Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in September of 1862, in a sun-drenched cornfield near the Mason-Dixon Line, a devastation called Antietam happened. Twelve thousand young Americans on each side perished. Antietam is a name forever soaked in blood. It has come to symbolize the tragic nature of a domestic conflict called the Civil War--or the War Between the States. Now this Nation is challenged once again by war on our own shores. Another tragic loss of life on another sunny morning in the September of another century has recalled for us the special trauma of war on our homeland. This time the violence on our own land has roots in a cultural clash of worldwide proportions. It is, at once, a war at home and a war abroad. While we must fight on both fronts, these are conflicts of a very different nature. The brave men and women who serve in our military volunteer for that duty. They have the unquestioned support of the American people and, through the American people, of their Government. They fight aided by technology which is the envy of the world. Our military personnel accept and understand the discipline imposed on them while they serve for the cause of freedom. The weapons of destruction which engage them are easily discernible and their lethal potential is well understood. The war on our own shores is much more complex. We know that terrorists live among us and that they traverse our open borders with relative ease. We know the new enemy among us prefers weapons fashioned from the ordinary infrastructure of modern life--trucks, trains, planes, mail delivery systems, ports, energy sources, cyberspace, spent nuclear material. All of these, we are told, can be easily adapted to cause death and destruction, fear and panic. At home, our technology is deficient, with outdated computers in key government agencies unable to easily transmit vital information back and forth. In April and May, the Appropriations Committee heard testimony that indicate that our adversaries could cripple the U.S. economy without great difficulty or enormous cost. Yet we do not know much more. We do not know where this new shadowy enemy will strike, or when. Within the past few weeks, the concern seems to have grown. The Vice President has warned that a strike is ``almost certain.'' Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has stated that it is inevitable that terrorists will acquire weapons of mass destruction. Secretary of State Colin Powell has warned that ``terrorists are trying every way they can'' to get nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Security has been tightened around New York City landmarks. The FBI has warned that sites, such as the Statue of Liberty and Brooklyn Bridge, might be attacked. With all of these warnings in mind, and with a realization of the many gaps in our homeland security network, the men and women of this Congress have an obligation to take immediate steps to protect American lives and to try to prevent future tragedies such as the one we witnessed last September. After several days of hearings by the Senate Appropriations Committee on the urgent supplemental request for defense and homeland security, what emerges is a picture of a nation conflicted. While united in the goal of fighting terrorism, we are conflicted about how to do so, how to go about it. Finite resources must be stretched to fulfill the mission of a military on a worldwide hunt for terrorists and a less defined, but just as urgent, need to protect our people here at home, which must be executed by layers of bureaucrats responding to hundreds, if not thousands, of vulnerabilities. When the North wrestled the South for the soul of this Nation in the 19th century, America stood at a crossroads. Then, as now, transcendent and solid leadership was essential to our ultimate success. In the 1860s, this Nation was blessed, as it often has been in its brief history, with a gifted leader, able to quiet the squabbling generals and calm the bureaucratic struggles that threatened to consume his single-minded effort to preserve the Nation and restore the peace. Abraham Lincoln was a giant. He saved the Nation. But what we as leaders are now faced with may well be without parallel in U.S. history. I say that because the events surrounding September 11 have underscored a revolutionary blurring of the lines between domestic danger and international danger for our people. We can no longer sit safely in our large and prosperous country, confident that we need not fear foreign attack. True, our military might on the battlefield is the envy of the world, but the enemy now lives and works among us. He is here. He crosses our borders with relative ease. He boards our airplanes. He rides our trains and hides in our ships. No longer is the enemy only on a far away and distant foreign shore. The question for all of the leaders of this Government is, Can we adapt? Can we restructure where we need to do so? Can we even fully comprehend at this point the intertwining nature of the dual conflict in which we find ourselves? Can we sustain military action on so many fronts and not shortchange a defense of the homeland? Can we be steady enough to know that, even if public attention strays from the dangers here at home, our attention must not stray from the dangers here at home? In many cases, the answers come down to funding questions. The Senate Appropriations Committee is doing its part. Senator Stevens and I are proud of our record on homeland defense. Last fall, we approved $10 billion for homeland defense programs, $4 billion more than had been requested by the President, and that $4 billion has made a difference. Over 2,200 more INS border agents and Customs inspectors are being hired on the northern and southern borders; the Immigration and Naturalization Service is now implementing a system for tracking foreign students in this country; our police, fire, and medical personnel are getting better training, better equipment for detecting and responding to potential biological, chemical, or nuclear attacks; the FBI is hiring hundreds of new agents; 750 more food inspectors and investigators are being hired; the number of ports with Food and Drug Administration investigators is being doubled; 324 additional protective personnel are being hired to protect our nuclear weapons complex. Additional resources are being spent on efforts to destroy or secure nuclear materials overseas. However, a great deal remains to be done. In recent weeks, the Appropriations Committee in the Senate held a series of hearings on homeland defense. Senator Stevens and I joined in identifying and inviting the witnesses. We heard from terrorism experts about the continuing threat to our Nation. We heard from Governors. We heard from mayors. We heard from first responders--our police, fire, and medical personnel. They all testified to a continuing need for resources to expand our capacity to prevent, detect, and respond to terrorist attacks. We also took testimony from seven Cabinet officers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Our former colleagues, Sam Nunn and Warren Rudman, testified on the very real threat this Nation faces. The compelling message from our witnesses was that we need to do more and that we need to do more now. They also stressed the need for better Federal coordination and clearer standards for such efforts as securing our ports and making sure we have interoperable equipment that will allow our first responders to communicate with each other. The legislation before the Senate today, which totals $31 billion, fully funds the President's $14 billion request for defense programs. It provides over $8.3 billion for homeland defense programs. It provides $5.5 billion to augment the Federal response to New York City in response to the events of September 11. It approves $1 billion for the Pell grant shortfall. It includes $417 million for veterans' medical care. In addition, the bill includes $1.1 billion of mandatory spending for the Veterans Compensation and Pension Program. This bill contains $8.3 billion for critical homeland security efforts, efforts that we should not delay until the next fiscal year or the next calendar year. Within the homeland security package, more than $1 billion is directed to first responder programs. These are the people at the local level. They are the people who would be first on the scene. This funding will help to address those gaps that can endanger lives in case of an emergency. For instance, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has received grant requests from 18,000 fire departments across the country, requests that total more than $3 billion. The Senate legislation would begin to address this critical need for training and equipment. So we have equipment funds providing $300 million for our firefighters. Another $200 million is in the legislation to improve the ability for first responders to talk with each other. Currently, too many local police and fire departments have radio systems that are incompatible. They simply cannot talk with each other when responding to a crisis. The Appropriations Committee has included funding for the National Institute of Standards and Technology to establish uniform standards for interoperable equipment. We had several witnesses who testified to the need for such. Recently, the Brookings Institution released a report critiquing the administration's homeland defense strategy. One of the report's authors, Michael O'Hanlon, stated that the threat posed by terrorists using cargo containers entering our seaports ``may be our single greatest vulnerability that we have not yet made much progress towards addressing in this country.'' We heard from several witnesses to this need. To take steps to address this danger, the committee has provided $666 million for the Coast Guard for port and maritime security. This funding would expedite vulnerability assessments at our Nation's ports. It would expand the number of port strike teams trained to respond to biological, chemical, and radiation incidents. It would create two new maritime safety and security teams and purchase homeland security response boats, and it would expand surface and aviation assets, as well as the shore facilities to support them. Two hundred million dollars is included for port security grants. Fifty seven million dollars is provided to the Customs Service to improve cargo container inspections overseas, and $28 million is included to improve our technology on inspecting cargo containers. We cannot ignore looming gaps in our homeland security efforts. These gaps were exposed during those hearings. The committee listened. The committee has acted. The committee is going to do something about the problems that were brought to our attention by the witnesses who came before the Senate Appropriations Committee. That is why this legislation provides $387 million for bioterrorism, including funds to improve our toxicology and infectious disease lab capacity at the Centers for Disease Control. Our committee, the Senate Appropriations Committee, is responding to the needs of the country as expressed by the men and women who appeared recently before the Senate Appropriations Committee in those very important hearings. Congress has approved a $3 billion bioterrorism response authorization bill. This funding will move us toward meeting that bill's goal. The supplemental bill provides $200 million for security at our nuclear weapons facilities and nuclear labs. The bill provides $154 million for cyber-security with a special emphasis on helping the private sector defend itself from attack. No witness before that committee was more impressive than the distinguished Senator from Utah, Bob Bennett, who testified as to the need for the private sector to be prepared against attack. He emphasized the dangers that confront the Nation. So the committee has responded by, as I say, appropriating $154 million for cyber-security. Then there is in the bill $125 million for border security, including resources for Immigration and Naturalization Service facilities on the borders of the Nation, and for deploying the system for rapid response criminal background checks to 30 more ports. The bill provides $100 million for nuclear nonproliferation programs. The bill provides $265 million for airport security, including $100 million to help airports meet the new Federal standards for airport security. The bill before the Senate provides $200 million to the U.S. Department of Agriculture for food safety labs, additional food inspectors, and for vulnerability assessments for rural water systems. The bill before the Senate provides $100 million for the EPA to complete vulnerability assessments on the security of our water systems. The bill before the Senate today provides $286 million for other homeland defense items such as Secret Service efforts to combat electronic crime, FBI counterterrorism efforts, and funds for the Justice Department to develop an integrated information system. The bill fully funds the President's $4.4 billion request for the new transportation security administration. The bill includes $1.95 billion for international programs. We have included $200 million for Israel and $50 million for disaster assistance for the Palestinians. The legislation contains $1.069 billion for nonemergency programs, with offsets to pay for them. The major items include $450 million for election reform grants, $100 million for the global AIDS trust fund, and $75 million for WIC. The bill also provides $110 million for flood relief and $55 million for Amtrak repairs and security. I could go on, but Senators and the American people already know we are vulnerable, and in many instances they know where we are vulnerable: Anthrax, smallpox, dirty bombs, border security, nuclear labs, powerplants, cyber-security, food safety, airport security, drinking water. So we do understand the gaps in our security structures. If we know where those gaps are, we can be sure terrorists know where they are. Many decisions, large and small, lie ahead. One thing is certain: We cannot afford delay. So I urge Senators to offer amendments, debate, vote, and help members of the Appropriations Committee expedite this much-needed assistance for our Nation. We say, ``May God bless America,'' but we can do a lot to help God to bless America. We must quickly enact this bipartisan effort to bolster our weaknesses, address our shortfalls, and protect American lives. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank all Senators. u.s. trade laws

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this bill prevents the Senate from enacting a resolution of disapproval against a trade agreement that it finds objectionable, unless the Finance Committee chooses to report such a resolution to the full Senate. A resolution of disapproval enacted by the Senate would withdraw the application of fast track procedures to any bill the President submits to the Congress to implement a trade agreement. Although, at first glance, the bill before us appears to permit a Senator to introduce a resolution of disapproval rejecting fast track procedures applied to a trade agreement that is brought back to the Senate by the President, the reality is that such a resolution most probably would never come to the floor of the Senate for a vote. This is because the bill states that, once a resolution of disapproval is introduced and referred to the Senate Finance Committee, it will not be in order for the full Senate to consider the resolution if it has not been reported by the committee. In other words, a disapproval resolution cannot be forced to the floor through a discharge of the Senate Finance Committee. The way this bill is currently written, if a resolution of disapproval is not reported out of the Senate Finance Committee, it might as well never have been introduced. The resolution may simply lie there until it dies. This means that, so long as the Senate Finance Committee endorses the President's agreement, the views of the rest of the Senate are irrelevant. Enacting fast-track in this bill prevents the Senate from exercising its Constitutional responsibility to reject or modify trade agreement that are not in the best interests of the American people. It is imperative that every Senator retain his or her right to introduce a resolution of disapproval that can be considered in the light of day by the full Senate. To this end, my amendments require that, upon introduction, any resolution of disapproval--including an extension resolution of disapproval--will be referred not only to the Senate Committee on Finance, but also to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. The Rules Committee is essential to this process, because it is charged with making the rules and procedures that govern this institution, and its expertise is essential to our enforcement of commitments undertaken by our trading partners in the trade agreements negotiated by the President. Under these amendments, each of these committees will be required to report the resolution of disapproval that has been referred to it within 10 days of the date of its introduction and, if either of these committees fails to report the resolution of disapproval within that time, either of these committees shall automatically be discharged from further consideration of the resolution. The resolution shall then be placed directly on the Senate calendar. Once the disapproval resolution is placed on the Senate calendar, any Senator may make a motion to proceed to consider that resolution, and the motion to consider the resolution shall not be debatable. If enacted as currently written this bill would effectively cut a majority of Senators out of the trade regulation process, preventing them from correcting sweeping changes in trade law that could unfairly affect the lives of their constituents who rely on the Senate to protect their interests. I can't support surrendering the rights and prerogatives, the duties and responsibilities of the Senate to any President, Democrat or Republican. We in the Congress have an obligation to strike down trade agreements that adversely affect the American people. But it is impossible for us to do so if we do not provide ourselves the opportunity to adequately review, debate, amend, or reject their provisions as we are rightly empowered to do under the Constitution of the United States. These amendments ensure that we retain the power to modify or reject trade agreements that are not in the best interests of the United States and, in so doing, protect the economic well-being of the Nation and of the people we represent. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this bill prevents the Senate from enacting a resolution of disapproval----

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate.

Mr. BYRD. Do I have some remaining amendments?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. I thought I had withdrawn them. If I have not, I ask unanimous consent that I may withdraw them.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I think we ought to have a quorum call so we can take a good look and be absolutely sure. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD. The language is being changed so it makes a reference to an authorization, not to an appropriation. It earlier made appropriations in this bill. That was not the intent, Mr. Baucus has assured me. That change has been made now, and the full understanding between the chairman of the Finance Committee and myself and the ranking member of the Finance Committee is that there was no intent to make an appropriation. Therefore, I have no objection to the request by the majority whip.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have been astonished that the Senate--the very institution in which Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, Henry Clay, Robert Wagner, and Richard Russell once made important national policy, even it it meant defying presidents--would sit back and humbly and meekly allow the interests of the workers in their states to be sacrificed upon the altar of the false promise of free trade. These past few weeks, I have been even more disturbed that some would allow their concerns and their opposition to fast-track authority to be bought off with another false promise--the false promise of enhanced trade adjustment assistance for workers impacted by trade. I am not opposed to trade adjustment assistance in its intent and purpose. Trade adjustment assistance provides an important service when and where it is needed. But trade adjustment is not a panacea. Trade adjustment assistance is not a substitute for a job. Trade adjustment assistance is not a substitute for good trade policies. Trade adjustment assistance should never, never, be considered as a substitute for Congressional input into trade agreements, input that is essential for members of this chamber to be able to protect and promote the interests of our constituents. My opposition to giving fast-track authority to the executive branch is long-standing and unchanging. The Constitution obligates Congress to regulate foreign commerce. This means, at the least, that Congress must be an active participant in trade agreements, not a rubber stamp. Trade impacts every citizen of our country. It cuts across nearly every aspect of our lives and livehoods. The way of life and work for millions of American workers, for tens of thousands of American communities, are affected by the trade agreements. That is why trade issues must be debated and shaped by the legislative representatives of the people. It is the hardworking, responsible people back home who will keenly feel the impact of our trade policies. I was sent here to represent the interests of my State. I am going to do that to the best of my ability and this includes promoting and protecting the thousands of West Virginia workers whose lives are affected by trade agreements. It is difficult for me to understand why any member of this body of either political party, would surrender our constitutional prerogative to regulate trade to the executive branch. The devil, as the saying goes, is in the details. And fast track is asking the Congress of the United States to ignore the details, at great peril to the workers of our States. It is especially difficult to understand in this era when globalization has rendered the industries and workers of our States more and more vulnerable to the unfair, predatory trade practices of foreign countries. Our States are drowning under a flood of cheap foreign imports, and it is not just manufacturing industries. Free trade with Mexico has led to a flood of Mexican imports that devastated Florida's tomato industry and forced thousands of agricultural layoffs. China is dumping garlic on the United States and destroying the garlic industry in California. Since 1994, when NAFTA created the free trade zone, North Carolina has lost more than 125,500 jobs in the textile and apparel industries. The Mississippi Business Journal reports that the garment industry in Mississippi has virtually disappeared in the post-NAFTA era in that State. Last May, the New York Times told of the closing of a cotton factory in Jacksonville, AL, and the devastating impact of that plant closing on the town and its people. ``The good-paying textile jobs that built many of the towns in the industrial South,'' the story reported, ``have been vanishing for decades as manufacturers improve profits by moving to countries where labor is cheaper. The North American Trade Agreement . . . was a death knell for working people like the millers in Jacksonville.'' The American trucking industry is being clobbered by unfair and unregulated Mexican trucking. The steel industry in Pennsylvania and West Virginia has been absolutely devastated by the dumping of cheap foreign steel and of foreign, government-subsidized imported steel. A few weeks ago, President Bush pointed out that, ``Fifty years of foreign government intervention in the global steel market has resulted in bankruptcies, serious dislocation, and job loss.'' Estimates of job losses in the United States from NAFTA range from a half-million to more than a million. The impact of job dislocation is devastating communities across the country. The impact of being displaced, that is, losing your job due to a change in trade policy--that is, losing your job through no fault of your own--is devastating both psychologically and financially to the individual worker. For too many American workers, free trade has been and continues to be a long and frightening slide to financial disaster. Additionally, there is the risk of loss of health insurance. When one does not have insurance and, therefore, cannot pay for proper treatment, the result can be devastating. Compound this with the loss of retirement security. When people lose their jobs, they can no longer contribute to their retirement account. Worse, they are too often forced to take out their retirement savings in lump sum payments in order to make mortgage payments or to feed their families, or to pay their health insurance, thus wiping out the family's future economic security. Americans are living longer now. Many of them fear that they will not to able to depend upon Social Security for a decent retirement. They know that they will need these supplemental retirement savings. But, when displaced, and forced to drain their retirement accounts, that economic security is difficult to make up, if not lost forever. And, of course, there is the loss of income. In addition to the obvious loss of income between jobs, there is the additional loss of income when the displaced worker returns to lower-paying employment. Workers who lose higher wage, industrial jobs are often forced to take low-paying service jobs. Service jobs are notoriously lower paying jobs that offer limited opportunities for advancement. Studies of counties in Colorado, Missouri, and Mississippi have found a declining standard of living for workers and their communities as they moved from manufacturing to service jobs. For many workers, the erosion in earnings after landing new employment is telling. In the latter part of the 1990s, the weekly earnings of all reemployed workers fell 5.7 percent on average. Workers displaced from high-tenure jobs showed an average drop in earnings of over 20 percent after they found new, full-time jobs. Even workers who manage to retain their jobs feel the impact of trade as the decline in American manufacturing has meant a declining standard of living, not just for the affected workers and their families but also for their communities and their States. With the rise of international competition and the shift to lower wage service jobs in the United States, real wages have stagnated, making life much more difficult for all American workers. Today, even with some recovery in real wages due to the rapid growth in the economy in the 1990s, the average weekly wage is nearly 12 percent less than at its peak in the 1970s. As I said, the devil is in the details, and these families see these details every day as they work harder and run faster, only to continue falling further behind. Is it any wonder that polls and surveys reveal that: 57 percent of all working adults oppose giving President Bush fast-track authority; 78 percent of Americans believe that protecting American jobs should be a top priority in deciding U.S. trade policy; and 68 percent of Americans believe that trade details with low-wage countries such as Mexico lead to lower wages for American workers. Yet, I have sat back and watched in astonishment and shock as members of Congress have auctioned off this important constitutional obligation and the economic interests of their constituents for increased trade adjustment assistance benefits. Last year, the nonpartisan United States Trade Deficit Review Commission pointed out that, ``workers adjustment assistance has often been the last component of a package intended to increase Congressional support for approving new trade agreements. As such, it has often been viewed simply as an afterthough rather than as an integral component of our trade policy.'' Trade adjustment assistance has become a labyrinth of rules and regulations. When the Trade Deficit Review Commission surveyed the states for ways to improve trade adjustment assistance training programs, the state agencies came up with more than 80 different recommendations. Now, Congress is about to be bought off for the promise of enhanced trade adjustment assistance; that is, more band-aids to cover a gaping hemorrhaging of the livelihoods of American workers! There is the promise of tax credits for health insurance--I am not sure how important tax credits are to unemployed workers who have no income. There is the promise of more retraining, but I am concerned that we may be retraining for jobs that will not be there. There is the band-aid of wage insurance. I point out that Congress tried this gimmick before with the 1988 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act (OTCA), and it failed miserably. Two States were selected to test the program. One state rejected the program because they viewed it as too costly, bureaucratic and confusing. A single State was not considered enough of a sample from which to test the program, so the U.S. Department of Labor canceled the pilot program all together. The Trade Deficit Review Commission--the commission this Chamber created to make recommendations for changes in trade policy--made the important point that, for trade policy to be truly effective, trade adjustment assistance ``must be a comprehensive safety met available to all who need it.'' If trade adjustment assistance is to work, it must be comprehensive, flexible, and, according to the Trade Deficit Review Commission, it must be ``triggerless''--that is, it must provide benefits to workers who lose their jobs whether it is due to trade dislocation, technological changes, or other reasons.'' This means, among other things, that there must not be distinctions between primary or secondary workers. We must realize that trade impacts the community as well as the individual. Everyone is impacted and affected. Under the fast track legislation as it now stands, American truckers are ineligible for Trade adjustment assistance benefits because they are not considered ``worthy'' secondary workers. In promoting the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the legislation that also established trade adjustment assistance, President John F. Kennedy declared: ``There is an obligation to render assistance to those who suffer as a result of national trade policy.'' It is an obligation, not a lever. It is an obligation, not a bone to be thrown to a Congress acting more like administration lap dogs than the legislative representatives of the American people. I repeat myself. Trade adjustment assistance is no substitute for a job. Trade adjustment assistance is no substitute for good trade policy, and good trade policy will only come from open debate, and the amending process--that is, the input from the members of this body who represent the interests of the people of our states and the United States.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if I may have the attention of Senators, several references to appropriations have been found in the language. But I am constrained to believe, on the assurances of the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee and the ranking member, that these were inadvertences. So we have stricken several of them. Just to make doubly sure that this bill does not make any appropriations, I offer the following amendment, which, is agreed to, would save a lot of time: At the end, add the following: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no direct appropriation may be made under this Act.'' I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may I respond?

Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, earlier today I saw some language that indicated that the committee, in an amendment--I assume it was going to be included in the managers' amendment, or under the rubric of ``technical amendments''--was making direct appropriations. I ask the manager of the bill right here and now, is there any amendment in either the technical amendments or the managers' amendment that purports to make a direct appropriation?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the second amendment.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, the purpose of my amendment is because we are on the verge of passing fast-track legislation that would tie the hands of Senators who wish to amend trade agreements that come before Congress. It is imperative that we as members of the legislative branch become more active in the negotiation of those agreements. We must establish the means for Senators and Representatives to be consulted on trade negotiations in order to allow them to advise the administration on how to best protect the interests of their constituents. Based upon the trade act of 1974, members of the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee are able to serve as congressional advisers for trade policy. Members of those committees can also exercise oversight on the implementation of trade agreements. But the rest of the Members of the Senate and the House are left out in the cold when it comes to being able to sit in on important trade negotiations and being consulted on the contents of a trade agreement before it is sent to Congress for approval. My amendment corrects this situation by enlarging the congressional oversight group so that the group would be comprised of 11 Senators and 11 Representatives who do not serve on the Finance Committee or the Ways and Means Committee. The congressional oversight group can then serve with the members of the committee of jurisdiction to advise negotiators in the executive branch on how to craft a trade agreement that promotes fair trade practices and protects the interests of our constituents. My amendment does not take any powers away from the committees of jurisdiction. To the contrary, the amendment contains specific language that directs the cochairman of the congressional oversight group to open their meetings and to share all information with members of the Finance Committee and the Ways and Means Committee. These committees and the congressional oversight group should work together to promote consultation between the executive and legislative branches on trade agreements. I do trust the Finance Committee to consult with other Senators on the contents of trade agreements, but as Ronald Reagan once said, ``Trust but verify.'' Let the committees of jurisdiction do their work, but let us also allow a broader membership of the House and Senate to participate in the consultations on trade agreements. The particular needs of our individual States may not be apparent to members of the Finance Committee. Incidentally, Madam President, proponents of the fast-track bill have argued that we need to pass this legislation to allow the President to negotiate trade agreements. But the President already has the power to negotiate agreements with foreign countries. We do not need legislation to give the President his inherent powers. What fast track really does, however, is to cut out the Senate and the House of Representatives from proposing amendments to trade agreements. If Congress cannot amend trade agreements, it is all the more important for Members of Congress to become more involved in the negotiating process by broadening the membership of the congressional oversight group, as my amendment does. Congress may have a better chance at influencing prospective trade agreements to take into account the interests of our constituents. I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, what is the question before the Senate?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on this last Monday in May, Americans observe Memorial Day. On this day, we honor the fallen heroes of past and present wars, the mighty who have fallen in battle, by flying flags, laying wreaths at soldiers' graves, and other appropriate forms of tribute. On Monday, the mournful sound of taps will echo across the rows of headstones in quiet veterans' cemeteries and other cemeteries across the land. These will be followed by the sharp report of a 21-gun salute. Families across America may leaf through old boxes of photographs and remember their own losses--the doughboy uncle who fell in France in 1918; the Marine Corps cousin lost on Tarawa in World War II; the Army nephew cut down in Korea; or the Navy pilot brother shot down over Binh Hoa in Vietnam; the sons lost so recently in Afghanistan. They will worry about family members on duty in farflung corners of the globe in Bosnia, Saudi Arabia, Korea, Afghanistan, Colombia, and in other distant places. Memorial Day is a time of public patriotism leavened by private grief. In my own State of West Virginia, that undercurrent of private grief is sharpened by recent loss. Last Sunday, Sgt. Gene Arden Vance of Morgantown was killed in Afghanistan while carrying out a surveillance patrol with other coalition forces. He was 38 years old. He leaves behind his wife Lisa, a young daughter, and many family members and friends. Sergeant Vance's sacrifice and the pride and suffering of his family remind us all of the human costs of war. Sergeant Vance's name now joins a long honor roll of West Virginia's patriots who have given their all whenever and wherever duty has called. He will be remembered in our hearts and honored each Memorial Day by all who loved him and all who love the Nation he served so well. Originally May 30, the Memorial Day holiday was moved for convenience sake to make a welcome 3-day weekend. Many people know Memorial Day only as a marker for the end of the school year, the beginning of summer, the opening of the neighborhood pool or the start of the barbecue season. Few recall its roots in the civil war, or its gradual evolution from ``Decoration Day'' as it was called when I was a boy, to honor fallen civil war soldiers to a day to honor the dead from all wars. But this year, as fresh graves scar the landscape, the grim reminder of the human costs of this strange new war on terrorism, I think perhaps more people will hang an American flag by their door or wear a red poppy on their lapel. The wave of visible patriotism that blossomed in the aftermath of September 11 has faded somewhat. The flags may be tattered and torn, the signs and banners mostly gone, but the powerful emotion still surges in our veins. In Memorial Day, I suspect that the red, white, and blue will reemerge with vigor. It is reassuring to me to see Americans so proud of their flag, their Nation, the men and women in uniform. It is reassuring to see how dearly we hold the rights and liberties that are the legacy of our Founding Fathers. Our collective outrage, and then defiance, toward those who would attack our freedom is all the proof we need of the continuing strength of the American revolutionary spirit that created this great Nation. In 1863, President Abraham Lincoln made a brief address at Gettysburg, PA. He said, in part: We are met to dedicate a portion of it [the battlefield] as the final resting place of those who here gave their lives that this Nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense we cannot dedicate--we cannot consecrate--we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say, but it can never forget what they did. It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated to the unfinished work that they have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us, that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. That spirit lives on, undaunted and undefeated by the events of September 11 and unbowed by the continuing threats made against us. A civil war could not extinguish it; a war of terror will not break it. That strength and that resolve, even in the face of the greatest sacrifice, will continue to sustain our Nation. In the effort to avenge the deaths of our innocent civilians and to rid the world of Osama bin Laden's terrorist network, more American soldiers' lives will be put in harms' way and some of our brave sons and daughters will again be called upon to give that ``last full measure of devotion'' for their country, as Sergeant Vance has been called. That is not a pleasant thought, but a true one. This war on terror may take our sons and daughters from us, but their blood, their sacrifice, will leave a lasting legacy. May we, on this Memorial Day, rededicate ourselves to the high and noble patriotism for the Nation which they so unstintingly exemplified. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Seven minutes.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish to express my gratitude to the two leaders for the order that has been entered with respect to the supplemental appropriations bill. That bill is a good bill. It was reported out of the Senate Appropriations Committee on yesterday by a vote of 29 to 0. It had unanimous support in the reporting of it on yesterday. That unanimous vote could not have been possible without the cooperation and support and leadership of the distinguished Senator from Alaska and the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Ted Stevens. The committee held extensive hearings, and the Senator from Alaska and I joined in issuing the request for witnesses. Every witness that came before the committee had been agreed upon jointly by the Senator from Alaska and myself. Those hearings were important, they were productive, and they brought forth exceedingly valuable information to the members of the committee. And that information is reflected in the makeup of the appropriations bill. We had the local responders, the firemen, the police, the emergency health employees. We had seven Cabinet officers from the administration, and we also had the Director of FEMA. We had mayors. We had Governors. I was pleased with the hearings. I am very grateful and appreciative of the efforts that were made by Senator Stevens and the Members on both sides of the aisle. The hearings were very well attended. So it is a good bill. The war on terrorism proceeds. The Congress is receiving top secret briefings from the Secretary of Defense and the FBI Director almost weekly. The country is on a heightened state of alert. On March 21, 2002, the President submitted a supplemental budget request to prosecute that war. The principal components of the President's budget request included $14 billion for the Department of Defense; $5.3 billion for homeland defense, including $4.4 billion for the recently established Transportation Security Administration, $5.5 billion for New York in response to the September 11 attacks, $1.6 billion for international emergencies. This supplemental bill provides for those emergencies, as requested by the President. Just today, President Bush said, ``We've still got threats to the homeland that we've got to deal with, and it's very important for us not to hamper our ability to wage that war. . . .'' That is exactly what the supplemental appropriations deals with-- homeland security. The supplemental bill includes $8.35 billion for homeland defense, and increase of $3 billion over the budget request. This $3 billion focuses on problems that were identified during our homeland defense hearings. Our committee held very extensive hearings. We heard from the first responders, the state and local law enforcement personnel, the fire and medical personnel, individuals representing the ports, and those who had concerns about cyber security and the security of our nuclear weapons facilities and nuclear labs. We heard from those who are concerned about border security, airport security, food and agricultural safety, nuclear non-proliferation programs, and the vulnerability of our water systems. We heard from seven cabinet secretaries and the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. All of this information led us to formulate a supplemental appropriations bill which cleared the Senate Appropriations Committee by a recorded vote of twenty-nine to zero. Highlights include: $1.0 billion, $646 million above the request for first responder programs such as firefighting grants, State and local law enforcement grants, grants to State and local governments to fix the interoperability problem between State and local police, fire and medical personnel, emergency planning grants, funds to increase the number of FEMA search and rescue teams that have the training and equipment to combat biological, chemical and nuclear attacks and funds to make sure that we have standards for interoperable equipment; $970 million, $716 million above the request for port security including grants to improve security at ports, for increased Coast Guard surveillance, for increased Customs funding to improve container inspections overseas and to improve our technology on inspecting containers; $387 million of unrequested funds for bioterrorism, including funds to improve our toxicology and infectious disease lab capacity at the Centers for Disease Control; $200 million, $174 million above the request for security at our nuclear weapons facilities and nuclear labs; $154 million, $135 million above the request for cyber security, with a special emphasis on helping the private sector defend itself from attack; $125 million, $84 million above the request for border security, including resources for INS facilities on the borders and for deploying the system for rapid response criminal background checks to 30 more ports; $100 million of unrequested funds for nuclear nonproliferation programs; $265 million of unrequested funds for airport security, including $100 million to help airports meet the new Federal standards for airport security; $200 million for USDA for food safety labs, additional food inspectors, and for vulnerability assessments for rural water systems; $100 million for EPA to complete vulnerability assessments on the security of our water systems; and $286 million is provided for other homeland defense items such as Secret Service efforts to combat electronic crime, FBI counterterrorism efforts and funds for the Justice Department to develop an integrated information system. The bill fully funds the President's $4.4 billion request for the new Transportation Security Administration, unlike the House which cuts the request by $550 million. Just within the past few days, Vice President Cheney warned that a terrorist strike within our shores is ``almost certain.'' Defense Secretary Rumsfeld stated that it is inevitable that terrorists will acquire weapons of mass destruction. Secretary of State Colin Powell warned that ``terrorists are trying every way they can'' to get nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Security has been tightened around New York City landmarks. And Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge said that, ``While we prepare for another terrorist attack, we need to understand that it is not a question of if, but a question of when.'' The warnings are clear. The danger is real. We should act, not delay. We should protect lives, not play politics. I urge Senators to move forward with this supplemental bill and to do so quickly. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will speak on the first-degree amendment. Mr. President, there can be little doubt that the various agencies of the executive branch are increasingly in the driver's seat on the important matter of trade. Meanwhile, the Congress and the American people are merely being brought along for the ride. There are many reasons for this growing inequity, not the least of which is the willingness--at times, in fact, the eagerness--of this body to give us its rights and responsibilities under the Constitution. The Constitution mandates to the legislative branch--the people's branch--authority over foreign trade matters. It cannot, however, force the institution to exercise this authority and assert itself in trade matters. That requires the will of the Members. The lessons we have learned from our most recent experiences with trade agreements should be incentive enough for us to insist on our rights with regard to trade matters. We, after all, represent communities that have lost businesses to other countries and families who have lost their jobs to foreign firms. Yet here we are, once again, considering a measure that further ties the hands of the members of this institution in the area of trade. Perhaps even worse, we are continuing a trend of blinding ourselves to the details of the trade agreements on which we must ultimately vote. It is almost as if we don't want to know, At the very least, we should do more to lift the veil on trade negotiations so that we have some idea as to what it is this Nation is signing up to when the agreements go into effect. But to do so we need to establish the means for Members to participate more broadly, and in more detail, in important trade negotiations, as well as to carry out the important oversight functions that our complex trade laws require. The fast track bill now before the Senate opens that door. The bill establishes the Congressional Oversight Group to serve as an official adviser to the U.S. Trade Representative on matters that include the formulation of specific trade objectives and negotiating strategies, the development of new trade agreements, and the enforcement of existing trade agreements. The establishment of the Congressional Oversight Group is intended to help the legislative branch play a more substantial role in trade negotiations, but as laid out in this legislation it does not go quite far enough. As established by the bill, the Congressional Oversight Group will be comprised of five Senators, each of whom must serve on the Finance Committee, five Members of the House of Representatives, each of whom must serve on the Ways and Means Committee, and, on an ad hoc basis, the chairman and ranking members of the various committees of the House and Senate that would have jurisdiction over provisions in the trade agreement that is under negotiation. This select group, of perhaps as few as 10 Members of Congress, would then be given the authority, under law, to advise the U.S. Trade Representative on important matters of international commerce. Choosing members of the Finance and Ways and Means Committees was a logical move on the part of the authors of this provision. These are committees with, perhaps, the greatest degree of expertise in trade matters. But our trade negotiators, and the American people, should have the greater benefit of the breadth of expertise that can be offered by a more diverse representation of the Congress. Mr. President, in some respects, the Senate has already gone over this territory. We have the National Security Working Group to assist the Foreign Relations Committee and the Armed Services Committee with reviewing important arms control agreements. The National Security Working Group is not a replacement for those communities, but it is a useful back channel between the legislative and executive branches during the early stages of arms control negotiations, just as the Congressional Oversight Group is intended to do for trade negotiations. But the National Security Working Group has functioned well because its membership is not limited to those Senators who serve on the committees of jurisdiction. The National Security Working Group has 20 members, eight of whom serve on neither the Armed Services Committee or the Foreign Relations Committee. Indeed, one of the group's greatest strengths is that it draws its membership from the whole Senate, rather than just one committee. The amendment I offer expands the Congressional Oversight Group to 22 members, selected from the membership of the Senate and the House of Representatives who do not serve on the Finance Committee in the Senate or the Ways and Means Committee in the House. Just as with the National Security Working Group, the leadership of each House of Congress will serve on this panel. In addition, the leadership of each House will select eight additional members to complete the Congressional Oversight Group. It also authorizes expenses for Senate staff, so that the group can follow the negotiations of trade agreements on a full-time basis, not just as the schedules of the members of the group allow. The changes that I propose to the composition of the Congressional Oversight Group as established in the fast-track bill do not in any way detract from the consultations between the administration and the congressional committees of jurisdiction. The Trade Act of 1974 established a process for consultation between the congressional committees of jurisdiction and the executive branch. At the beginning of each Congress, the President pro tempore of the Senate is directed to appoint, after consultation with the chairman of the Finance Committee, five members of that committee to work with the U.S. Trade Representative during the negotiation of trade agreements. The Speaker of the House is also directed to make appointments for members of the House committees of jurisdiction to serve in the same advisory role. The U.S. Trade Representative is directed to keep these congressional advisors ``currently informed on the trade policy of the United States,'' and make these advisors aware of any proposed changes to our trade policy. This is the mechanism by which the members of the committees of jurisdiction can remain informed of the progress in negotiating fast-track agreements. My amendment prevents the congressional Oversight Group from being a redundant entity, as it currently is configured in the fast-track bill, and expands it to include a broader group of members of Congress in both Houses who are interested in trade, but do not serve on the Finance Committee or the Ways and Means Committee. The amendment does not elevate the Congressional Oversight Group above the status of the committees of jurisdiction on trade matters. In fact, my amendment specifically directs that any meetings that are open to the Congressional Oversight Group shall also be open to congressional advisers for trade policy. Because trade agreements encompass so many issues, including labor protections and environmental standards, as well as adjustments to our own trade rules, all committees with jurisdiction should be fully consulted at all stages of negotiations on a new trade agreement. But many Senators who do not serve on the committees of jurisdiction also have great interest in our trade laws and they can offer significant contributions. These Senators should have the opportunity to receive similar consultations. The Congressional Oversight Group, as laid out by my amendment, would allow these Senators with an interest in trade matters to be fully informed of the progress of negotiations. The fast-track procedure for considering trade bills turns the legislative process on its head. It forbids Senators from offering amendments, even for the purpose of clarifying the intent of the agreement in question. The fast-track procedures limit the time that a trade agreement could be debated, as if Senators should not be given the time to learn what is really in the agreement. In that case, the only Senators who would really know what a trade agreement does, and why it needs to be done, are those Senators who participate during the negotiation of those agreements. Right now, only five Senators have been appointed to be congressional trade advisors to the U.S. Trade Representative, and every one of those Senators serves on the Committee on Finance. It is all well and good to draw upon the expertise of the members of the Finance Committee, but what about the rest of us? At what point will we, who do not serve on the Finance Committee, be made aware of the progress of trade negotiations? When will those Members of the Senate who are not on the committees of jurisdiction have an opportunity to see that the interests of our States are protected by a trade agreement? Is it when the agreement is signed, sealed, and delivered to Congress for an up-or-down vote? Or are we, as the elected representatives of the people, entitled to have our input on these trade agreements while there is still an opportunity to do so? In an increasingly global marketplace, the ramifications of trade negotiations are undoubtedly reaching into the smallest crevices of our economy. The types of industries, the numbers of businesses, and every American's everyday concerns that are being impacted by foreign trade are real and constantly growing. The consultation of a broader number of Senators on potential trade agreements will more adequately and appropriately address the pervasive influence of foreign trade on America today. My amendment to change the composition of the Congressional Oversight Group will help end the exclusive nature of trade consultations. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. BYRD. The pending amendment is the second-degree amendment?