[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 40 (Friday, March 3, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3460-S3464]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    THE SENATE AND THE CONSTITUTION

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have come to the floor and waited because 
other Senators wanted to speak, and they were conforming themselves to 
the order providing that Senators may be permitted to speak for not to 
exceed 5 minutes. I did not want to attempt to go ahead of anyone who 
had been waiting. I believe the time has come, now, when I will not be 
imposing on other Senators who have wished to speak.
  I was also told that the distinguished majority leader wanted to come 
to the floor. I talked with the assistant majority leader and he 
indicated that he felt Senators would soon have completed speaking so 
that I would have more time.
  Mr. President, Kipling was a great British poet. One of his great 
pieces of poetry is ``The Heritage.'' If I may at this moment just 
recall a couple of verses of ``The Heritage.''

     Our fathers in a wondrous age,
     Ere yet the Earth was small,
     Ensured to us an heritage,
     And doubted not at all
     [[Page S3461]] 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 feel very deeply that on yesterday the Senate rose 
to meet the test that was before it and, in doing that, it had in mind 
our posterity. I think it was a truly great moment in the history of 
the Senate. I have, from time to time, seen the Senate rise to meet 
such an occasion, when the occasion demanded courage and perhaps some 
sacrifice.
  We had a thorough debate on the balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution. It was not overly long. In terms of lengthy debates, my 
mind goes back to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That measure was before 
the Senate 103 days--from March 9, when the motion to proceed was first 
offered--by Mr. Mansfield, I believe--until June 19, when the rollcall 
on the last vote was completed. The motion to proceed took 2 weeks, and 
then the bill itself was before the Senate for a total of 77 days, with 
actual debate thereon consuming 57 days, including 6 Saturdays.
  I hear, from time to time, the tabulation of the number of hours that 
we have spent in this Senate on this bill or that bill--100 hours, or 
115 hours and 43 minutes, or whatever it may be. I am somewhat--perhaps 
not amused, but perhaps I regret that we view the role of this Senate 
and our responsibility as Senators in the context of how many hours we 
may spend on a matter that is so vital to the Nation as is a 
constitutional amendment, and especially the constitutional amendment 
that we have been discussing over the past 33 days.
  I have risen to express appreciation to the distinguished majority 
leader during these days, and to the distinguished manager of the bill 
on the majority side, Mr. Hatch. I thought we had a good debate, and I 
have no complaint concerning the time spent. I thought we had spent 
enough time, to inform ourselves and the American people, and it was, 
therefore, time to vote.
 We had reached a point where minds and intentions were pretty much 
solidified and it was time for a vote. That time was well spent, Mr. 
President. I do not think it is the role of the Senate to move 
legislation through this body expeditiously for the mere sake of 
expedition. We got started early in the year, as I have previously 
praised the majority leader for that. And we have not had any recesses. 
I have previously commended the majority leader for that. We have had 
too many recesses in recent years; too much accommodation of Members. 
We do have to accommodate one another here. But we have had too much 
accommodation, often at the expense of thoroughness of debate.

  I have been a Member of the Senate for a long time. Only one other 
Member of the body has been here longer. I have been here when there 
were all-night sessions, long sessions, Saturday sessions. At times, 
these are necessary. If it is necessary that we have lengthy sessions, 
without recesses, to get our work done, then I do not quarrel about 
that. I feel it is my duty as a Senator to be at my post of duty, 
whether it is 10 o'clock on Monday morning or 10 o'clock on Saturday 
night. Duty calls, and I shall be at my post of duty.
  Therefore, I am not overwhelmed by references to the number of hours 
or the number of minutes that we have spent on this or that bill. I 
think we sometimes are prone to overlook the purpose of the Senate and 
of its being. I, too, came from the House of Representatives. I came 
from both houses of the West Virginia Legislature. Forty-nine years 
ago, I first ran for office. So, my life--most of it--has been spent in 
various legislative bodies. The House of Representatives plays an 
important role. But the Senate was not meant to be a second House of 
Representatives. It was not meant to be a body in which speed in 
legislating was the overriding standard by which we measure our 
actions.
  I praise the Senate. The debate was a thorough one. We have had 
thorough debates too infrequently in recent years. Everything seems to 
have been measured for the purpose of accommodating Senators' 
schedules. Unanimous-consent agreements have been entered into so 
much--I probably have arranged more unanimous-consent agreements than 
any other Senator in the history of the Senate, because for 22 years I 
was in the leadership in this Senate in one position or another. Even 
under my predecessor, Mr. Mansfield, who was a very fine Senator, and a 
fine leader, who served longer as majority leader than any other 
Senator has served, but he was perfectly happy to have me do the floor 
work. And I did it. I stayed on the floor. If anyone wanted to know 
where Robert Byrd could be found at a given time, they could go to the 
floor of the Senate. They would find him there.
  Therefore, I for many years studied the rules and precedents of the 
Senate and its history. My reverence for the Senate grew as time went 
by. I do not claim that I walked into the Senate with it. The reverence 
that I have, came as the years have come and gone. I revere the Senate. 
My reverence was reinforced in this recent debate.
  Let me read what Daniel Webster had to say about the Senate on March 
7, 1850.

       Mr. President, I wish to speak today, not as a 
     Massachusetts man, nor as a northern man, but as an American, 
     and a Member of the Senate of the United States. It is 
     fortunate that there is a Senate of the United States; a body 
     not yet moved from its propriety, not lost to a just sense of 
     its own dignity, and its own high responsibilities, and a 
     body to which the country looks with confidence, for wise, 
     moderate, patriotic, and healing counsels.

  I think that the Senate rose to its full measure of duty in the 
course of the recent debate. I can understand the emotions of different 
Members in the Senate and their purposes for voting for or against the 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget. There are those who 
felt deeply that by the amendment, the Social Security trust fund would 
have been raided. I share that view to some extent. But, Mr. President, 
I hope that we do not lose sight of the fact that, at least in the 
opinion of some of us here, what was about to be raided, was the 
Constitution of the United States.
  I have voted for constitutional amendments before, as I say. But on 
this occasion, we were about to adopt a constitutional amendment that 
would go to the very heart of our structure of republican government, 
with its mixed powers, its checks and balances. Additionally, we were 
about to write into that Constitution a fiscal theory or fiscal policy 
which, in the minds of many who are far more expert than I, with 
respect to the economy and with respect to fiscal matters, would have 
been very destructive of this Nation's economy and would have resulted 
in economic chaos.
  To me--to me--the greatest disaster that we in this body could bring 
down upon our Nation and its republican form of government, would be to 
adopt a constitutional amendment such as was rejected on yesterday. And 
I hope now that we will get a little bit above and beyond talking about 
additional efforts to write such an amendment into the Constitution--a 
Constitution that has served our Nation so well for 206 years and that 
was created by men with great intellect, great wisdom, great 
experience, great vision. I trust that we will not let politics govern 
us in our judgments here with respect to tampering with the 
Constitution of the United States.
  We are all politically partisan to some extent. I do not envy the job 
of the majority leader or the job of the minority leader. Theirs is a 
tough job. When I became majority leader, I probably lost 10 points in 
West Virginia. I had been accustomed to winning by 89 percent, or at 
least very high percentages. When I became majority leader, and 
majority whip before that, and even secretary of the Democratic 
conference before that, as I moved on and took over the main party 
leadership duties, I realized that I also had a constituency here in 
the Senate whose ideologies ran the entire spectrum, from one end to 
the other. Consequently, the duty of party leadership impacts on one's 
votes and his way of seeing various issues and what his duties are. A 
leader has to remember that he has duties to his constituents who send 
him here, duties to the Nation, 
[[Page S3462]] duties to his State, and duties to his constituent 
colleagues here in the Senate who elect him to the party leadership 
position which he has sought. I know the pressures that build on both 
leaders.
  I do not envy those who carry such pressures. I worked with Mr. Dole 
for a good many years in different capacities--as minority leader and 
as majority leader. I always worked well with him, and he with me.
  As I look at our new leader on this side of the aisle, I admire him. 
I think he demonstrated true statesmanship in his leadership on the 
amendment. It was difficult for him. But he rose to the needs of that 
critical hour of yesterday, and he helped all of us to come together 
and to reach a decision. There were other profiles in courage--Senator 
Hatfield, as I have previously mentioned, and others whose names I laid 
into the Record on yesterday.
  Mr. President, I hope we will put away the seductive attraction of a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget as we try to deal with 
this very serious problem that confronts our country. A constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget, I suppose, would be, to some 
proponents, a political cover for serious actions that they very well 
know are going to have to be taken if we are ever going to effectively 
reduce the deficits. They seek such a political cover to which they can 
point when their votes are needed to raise taxes or to cut programs. 
They can then point to a constitutional amendment that has been welded 
into that organic law and say, well, that made me do it.
  Mr. President, that is a terrible price to pay. We ought not seek 
that cover, because it is purely a political cover and it comes at the 
price of the Constitution. We ought not do that to our children and 
grandchildren. We do owe it to our children and grandchildren to come 
to grips with this problem--the debt, the deficits, the interest on the 
debt. And we have operated on a national credit card for the last dozen 
to 15 years.
  There is going to have to be some pain involved in any deficit 
reduction plan, if it is to be truly effective. I deplore the current 
talk of tax cuts. Having been a legislator now for almost half a 
century, I know how easy it is to vote for tax cuts. I know how hard it 
is to vote for tax increases. I have voted for some of both. But, Mr. 
President, we cannot face this terrible debt--it is almost $5 
trillion--this terrible deficit and the interest on the debt, and talk 
glibly about cutting taxes and balancing the budget, while keeping 
defense and other programs off the table. It is a joke. We ought to go 
to the mirror and look ourselves in the face, look ourselves in the eye 
and ask, ``Do you really believe that we can get a handle on these 
terrible deficits and continue to cut domestic programs that are for 
the well-being, security and happiness of our people, and, at the same 
time, cut taxes when the economy is good and unemployment is down?'' I 
just cannot believe we are living in a real world. If anything, we are 
going to have to increase taxes. If we really mean business about 
getting the deficits under control and balancing the budget by the year 
2002 or 2010, whatever, we have to understand that we are going to have 
to pay a price, and it is going to be painful.
  I have heard the gauntlet thrown down today. We will see how many 
Senators will vote for tough proposals, it is said. But I note always 
that nobody includes in those tough decisions the possibility or the 
probability that we may even have to vote to increase taxes. If we 
really mean to be serious about balancing the budget, we ought not 
leave possible tax increases off the table. It is certainly foolish to 
talk about going in the other direction and cutting taxes in the 
present climate.
  I hope, Mr. President, that we will put yesterday behind us. I have 
always tried to be magnanimous in defeat as well as in victory. It is 
easy to be magnanimous in victory. The test is, can one be magnanimous 
in defeat? We ought not look back. Lot's wife looked back and she 
became a pillar of salt. We ought not look back to yesterday. We ought 
not rake over the old ashes of yesterday. I hope that the American 
people will not perceive us as being Senators who put politics ahead of 
the good of the Nation. Political party is important, but George 
Washington warned us against party and factions.
  I am a Democrat. I grew up in a coal miner's home. They were 
Democrats who raised me. I have never read a political party platform, 
State or national. I do not have any intention of ever reading a party 
platform. Party is not first, last, and always with this Senator.
  It is not the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end. There 
is life beyond political party. Party ranks with this Senator somewhere 
down about here (pointing)--not up here. We will, of course, have 
political parties as long as the Republic stands, I am sure.
  But I fear that the people must be discouraged, perplexed, and 
saddened when they listen to some of the things that are being said 
here about what happened yesterday. It is sad. The people must surely 
believe that party is everything to us politicians. Party is important, 
but the people must not get the impression that some of us see the 
Senate as merely a crucible in which to mould the party's fortunes over 
the next 50 to 100 years. Mr. President, that is a sad impression to 
convey.
  We hear a great deal about the so-called Contract With America. Mr. 
President, I, too, ran in the last election. The primary criticism that 
my opponent used on me was that I had defeated a balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution. ``Vote Robert C. Byrd out of office and 
we will get a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution,'' he 
urged. So that vote was used against me.
  But I carried all 55 counties in my State. I am grateful for the 
faith of Democrats and Republicans and Independents in West Virginia. 
They gave me every county for the first time in the State's history. I 
have carried every county in primaries before, but no candidate for 
office in a statewide, contested general election in West Virginia has 
ever carried all 55 counties. I carried them all. I am not bragging. I 
am simply saying that this issue was used on me in the last election.
  I voted for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget back in 
1982. I voted against a constitutional amendment to balance the budget 
in 1986. I voted against a constitutional amendment to balance the 
budget in 1994.
  So why did I change? I began to look at this issue and to study it. I 
came to the conclusion that I had voted the wrong way in 1982. I have 
changed my viewpoint and I will never--never, never--again vote for a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget.
  I do not think such an amendment has any business being in the 
Constitution. Our Framers did not believe that fiscal policy or fiscal 
theory should be written into the Constitution of the United States. 
They believed, and rightly, that fiscal policy should be left to the 
elected representatives of the people, because, when one considers the 
vicissitudes of time and the vast vacillations in the economy, the 
changing circumstances from month to month or year to year, then one 
should surely perceive that fiscal policy is something that should 
remain flexible and outside the verbiage of the Constitution. It should 
not be welded into the Constitution, where it would be inflexible and 
rigid and would result in chaos.
  One cannot but conclude that this business about a constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget has become the Holy Grail in the minds 
of many politicians. But we do the people of this country a great 
disservice, in my judgment, when we lead them to believe that a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget will correct the fiscal 
ills that confront us. Sooner or later, we will rue the day that we did 
it. It will be regretted.
  Moving toward the goal of a balanced budget is a job that has to be 
done. And sometimes, one may have to be willing to sacrifice his 
political career to achieve that goal.
  One may say, ``Well, look at him. He's 77 years old. Perhaps he 
doesn't have much of a political career left.''
  But let us not be too quick to judge. I have taken difficult 
positions before in this body that have cost me votes.
  Yet, when one stands on a principle in which he believes, and, 
concerning which he has given the most serious study and reflection 
over a period of many years, then, he may say,

     come one, come all! this rock shall fly
     From its firm base as soon as I!
[[Page S3463]] as did Fitz-James to Sir Roderick in Scott's ``The Lady 
of the Lake.''
  One may so stand if he stands solidly on principle. Even those who 
disagree with him will say, ``Well, I don't agree with him, but he says 
what he believes and
 that is what we want. He takes his stand.''

  I do not hold myself to be a paragon of principle. But having been in 
politics 49 years and having lived 77 years, I have learned a few 
things along the way. One cannot compromise principle and expect to be 
able to defend his position with passion and with conviction.
  Winning the White House is important. Winning control of the Senate 
is important. Winning control of the House is important. Winning 
reelection is important. But all this shall pass. In the final 
conclusion, when one walks out of this Chamber forever, he has to look 
in the mirror and he will say, ``Old boy, you stood the test.'' Or he 
has to look at himself and in his own conscience know that, on the 
great national issues of the day, he failed to stand the test.
  Conclusions on great national issues should always be reached by much 
study. And people sometimes reach different conclusions after much 
reflection. I say that this amendment is not worth the price--it is not 
worth the price--of shooting an arrow into the heart of the charter of 
the people's liberties.
  This amendment, in my judgment, would have brought about the 
destruction of the constitutional system of mixed powers and checks and 
balances. And that is the central pillar of the charter of our 
liberties.
  That was the genius of the Framers of the Constitution. They were men 
of great experience. They knew about the history of Englishmen, who had 
shed blood for the liberties of Englishmen and for the right of the 
people to elect their representatives to Parliament. The people of 
England, sometimes with the sword, found their way to what became the 
great British Constitution. It is not written, except in the form of 
certain documents, certain statutes, the Petition of Right, 
confirmation of the charters, the Magna Carta, court decisions, custom, 
and so on.
  Our forebears knew about that great British Constitution. They knew 
the history of the struggle of our forebears in the motherland. James 
Wilson was born in Scotland. Robert Morris, who was the financier of 
the revolution, was born in England. Their roots to the motherland were 
very close to them. They also knew about classical Rome.
  I have read that a certain Senator spoke derisively about my yen for 
Roman history and for taking up the time of the Senate to talk about my 
little dog Billy. Well, I only have this to say. If one does not study 
history, he is not likely to be remembered by history. As far as my 
little dog Billy is concerned, during my long life I have at times 
thought that the more I learn about dogs the less I think of some 
people. There is no deceit in Billy. No deceit in a dog. No devious 
ways in a dog. But I accept those criticisms and laugh about them.
  Mr. President, the Senate did the right thing yesterday, and I make 
no apology for my part. We all at times get carried away and perhaps 
say things, perhaps a little untactfully, but one cannot expect always 
to be absolutely perfect in his approach to things. I look at 
yesterday's passing as something that is gone. I hope other Senators 
will look at things of the past in the same way.
  We all have a job to do here. We ought to recognize that the American 
people have reposed their confidence in us. This is an honor, Mr. 
President, that should weigh heavily upon every Senator. The American 
people did not have to send me here. The people of West Virginia did 
not have to send me here. They did not have to return me when I sought 
to be returned. They demonstrated the same faith in each of us, and 
they expect us to carry out our responsibilities.
  What the American people would like to hear from their 
representatives is the truth. We do the people of this country a great 
disservice when we play upon their emotions and when we play pure 
politics with the vital concerns of a nation that confront us here.
  Surely we must know that in our hearts. I hope we will turn our backs 
on yesterday and that we will seek to come together, because achieving 
a balanced budget will require bipartisanship. We can keep on pointing 
the fingers and bickering and trying to jockey around and get the upper 
hand in a political squabble, looking to the next election. We can 
point the fingers at those who voted this way or that way or some other 
way, but each time I point my finger at you, Mr. President, I point 
three fingers at myself. I point three fingers at myself.
  For God's sake, can we not forget politics once in a while? Does 
politics mean everything? Does politics mean that we have to scramble 
and scratch and crawl over the bodies of other people to achieve 
victory for a political party? The Framers did not know anything about 
the Democratic Party or the Republican Party when they wrote that 
Constitution. It saddens me.
  We are all politically partisan sometimes, but, Mr. President, we 
should not pay just any price for political victory. Not just any 
price. Every day that goes by, I feel a greater appreciation for this 
Constitution. I have read all of the 85 Federalist Papers. Five by John 
Jay: the second, third, fourth, fifth, and 64th Federalist Papers; two-
thirds of the papers, approximately, were written by Hamilton; and the 
remainder by Madison.
  If one really wants to get a true understanding of this political 
system, and if one really wants to marvel at the genius of the men who 
wrote this Constitution, let him or her read the Federalist Papers. The 
Framers were well-acquainted with Plutarch, and Polybius, Tacitus, 
Livius, Suetonius, and other great ancient historians. They also knew 
the history of England. They were familiar with Montesquieu, Locke, 
Plato, Aristotle, Cicero--they were men who counseled with history.
  Yet, here we are, tinkering with their handiwork as though it were a 
platform in some so-called Contract With America. I have not read the 
Contract With America. I do not owe it any allegiance. None! I try to 
remind those who may feel a little perturbed by that, that I also do 
not read any Democratic or Republican platforms. But I do read the 
Constitution. And it is too magnificent a piece of handiwork--by the 
most illustrious gathering of men that ever met anywhere at a given 
time in history--to risk destruction by an amendment to balance the 
budget. Here we are, with our little feeble perceptions, attempting to 
tinker with that great document. Not only to tinker with it but to 
tinker in a way that would destroy the fundamental pillars of its 
structural design.
  There was never anything like it--never--in the history of the world, 
and we Pygmies, 206 years later, would assault, by way of a political 
amendment--a political amendment to give ourselves cover--assault that 
Constitution. This was not a proposed statute yesterday we were talking 
about. A statute can be changed, as we all know, by the same Congress 
that enacted it, but not so with a constitutional amendment. Not a 
constitutional amendment.
  Men have died and shed their blood to keep in place this fundamental 
charter of liberties, unblemished, untarnished, and unstained. And 
here, we go about glibly talking about a constitutional amendment to 
that great document--a document so great that we refer to it from time 
to time as being immortal.
  We should not look back on yesterday as a defeat. It was a victory 
for the American people. They may not realize it, but it was a victory 
for the American people. There were courageous men and women here who 
stood firmly against the amendment.
  I do not denigrate those who voted the other way. A lot of those men 
and women have courage, too, and they have good intentions. But study 
that Constitution! Study the Federalist Papers! Study the history of 
the United States of America, study the history of England, study the 
history of Rome, study the history of the ancients, and then match the 
wisdom you have acquired with that of those who know little about 
history, who care even less, who know little about the Constitution, 
apparently, and who put party--political party--ahead of everything.
  There are many things above party--one's family, his duty to his 
Maker. That is first, and his duty to his oath to support and defend 
the Constitution of the United States.
  [[Page S3464]] Mr. President, I think we ought to try to bind up our 
wounds. We all ought to look ahead and work together with the goal in 
mind and in heart that we are going to reduce the budget deficits, even 
though it hurts. I do not like to vote to increase taxes, and it is not 
because I am 77. Who knows, Abraham lived to be 175. I may be around 
awhile yet. No man knows how long he will be around, whether he will be 
around for the next election or not.

       Boast not thyself of tomorrow; for thou knowest not what a 
     day may bring forth.

  While we are here, let us be true to our oath, and let us be able to 
look in that mirror when the last day comes and say, ``Old boy, you 
didn't bend.''
  So I hope we will move away from this talk that, well, I want to vote 
for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, but this is just 
not the right amendment. Mr. President, in my view, there is not any 
amendment that is the ``right amendment'' to the Constitution when it 
goes to the heart of the constitutional system of mixed powers and 
checks and balances and when it comes to writing fiscal policy into 
that great document. It has no place in the Constitution. Forget about 
it.
  Let us move away from that plateau. That is a low plateau. Now that 
the amendment has been rejected, let us get down to business and work 
on the problem. Let us all be willing to take a little skin off the 
finger or off the back of the head, or wherever. If it means cutting 
some of my programs that I am interested in, well, we will just have to 
cut them. I took a cut yesterday in the Appropriations Committee, 
several million dollars in respect to something that is very vital to 
my State, coal research. I said somebody has to give.
  Now, let us take that attitude. I do not want to give on everything, 
but we all have to give up something. Let us not challenge other 
Senators' courage by saying, ``We'll see if you vote for the tough 
decisions'' unless we are also willing to lay on that table another 
tough option--the option of tax increases. Then the American people 
will understand we mean business.
  Mr. President, as I conclude, I have been in the minority and I have 
been in the majority. I have won at times, and I have lost at times. 
But I have to face tomorrow, and the Senator who may be my opponent 
today may be my champion tomorrow. These things pass. But we cannot 
avoid the real problem that faces us, and we all ought to do our level 
best to play down party just a little bit. Not only those people out 
there beyond the beltway will have to sacrifice; we are going to have 
to sacrifice, too. We may have to take a little political skin off our 
backs.
  Come what may, let us remember--I have heard much about children and 
grandchildren around here in this debate. We all love our children, we 
all love our grandchildren, and we all want them to honor us as we have 
honored our fathers. The greatest thing we can do in this difficult 
situation is to preserve the Constitution for them,
 not put political careers or political parties ahead of the 
Constitution, and work hard to achieve a bipartisan plan to reduce the 
deficits and balance the budget.

  If I might be so immodest, I would like to repeat my own words which 
are written in ``The Senate 1789-1989,'' volume 2.

       After 200 years, the Senate is still the anchor of the 
     Republic, the morning and evening star in the American 
     constitutional constellation * * *. It has weathered the 
     storms of adversity, withstood the barbs of cynics and the 
     attacks of critics, and provided stability and strength to 
     the nation during periods of civil strife and uncertainty, 
     panics and depressions. In war and in peace, it has been the 
     sure refuge and protector of the rights of the states and of 
     a political minority. And, today, the Senate still stands--
     the great forum of constitutional American liberty!

  Thank God for the Senate! Thank God for the Constitution! Thank God 
for men and women who will rise above the sorry spoils of politics and 
stand for that Constitution! We can then say, with Longfellow:

     Thou, too, sail on, O Ship of State!
     Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
     Humanity with all its fears,
     With all the hopes of future years,
     Is hanging breathless on thy fate!

     We know what Master laid thy keel,
     What Workmen wrought thy ribs of steel,
     Who made each mast, and sail, and rope,
     What anvils rang, what hammers beat,
     In what a forge and what a heat
     Were shaped the anchors of thy hope!

     Fear not each sudden sound and shock,
     'T is but the wave and not the rock;
     'T is but the flapping of the sail,
     And not a rent made by the gale!

     In spite of rock and tempest's roar,
     In spite of false lights from the shore,
     Sail on, nor fear to breast the sea!
     Our hearts, our hopes, are all with thee,
     Our hearts, our hopes, our prayers, our tears,
     Our faith triumphant o'er our fears,
     Are all with thee, are all with thee!

  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cochran). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, has time for morning business expired?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HELMS. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed as 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Helms pertaining to the introduction of S. 497 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________