw the beauty and the wisdom and the justice and the fairness in committing the national resources to the development of a section of the country, not just one State. But even Webster would go so far as to say, if it were just in one State he would not stand up here and ask why he should support it. But let him speak for himself here. We do not impose geographical limits to our patriotic feeling or regard; we do not follow rivers and mountains, and lines of latitude, to find boundaries, beyond which public improvements do not benefit us. We who come here, as agents and representatives of these narrow-minded and selfish men of New England, consider ourselves as bound to regard with an equal eye the good of the whole, in whatever is within our powers of legislation. Sir, [he addressed the Chair, ``Sir''] if a railroad or canal, beginning in South Carolina and ending in South Carolina, appeared to me to be of national importance and national magnitude, believing, as I do that the power of government extends to the encouragement of works to that description, if I were to stand up here and ask, What interest has Massachusetts in a railroad in South Carolina? I should not be willing to face my constituents. Oh, I wish he were here to defend our case. We have been promised for 32 years that this system would be completed. It is not completed yet. And when we seek justice in relation to the completion of that system, we bear the slings and arrows of fortune and the criticism of those who would say, ``Well, why? You're getting less money than those people in Appalachia. Those people in those 13 States of Appalachia are getting a little more than you are.'' What kind of statesmanship is that? That is a shortsighted statesmanship in the eyes of Daniel Webster. I should not be willing to face my constituents. These same narrow-minded men would tell me, that they have sent me to act for the whole country, and that one who possessed too little comprehension, either of intellect or feeling, one who has not large enough, both in mind and in heart, to embrace the whole, was not fit to be intrusted with the interest of any part. Webster--talking about internal improvements. Sir, I do not desire to enlarge the powers of the government by unjustifiable construction, nor to exercise any not within a fair interpretation. But when it is believed that a power does exist, then it is, in my judgment, to be exercised for the general benefit of the whole. So far as respects the exercise of such a power, the States are one. One; e pluribus unum! It was the very object of the Constitution to create unity of interests to the extent of the powers of the general government. In war and peace we are one; in commerce, one; because the authority of the general government reaches to war and peace, and to the regulation of commerce. I have never seen any more difficulty in erecting lighthouses on the lakes, than on the ocean; in improving the harbors of inland seas, than if they were within the ebb and flow of the tide; or in removing obstructions in the vast streams of the West, more than in any work to facilitate commerce on the Atlantic coast. If there be any power for one, there is power also for the other; and they are all and equally for the common good of the country. Now, Mr. President, I would like to yield, without losing my right to the floor, to my colleague, Senator Gramm of Texas, for such comments as he may wish to make on this subject matter, and I ask unanimous consent to do so.

Mr. BYRD. 1965.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to have yielded to the distinguished Senator, and I just as deeply appreciate his statement. I hope the Senators will read it. It is needed, I think, to disabuse Senators from what they are being told by Congress Daily and by letters and tables that are being distributed. I don't accuse anyone of acting in bad faith. I am in no position to do that. But certainly misstatements should be corrected, and I hope will be, beyond what Mr. Gramm has already said. Mr. President, Senator Chafee earlier said--he told me that we would, on tomorrow, get the floor and speak with reference to the Chafee- Domenici amendment. I have been insisting to them that their amendment be explained. The amendment which I offered on behalf of myself and my three distinguished colleagues was explained, and we were criticized because we had mentioned, on the 9th, I believe, of October, before the recess, that we were going to offer such an amendment, but we didn't actually have it ready by then so a considerable amount of discussion went forth as to why we didn't have it, to the effect that Senators couldn't comment on what they couldn't see. But on that same day I believe Senator Domenici indicated that he was going to offer an amendment, and, of course, we didn't get to see that until one day this week. So we haven't heard an explanation of it yet. I want an explanation of it. Just as we attempted to do our best explaining to our colleagues and to the American public what our amendment does, I think the American people ought to have an explanation right here on this floor as to what the Chafee-Domenici amendment does. That will give us a chance, perhaps, to refute some of the misinformation that is being bandied about. As I say, I don't ascribe to anyone any intentions to go with misinformation, but I think the public and our colleagues have a right to expect us to clear up some of the confusion. So, for now I'll not say any more along that line because, as I say, Mr. Chafee has indicated we'll talk some tomorrow, and he indicated that he would yield to me for some comments at that time. I hope that Mr. Baucus and Mr. Warner will also have a chance to comment at that time, particularly with reference to the statement by Congress Daily of today. I suggest the absence of a quorum.