Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Cicero was asked which of Demosthenes' speeches he most admired. Cicero's answer was: The longest. By the way, Demosthenes committed suicide. He carried some poison in a bracelet and he committed suicide. While I admire Demosthenes, I do not hope to follow his course in that regard. The greatest oration that was ever delivered was the Oration on the Crown by Demosthenes. In that oration, he asked the question: Who deceives the State? He answered his own question. He who does not speak what he thinks. God, give us men! A time like this demands strong minds, great hearts, true faith, and ready hands. Men whom the lusts of office do not kill; Men whom the spoils of office cannot buy; Men who possess opinions and a will; Men who have honor; men who will not lie. Men who can stand before the demagogue And brave his treacherous flatteries without winking. Tall men, sun-crowned; Who live above the fog, In public duty and in private thinking. For while the rabble with its thumbworn creeds, It's large professions and its little deeds, mingles in selfish strife, Lo! Freedom weeps! Wrong rules the land and waiting justice sleeps. God, give us men. Men who serve not for selfish booty; But real men, courageous, who flinch not at duty. Men of dependable character; Men of sterling worth; Then wrongs will be redressed, and right will rule the earth. God, give us Men! Mr. President, those lines by J. G. Holland call my reflections to a man who served in the Senate with me a good many years ago. For 38 years, Russell B. Long was a giant among the giants of the U.S. Senate. Although not a large man, his mere presence on the Senate floor was overpowering. His accomplishments were enormous, and I am confident in saying that his legacy will prove to be long lasting. He was a Senator's Senator. He sat here in this row of seats where I now stand. Mr. Mansfield sat in the chair at the desk just in front of me. The greatest Senator of all, in my public career, was another Southerner whose name was Richard Brevard Russell, and he sat at the seat which I now have the honor to fill. At the desk behind me was Russell B. Long. He was a man of powerful intellect. He was a walking history blessed with common sense and a sharp, clear mind. He could keep one entertained for hours with his down-home stories, his folksy humor, and memories of his remarkable and controversial family. His father, Huey P. Long, was called the Kingfish in Louisiana. His father was the legendary populist Governor and Senator from Louisiana, Huey Long. Russell's self-effacing mother, Rose, who Russell Long said was the ``nearest thing I knew to an angel''--now that is putting it right. ``The nearest thing I knew to an angel.'' That was Russell Long's way of referring to his mother. His mother served briefly in the U.S. Senate following the assassination of her husband. So here you have the husband, the wife, and the son all serving in the U.S. Senate at different times, of course. Born in Shreveport, LA, in 1918, Russell B. Long received his undergraduate and law degrees from Louisiana State University. He served as a naval officer during World War II and practiced law after the war. On November 2, 1948, he was elected to the U.S. Senate. I was in the West Virginia House of Delegates at that time. So Russell Long was elected to the U.S. Senate 1 day before his 30th birthday, making him the sixth person to be elected to the Senate under the age of 30. When he retired from the Senate in 1986, he had served longer than all but three other Senators in history at that time. His love for this institution and his respect for this institution's traditions were always evident. He opposed television coverage in the U.S. Senate. He and I were both together in feeling that way about it at that particular time. We both opposed television coverage in the Senate at that point. He opposed the efforts to limit Senate filibusters. I opposed them with him. I joined in filibusters with him. And I today oppose efforts to eliminate the filibuster in the U.S. Senate, and I always will oppose those efforts. He did so, meaning he opposed the elimination of the filibuster and any efforts to eliminate it, because he cared so much about preserving the unique role of the U.S. Senate in American Government and American society. During his tenure in the Senate, Russell Long served on a number of important committees, including the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, the Banking and Currency Committee, and the Armed Services Committee. In 1965, his Democratic colleagues elected him--and I was here at that time to cast my vote for him--to serve as the Senate Democratic whip, the post he held until 1969. I was the secretary of the Democratic conference at that particular time, and I believe I sat on the back row over here. It was on January 10, 1966, that another legend was born, and that was the day that Senator Long became chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, a position he held for 15 years, the longest continuous service in the history of that committee. As chairman of this powerful Senate committee, Senator Long displayed such a command of the subject matter and demonstrated such skillful management abilities that during floor debates Senators would line up at his desk seeking his encyclopedic memory and knowledge about complicated tax provisions. In fact, on most of the landmark tax and trade legislation during that time one can see the imprint of this remarkable Senator, Russell Long. His was a powerful voice on health care finance and Social Security. His genius fathered ESOP, the employee stock ownership plan concept, which enabled the workers and management at Weirton Steel in Weirton, WV, to keep the plant from closing in 1982. Russell Long went with me, and with the late Senator Jennings Randolph, my colleague at the time, to Weirton Steel and talked with the employers and employees, the people, the citizens, about the ESOP plan. That plan was applied and it preserved the jobs of 8,500 employees. Russell Long's legislative achievements included the 1972 and 1976 Federal revenue sharing laws and the 1969 and 1976 tax reform laws. I wish he were here today. Indeed, his work on the Nation's tax laws continued throughout his years in the Senate. In 1986, his last year in this Chamber, he helped to write a major simplification of income tax law. President Jimmy Carter liked to say that he was elected President and came to Washington to run the country but that when he got here, he discovered that Russell Long was already running it. Senator Long's colleague from Louisiana at that time, Senator Bennett Johnson, used to point out that President Carter was probably exaggerating but not by much. Russell Long's success as a Senator is largely attributable to his skills as a debater and speaker, and his skills as a technician and craftsman in the writing of tax laws. These are skills which he likely inherited from his dynamic father. Those skills included his formidable ability as one of the Senate's best negotiators. President John F. Kennedy once told him: You traded me a biscuit for a barrel of flour and I didn't even get a biscuit. Following the Republican landslide of 1980 in which Ronald Reagan was elected President and the Republican Party gained the majority in the Senate, Senator Howard Baker, who had become the new Senate majority leader, telephoned Senator Robert Dole to congratulate Senator Dole on his new role as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. The story goes that Senator Dole responded: Howard, that is great, but who is going to tell Russell Long? I enjoy that story. It demonstrates both the power and the respect that Senator Russell Long commanded as a U.S. Senator and as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. No wonder the Wall Street Journal once referred to Russell Long as the fourth branch of Government. Journalists, as well as Presidents and Senators, revered and enjoyed this colorful man, and brilliant Senator. During his 38 years in the Senate, Russell B. Long truly became an institution within this institution. I missed Russell Long when he left the Senate. Erma and I missed his lovely wife Carolyn. I called Carolyn a few minutes ago to speak with her about her late husband Russell Long. I told her I was going to have a few words to say about Russell, and I asked her to listen in if she liked. I close this short statement about Russell Long with a poem by Thomas Moore, that great Irishman. The title of the poem is ``The Light of Other Days.'' I dedicate these words by Thomas Moore to Carolyn, and in so doing, of course, I think about my own service in this Chamber with Russell Long. Oft, in the stilly night, Ere slumber's chain as bound me, Fond memory brings the light Of other days around me; The smiles, the tears, Of boyhood's years, The words of love then spoken; The ayes that shone, Now dimm'd and gone, The cheerful hearts now broken. Thus, in the stilly night, Ere slumber's chain has bound me, Sad memory brings the light Of other days around me. When I remember all The friends, so link'd together, I've seen around me fall Like leaves in wintry weather. I feel like one Who treads alone Some banquet-hall deserted, Whose lights are fled, Whose garland's dead, And all but he departed. Thus, in the stilly night, Ere slumber's chain has bound me, Sad Memory brings the light Of other days around me.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Well, the next subject I want to talk about today--and may I say to any other Senator who wishes to have the floor, I will be glad to give it up at any time. So I do not want to hog the floor, if I may use that word, ``hog.'' Tomorrow is Flag Day. Now, from time to time, I speak on events such as Flag Day, these national holidays--Independence Day, Father's Day, Mother's Day, Columbus Day, and so on. When I first came to the Congress, now over a half century ago, there were Senators and there were Members of the House who spoke on these subjects. I do not see much of that anymore. So I try to preserve that way of Senate tradition, talking about these days every year as they come along. It enables us to be still and know and to remember the things that are our heritage, the things that made America great. We hear a lot about family values, and so I speak on Mother's Day about our mothers, I speak in advance of Father's Day--as I will a little later this morning--about Father's Day, to preserve this heritage. Mr. President, since 1885, Americans have observed Flag Day on June 14. In 1949, President Truman signed an Act of Congress designating June 14 of each year as National Flag Day. That day, June 14, which this year falls on Saturday, was chosen because it was on June 14, 1777, that the Continental Congress adopted the Flag Act establishing an official flag for the new Nation. The first Flag Act was a model of brevity. Here is what it said in its entirety: Resolved, That the Flag of the United States be made of thirteen stripes, alternate red and white; that the Union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new Constellation. As many Senators may remember from their schooldays, in the early years of the Nation there were a number of different variations of the flag including, of course, the one consisting of a circle of 13 stars that was attributed in our schoolbooks to Betsy Ross. As the Nation grew, however, changes were made to the flag. Each change was authorized by an Act of Congress or, in later years, by an Executive order of the President. In 1818, Congress provided for a flag of 13 stripes, 1 for each of the original 13 Colonies, and 1 star for each State to be added to the flag on the Fourth of July following the admission of each new State to the Union. The most recent change was made by Executive order of President Eisenhower on August 21, 1959. His order provided for the arrangement of the stars in 9 rows of stars staggered horizontally and 11 rows of stars staggered vertically. That is the flag that flies over this Capitol Building today, and that is the flag that stands majestically as it does beside the desk of the President of the Senate, to the right of the Presiding Officer. Today that Presiding Officer is from the State of Tennessee, and he presides over the Senate with great dignity and aplomb. While we are on that subject, people all over the country watch the United States Senate, which is the premier upper legislative body in the world today. Aren't you proud that you serve in this body? Always keep in mind that the world is watching. It is watching that Presiding Officer, how he or she presides, and that is why I try to suggest to new Members that they preside in a way that lets the world know that here is truly the greatest body of all. I suggest they not read mail, they not read newspapers while they are presiding; that they give their full attention to the Senate, to the Chamber, to the individual Senator who is speaking. Members of State legislatures watch this Presiding Officer, believing that here is the best, and we have to be conscious of that when we preside. We should be. Professors, students, coal miners, housewives--people in every walk of life--watch that desk. There used to be a telephone at that desk. When I became majority leader, I took it out. I believe I was majority leader at that time, or perhaps majority whip. But I took that telephone out so the Senators would not sit at that desk and be talking on the telephone while they were presiding. A few of them did that, so I just moved out the telephone. So there is the flag right there by the Presiding Officer. We see it every day when we address the Chair. That is the flag, as I say, that flies over the Capitol Building today. This very abridged, short history now of the flag does not, of course, do justice to the emotions that we all feel as we look at that flag. Imagine the excitement in each new State as a new flag is unfurled for the first time with its new constellation of stars. Imagine the excitement in the State of Alaska when that new flag was unfurled. Imagine the excitement in the State of Hawaii in 1959, when I first came to the Senate--there was a new star in that constellation. Imagine the excitement in Hawaii as the people saw that flag with the new star. West Virginia was the 35th star on the flag. We have but to think of the explorers who have carried the American flag to the ends of the Earth and into space. We have but to look at the classic photograph of the American flag being erected at Iwo Jima to share in the determination and triumph of that moment. And in the wake of September 11, 2001, who was not touched to the core by the sight of all the American flags that sprang up defiantly, as it were, across the Nation immediately after that attack, showing our sympathy, our resolve. There is no doubting the love and the sorrow when you catch a tear creeping down the face of a man in uniform as taps is played and another flag is carefully and ceremoniously folded from atop the coffin and preserved for a grieving widow. Mr. President, our flag is our Nation's greatest symbol, the icon by which we are recognized around the world. Old Glory--there is nothing, nothing, that can match it is our flag. That is the way we feel about it. It has withstood war. It has withstood assaults upon its fabric. But no assault has yet bested the fabric of this Nation or the ideals upon which the Nation was founded. I firmly believe that if we hold true to our Constitution--here it is; I hold it in my hand, the Constitution of the United States--our flag will never fail, and this great constellation of stars and States will shine on through ages to come. So I close with one of my favorite poems by Henry Holcomb Bennett, entitled ``The Flag Goes By.'' Hats off. Along the street there comes A blare of bugles, a ruffle of drums, A flash of color beneath the sky; Hats off. The flag is passing by. Blue and crimson and white it shines, Over the steel-tipped, ordered lines. Hats off. The colors before us fly; But more than the flag is passing by. Sea-fights and land-fights, grim and great, Fought to make and to save the State: Weary marchers and sinking ships; Cheers of victory on dying lips; Days of plenty and years of peace; March of a strong land's swift increase; Equal justice, right in law, Stately honor and reverend awe. Sign of a nation, great and strong To ward her people from foreign wrong; Pride and glory and honor--all Live in the colors to stand or fall. Hats off. Along the street there comes A blare of bugles, a ruffle of drums; And loyal hearts are beating high; Hats off. The flag is passing by.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this Sunday, June 15, is Father's Day. It is a day of lovely chosen, if sometimes unstylish, ties; a day of lumpy clay bowls and golf tee puzzles; of handmade cards and big brunches. It is a day for family members to struggle over what to get dad, in a reflection of both the many hours that fathers spend away from home working and of his proclivity for just buying himself what he wants. What does dad need? Nothing, really. What he wants is more time with his family and more time for fun, but that cannot be purchased. That is something that cannot be purchased at the mall. This Father's Day will be even more special for the men returning from service in Iraq in time to meet newborn sons and daughters for the first time. They will be coming home to a precious new life that they see for the first time in many instances. It is difficult to imagine the poignant first meeting as the same large hands that wrestled weapons on aircraft or into tanks now cradle small bundles squirming with life and happy, toothless smiles. What moments of simple, unalloyed joy. If we are fortunate this Father's Day, it will be a day of beautiful June skies, warm weather and lush lawns trimmed close and smelling of fresh cut grass. If we are lucky in this very rainy spring, it will be a day to enjoy family activities outside, to preside over savory picnics or barbecues, to play ball games, to take long walks with the dog. I look forward to that. I take a walk with my dog every day before I come to work. When she sees me getting ready she knows I am going to leave and go to work. When she sees me put on a tie, she stays at my feet and does not leave me until I take her for that walk. I used to have a little dog named Billy. I spoke of Billy many times on this floor during his 15 years with us, but Billy is gone. Now we have a little shitzu, and she was named ``Trouble'' by my wife. These dogs were to be the palace dogs in Tibet, exceedingly friendly. She just loves everybody so I have to be very careful that she does not get out the door and go. She will leave with anybody. I call her ``baby.'' But that walk with the dog, or to have fun at the pool or lake, it is in these venues that we see the best sides of fathers, relaxed and happy, even a bit goofy as they play with their kids and banter with their wives. In a suit or a uniform at work, we do not commonly see fathers but rather bosses, or officials, men with titles, men with responsibilities, mindful of production goals or other targets and deadlines. In this work-a-day mode, men set fine role models for their children of strong work ethics and integrity and responsibility for their families. But it is the kid tossing dad in the pool or the dad as softball coach who children are thinking of as they scrawl their ``I love yous'' on Father's Day cards. One may well appreciate the hours and effort that fathers put into their jobs in order to provide the best for their children, but that sacrifice does not fill the heart with memories in the same way that quiet moments do. Late nights at work or at home paying bills and preparing taxes are important but not remembered or as appreciated by children as when dad reads bedtime stories and passes out good night kisses. It has been a long time since I had young children, but I remember how it was then. My children, who have grown into adulthood, have children of their own, who have grandchildren of their own, meaning that Erma and I have great-grandchildren. Erma and I remember the time when we put our children to bed and when they said their prayers and we gave them our good-night kisses. Fathers play an important role in families far beyond their title as breadwinner. Their comforting presence adds to family life and their loss is felt profoundly. It was in recognition of both roles that one of the first Father's Day services was held, in my own State of West Virginia. It makes me proud that my State figures in the history of both Mother's Day and Father's Day. That first Father's Day service was conducted by Dr. Robert Webb at the Central United Methodist Church in Fairmont, WV, in 1908. The service was to honor the 210 fathers killed in the terrible mine explosion at Monongah, WV, on December 6, 1907, that took the lives of more than 360 men in all. Think about it. There was no joy at Christmas in Monongah in 1907. The idea for the service was the inspiration of Mrs. Charles Clayton, who sympathized with the grieving families of these men, as she still mourned the loss of her own father. Reverend Webb, was Mrs. Clayton's pastor, and he agreed with her thoughts and prepared a special mass held in honor and remembrance of fathers on July 5, the very next year, 1908. This service was but a one-time event. It was the selfless efforts of one father that inspired his daughter to advocate a national Father's Day. After listening to a Mother's Day sermon in 1909, Mrs. Sonora Smart Dodd proposed the idea of a ``father's day'' to honor her father, Willam Smart. Mr. Smart was a Civil War veteran who was widowed when his wife died in childbirth delivering their sixth child. Mr. Smart raised the newborn and his other five children on a rural farm in eastern Washington State. That would be quite a feat even today, but imagine doing so in the late 19th century! There were no disposable diapers then, no prepared formula or baby food, no day care, no automatic washing machines and dryers, no frozen orange juice. Frozen orange juice came along in 1947. No sliced bread here. That did not come along until 1930. You hear people say: This is the greatest thing since sliced bread. That doesn't go very far back. Mechanically sliced bread sold commercially by 1930. So there were none of the conveniences that we take for granted today. Mrs. Dodd gives her father great credit, and credit he deserves, but without the help of his five older children, it is difficult to imagine how Mr. Smart could have met the challenge. In my own life, as my mother approached death during the influenza pandemic of 1918, when I was just under a year old, she chose to ask relatives to raise me. She asked my father to give me, the baby, she said, to the Byrds, Titus Dalton Byrd and his wife Vlurma. His wife Vlurma was my natural father's sister. My father, my natural father, had several sisters. So when my mother died of influenza in that great epidemic that swept the world, 20 million people died--nobody really knows how many-- throughout the world, 12 million in India, perhaps 750,000, give or take, in the United States. They would become ill one morning and die that afternoon or the next day--the great influenza epidemic. So my mother felt that if she did not recover, she wanted this family, Tyson Dalton Byrd and his wife, to raise me. That was her wish. Of my three older brothers and a sister, the three older brothers were given to the other sister. My father had several sisters. My father kept the daughter, my sister. So that is the way it was. The people who reared me were kind. They were not well educated. I was the first person ever, I suppose, in my family to go to the second or third grade, if that far. Nobody else in my family ever went beyond that. They could barely read and write, but they were good people. They were honest, they were hard working, and they loved me. So that is what I remember. My dad was my uncle, you see. I never knew any other father because my uncle and his wife, my aunt, brought me to West Virginia from North Carolina when I was 2 or 3 years old. So I remember this man, Titus Dalton Byrd as my father. He loved me. I can remember his coming from work. He was a coal miner. I can remember seeing him come down the railroad track from a half mile, three-quarters of a mile away. I could see him coming, this tall man with black hair and red mustache and watch chain. I could see the watch chain; I could see him coming down the railroad tracks. I would run to meet him. When I came near to him, he would put down his dinner bucket. He would lift up the lid. He would reach down into that dinner bucket and pull out a cake. My mom--my aunt; I called her my mom--always put a cake, a 5-cent cake, in the dinner bucket. He took the cake--he never ate it--but always brought it back. He saved the cake for me. So he put that dinner bucket down on the wooden cross tie, the railroad cross tie, reached in to get that cake, and I ran up to meet him, and he would give me the cake. This fine old couple had had a son, but that child had died of scarlet fever before I was born. So they took me into their home and they raised me. That must have been a difficult choice for my father and my mother. She was concerned that she might not recover, and they decided to give me, the baby, to the Byrds. So without the conveniences that we take for granted today, you might imagine how it was to raise an infant or a toddler in 1918, bringing a child in 1918 to manhood. Under the circumstances, with three older brothers and a sister, I know it must have been a very difficult thing for my father to try to raise this family with the mother gone. So I was raised by my uncle, Titus Dalton Byrd, and my aunt, Vlurma Byrd. As I already said, I called my uncle my dad, and he was my dad. He was the only dad I ever knew until I was ready to graduate from high school, when he told me the story about how my mother died and how my mother's wish was what it came to be, that I be made a part of the Byrd family. So my uncle--he was a patient, quiet man--toiled in the dark pits of the West Virginia coal mines without any complaint. I never saw him sit at the table and complain about the food--never. He always thought to save me that cake. And, like good fathers everywhere, he encouraged me always to do my best. He encouraged me in my school work. He and she always wanted to see my report card and there was a line on that report card designated ``deportment.'' He always looked at that as well. He wanted to see how I behaved in school. And he always told me that if I got a whipping in school, I could be sure of getting another one at home. So he encouraged me in my school work. He did not want me to follow him into the mines which were, in those days, just as dangerous as they had been in 1907, in Monongah. In all my years, I say to these wonderful young people and to those who are watching out there watching this Senate Chamber today, in all those years I never heard him use God's name in vain. I never heard him complain about his lot in life. He simply toiled on, doing the best he could, a man of few words and few affectionate gestures, but loving nonetheless. In any event, the first Father's Day was observed on June 19, 1910, in Spokane, WA. In 1924, President Calvin Coolidge supported the idea of a national observance of Father's Day, but it was not until 1966 that President Lyndon Johnson signed a Presidential proclamation declaring the third Sunday in June as the national Father's Day. In 1972, President Nixon established the permanent national observance of Father's Day. The Bible admonishes us: ``Honor thy father and thy mother.'' And on this day in June we honor our fathers with gifts, cards, and time spent together as a family. The rest of the year we can only hope to honor our fathers by our own hard work, as we try to live up to the dreams-- yes, the dreams--that they have for us. I think of Kipling's lines at this moment. I think they are quite appropriate: Our Fathers in a wondrous age, Ere yet the Earth was small, Ensured to us an heritage, And doubted not at all That we, the children of their heart, Which then did beat so high, In later time should play like part For our posterity. Then, fretful, murmur not they gave So great a charge to keep, Nor dream that awestruck Time shall save Their labour while we sleep. Dear-bought and clear, a thousand year, Our fathers' title runs. Make we likewise their sacrifice, Defrauding not our sons. Mr. President, I close with a short poem by Grace V. Watkins entitled ``I Heard My Father Pray.'' I offer it in honor of Titus Dalton Byrd, my Dad, who is looking down from Heaven. Once in the night I heard my father pray. The house was sleeping, and the dark above The hill was wide. I listened to him say Such phrases of devotion and of love, So far beyond his customary fashion, I held my breath in wonder. Then he spoke My name with such tenderness and such compassion, Forgotten fountains in my heart awoke. That night I learned that love is not a thing Measured by eloquence of hand or tongue, That sometimes those who voice no whispering Of their affection harbor love as strong, As powerful and deathless as the sod, But mentioned only when they talk with God. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Sally Goffinet is an unsung hero. Like many thousands of Senate staffers, her name is not widely known. There are no news accounts of her 31 years of service to her country. Her quiet professionalism will never be the subject of wide acclaim. But she is a star of the Senate family. Sally is one of the thousands of people stretching back over the history of our Republic to whom the Senate owes a very great debt. Sally Goffinet was hired in 1972 by one of the greatest Parliamentarians ever to serve the Senate, the late Dr. Floyd Riddick. Sally was the first woman ever to be assigned to that office. She continued to serve the Parliamentarian's office until the spring of this year, at which time she retired. Sally has worked for every Parliamentarian since the office was established, except for the very first Senate Parliamentarian, Mr. Charles Watkins. Charles Watkins was the Parliamentarian when I came to the Senate 45 years ago. Sally graduated from college with a BA in history. So her interest in the Senate came naturally. Can you imagine the institutional knowledge and the institutional memory she possesses? She possesses something there. When I say that, I mean an institutional memory. And not every Senator has that, an institutional memory. It is acquired after one is here a great while, normally. But it is not normally that every Senator acquires an institutional memory. Why is that? One has to be interested. A Senator must be interested in the Senate as an institution, its history, its customs, its folklore, its rules, and its precedents. Then one will have an institutional memory. The institution means something. The institution is always at the center of a Senator's public life, if he or she has an institutional memory. Can you imagine the institutional memory that Sally possesses? When one works alongside so many Parliamentarians, one acquires a deep, deep exposure to Senate rules and precedents. Senate rules and precedents-- how important are they? Thomas Jefferson in his manual, ``Jefferson's Manual,'' spoke of Speaker Onslow. I watched television when it was good. There is a good show on most Saturday nights. I get it on Channel 22 in McLean, or I get it on 26 over in McLean. On some evenings, this particular picture, or show, will be on both--possibly on 22 at a given time and a half hour later on Channel 26. This picture is British. Ah, what actors they are. We have few Americans, in my judgment, who are real, honest-to-goodness actors. They are conscious of the fact that they are acting in that show. It comes out at you when you watch it, but not with the British. They just act in a very natural way, and speak--what great English, what grammar. The British have it all over us, for the most part. On Saturday nights, my wife Erma and I watch ``Keeping Up Appearances.'' It is good, clean comedy. So tune in on ``Keeping Up Appearances.'' As I talk about Sally, she has seen Members come and go. She has acquired an institutional memory. And such long service in such a position imparts almost a sixth sense about the Senate and about its unique role in our constitutional system. And as I was about to say, Thomas Jefferson spoke of the Speaker of the British Parliament when he spoke of Mr. Onslow. The reason I got off on this other part about the Saturday evening TV is because there is a person in this comedy show whose name is Onslow. When Jefferson spoke of Onslow, he was speaking of a different Onslow. He was talking of the Speaker of the House of Commons, who said--and Jefferson said it also--that it is more important that there be a rule than what the actual rule says. And he makes a very good point in saying that it is more important that there be a rule than what the rule actually says. Because if there is a rule, there will be order, and a minority will be heard. If there is a rule, there will be order. And so we are talking now about the Parliamentarians. The Senate has not always had a Parliamentarians. But Charlie Watkins was the Parliamentarian when I came. That is a long time ago as we measure service in the Senate. So Sally acquired that deep exposure, that I referred to, to the Senate rules and precedents. And one who is in such a position naturally witnesses the Senate's dynamic change as events occur. History progresses and Members come and go. Such long service in such a position imparts, as I say, almost a sixth sense about the Senate and about its unique role in our constitutional system. Such an individual really can never be replaced. Today, when so many Members and staffers in our Senate family do not stay very long, I often wonder how we will fare in keeping that sense of the institution alive in future years, that institutional pride, pride in being a Member, an individual who has been selected by the constituents of that particular State, who have gone to the voting booths and cast their votes for a particular individual to serve in this great institution. We must find a way because, year by year, an understanding of the Senate's ultimate role and purpose is slipping away. We have these pages on the Republican side and the Democratic side, and they are wholesome, fine young people. I talk with every new class that comes in. I get acquainted with them. I talk with them. I tell them stories. I tell them, for example, the story written by that great author, Tolstoy, ``How Much Land Does a Man Need?'' I have not talked to this new group yet, but probably the first story I will tell them will be ``How Much Land Does a Man Need'' by Tolstoy. Then I may tell them that story that great Chataquan speaker told 5,000 times. Russel Conwell, that great Chataquan speaker, told the story ``Acres of Diamonds.'' He said he had told that story 5,000 times. Well, I am going to tell that story to the pages also. These are great stories, and I look forward to talking with them. In this way, I help to preserve an understanding of what the Senate is all about. We talk about that. We talk about politics and about the Senate so that these young people, when they leave here, will go out and they will spread the word also. Individuals like Sally Goffinet have helped to keep us true to our course. And, today, I thank Sally for her long years of service, her pleasant and professional demeanor, which I will miss, and her wisdom, born of long experience and deep appreciation for the special place which is the United States Senate. I send my best to her husband of 31 years, Joe Goffinet, and to her daughter, Sarah. Joe is a special education teacher. Sarah is a graduate of Bowdoin College in Maine, and she is presently working at the Corcoran Gallery of Art. So the Senate's loss is their gain.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, is the Senate in morning business?

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for such time as I may consume.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Five minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend and the Chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Cochran, in offering this amendment today. At the same time, I deeply regret the fact that we are being forced to have to come to this floor and offer this amendment. S. 824 contains a brand new $500 million entitlement program. This legislation would earmark $500 million of existing aviation security fees for grants to airports for construction. The Transportation Security Administration was created by the Congress in response to the attacks of September 11. It was a failure of our airport screening procedures that allowed 19 men to board domestic airliners with weapons and turn four planes into instruments of death and destruction. With the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the TSA was transferred from the Department of Transportation to the new Homeland Security Department. The Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, which is so ably chaired by the senior Senator from Mississippi, is charged with funding the TSA--one of many agencies now in the Department of Homeland Security. The President's Fiscal Year 2004 budget request for the TSA assumes that $2 billion and $70 million in aviation security fees will go to the TSA to meet its security requirements. These fees are used to fund the thousands of screeners at our airports, for purchasing security equipment such as explosives detection equipment, and for the Federal Air Marshals program, all of which help secure our airports and the millions of travelers who use them. The provision in this bill that Senator Cochran and I are seeking to modify would take $500 million of those fees that the President has requested for the TSA and instead earmark the $500 million for a new entitlement program for airport construction grants. This new mandatory program purports to ``solve'' an airport security construction problem. However, the provision actually creates a homeland security problem. The provision will create a $500 million hole in the TSA budget--a hole that the Homeland Security Subcommittee will be unable to fill without creating other holes in our homeland security budget. How should we fill that $500 million hole? Should we take Border Patrol agents off our Southwest border? Should we cut port security programs? Should we further slow down the Coast Guard's modernization program? Should we reduce the numbers of inspectors at our ports of entry on our borders and increase the waiting time for agricultural produce to enter the U.S. from Mexico and Canada? Should we cut grants to our States and cities to equip and train first responders? These are the very real choices we on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee will have to face if the provision in this bill is permitted to pass. I sympathize with the dilemma facing the members of the Commerce Committee. They are attempting to relieve the security construction burden facing our Nation's airports. I support these airport security programs and have provided funds in the past to begin to meet these airport security needs. However, the President did not request one dime for airport security construction in his budget, not one dime. So if this provision became law, we would need to cut $500 million from homeland security priorities requested by the President. Our amendment is a simple one. Instead of creating a new entitlement program, instead of creating a colossal new $500 million earmark, instead of putting airport construction grants at the front of the line, ahead of border security, port security or first responder grants, this amendment would simply turn this new $500 million program into an authorization. It would allow the Senate to use the appropriations process to make careful choices among the competing homeland security priorities. I urge my colleagues to join us on this amendment and strike this ill-advised provision. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. If the Senator will yield briefly, I thank the Senator from Arizona and the comanager on this side of the aisle for their accepting the amendment. I think it is a real service.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Iraq's WMD Intelligence: Where is the Outrage?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, with each passing day, the questions concerning and surrounding Iraq's missing weapons of mass destruction take on added urgency. Where are the massive stockpiles of VX, mustard, and other nerve agents that we were told Iraq was hoarding? Where are the thousands of liters of botulinim toxin? Wasn't it the looming threat to America posed by these weapons that propelled the United States into war with Iraq? Isn't this the reason American military personnel were called upon to risk their lives in mortal combat? On March 17, in his final speech to the American people before ordering the invasion of Iraq, President Bush took one last opportunity to bolster his case for war. The centerpiece of his argument was the same message he brought to the United Nations months before, and the same message he hammered home at every opportunity in the intervening months, namely that Saddam Hussein had failed to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and thus presented an imminent danger to the American people. ``Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised,'' the President said. Now, nearly 2 months after the fall of Baghdad, the United States has yet to find any physical evidence of those lethal weapons. Could they be buried underground or are they somehow camouflaged in plain sight? Have they been shipped outside of the country? Do they actually exist? The questions are mounting. What started weeks ago as a restless murmur throughout Iraq has intensified into a worldwide cacophony of confusion. The fundamental question that is nagging at many is this: How reliable were the claims of this President and key members of his administration that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction posed a clear and imminent threat to the United States, such a grave threat that immediate war was the only recourse? Lawmakers, who were assured before the war that weapons of mass destruction would be found in Iraq, and many of whom voted--now get this--to give this administration a sweeping grant of authority to wage war based upon those assurances, have now been placed in the uncomfortable position of wondering if they were misled. The media is ratcheting up the demand for answers: Could it be that the intelligence was wrong, or could it be that the facts were manipulated a little here, a little there? These are very serious and grave questions, and they require immediate answers. We cannot--and must not--brush such questions aside. We owe the people of this country an answer. Those people who are listening, who are watching this Chamber, and every Member of this body ought to be demanding answers. I am encouraged that the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence Committees are planning to investigate the credibility of the intelligence that was used to build the case for war against Iraq. We need a thorough, open, gloves-off investigation of this matter, and we need it quickly. The credibility of the President and his administration hangs in the balance. We must not trifle with the people's trust by foot-dragging. What amazes me is that the President himself is not clamoring for an investigation. It is his integrity, President Bush's integrity, that is on the line. It is his truthfulness that is being questioned. It is his leadership that has come under scrutiny. And yet he has raised no question that I have heard. He has expressed no curiosity about the strange turn of events in Iraq. He has expressed no anger at the possibility that he might have been misled by people in his own administration. How is it that the President, who was so adamant about the dangers of WMD, has expressed no concern over the whereabouts of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Indeed, instead of leading the charge to uncover the discrepancy between what we were told before the war and what we have found--or failed to find--since the war, the White House is circling the wagons and scoffing at the notion that anyone in the administration exaggerated the threat from Iraq. In an interview with Polish television last week, President Bush noted that two trailers were found in Iraq that U.S. intelligence officials believe are mobile biological weapons production labs, although no trace of chemical or biological material was found in the trailers. ``We found the weapons of mass destruction,'' the President was quoted as saying. But certainly he cannot be satisfied with such meager evidence. At the CIA, Director George Tenet released a terse statement the other day defending the intelligence his agency provided on Iraq. ``The integrity of our process was maintained throughout and any suggestion to the contrary is simply wrong,'' he said. How can he be so absolutely sure? At the Pentagon, Doug Feith, the Undersecretary of Defense for policy, held a rare press conference this week to deny reports that a high-level intelligence cell in the Defense Department doctored data and pressured the CIA to strengthen the case for war. ``I know of no pressure. I can't rule out what other people may have perceived. Who knows what people perceive,'' he said. Is this administration not at all concerned about the perception of deception? The perception is there. And Secretary of State Powell, who presented the U.S. case against Iraq to the United Nations last February, strenuously defended his presentation in an interview this week and denied any erosion in the administration's credibility. ``Everybody knows that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction,'' he said. Should he not be more concerned than that about U.S. claims before the United Nations? And yet . . . and yet . . . the questions continue to grow, and the doubts are beginning to drown out the assurances. For every insistence from Washington that the weapons of mass destruction case against Iraq is sound comes a counterpoint from the field--another dry hole, another dead end. As the top Marine general in Iraq was recently quoted as saying, ``It was a surprise to me then, it remains a surprise to me now, that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Again, believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.'' Who are the American people to believe? What are we to think? Even though I opposed the war against Iraq because I believe that the doctrine of preemption is a flawed and dangerous instrument of foreign policy, I did believe that Saddam Hussein possessed some chemical and biological weapons capability. But I did not believe that he presented an imminent threat to the United States as indeed he did not. Such weapons may eventually turn up. I said so weeks ago; they may eventually turn up. But my greater fear is that the belligerent stance of the United States may have convinced Saddam Hussein to sell or disperse his weapons to dark forces outside of Iraq. Shouldn't this administration be equally alarmed if they really believed that Saddam had such dangerous capabilities? The administration took steps to protect the oil facilities in Iraq from being damaged and set on fire. The administration took extraordinary steps to do that. Why did it not take equally extraordinary steps to protect chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear weapons, possibly, from being looted, from being stolen, from being taken away by those who would sell them, possibly, to terrorists? Saddam Hussein is missing. Osama bin Laden is missing. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are missing. And the President's mild claims that we are ``on the look'' do not comfort me. There ought to be an army of UN inspectors combing the countryside in Iraq or searching for evidence of disbursement of these weapons right now. Why are we waiting? Is there fear of the unknown or fear of the truth? This nation--and, indeed, the world--was led into war with Iraq on the grounds that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent threat to the United States and to the global community. As the President said in his March 17 address to the Nation, ``The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.'' That fear may still be valid, but I wonder how the war with Iraq has really mitigated the threat from terrorists. As the recent attack in Saudi Arabia proved, terrorism is alive and well and unaffected by the situation in Iraq. Meanwhile, the President seems oblivious to the controversy swirling about the justification for the invasion of Iraq. Our Nation's credibility before the world is at stake. While his administration digs in to defend the status quo, Members of Congress are questioning the credibility of the intelligence and the public case made by this administration on which the war with Iraq was based. Members of the media, Members of the fourth estate, are openly challenging whether America's intelligence agencies were simply wrong or were callously manipulated. Vice President Cheney's numerous visits to the CIA are being portrayed by some intelligence professionals as ``pressure.'' And the American people are wondering, once again, what is going on in the dark shadows of Washington. It is time that we had some answers. It is time that the American people were given some answers. It is time that the administration stepped up its acts to reassure the American people that the horrific weapons that the administration told us threatened the world's safety have not fallen into terrorist hands. It is time that the President leveled with the American people. It is time that the President of the United States demanded that we get to the bottom of this matter and to follow every lead, regardless of where that lead goes. We have waged a costly war against Iraq. American fighting men and women are still dying in Iraq. We have prevailed. But we are still losing, as I said, still losing American lives in that nation. And the troubled situation there is far from settled. American troops will likely be needed there for months, many months--even years. Billions of American tax dollars will continue to be needed to rebuild that country. I only hope that we have not won the war only to lose the peace. Until we have determined the fate of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, or determined that they, in fact, did not exist, we cannot rest, we cannot claim victory. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction remain a mystery, an enigma, a conundrum. What are they, where are they, how dangerous are they? Or were they a manufactured excuse by an administration eager to seize a country? It is time these questions were answered. It is time--past time--for the administration to level with the American people, and it is time for the President of the United States to demand an accounting from his own administration as to exactly how our Nation was led down such a twisted path to war. His credibility and the credibility of this Nation is at stake. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have one final question. Has the Pastore rule expired?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, is the Senate operating under any time control at the moment?

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?

Mr. BYRD. What is the pending question before the Senate, Mr. President?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation designed to fulfill an important promise made by the Federal Government to the people of my State and my region some 38 years ago. I am speaking of the promise to build and complete a network of highways through the Appalachian region known today as the Appalachian Development Highway System or ADHS. I look forward to working with my fellow Senators to have my legislation included in the measure to reauthorize the Federal- aid Highway Program, one of the most important, if not the most important, pieces of legislation which will be considered during this Congress. The Federal-aid Highway Program is at the very core of the Federal infrastructure investment exercise. On September 30 of last year, our very capable Federal Highway Administrator, Ms. Mary Peters, testified before the Committee on Environment and Public Works on the condition and performance of our National Highway System. The Administration's Conditions and Performance Report has again reminded us that a great deal more needs to be invested in our infrastructure if we are not to fall further and further behind in stemming the deterioration of our nation's highways and bridges and alleviating congestion on our nation's roads. At the September 30 hearing, Administrator Peters testified that, even in the wake of the historic funding increase accomplished through TEA-21, congestion on our roads continues to worsen. An investment in our highway infrastructure by all levels of government will have to increase by more than 65 percent or $42.2 billion per year to actually improve the condition of our nation's highways. A funding increase of more than 17 percent or $11.3 billion will be necessary simply to maintain the current inadequate conditions of our highway network, where more than one in four of our nation's bridges are classified as deficient. Having served as both Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have sought to do my part by championing the highest level of Federal highway investment for all fifty States that is possible under our budget constraints. Earlier this year, I am pleased to report that the Senate prevailed in the conference with the House on the Omnibus Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2003 and rejected every penny of the $8.6 billion cut in highway funding proposed by President Bush. And just last month, I was pleased to join with Senators Bond and Reid, the respective Chairman and Ranking Member of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee, in sponsoring a bipartisan amendment to the Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2004 that boosted funding for our Federal-aid Highway Program by several billion dollars. That amendment commanded 79 votes on the Senate floor. While serving in the other body, I had the great privilege of casting my vote in favor of establishing the Interstate highway System back in 1958. However, in 1964, it was recognized by the first Appalachian Regional Commission that while the Interstate Highway System was slated to provide historic economic benefits to most of our Nation, the system was designed to bypass the Appalachian Region due to the extremely high cost associated with building Highways through Appalachia's rugged topography. As a result, the construction of the interstates would have had the detrimental effect of drawing passengers and freight, and the accompanying economic benefits, away from the Appalachian Region. In 1965, the Congress adopted the Appalachian Regional Development Act that promised a network of modern highways to connect the Appalachian Region to the rest of the Nation's highway network and, even more importantly, the rest of the Nation's economy. Absent the Appalachian Development Highway System, my region of the country would have been left solely with a transportation infrastructure of dangerous, narrow, winding roads which follow the path of river valleys and stream beds between mountains. These roads are still, more often than not, two-lane roads that are squeezed into very limited rights-of- way. They are characterized by low travel speeds and long travel distances and are often built to inadequate design standards. One of the observations contained in Administrator Peters' testimony back in September that especially caught my eye was her statement that ``the condition of higher-order roads, such as interstates, has improved considerably since 1993 while the condition on many lower- order roads has deteriorated.'' It appears that the pattern of road conditions is beginning to mirror the distribution of wealth in our country, whereby the rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer. That observation is most pertinent when you consider the challenge of completing the Appalachian Development Highway System. We have virtually completed the construction of the Interstate Highway System and have moved on to many other important transportation goals. However, the people of my region are still waiting for the Federal Government to live up to its promise, made some 38 years ago, to complete the ADHS. The system is still less than 80 percent complete and I regret to observe that my home State of West Virginia is below the average for the entire Appalachian Region with only 72 percent of its mileage complete and open to traffic. The rationale behind the completion of the Appalachian Development Highway System is no less sound today than it was in 1964. Unfortunately, there are still children in Appalachia who lack decent transportation routes to school; and there are still pregnant mothers, elderly citizens and others who lack timely road access to area hospitals. There are thousands upon thousands of people who cannot obtain sustainable well-paying jobs because of poor road access to major employment centers. The entire status of the Appalachian Development Highway System is laid out in great detail in the Cost to Complete Report for 2002 recently completed by the Appalachian Regional Commission. This is the most comprehensive report on the status of the Appalachian Development Highway System to date and I commend the staff of the Appalachian Regional Commission for their hard work on this report. The last report was completed in 1997 just prior to Congressional consideration of TEA-21. The enactment of TEA-21 signaled a new day in the advancement of the Appalachian Development Highway System. Through the work of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and the Administration, we took a great leap forward by authorizing direct contract authority from the Highway Trust Fund to the States for the construction of the ADHS. Up until that point, funding for the Appalachian Development Highway System had been limited to uncertain and inconsistent general fund appropriations. By provding the States of the Appalachian Region with a consistent and predictable source of funds to move forward on its uncompleted ADHS segments, TEA-21 served to reinvigorate our efforts to honor the promise made to the people of the Appalachian Region. As is made clear in the Cost to Complete Report, this initiative has been a great success. States are making greater progress toward the completion of the system than they have in any five-year segment in recent memory. Since the last Cost to Complete Report, 183 miles of the system have been opened to traffic and we have successfully brought down the cost to complete the system by roughly $1.7 billion in Federal funds. Back when we were debating TEA-21, some questions were asked as to how committed the States would be to completing the unfinished segments to the Appalachian Development Highway System. I am pleased to report that the 13 States, to date, have succeeded in obligating just under 90 percent of the obligation authority that has been granted to them for the completion of the system. A 90-percent obligation rate compares quite favorably to some of the other transportation programs through which the States were granted multiple years to obligate their funds. According to the ARC's Cost to Complete Report, the remaining Federal funds needed to complete the ADHS are now estimated to be $4.467 billion. When adjusted for inflation over the life of the next highway bill, using the standard inflation calculation for highway projects, a total of $5.04 billion will need to be authorized to complete the system. That is a lot of money and I believe that figure deserves some explanation. The considerable cost of completing the last 20 percent of the ADHS is explained by the fact that the easiest segments of the system to build have already been built. Much of the costs associated with completing the most difficult unfinished segments are driven by the requirement to comply with other Federal laws, especially the laws requiring environmental mitigation measures when building new highways through rural areas. While the $5.04 billion figure may seem large to some of my colleagues, I would remind them the last highway bill authorized more than $218 billion in federal infrastructure investment over six years. It is my sincere hope and expectation that the next highway bill will authorize an even greater amount. Of critical importance to this debate is the fact that the unfinished segments of the ADHS represent some of most dangerous and most deficient roadways in our entire Nation. Often lost in our debate over the necessity to invest in our highways is the issue of safety. The Federal Highway Administration has published reports indicating that substandard road conditions are a factor in 30 percent of all fatal highway accidents. I am quite certain that the percentage is a great deal higher in the Appalachian Region. The Federal Highway Administration found that upgrading two-lane roads to four-lane divided highways decreased fatal car accidents by 71 percent and that the widening of traffic lanes has served to reduce fatalities by 21 percent. These are precisely the kind of road improvements that are funded through the ADHS. In my state, the largest segment of unfinished Appalachian Highway, if completed, will replace the second most dangerous segment of roadway in West Virginia. So, even those who would question the wisdom of completing these highways in the name of economic development should take a hard look at the fact that the people of rural Appalachia are taking their lives in their hands every day as they drive on dangerous roads. It is time for this Congress, in concert with the Administration, to take the last great leap forward and authorize sufficient contract authority to finally complete the Appalachian Development Highway System. If we enact another six-year highway bill with sufficient funds to complete the system, we will finally pay the full costs of the ADHS almost 45 years after the system was first promised to the people of my region. The legislation I am introducing today, the ``Appalachian Development Highway System Completion Act,'' will provide sufficient contract authority to complete the system. Importantly, it will guarantee that the states of the Appalachian Region do not pay a penalty, either through the distribution of minimum allocation funds, or the distribution of obligation limitation, for receiving sufficient funds to complete the Appalachian system. I am very pleased that this Administration has taken on the goal of completing the ADHS. In her letter accompanying the Cost to Complete Report, Administrator Peters said ``the completion of the ADHS is an important part of the mission of the Federal Highway Administration. We consider the accessibility, mobility and economic stimulation provided by the ADHS to be entirely consistent with the goals of our agency.'' Ms. Peters further stated that the Appalachian Regional Commission's 2002 Cost to Complete Report, ``provides a sound basis for apportioning future funding to complete the system.'' I thank Mary Peters and the entire Federal Highway Administration for their leadership on this issue and I look forward to working with Ms. Peters and her agency to ensure that this commitment is borne out in the transportation reauthorization legislation that is developed by the Congress. Completion of a new highway bill will be a mammoth task for this Congress. As I look back over the many years of my public career, one of the accomplishments of which I am most proud was my amendment providing an additional $8 billion in funding to break the logjam during the debate on the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act in 1991. Another was my sponsorship of the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner Amendment during the Senate debate of TEA-21 in 1998. That effort resulted in some $26 billion in funding being added to that bill and put us on a path to historic funding increases for our nation's highway infrastructure. I look forward again to working with my fellow Senators on completion of a bill that makes the necessary investments in our nation's highways, not just in the Appalachian Region, but across our entire country.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation designed to fulfill an important promise made by the Federal Government to the people of my State and my region some 38 years ago. I am speaking of the promise to build and complete a network of highways through the Appalachian region known today as the Appalachian Development Highway System or ADHS. I look forward to working with my fellow Senators to have my legislation included in the measure to reauthorize the Federal- aid Highway Program, one of the most important, if not the most important, pieces of legislation which will be considered during this Congress. The Federal-aid Highway Program is at the very core of the Federal infrastructure investment exercise. On September 30 of last year, our very capable Federal Highway Administrator, Ms. Mary Peters, testified before the Committee on Environment and Public Works on the condition and performance of our National Highway System. The Administration's Conditions and Performance Report has again reminded us that a great deal more needs to be invested in our infrastructure if we are not to fall further and further behind in stemming the deterioration of our nation's highways and bridges and alleviating congestion on our nation's roads. At the September 30 hearing, Administrator Peters testified that, even in the wake of the historic funding increase accomplished through TEA-21, congestion on our roads continues to worsen. An investment in our highway infrastructure by all levels of government will have to increase by more than 65 percent or $42.2 billion per year to actually improve the condition of our nation's highways. A funding increase of more than 17 percent or $11.3 billion will be necessary simply to maintain the current inadequate conditions of our highway network, where more than one in four of our nation's bridges are classified as deficient. Having served as both Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have sought to do my part by championing the highest level of Federal highway investment for all fifty States that is possible under our budget constraints. Earlier this year, I am pleased to report that the Senate prevailed in the conference with the House on the Omnibus Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2003 and rejected every penny of the $8.6 billion cut in highway funding proposed by President Bush. And just last month, I was pleased to join with Senators Bond and Reid, the respective Chairman and Ranking Member of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee, in sponsoring a bipartisan amendment to the Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2004 that boosted funding for our Federal-aid Highway Program by several billion dollars. That amendment commanded 79 votes on the Senate floor. While serving in the other body, I had the great privilege of casting my vote in favor of establishing the Interstate highway System back in 1958. However, in 1964, it was recognized by the first Appalachian Regional Commission that while the Interstate Highway System was slated to provide historic economic benefits to most of our Nation, the system was designed to bypass the Appalachian Region due to the extremely high cost associated with building Highways through Appalachia's rugged topography. As a result, the construction of the interstates would have had the detrimental effect of drawing passengers and freight, and the accompanying economic benefits, away from the Appalachian Region. In 1965, the Congress adopted the Appalachian Regional Development Act that promised a network of modern highways to connect the Appalachian Region to the rest of the Nation's highway network and, even more importantly, the rest of the Nation's economy. Absent the Appalachian Development Highway System, my region of the country would have been left solely with a transportation infrastructure of dangerous, narrow, winding roads which follow the path of river valleys and stream beds between mountains. These roads are still, more often than not, two-lane roads that are squeezed into very limited rights-of- way. They are characterized by low travel speeds and long travel distances and are often built to inadequate design standards. One of the observations contained in Administrator Peters' testimony back in September that especially caught my eye was her statement that ``the condition of higher-order roads, such as interstates, has improved considerably since 1993 while the condition on many lower- order roads has deteriorated.'' It appears that the pattern of road conditions is beginning to mirror the distribution of wealth in our country, whereby the rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer. That observation is most pertinent when you consider the challenge of completing the Appalachian Development Highway System. We have virtually completed the construction of the Interstate Highway System and have moved on to many other important transportation goals. However, the people of my region are still waiting for the Federal Government to live up to its promise, made some 38 years ago, to complete the ADHS. The system is still less than 80 percent complete and I regret to observe that my home State of West Virginia is below the average for the entire Appalachian Region with only 72 percent of its mileage complete and open to traffic. The rationale behind the completion of the Appalachian Development Highway System is no less sound today than it was in 1964. Unfortunately, there are still children in Appalachia who lack decent transportation routes to school; and there are still pregnant mothers, elderly citizens and others who lack timely road access to area hospitals. There are thousands upon thousands of people who cannot obtain sustainable well-paying jobs because of poor road access to major employment centers. The entire status of the Appalachian Development Highway System is laid out in great detail in the Cost to Complete Report for 2002 recently completed by the Appalachian Regional Commission. This is the most comprehensive report on the status of the Appalachian Development Highway System to date and I commend the staff of the Appalachian Regional Commission for their hard work on this report. The last report was completed in 1997 just prior to Congressional consideration of TEA-21. The enactment of TEA-21 signaled a new day in the advancement of the Appalachian Development Highway System. Through the work of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and the Administration, we took a great leap forward by authorizing direct contract authority from the Highway Trust Fund to the States for the construction of the ADHS. Up until that point, funding for the Appalachian Development Highway System had been limited to uncertain and inconsistent general fund appropriations. By provding the States of the Appalachian Region with a consistent and predictable source of funds to move forward on its uncompleted ADHS segments, TEA-21 served to reinvigorate our efforts to honor the promise made to the people of the Appalachian Region. As is made clear in the Cost to Complete Report, this initiative has been a great success. States are making greater progress toward the completion of the system than they have in any five-year segment in recent memory. Since the last Cost to Complete Report, 183 miles of the system have been opened to traffic and we have successfully brought down the cost to complete the system by roughly $1.7 billion in Federal funds. Back when we were debating TEA-21, some questions were asked as to how committed the States would be to completing the unfinished segments to the Appalachian Development Highway System. I am pleased to report that the 13 States, to date, have succeeded in obligating just under 90 percent of the obligation authority that has been granted to them for the completion of the system. A 90-percent obligation rate compares quite favorably to some of the other transportation programs through which the States were granted multiple years to obligate their funds. According to the ARC's Cost to Complete Report, the remaining Federal funds needed to complete the ADHS are now estimated to be $4.467 billion. When adjusted for inflation over the life of the next highway bill, using the standard inflation calculation for highway projects, a total of $5.04 billion will need to be authorized to complete the system. That is a lot of money and I believe that figure deserves some explanation. The considerable cost of completing the last 20 percent of the ADHS is explained by the fact that the easiest segments of the system to build have already been built. Much of the costs associated with completing the most difficult unfinished segments are driven by the requirement to comply with other Federal laws, especially the laws requiring environmental mitigation measures when building new highways through rural areas. While the $5.04 billion figure may seem large to some of my colleagues, I would remind them the last highway bill authorized more than $218 billion in federal infrastructure investment over six years. It is my sincere hope and expectation that the next highway bill will authorize an even greater amount. Of critical importance to this debate is the fact that the unfinished segments of the ADHS represent some of most dangerous and most deficient roadways in our entire Nation. Often lost in our debate over the necessity to invest in our highways is the issue of safety. The Federal Highway Administration has published reports indicating that substandard road conditions are a factor in 30 percent of all fatal highway accidents. I am quite certain that the percentage is a great deal higher in the Appalachian Region. The Federal Highway Administration found that upgrading two-lane roads to four-lane divided highways decreased fatal car accidents by 71 percent and that the widening of traffic lanes has served to reduce fatalities by 21 percent. These are precisely the kind of road improvements that are funded through the ADHS. In my state, the largest segment of unfinished Appalachian Highway, if completed, will replace the second most dangerous segment of roadway in West Virginia. So, even those who would question the wisdom of completing these highways in the name of economic development should take a hard look at the fact that the people of rural Appalachia are taking their lives in their hands every day as they drive on dangerous roads. It is time for this Congress, in concert with the Administration, to take the last great leap forward and authorize sufficient contract authority to finally complete the Appalachian Development Highway System. If we enact another six-year highway bill with sufficient funds to complete the system, we will finally pay the full costs of the ADHS almost 45 years after the system was first promised to the people of my region. The legislation I am introducing today, the ``Appalachian Development Highway System Completion Act,'' will provide sufficient contract authority to complete the system. Importantly, it will guarantee that the states of the Appalachian Region do not pay a penalty, either through the distribution of minimum allocation funds, or the distribution of obligation limitation, for receiving sufficient funds to complete the Appalachian system. I am very pleased that this Administration has taken on the goal of completing the ADHS. In her letter accompanying the Cost to Complete Report, Administrator Peters said ``the completion of the ADHS is an important part of the mission of the Federal Highway Administration. We consider the accessibility, mobility and economic stimulation provided by the ADHS to be entirely consistent with the goals of our agency.'' Ms. Peters further stated that the Appalachian Regional Commission's 2002 Cost to Complete Report, ``provides a sound basis for apportioning future funding to complete the system.'' I thank Mary Peters and the entire Federal Highway Administration for their leadership on this issue and I look forward to working with Ms. Peters and her agency to ensure that this commitment is borne out in the transportation reauthorization legislation that is developed by the Congress. Completion of a new highway bill will be a mammoth task for this Congress. As I look back over the many years of my public career, one of the accomplishments of which I am most proud was my amendment providing an additional $8 billion in funding to break the logjam during the debate on the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act in 1991. Another was my sponsorship of the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner Amendment during the Senate debate of TEA-21 in 1998. That effort resulted in some $26 billion in funding being added to that bill and put us on a path to historic funding increases for our nation's highway infrastructure. I look forward again to working with my fellow Senators on completion of a bill that makes the necessary investments in our nation's highways, not just in the Appalachian Region, but across our entire country.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I object to the request made by my good friend from Missouri, that land from which Old Crumb, that great hunting dog, came. I believe it is Warrensburg, MO, where that statue stands today, the statute of Old Crumb, that great hunting dog. But I must on this occasion object. I do it at the behest of another Senator. I assure the distinguished Senator that I bear no ill will toward him, certainly. But, on this occasion, I have promised that I would object, and I do object.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate is considering legislation to raise the statutory debt limit by $1 trillion. This increase is the largest in the history of the Republic-- surpassing by a whopping $100 billion the record that was set by the first President Bush in 1990. What's more, it would be the second increase in the debt ceiling since this President took office in January 2001. The Treasury Secretary recently wrote to the Congress stating that the current statutory debt ceiling would only be adequate to ensure the operations of Government through the end of May. The administration has tried to excuse the need to raise the level of borrowing authority. Among its scapegoats, the administration blames economic weakness. It blames the September 11 attacks. It blames the corporate accounting scandals of last summer. That scapegoating may help this administration to explain how it lost $5.6 trillion of budget surpluses in less than 2 years, but it doesn't explain why they need to increase the national debt by an additional $1 trillion. It doesn't explain why this administration is pushing for new tax cuts when we don't even have the money to pay for tax cuts that have already been enacted into law. To quote President Ronald Reagan, ``the American people deserve a President who has the courage to give answers instead of mak[ing] excuses.'' So far, only $202 billion of the $1.35 trillion tax cut package signed into law in 2001 has gone into effect. That means $1.15 trillion in tax cuts are set to phase in over the next 8 years. In addition, the President is pushing for $1.5 trillion in new tax cuts. That is a total of $2.65 trillion in tax cuts that would have to be paid for in the coming years under the President's policies. But there is no money to pay for them. The cupboard is bare. The vault is empty. There is nothing left under the mattress. The moths are flying out of the wallet of the U.S. Government. The Congressional Budget Office reported a $248 billion deficit for the first 6 months of the current fiscal year. That deficit is expected to increase to nearly $400 billion before the end of the fiscal year. That is $400 billion--$110 billion higher than the record set in 1992 during the first Bush administration. We will have to borrow the money not only to pay for new tax cuts, but to pay 85 percent of the tax cuts already enacted into law and scheduled to become effective in the coming years. That is why the administration is pushing the Congress to increase the statutory debt limit by $1 trillion--so that we can borrow the money to pay for these tax cuts. The ship is sinking and this administration is drilling more holes in the bottom of the boat. Administration officials are already beginning to jump ship. Paul O'Neill left the Treasury Department last December, along with the President's economic adviser, Larry Lindsey. White House economist Glenn Hubbard left last February. And now Mitch Daniels is fleeing the budgetary quagmire he helped to create. The Republican-passed budget, which assumes the President's budget proposals are enacted into law, estimates that the statutory debt limit will increase from its current level of $6.4 trillion to $12 trillion by 2013. This legislation to increase the debt ceiling by $1 trillion is just the beginning of an administration effort currently underway to double the size of the national debt by $6 trillion in just 10 years. And that rise in the debt limit does not include the total costs of the war in Iraq. It does not include necessary investments that must be made to protect the Nation from terrorists. Nor does it include an adequate prescription drug benefit, or a host of other urgent investments that need to be made in education, health care, veterans services, and other essential infrastructure. Most alarmingly, that debt limit increase does not include the costs of providing for the soon-to-be-retiring baby boomers, and the resulting financial pressures on the Social Security Program. According to the latest Social Security Trustees Report, Social Security trust fund expenditures will exceed revenues beginning in 2018, when there will be an estimated 65 million Social Security beneficiaries. The President's budget said ``These high and perpetual deficits make it obvious that Social Security and Medicare are in deep trouble.'' Yet there is nothing in the President's budget or the Republican-passed budget resolution that sets aside a single dime to deal with the impending Social Security funding crisis. When this President took office, he told the American people that every dollar of the Social Security surplus would be saved. But taking into account the President's proposed $1.5 trillion in new tax cuts, we will not only spend every dollar of the $2.2 trillion Social Security surplus through 2011, but we also will have to borrow more than $1.7 trillion to cover the President's spending and tax cut proposals. It took the entire history of the Nation to accumulate $5.6 trillion in debt by fiscal year 2001. Under the President's budget proposals, as incorporated in the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution, this debt would grow by over 100 percent in just 10 years. The United States fought World War II, the Korean war, and the Vietnam war, and even then our national debt grew only by $865 billion, from $43 billion in 1940 to $908 billion in 1980. Under President Bush's budget proposals, it will grow by almost seven times that amount in just 10 years. A national debt of that size amounts to $41,370.54 for every man, woman, and child in this country. That is more money than is annually earned by over half of the households in this Nation. That is enough money to put a down payment on half a dozen houses in West Virginia, to pay for a 4-year college education at West Virginia University, with money left over, or to pay eight times over for the annual health care insurance of a family of four. Like a carney at a circus sideshow, the Bush administration is asking the American people to step up to a barrel, and slap down $41,340 to win a $1,083 tax cut prize. The American people are being lured into the tent by big promises and folksy talking. In his January 28 State of the Union address, the President said, ``We will not pass on our problems to other Congresses, other Presidents, and other generations.'' What will happen when the carney pulls back the curtain and the American people realize that they have been swindled? We hear much rhetoric about providing the American people with tax relief. Yet nothing is said about debt relief for the American public, which will be borne by generations to come long after the tax refund checks have been cashed. So when the administration tells the American people that this debt increase was brought on by factors beyond its control, the American public should also realize that the administration, with eyes wide open, has chosen to strap this crushing debt burden to their backs. No matter how fair and equitable this administration claims its tax cut proposals to be, the tax refund checks will do nothing to save Social Security, and to cover the costs of the debt burden that American families will be paying for decades to come.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this coming Monday is the last Monday in May. Since the adoption of the National Holiday Act, Public Law 90-363, the last Monday in May has been celebrated as Memorial Day. The origins of Memorial Day extend far earlier than 1971, stretching back to the Civil War, when the practice of decorating the graves of fallen soldiers became widely practiced in the United States. And in the earlier years, the people, particularly the people of the southern states, celebrated this as Decoration Day. Honoring the fallen in battle is an ancient custom, extending at least to the ancient Greeks. Thucydides provides us with one example. It was the custom in Athens to conduct an elaborate funeral for all those killed in battle. A sacrifice would be made, the fallen laid to rest with ceremony, and then a funeral oration would be given. After the first battles of the Peloponnesian War, the brilliant politician and general, Pericles, was the orator. He used his speech to honor the dead but also to pay homage to the state for which they had fought. His love and admiration for Athens reflects the feelings of patriotism, pride, and love for the United States that have swelled in our breasts since the terrible events of September 11, 2001, and since the brave performance put on by U.S. forces in Iraq this spring. Pericles said, in part: . . . fix your eyes upon the greatness of Athens, until you become filled with the love of her; and when you are impressed by the spectacle of her glory, reflect that this empire has been acquired by men who knew their duty and had the courage to do it, who in the hour of conflict had the fear of dishonor always present in them, and who, if ever they failed in an enterprise, would not allow their virtues to be lost to their country, but freely gave their lives as the fairest offering which they could present at her feast. The sacrifice which they collectively made was individually repaid to them; for they received again each one for himself praise which grows not old, and the noblest of all tombs, I speak not of that in which their remains are laid, but that in which their glory survives, and is proclaimed always and on every fitting occasion both in word and in deed. For the whole earth is the tomb of famous men; not only are they commemorated by columns and inscriptions in their own country, but in foreign lands there dwells also an unwritten memorial of them, graven not on stones but in the hearts of men. So in the hearts of every family reunited, every child now free to attend school, everyone of every faith now allowed to worship freely, dwell the unwritten memorials to American fighting men and women. In France, in Flanders field, in Belgium, in Austria, Sweden, all across Europe, in the Philippines and across Southeast Asia, still beat hearts that remember the faces of American G.I.s who liberated them. At home, as well, the fallen live on. In the hearts of their families, in the caring hands that place poppies on graves in military cemeteries, in the flags snapping proudly in the breeze at doorsteps around the Nation, the Nation's fallen heroes are remembered. Without them, our Nation and our history would be forever altered. Without the heroes of Bunker Hill and Lexington and Yorktown, we might still be a British colony. Without the heroes of Gettysburg and Appomattox, we might not be a United States but two separate nations. Without the heroes of the Ardennes and Ypres, of Normandy and Tarawa, the globe would be redrawn in very different shapes. Without the heroes at the Yalu River and at Da Nang, the Iron Curtain might have encircled the globe. To each generation of heroes, we offer our silent thanks. And to the Creator, we must offer our prayers that the succeeding generations will be equally brave and equally patriotic, as ready to meet the rigors and challenges to come as are our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines today. We must hope that we bequeath to our future generations a nation worthy of such sacrifice, a nation, as Pericles proclaimed of Athens ``. . . for whose sake these men nobly fought and died; they could not bear the thought that she might be taken from them; and every one of us who survive should gladly toil on her behalf.'' The United States' guiding philosophy, our signal principles of freedom, liberty, opportunity, of government by the people--these are the enduring monuments of America's greatness. They are our greatest treasure, to be guarded most jealously and defended most zealously. For them have the fallen filled our military cemeteries. Even as we continue the so-called ``war on terror,'' we must guard against undermining our principles for the sake of some gossamer illusion of security. Our government must operate openly, before the view of the people. The people's branch--here it is. The people's branch, the Congress, must defend its prerogatives lest the Executive assume the powers of a tyrant. We must deal freely and fairly and honestly on the world stage, using our strength for the common good and maintaining the friendship built upon freely spilled blood and shared sacrifice. And we must treat our people as citizens, not potential terrorists, to be profiled and bugged and tapped and taped and held indefinitely without the full protections of the law. All the law enforcement techniques and technologies in the world will not eliminate all risk. If we are to honor the greatness of our Nation and the sacrifice of all those who have laid down their lives in her defense, we must be careful not to frighten ourselves into some kind of quasi police state. This Memorial Day, we honor the fallen from our wars by marking their graves with flowers and flags. In life, they were just like us. They came from all walks of life, from every State and territory, from farms and city streets. They were young, and funny, and brave. They were our children, our brothers and sisters, our fathers and mothers. They were members of many families and members of the American family. In death, they are a silent reminder of the high price some must pay so that the rest of us might enjoy the benefits of living in this great Nation. Put a flag or a flower down this weekend, but for the rest of the year, guard dearly the principles of the Nation they fought and died for. The greatest and most lasting memorial to our Nation's dead is to cherish and pass what is best about our Nation. I close with the words of Van Dyer in his poem ``America For Me.'' As schoolchildren, we all memorized this poem and others like it: 'Tis fine to see the Old World, and travel up and down Among the famous palaces and cities of renown, To admire the crumbly castles and the statues of the kings,-- But now I think I've had enough of antiquated things. So it's home again, and home again, America for me! My heart is turning home again, and there I long to be In the land of youth and freedom beyond the ocean bars, Where the air is full of sunlight and the flag is full of stars. Oh, London is a man's town, there's power in the air; And Paris is a woman's town, with flowers in her hair; And it's sweet to dream in Venice, and it's great to study Rome, But when it comes to living, there is no place like home. I like the German fir-woods, in green battalions drilled; I like the gardens of Versailles with flashing fountains filled; But, oh, to take your hand, my dear, and ramble for a day In the friendly western woodland where Nature has her way! I know that Europe's wonderful, yet something seems to lack! The Past is too much with her, and the people looking back. But the glory of the Present is to make the Future free,-- We love our land for what she is and what she is to be. Oh, it's home again, home again, America for me! I want a ship that's westward bound to plough the rolling sea, To the blessed Land of Room Enough beyond the ocean bars, Where the air is full of sunlight and the flag is full of stars.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish to make a brief speech on the bill. Are we under a time limit?