[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 18 (Friday, February 25, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                         THE BUZZARDS AMONG US

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I call attention to a news story that 
appeared in the Washington Post on February 19, 1994. The news story 
carries a headline ``Now Preying in Stafford: The Birds. Vultures 
Attack Pets, Terrorize Humans With Hitchcockian Menace.''
  I will read excerpts from the story:

       With a loaded shotgun sitting next to her back door, Lynn 
     O'Hara-Yates says she's living in terror of the dozens of 
     black vultures that gather each morning on her back fence to 
     stretch their wings, sharpen their talons and wait for lunch.
       When the first birds showed up in November, they were a 
     curiosity. As their numbers multiplied, curiosity turned into 
     concern despite assurances from state wildlife specialists 
     and longtime residents that the huge birds wouldn't harm a 
     living thing.
       In the last month, O'Hara-Yates has lost eight ducks from 
     her pond, all of them picked clean to the bone. Her 
     neighbor's cat, Stripe, was grabbed by the tail and carried 
     25 feet in the air for a distance of 100 yards. A vet 
     stitched up the four talon holes in Stripe's body. Dogs and 
     horses also have been attacked.
       ``It's a nightmare,'' said Stripe's owner, Jeude Barrett. 
     ``And we can't do anything. . . . They have no fear.''
       Vultures are federally protected animals and cannot be 
     killed without a permit.
       Most of those spotted in Kings Grant are black vultures, 
     which weigh about five pounds and have a wingspan of five or 
     six feet. Black vultures are more aggressive than their 
     cousin, the red-headed turkey vulture, and are common to the 
     South, according to Paul Engman, a naturalist who works for 
     the Fairfax County Park Authority.
       The birds, commonly called buzzards,

that is what we call them in West Virginia--

     prefer their food either dead or dying, Engman said, but on 
     rare occasions they have been known to swoop down on live 
     animals.
       Bob Thomas, an inspector with the Virginia Department of 
     Agriculture and Consumer Services, has seen horses, lambs, 
     pigs and newborn calves attacked.
       ``Normally, they kill the calf before it even gets up. I've 
     seen them standing in the fields by the dozens, walking 
     around the cows, just waiting,'' he told the Fredericksburg 
     Free Lance-Star newspaper.
       Thomas, who is working to rid the Kings Grant area of its 
     vultures, said he understands residents' concerns. ``I would 
     not be comfortable with a 2-year-old child playing around 
     them,'' he said. ``When they're hungry, meat's meat.''
       Now she (O'Hara'Yates) is applying for her own license to 
     kill. But even if she doesn't get it, she's armed and ready. 
     ``What else can I do?'' she said. ``One of us is going to 
     give up, and it's not going to be me. We'll do what we have 
     to do.''
  Now, having prefaced my remarks by this news story, let me say that I 
come to the floor this morning to express my utter disgust with the 
antics of personnel connected with ABC's Prime Time program.
  This morning, while I was walking my dog just before my breakfast, I 
was pounced upon by ABC reporter Chris Wallace and his camera crew, 
whose desire for a story far exceeded his regard for privacy and 
decency.
  Generally speaking, I have great respect for the profession of 
journalism and for the reporters that I come in contact with through my 
work here in the Senate. While I realize we are all reliant on the good 
journalism skills of reporters to obtain an accurate accounting of the 
issues of the day, it is exactly this type of behavior--this type of 
crude, rude behavior--that taints the perception of all reporters and 
creates a pervasive attitude of sleaziness and intimidation.
  Madam President, I was majority leader during the years 1977, 1978, 
1979, and 1980. I was minority leader through the years 1981, 1982, 
1983, 1984, 1985, and 1986. And I was majority leader then again in 
1987 and 1988, since which time I have been the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee and President pro tempore of the United States 
Senate.
  I have always been available to the press. I am available to the 
press when I go to West Virginia. I respect the press. Over all of 
these years, my relations have been good with the press.
  I said to Mr. Chris Wallace, when he accosted me out in front of my 
house--he and his crew were on the sidewalk which borders my front 
yard, and they wanted to ask me about appropriations for the FBI 
facility in West Virginia --I stated that I did not have interviews at 
my house. I said, ``The place to interview me is at my office. That is 
where I do my work. I do not have any interviews here.''
  And he persisted, just kept on persisting, wanting to ask a question, 
another question. I said, ``I'm not going to break up my few hours at 
home for your convenience.'' And I repeated it: ``The place for 
interviews with me is my office.''
  So then he wanted to know how to go about arranging an interview, and 
he mentioned my press secretary's name. I said, ``Yes, call her.'' He 
said, ``Well, will you give us an interview?'' I said, ``I do not know. 
I do not know what my schedule is. I have been very busy working on the 
balanced budget amendment.''
  So he understood that there would not be an interview there and that 
if there was going to be an interview it would be at my office, and he 
knew my press secretary's name.
  Well, I came on to the office. I did not get into my office, but out 
here just in front of the Capitol, as I was about to come in the door 
of the next floor below, here they were.
  He did not wait to call my secretary and try to get an appointment 
after our little meeting in front of my house. He did not give me time 
to get into my office. He did not pursue calling my secretary and 
seeing if an appointment could be set up. He meets me at the door down 
here.
  He wanted to know if I would answer some questions. I said, ``No, not 
now.'' He asked if he could have an appointment during the day, or some 
such. I said, ``I don't know. I have been busy.''
  ``Well,'' he said, ``we have been trying to get an interview with 
you.''
  I said, ``I have been busy. I have been very busy in the balanced 
budget amendment debate.'' I said, ``You don't have any sense of 
propriety to come out to my house. We had no appointment set up out 
there for an interview, but you come out to my house. You have no sense 
of propriety.''
  ``Well, will you see us?''
  I said, ``Yes, I will.''
  ``Well, when?''
  I said, ``I cannot state at the moment when.''
  Madam President, though I had agreed after this morning's travesty to 
see Mr. Wallace, in retrospect I have decided against it. I was 
reminded when I got into my office that I had sent a statement 
yesterday to Mike Wallace--not to Mike Wallace. I have always thought 
well of Mike Wallace, the father of Chris Wallace. And I think, I 
really think that Mike Wallace would have been ashamed of his son's 
persistence in this rude, crude manner; coming to my house and then 
rushing to the Senate, rushing up to the Capitol. He got here before I 
did, wanted an interview out there. He did not wait, as I say, to try 
to set it up.
  And so my staff reminded me that we had sent a statement to Chris 
Wallace yesterday. I want to read the statement, and it is as follows:

       The Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill signed into 
     law on February 12, 1994, was a complex piece of legislation. 
     It was technically three bills rolled into one.
       Title I contained over $10 billion for emergencies relating 
     to the disasters in Los Angeles and in the Midwest, and to 
     peacekeeping costs connected with U.S. operations in Somalia 
     and Bosnia. The emergency designation assigned to these costs 
     were not offset and will add to the deficit. Title II was a 
     routine supplemental for fiscal year 1994 which represented 
     program adjustments recommended by the President and Members 
     of Congress. This title totaled $1.04 billion and was more 
     than offset by the $3.26 billion in spending cuts contained 
     in Title III of the bill.
       The funding for the FBI was included in title II of the 
     bill and thus does not add to the deficit. There were deep 
     concerns over the low attrition levels at the agency, and its 
     ability to hire personnel to operate the new fingerprint 
     identification center [which is at Clarksburg, WV]. Quite 
     frankly, the FBI was in danger of building a state-of-the-art 
     facility without the employees to run it. At a time when 
     crime is the number one concern of the American people and 
     when Congress and the President are searching for solutions 
     to this epidemic [of crime], it would be foolhardy to deny 
     our policemen one of the few new [high-tech] weapons in the 
     crime fighting arsenal. This new fingerprint record system 
     will support all law enforcement officers [throughout the 
     Nation] and [will] provide a revolutionary advancement in 
     fighting crime and drugs. The funding in this bill will 
     assure Federal, State, and local authorities the tools that 
     are necessary to help apprehend repeat offenders and is 
     crucial if violent, recidivist criminals are to be removed 
     from our [Nation's] streets. To do otherwise would be 
     wasteful and do a disservice to the law abiding citizens of 
     this country.

  Now, Madam President, as I say, in retrospect, I have decided against 
an interview with Mr. Wallace because I do not believe that my views on 
that program will get a fair airing, and would more than likely end up 
on the cutting room floor. I, therefore, have decided to take my case 
to the place where I know it will be heard unedited.
  Earlier in the week, Mr. Chris Wallace was told by my staff that I 
would be unable to grant an interview because of my involvement in the 
current debate on the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. 
And so in lieu of this, as I say, I provided ``PrimeTime'' with a 
statement regarding their program on the earthquake supplemental, and I 
have read that statement. Chris Wallace admitted to my staff earlier 
this week that the motivation for this program was ratings driven. It 
seems that last week, ``PrimeTime'' aired a new program but lost the 
ratings competition to CBS's coverage of the Olympics. Having learned 
that lesson, this week ``PrimeTime'' will air a repeat program so this 
program on the earthquake supplemental will be an attempt to regain 
``PrimeTime's'' position in the ratings game and will air next week, 
when the competition from the Olympics will no longer exist.
  Freedom of the press--we have been talking a great deal about the 
Constitution lately--freedom of the press is one of the rights 
enshrined in the Bill of Rights, a right codified to protect the press 
against oppression by government or other legal forces in society. But 
increasingly, the behavior of certain segments of the press, like the 
behavior of ``PrimeTime'' that I just talked about here, that behavior 
leads me to wonder if we do not now need an additional amendment 
guaranteeing citizens freedom from the press--freedom from the press.
  The pursuit of headlines, or worse, the pursuit of sensation, now 
leads some reporters and certain media types to violate the rights and 
the privacy of other citizens without any sense of shame or propriety. 
They have absolutely no sense of shame, no sense of propriety. They are 
like the buzzards that I read about earlier--buzzards. Apparently no 
excess, no savagery--no respect for others, no limits on behavior--is 
too much in the chase for headlines or air time. And if ever that 
phrase ``freedom of the press'' in the Constitution is amended and 
weakened, it will be because of just such buzzards as these and their 
predatory tactics that will bring down this retribution upon their 
heads. And when that happens, we all will suffer.
  The moment has arrived for the media to reassess their behavior--
reassess their behavior. I have seen them. I have seen them on 
television when a widow is attending the funeral of her husband. And 
they will press that camera right up into her face and all the people 
in the land can witness the grief, the tears that roll down the cheeks 
of that poor woman. I have seen this time and time again, and I have 
said to my wife, ``Have they no shame? They are vultures.''
  I am not talking about all the press. I am talking about such rude 
predators as I came in contact with this morning. Of course, the camera 
crews cannot help it. They have to go where Chris Wallace says. They 
have to go where they want them to go.

  So the moment has arrived, as I say, for the media to reassess their 
behavior and for those charged with responsibility for the news 
industry in our society to take a long, long look at their own values 
and ask themselves anew: Where do we draw the line in seeking truth 
before we cross the border into barbarism? And if that is not 
barbarism, then I do not know what is.
  Frankly, I am completely disgusted with the type of journalism 
programs like ``PrimeTime'' displays, and I am even more disgusted with 
the tactics used to fabricate a sensational story.
  I have always, as I say, been available to the press. My office tries 
to answer press questions to the best of our ability. But I resent and 
deplore this type of unreasonable press intimidation.
  ``Mr. Wallace, that camera over there may mean everything to you. It 
does not mean anything to me, and you are not going to intimidate me. 
You and your cameras are not going to intimidate this Senator.''
  I think it is about time that Senators stood up and deplored this 
kind of invasion of privacy, this kind of head hunting, this kind of 
vulturism.
  I will not be pushed into playing this game just to promote some 
tawdry, tacky, pseudo-news show's ratings. You know what is at the 
bottom of the ratings? Money. Money. They are always talking about 
Senators' salaries. What about theirs? We are elected by the people. 
They are not elected by the people. We are elected by the people, and 
we work and we try to work in the service of our country. They are 
interested in ratings--ratings. What will be the most spectacular thing 
we can do?
  They did not bother to call my press secretary back yesterday after 
they had received my statement. They did not bother to call her back 
and say, ``Well, we need more than this.'' She never heard from them 
again. And they come out to my house--come out to my house. Vultures. 
Buzzards. I do not know what my little dog Billy may have thought of 
them. But from the way he seemed to want to get away from you, he must 
have been ashamed of your tactics.
  ``I am a public person, Mr. Wallace. But even a public person has a 
right to walk his dog in peace in the morning without being attacked in 
the front yard of his home before breakfast by vultures, by reporters 
like you and cameras.''
  I thank Senators for their patience. I apologize for imposing on 
their time.

                          ____________________