[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 7 (Thursday, February 5, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S421-S425]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT OF 1997

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it is imperative that the Senate turn 
immediately to the consideration of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1997. We now have less than 45 days 
remaining in which the Senate will be in session between today and May 
1, 1998.
  On May 1 of this year, our State highway departments throughout the 
land and our transit providers across the Nation will be forbidden by 
law from obligating any new Federal highway or transit funds. That is 
the drop-dead date. That is the deadline.
  What will it mean to individual States when they no longer can move 
forward on a comprehensive highway construction program? What will it 
mean to your State? What will it mean to mine? What will it mean for 
our Nation's highway construction workers when they are thrown out of 
work, when that paycheck stops and when they have to struggle to put a 
meal on their family table?
  What will it mean for our urban transit systems when they must cease 
progress on projects, projects that are needed to minimize congestion 
and to move our constituents to work, to schools, to places of worship, 
to child care centers, and back home?
  It will mean disruption, deprivation, and, in cases where some 
construction projects need to go forward for the sake of safety, it 
will mean that accidents, injuries, and perhaps even death may be the 
result because of our delay--our inexcusable delay. There is no excuse 
for the delay.
  On Monday of this week, the President sent his formal budget request 
for fiscal year 1999 to the Congress. That budget calls for the overall 
obligation ceiling for our Federal aid highway programs to be frozen. 
Now hear that! This is the President's budget, calling for the Federal 
aid highway program to be frozen for each of the next 6 years at the 
level enacted for FY 1998, namely, $21.5 billion.
  The President ran for office the first time on a strong platform 
recommending more infrastructure in this country, more highways, safer 
bridges, but the President now is proposing an absolute freeze on 
highway spending for the next 5 years; never mind the tremendous unmet 
needs that exist across this Nation for bridge and highway 
construction, and for safety improvements; never mind a critical 
provision in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which is there by virtue 
of an amendment that was offered by my friend and colleague from Texas, 
Senator Phil Gramm; never mind that critical provision in the Taxpayer 
Relief Act of 1997, a bill that the President signed into law with much 
fanfare, and rightly so, last year.
  That bill included a provision transferring the 4.3 cent gas tax--
that had been used for deficit reduction since 1993--into the highway 
trust fund, so that it could not be used for other programs, instead of 
the highway program, but could be used to address these serious highway 
deficiencies. But even with this new source of revenue to the trust 
fund--roughly $7 billion per year--the President's budget now calls for 
the overall Federal obligation ceiling for highways to increase by how 
much? Not one copper cent! Not one penny; not one penny! Over the next 
5 years, it is to be frozen.
  Under the President's budget, the uncommitted balance of the highway 
trust fund will grow and grow and grow, like topsy. Based on estimates 
that I have received from the Congressional Budget Office, under the 
committee-reported bill, the unspent balance of the highway trust fund 
will grow from $25.7 billion at the end of this fiscal year to more 
than $71.8 billion at the close of the authorization period covered by 
the next ISTEA legislation.

  At that time, therefore, there will be almost $72 billion that would 
just sit unspent in the highway trust fund; $72 billion paid by you out 
there, paid by you, the buyers of gasoline; $72 billion paid by our 
constituents--yours, I say to the distinguished Senator from 
California, and mine--paid by our constituents at the gas pump--money 
that will be deposited into the highway trust fund but not used. Not 
used.
  Under the President's budget, the trust fund balance would grow even 
larger, since his 5-year highway freeze is some $9.6 billion less than 
would even be authorized in the committee-reported bill which we 
debated on this Senate floor for about 21 days last fall.
  I do not believe that a majority of this body supports the notion 
that highway spending should be frozen for the next 5 years, while the 
unspent balance in the highway trust fund rises by roughly 300 percent 
over the next 6 years. I am confident that a majority of this body does 
not support that idea.
  I do believe, however, that it is incumbent for this Senate to take 
up the highway bill, to take it up immediately and to make it clear 
that we do not support the President's proposal for a 5-year freeze on 
highway spending.
  Let the President hear that message, loud and clear. We do not 
support a 5-

[[Page S422]]

year freeze on highway spending, nor do the American people support 
that. I am confident they don't.
  The financial needs of our national highway network vastly exceed our 
current levels of expenditure. If we freeze highway spending for the 
next 5 years, the gap between what will be needed just to maintain the 
present inadequate conditions of our Nation's highways, on the one 
hand, and what we will be able to spend, that gap is going to grow 
wider and wider and wider, and we will fall farther and farther behind.
  Yet, Mr. President, the Department of Transportation has stated that 
our Nation would be required to spend an extra $15 billion each year 
above current spending levels just to maintain the current conditions 
of our Nation's highways. We would have to boost spending on highways 
by more than $15 billion a year to make the least bit of improvement 
overall in the condition of our Nation's highways. Now, that is what 
the U.S. Department of Transportation is telling us.
  And what are the current conditions of our Nation's highways? At 
present, only 39 percent of our National Highway System is rated in 
good condition. That is not what Senator Byrd is saying, that is what 
Senator Byrd says that the U.S. Department of Transportation says. 
Fully 61 percent of our Nation's highways are rated in either fair or 
poor condition.
  For our 42,794 mile interstate system, the crown jewel of our 
National Highway System, one-half of the mileage is rated in fair or 
poor condition. These figures only worsen when one looks at our other 
major and Federal State highways. In our urban areas, 65 percent of our 
noninterstate highway mileage is rated in fair or poor condition.
  There are over a quarter of a billion miles of pavement in the United 
States that is in poor or mediocre condition. This is what the U.S. 
Department of Transportation tells us. There are almost 95,000 bridges 
in our country that have been classified as deficient, and within that 
total, roughly 44,000 bridges have been deemed to be structurally 
deficient, meaning that they need significant maintenance, 
rehabilitation or replacement.
  Many of these bridges require load posting, requiring heavier trucks 
to take longer alternate routes. That affects our efficiency, our 
productivity and our overall economy. And an additional 51,000 bridges 
have been deemed to be functionally deficient, meaning that they do not 
have the lane width, shoulder width or vertical clearances sufficient 
to serve the traffic demand. The condition of our highway system is 
fast becoming a national disgrace.
  As I said, Mr. President, to make any improvements at all in these 
conditions, to keep these conditions from worsening further, we would 
have to boost spending in our highways, according to the U.S. 
Department of Transportation, by more than $15 billion annually.
  With that backdrop, it defies sanity that the administration wants to 
freeze highway spending over the next 5 years. Every driving American 
pays gas taxes. We have told them that that money would go toward 
increased highway investments. What will we tell them now? Mr. 
President, this Senate needs to take an immediate step to call up the 
highway bill and to tell the traveling public that we do not support 
freezing highway spending for the next 6 years.
  Why wait until May 1, when our States will be prohibited from 
obligating any Federal funds on highway or transit projects? We should 
call up the highway bill and make it clear to America that we meant 
what we said when we voted to transfer the 4.3 cents gas tax from 
deficit reduction to the highway trust fund. An overwhelming majority 
of the Senate supported that transfer. The administration may have 
frozen the transportation budget, but this Senate does not have to 
freeze in a stupor of suspended animation while we watch our States 
careen toward a certain brick wall. There are only 45 days left. Now is 
the time--now is the time--to take the next step by moving to the 
highway bill.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia controls 6 
minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that I may reserve that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have 20 
minutes, and then at the conclusion, following the time reserved for 
the Senator from West Virginia, that Senator Bond be recognized to 
proceed with the measure that was originally planned.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, last Monday several Senators came to the 
floor to express their concern because the Senate has failed to pass a 
reauthorization of the Nation's surface transportation programs. 
Senator Byrd was on the floor again Tuesday and indeed has been on the 
floor today, Thursday, on this same subject. As Senators and the 
American people listen to these expressions of concern, I hope they 
will keep the bigger picture in mind.
  First, why hasn't the Senate passed an ISTEA II bill that would 
reauthorize our highway and transit programs? Well, it isn't for lack 
of trying, Mr. President. That bill was before the Senate for a period 
of more than 2 weeks at the close of the session last year. But Senate 
consideration of the bill was blocked by a filibuster, a filibuster 
that was supported by some of the very Senators who now complain about 
lack of action.
  The majority leader filed four--not one, not two, not three, but 
four--cloture petitions to force action on the bill. I voted for 
cloture each and every time. Almost all the Members on this side of the 
aisle voted for cloture each and every time. But on the other side of 
the aisle we did not get much support for acting on ISTEA; in fact, we 
did not get any support. Considering that, Senators who now come to the 
floor demanding action on this bill used the procedural rules of the 
Senate to block action just a few short weeks ago. They voted to block 
ISTEA four times, as I say. Not once, not twice, not three, but four 
times they blocked action on proceeding to ISTEA.
  On four separate occasions, when these Senators could have used their 
power as voting Members of this body to help the majority leader move 
this vital legislation forward, they voted no. They would not help. If 
they believe ISTEA is a vital bill, why didn't they help? With their 
help we could have completed Senate action last year.
  Last Monday, one Senator even said that Congress is ``derelict in its 
duty'' because it has not acted on the ISTEA reauthorization. Now, 
``derelict in its duty'' is a pretty strong statement. Well, who is it 
that has been derelict? It has not been the majority leader. He forced 
four cloture votes on this bill. I did everything I could to move the 
bill forward. I was ready then. I am ready now.
  If dereliction of duty is a fair charge, I suppose it is a charge 
most appropriately aimed at those Senators who voted against cloture on 
this bill four separate times. There is a record. Anyone can look up 
and see who those Senators were.

  Now, my second point goes to the schedule for completing action on 
ISTEA. The Senators who spoke Monday and Tuesday were talking as if 
Senate action is all that is needed to wrap this matter up now. They 
went on at great length about how the States need early Senate action 
so the States can plan for the coming construction season. These 
Senators expressed great frustration on behalf of the States because 
any further delay will greatly complicate the work of the States.
  Well, I am sympathetic to the plight of our State transportation 
departments because this bill has been delayed. I wish we were at the 
end of the day and the States had the bottom-line allotments they need 
for their planning, but as everybody knows, Senate action on this bill 
is only a very small step in a long traveling process.
  The House has to do a bill. That bill is likely to be very different 
from the Senate bill so, therefore, we have to resolve the differences 
in conference and then bring the bill back for passage in the 
respective bodies. Any State that did any planning based solely on a 
Senate-passed bill would be making a

[[Page S423]]

great mistake. Frankly, they cannot make any plans until the entire 
process is completed.
  Now, everyone knows that the House has made a very firm decision to 
postpone action on this transportation legislation, so-called ISTEA 
reauthorization, until the budget resolution for fiscal year 1999 is 
completed. That is a fact. The House has said that. Even if we passed 
ISTEA II in the Senate this afternoon, we would not speed up the 
process one iota. Even if we passed it last year when some of us were 
here on the floor ready to take action we would still be forced to wait 
for the House to complete its work.
  As I look at the calendar, the House is making the task facing the 
States more difficult. But we cannot change the calendar by voting on 
this bill today on the floor of the Senate.
  So what is really going on here, Mr. President? Why would Senators 
who voted to block action on this bill just a few weeks ago now come to 
the floor demanding action today? Why would Senators who know that we 
have to wait for the budget resolution to be completed before the House 
will act speak as if the Senate is ``dithering and dallying and 
delaying'' on this bill?
  The real issue, Mr. President, is how much money are we going to 
spend on the highway program. That is the real question. The Senators 
who are clamoring for action now are the sponsors of a big amendment to 
dramatically increase Federal highway spending. They want the bill to 
come up now because they want their amendment for highway spending to 
be considered now in a budgetary vacuum with no other priorities 
competing for the dollars they would like to spend on highways.
  A week ago, the President of the United States delivered his State of 
the Union Address. Perhaps the most memorable line in that speech was 
his call to use any future budget surpluses for ``Social Security 
First.''
  If there is a surplus--and at this point everybody should keep in 
mind it is a projected surplus; the dollars have not actually come in 
yet--the President said Congress should not spend the money and 
Congress should not cut taxes; rather, we should use the surplus to 
shore up the Social Security system so that it can go on meeting the 
retirement needs of all Americans well into the next century.
  Those Senators who are calling for action on the highway bill now are 
not exactly in the President's camp when it comes to Social Security 
first. They might be called the ``Highway First" crowd. They want the 
Senate to take up the highway bill so that they can put a big 
proportion of the potential surplus into more highway spending before 
anybody else, including Social Security, can lay claim to that 
projected budget surplus.
  ``Highways First,'' that is their motto. I must say, I find their 
arguments astonishing, especially when they are expressed by the 
Senator from Texas. It comes down to this. ``The Government has a 
surplus. We must spend the surplus. To do otherwise would break a 
solemn oath we made to the American people.''
  Now, the surplus that the Senator from Texas most frequently mentions 
in the context of the highway bill is one that will result because of 
action taken last year to put the revenue from the 4.3-cent gasoline 
tax imposed in 1993, that was passed to reduce the deficit--and the 
vote, as has been pointed out today, was to transfer that--into the 
highway trust fund.
  In 1993, when the Democratic Party still controlled the Congress, 
gasoline taxes were increased by 4.3 cents per gallon with the revenue 
going to the general fund to reduce the deficit. The Senate Republicans 
all voted against that tax increase in 1993. But last year, with the 
Republicans in charge, the revenue from that tax increase was 
transferred into the highway trust fund from the deficit reduction area 
where it was before. And now we are asked to spend it.
  Now, the notion--this is something I really want to stress --the 
notion that anybody promised the American people to spend that 4.3 
cents on highway construction is preposterous. It is just the opposite. 
The American people were promised that that 4.3-cent increase would be 
used to bring down the deficit, not to increase spending programs.

  Now that the deficit is under control, the Senator from Texas has led 
the charge to transfer the revenue from that tax to the highway trust 
fund. As a result, the highway trust fund is projected to run a big 
surplus in the future. And without even a blush, the Senator from Texas 
says we are bound by a solemn commitment to prevent that surplus. Pour 
it into highway spending whether it is needed or not--tax and spend. 
Never was there a more open and shut case of the ``tax and spend'' 
fever.
  The clamor we have heard over the past few days to do ISTEA now is 
all about spending the surplus. And who is going to be first at the 
trough? It is not about dereliction of duty. Senators who voted four 
times to block the bill just a few weeks ago are in no position now to 
suggest that the Senate is shirking its duty.
  And it is not about when this bill will ultimately be concluded. I 
wish it were done already. It is a burden, as anybody knows. No one 
knows better than some of the Senators on the floor today what it is 
like to manage a complicated, contentious piece of legislation such as 
the surface transportation legislation.
  I wish that we could have accelerated the schedule by acting here in 
the Senate today. Unfortunately, we are not in control of the calendar. 
The House has decided, as I said before, to wait until the budget 
resolution has been completed.
  What these Senators really want for the Senate is to vote on their 
amendment to spend more on highways before any other priorities can 
make a claim on this potential surplus. ``Highways First,'' as I say, 
is their motto.
  I know there are many Members of this body who believe we should 
spend more on highways, maybe not ``Highways First,'' not take it all, 
but some more. For those Senators, I would make three quick points.
  First, the bill reported by the committee--the committee I am 
chairman of that brought the bill to the floor--dramatically increases 
highway spending. It is up over 20 percent over ISTEA I. It is up $25 
billion over the 6-year period. In the context of the balanced budget 
amendment reached last year, that essentially freezes discretionary 
spending over the next 5 years. And here is a program that gets a 20 
percent increase. Thus, no one can argue that we did not do very well 
in connection with this piece of legislation.
  As a second point, if Senators believe that even more is needed, they 
will have the opportunity to make that case when the Senate considers 
the budget resolution in March. The committee-reported bill tracks the 
spending levels given to us in the budget resolution last year. We have 
followed our instructions in and abided by the budget that this Senate 
adopted, and the ink is hardly dry on it. It was only signed by the 
President I believe in July. If the Senate changes course and wants to 
increase spending in the budget resolution for next year, then I would 
assume an amendment to ISTEA II to carry out that instruction would be 
adopted.
  Third, Senators should be careful about the sequence of these 
decisions. I believe that many Senators have signed on to the so-called 
Byrd-Gramm amendment without fully understanding all the subtleties. It 
does authorize massive amounts of additional spending, but it also 
restructures who has first claim to the funds that are actually 
appropriated.
  The Byrd-Gramm amendment increases the share of the pie going to 13 
Appalachian Regional Commission States and to a trade corridor program 
that would benefit a few States, such as Texas. Their portion of the 
pie gets bigger. But if the pie itself does not grow because there is 
no room in the budget for larger appropriations, the net effect will be 
that all the other States will go down. In other words, they are locked 
in at this increased amount for the Appalachian Regional Commission 
States and this corridor dealing with the so-called NAFTA demands. That 
is locked in under the proposal that they have. And if we do not 
increase the overall spending, then theirs stays up there and it comes 
out of the portion allocated to all the other States.
  A Senator voting for Byrd-Gramm now because he or she wants to 
increase highway spending authorization could actually cause his or her 
State to lose highway dollars if subsequent

[[Page S424]]

budget decisions do not provide for increased highway appropriations. 
So I urge everyone to be cautious on this matter.
  All these considerations have persuaded me that the wisest course is 
the one that Senator Domenici, chairman of the Budget Committee, has 
urged. Let's make the spending decisions in the context of the entire 
budget. I'm ready to go with ISTEA II now. I am more committed to 
getting ISTEA done than any other Member of this body. I want it 
completed, but I am willing to stand down for the time being because I 
believe the Senate will make better public policy if it considers 
highway spending in the context of the entire budget rather than in the 
vacuum of these early days of the session, as the highways first group 
has been urging.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BYRD. Well, Mr. President, at last we have smoked him out. I have 
been speaking on this floor urging that the leadership bring up the 
highway bill. So we are having a good debate today. That is what we 
have been needing all along. The debate is just starting.
  I'm glad that my friend has come out of the bushes. Let's debate this 
matter, but let's debate it with the bill before the Senate.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Could I ask the Senator a question?
  Mr. BYRD. Without it being charged as my time.
  Mr. CHAFEE. How did the Senator vote on the cloture motion when we 
tried to move to this bill in October, late September, October?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senator thinks he has me over a barrel. 
I voted against cloture. I make no bones about that.
  But why finger point at that bill? Finger pointing isn't going to 
resolve the problems that are going to confront our highway departments 
and our Governors and our mayors throughout this country. That is not 
going to do any good, Senator.
  Yes, I voted against cloture. I would like to see a campaign finance 
reform bill, but I would also like to see a highway bill. So forget 
what happened back there on cloture.
  Lot's wife looked back and she turned to salt. Let's don't look back. 
Let's keep our promise, the promise that was made to bring up this 
highway bill. I didn't make that promise. The leadership of the Senate 
made that promise.
  This is not a partisan matter, Mr. President. Republicans and 
Democrats buy gas at the gas station. Republicans and Democrats pay a 
gas tax. Republicans and Democrats use the highways of this country and 
the transit systems. Republicans and Democrats are injured and die when 
safety conditions get to the point where accidents occur. So this is 
not a partisan matter.
  I know that the Senator from Rhode Island is against that amendment. 
He has been all along. He was against it when the bill was up last 
fall. That is a given. There is no surprise in that. But, Mr. 
President, the promise was made to bring up the highway bill.
  Now, I have been around this Senate a long time, and this is the 
first time I have heard that the House controls the Senate calendar. I 
don't believe that, and I have reason to believe that if the Senate 
will act, the House might change its mind. Why should the House control 
the calendar here? The highway needs are out there. The Senator knows 
that. They exist in his own State. They exist in my State. They exist 
in every State in this country.
  The highway departments and the Governors and the mayors don't know 
how to plan their budgets for this year because they don't know what 
Federal resources they can count on and they can't do long-term 
planning. When we talk about highways, those plans have to be long 
term.
  I say to the Senator, why not have a bill up now? Let's debate it, 
but let's debate while we are on the bill. That is the promise that was 
made. I didn't make that promise. I'm not attacking any Senator 
personally. I am urging the Senate leadership to take up the bill. Why 
not have the bill before the Senate? Now, if we take up the bill, the 
House will surely move, I would think. The pressure will be on them. We 
can't base our actions on what the House might do.
  The House schedule doesn't change the May 1 deadline, Senator. The 
May 1 deadline is only 45 days away, and the House schedule won't 
change that. That is approaching. Every day that we waste here, sitting 
on our hands talking about other matters, some of which are important, 
some of which are not--I pointed out just the other day that we wasted 
over 3 hours in one day in recesses and in quorum calls. We could be 
debating this bill, my friend. I hope that the Senator will join us in 
urging the leadership to bring this bill up. I would like to hear the 
Senator on the floor every day. I would like to hear his voice rising, 
up sometimes, up and down. I hope he will join us because I would like 
to be here with him. I would like to be debating the highway bill.
  We have had a series of broken promises. Congress acted to shift the 
4.3-cent gas tax to the highway trust funds. The people have been told, 
regardless of what the Senator says, the people have the understanding 
that that money is going to be spent on surface 
transportation programs. So we promised that, and then we promised to 
take up the highway bill. What about the highway needs? How can we 
ignore those needs when we have huge, unspent balances in the trust 
fund?

  Mr. President, I just called my highway department this morning, and 
according to the West Virginia State Highway Commissioner, if ISTEA is 
postponed beyond the May 1 date, 75 highway projects, including about 
20 bridges in West Virginia, will have to be delayed. This story can be 
told all over this country. Senator, you will hear it. You will hear 
it. I say that with the utmost respect. The Senator from Rhode Island 
is going to hear it.
  Mr. President, do I have any time left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island has 5 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. He is my friend and I respect him highly, always have and 
will continue to do so.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to say there is nobody I enjoy 
dueling with more on this floor than the Senator from West Virginia. We 
have been against each other on some rare issues. We have been together 
on many issues.
  Mr. BYRD. I like it much better when we are together.
  Mr. CHAFEE. As I listened to what he said, Mr. President, it brought 
to mind that old song, ``Will you love me in November as you did in 
June?'' And I say to the Senator, why didn't he love this bill in 
October as he does in February?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I loved it. I loved it then.
  Mr. CHAFEE. We had not one, we had not two, we had not three, we had 
four votes, Mr. President----
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I loved it.
  Mr. CHAFEE. To try to move this bill that the Senator from West 
Virginia is embracing now.
  His arms are around ISTEA II----
  Mr. BYRD. Tell me now.
  Mr. CHAFEE. With affection. Where was he when we needed him?
  Mr. BYRD. I wanted to offer my amendment, but the amendment tree was 
filled.
  Mr. CHAFEE. And we have those votes, and I looked; where is a vote--
we are voting aye.
  Mr. BYRD. I didn't see the Senator looking for me.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I sought him, but I couldn't find him----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We will have order.
  Mr. CHAFEE. And I went away distressed.
  So now we will have an opportunity in this bill, as the majority 
leader has made it clear the way we will proceed, and I look forward, 
as we get into this, that he will support a bill that will accomplish 
the goals of the Nation in the context of all the other demands that 
are placed upon the budget of the United States.
  I will conclude by stressing once again that we have an increase in 
this bill this year, ISTEA II, over the past, of 20 percent when the 
other discretionary accounts are frozen. In other words, the nondefense 
items and the nonentitlement items are all frozen--whether you are 
talking Head Start, school lunches, the school programs, the health 
programs; they are frozen--and we get a 20 percent increase, which is 
pretty good, for this program.

[[Page S425]]

  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator from Missouri yield?
  Mr. BOND. For a brief comment?
  Mr. BYRD. For a brief comment.
  Mr. BOND. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. BYRD. I want to thank the distinguished Senator from Missouri for 
his patience in listening to this discussion that has been going on. He 
is going to manage a bill, but he has been very patient, and I think we 
imposed on him. I just wanted to apologize and thank him.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I also thank the distinguished Senator from Missouri 
because he let us proceed. He was to go at 11:30. We thank him very 
much for his time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have to say that it is very enlightening 
to listen to my two distinguished colleagues debate this very important 
matter. Were it not for the schedule of the Senate, I far prefer to be 
enlightened and edified by these two great leaders of our time. 
Unfortunately, I believe the time has come for us to move on with other 
business.

                          ____________________