Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Is amendment No. 3447 my amendment?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the pending question?

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. No, they get slow-tracked.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator from Minnesota. I appreciate his willingness to cosponsor the amendment, and I value his association in the matter.

Mr. BYRD. No, no.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I speak on amendments Nos. 3448 and 3449, which I offered earlier. Madam President, for nearly 50 years I have worked to preserve the institutional integrity of the Senate and the House. Throughout this long period, I have repeatedly and consistently opposed exactly the type of fast-track provisions that are contained in this bill. During my decades in the Senate, I have staunchly opposed fast-track because I believe it improperly delegates to the Executive Branch unwarranted and excessive power over the regulation of foreign commerce. I have to say, however, that upon reviewing this bill, I find its provisions are some of the most offensive to date. This bill continues the sorry trend of giving the President carte blanche to determine what will be contained in a series of trade agreements, and--except for the provisions on trade remedies exempted by the Dayton-Craig amendment--deprives the Senate of any opportunity to amend these agreements in order to either improve their provisions or correct any deficiencies they may contain. This bill impedes the ability of the Senate to enact a resolution of disapproval against a trade agreement that it finds objectionable. Although, at first glance, the bill appears to permit a Senator to introduce a resolution of disapproval rejecting 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 that 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 simply languishes, and languishes, and languishes, and languishes. 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 not only provides the President with unfettered authority to negotiate trade agreements, it also prevents the Senate from exercising its constitutional responsibility to reject or modify trade agreements that are not in the best interests of the American people. The Constitution in Article 1, Section 8, not only provides Congress with the power to ``lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises'' and to ``regulate commerce with foreign nations,'' but it also gives the Congress the authority to enact all legislation that ``shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.'' This authority of the Congress to enact or to refuse to enact legislation applies specifically to the trade agreements that the President seeks to negotiate under fast-track. 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. The rules of the Senate exist not only to protect the rights of its Members. In fact, it should be said that the rules and procedures exist to protect the rights of the people. This body is uniquely structured to provide a voice and power to the minority. I repeat, the minority. And I remind my colleagues in this Chamber that a minority can be right. The rules of this body, in fact, provide each individual member with leverage, and each of us has a stake in ensuring that these rules are respected, and that procedural changes of this type are only undertaken with great care and thoughtfulness. To this end, I am introducing two amendments to 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. After all, it is the Rules Committee that is charged with making the rules and procedures that govern this institution, and its expertise is essential to guarantee that the commitments undertaken by our trading partners in the trade agreements we negotiate are enforceable under U.S. law. 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. The language in this bill and its accompanying report prohibiting a resolution of disapproval from being discharged from the Finance Committee constitutes a sharp distortion of the Senate's rules that would dramatically impede the rights of the 79 Members of the Senate who happen not to serve on the Senate Finance Committee. In other words, almost four-fifths of the Senate will have no say regarding whether what the President has negotiated is right or wrong. 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. It is not as if Senators, in recent years, have had much of a say in trade matters. They have not. And what little voice they have had has been suppressed, if not silenced, on too many occasions by this gimmick called fast-track, a gimmick now renamed ``trade promotion authority.'' This legislation goes beyond fast-track in its impairment of the Senate's prerogatives. I cannot support surrendering the rights and prerogatives, the duties and responsibilities of the Senate to any president of any political party. 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 majority of the people of the United States and, in so doing, protect the economic well-being of the Nation and of the people we represent. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. BYRD. That is the case, precisely.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Bush administration continues its push for fast track trade authority under the fictitious term ``trade promotion authority.'' This is legislation that would enable the President to negotiate trade agreements without full congressional input. With fast track authority, there would be only limited Senate debate. With fast track authority the full Senate will have no opportunity to amend. Most Members of Congress will have no opportunity to protect the interests of the people, the communities, and the industries of their particular States, including ensuring the protection of the standard of living of our workers and their families within those States and communities. Although the Constitution clearly gives Congress the duty--and the power, it gives Congress the power--``to regulate commerce with foreign nations,'' with fast track authority the Congress will simply applaud a presidential trade-negotiating effort by approving a trade agreement, or boo the effort by disapproving it. That is pretty unlikely, that it would be disapproved. Members of Congress should never allow our options to be so restricted. We were sent here to promote and to protect the interests of our States as well as the national good, and those goals are best served by debate and amendment, particularly with regard to trade deals. The workers of this Nation are losing ground, in large part, due to poor trade agreements. For Congress to abdicate its constitutional authority here is to, in my view, turn its back on millions of American workers--the workers who are the backbone of this Nation, and who deserve more than a cursory, neglectful wink and nod. Let us focus for a moment on just one sector of our economy, manufacturing. There is no question that manufacturing has continued to grow during the past several decades. For example, real, inflation adjusted, manufacturing sales as a percentage of GDP continue to increase. And there is no question that certain manufacturing industries such as those involved in high-technology products--for example, electronic equipment, industrial machinery, and chemicals--have prospered. United States production of electronic equipment rose by nearly 400 percent--to be precise, 393.5 percent--while industrial machinery increased by 155 percent. Even fabricated metal products and motor vehicles have experienced an increase in real output since 1990. There is also no question that in recent decades a number of our vital industries could be placed on an endangered species list. Beginning in the 1970s and continuing through the 1990s, for too many American industries the story of American manufacturing has been a tragic story of bankruptcies, consolidations, plant closings, plant shutdowns, and movement overseas. These industries missed the economic boom of the 1990s because they have been drowning in a flood of cheap imports. Since 1997, 33 steel companies have filed for bankruptcy, affecting 73,000 workers. During the 1990s, 352 paper mills and paper converting plants permanently closed. Last year alone, 36 mills closed, and 15 more are slated for closing this year. The American textile industry is suffering its worst crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. During the past year, more than 10 American textile mills have closed, and industrial giants such as Burlington Industries, Malden Mills, and Guilford Mills have sought bankruptcy protection. Between 1989 and 2000, the real dollar value of apparel industry output failed by nearly 20 percent--19.6 percent to be exact. There was a 27.9-percent decline in the instruments industry and a 3.7-percent decline in the real output of the paper products industry. According to the Congressional Research Service, at least 18 American industries experienced negative or slow output growth between the years 1980 and 2000--so much so that each one could be added to the endangered industries list. The decline in these industries is reflected, to some extent, in the decline in employment in the manufacturing industries. In 1970, approximately one-third of the private sector workforce was engaged in manufacturing. By 2000, it had fallen to 17 percent. So from 1970 to 2000, employment in the manufacturing industries fell from one-third of the private sector workforce to 17 percent--half-- from 33 percent to 17 percent. Cut in half. That is like the wisest man of all time threatening to cut the baby in half. According to the Congressional Research Service, at least 19 industries--nearly all in manufacturing--experienced the loss of one- third or more jobs since 1980. There was a 52-percent decrease in machine tools, a 67-percent decrease in employment in blast furnaces and steel mills, and an 83-percent decrease in employment in nonrubber footwear. Read it and weep. I realize that a substantial portion of this decline in manufacturing employment is due to increased productivity. Millions of workers are losing their jobs because of technological progress, more efficient management of resources, and because productivity has grown faster than sales. Nevertheless, there is no question but that certain sectors of our economy--especially those in the industries I have mentioned--are being clobbered by imports. Between 1994 and 2000, the U.S. trade deficit of $182 billion increased 141.6 percent to $439 billion--inflation adjusted 2000 dollars. This soaring trade deficit has taken an incredible toll on American jobs. Between 1994 and 2000, according to an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute, trade deficits eliminated a net total of 3 million actual and potential jobs from the U.S. economy. The manufacturing sector has shouldered the burden of this increased deficit, as the manufacturing trade deficit rose by 158.5 percent. Of the 3 million trade-related job losses between 1994 and 2000, 1.9 million were in manufacturing. This means that nearly two of every three lost jobs were in manufacturing. In other words, 1.9 million jobs out of 3 million jobs were in manufacturing. That is, manufacturing constituted 65 percent of all trade-related job losses. These trade-related job losses happened as increased globalization encouraged American industries to pack up and seek other lands where labor is cheaper and where industries do not have to comply with the environmental and safety standards in the United States. The International Trade Commission has reported that roughly half of the total productive capacity in the apparel industry has shifted from developed countries to less developed countries over the past three decades, where workers earn far less than their American counterparts. What are we doing? What are we doing in our trade agreements to protect American jobs? The answer has to be: Not enough. Globalization has also left our industries more vulnerable to the unfair predatory trade practices of foreign countries. Look at the American steel industry, which has been absolutely devastated by the dumping of cheap foreign steel and of government-subsidized, imported steel. Last October, the U.S. International Trade Commission ruled that imports of foreign steel have indeed caused serious injury to American steelmakers. The Commission reported that imported steel has seriously hurt domestic steelmakers in about half of 33 product lines examined, covering about 80 percent of what steel companies produce in America. ``Fifty years of foreign government intervention in the global steel market''--someone said last month in announcing tariffs on imported steel--``has resulted in bankruptcies, serious dislocation, and job loss.'' Who was that someone? The President of the United States, President Bush. NAFTA, which was enacted under fast-track authority, and which I voted against, was supposed to eliminate most of these causes of the American trade deficit and lessen the foreign assaults upon American industries. Instead, the increased globalization unleashed under NAFTA and the World Trade Organization has exacerbated the problem, not solved it. I have been on the right side in both instances; I have opposed both. Since 1994, when NAFTA created the free trade zone, North Carolina has lost more than 125,500 jobs in the textile and apparel industries, or 47 percent of the workforce. The Mississippi Business Journal reports that the garment industry in Mississippi has virtually disappeared in the post-NAFTA era. We gave it away. This decline in American manufacturing has meant a declining standard of living, not just for the affected workers and their families but for their communities and their States. Workers have been forced out of higher wage, industrial jobs into low-paying service jobs. In 1980, private-sector service employment constituted 65 percent of the American private sector workforce; by the year 2000, the percentage had soared to 77 percent. Service jobs are notoriously low-skill, low-paying jobs that offer limited opportunities for advancement because there are relatively few management positions. Look at South Carolina, a State that is near the top of the job creation list in the 1990s but it ranks 35th in average wages--$25,493. A study of a 5-year period, 1992 to 1997, in that State indicated the creation of 94,572 service jobs, a 40.6-percent increase in a sector that pays lower than the statewide average. The higher paying manufacturing sector, the traditional mainstay of South Carolina's economy, lost nearly 1,000 jobs during the 5-year period. In 1997, the State's service employees earned an average $22,693, compared to the average of $29,820 for employees in the State's manufacturing jobs. Economists in the State of South Carolina point out that even with the growth in the service industries, South Carolina's per capita income is among the Nation's lowest. Unfortunately, the holders of these service jobs are often thought to be students looking for summer work, or marginal workers seeking spending money, or people simply in need of a quick stopover job while on their way to a better paying career. In other words, service jobs are presented as great jobs for people who do not really need them, in many instances. The truth is, people do need these jobs, and many of the holders of these jobs are adults who depend on that paycheck to pay rent or child care. Many are former industrial workers simply trying to exist in the new economy. Studies of counties in Colorado, Missouri, and Mississippi found a declining standard of living for workers and their communities as they moved from manufacturing jobs to service jobs. Martha Burt of the Urban Institute found that the growth of homelessness in the United States in the 1980s was not, as commonly supposed, the result of drug addiction, or the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill, nor the cutbacks in social programs during the Reagan administration, but the shift from an industrial economy to a service economy. With the decline in manufacturing jobs in the 1970s, she explains, huge numbers of former full-time factory workers earning union wages were replaced with part-time workers in retail stores, restaurants, and other service jobs, where wages are too low to enable them to afford the price of housing. The facts are, as the Stearns Trustee Professor of Political Economy at Northeastern University, Barry Bluestone, emphasizes, even workers who retain manufacturing jobs also face a bleak future, a future of a declining standard of living, if we do not revise our trade polices and insist upon effective labor and environmental standards in our trade agreements. This is because competition from countries which lack, or do not enforce, labor and environmental standards, continues to have a large, negative impact on employment in key sectors of our economy, and on American wages and living standards across the board. 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. Real average weekly earnings peaked in 1972 at $315.44. 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. This decline in real wages is forcing American workers to work longer hours than ever before in order to maintain their living standards. They are running in place--sweating on a treadmill operated by the hyper zealots of free trade regardless of consequences. In fact, the United States is the only major developed country that has experienced an increase in the average workweek and the average work year. Since 1982, the average workweek among prime-age workers in the United States has increased from 39.6 hours to 41.3 in 2000. This means that the average work year has increased from around 1,840 hours to over 2,020. Put simply, stagnating wages are forcing Americans to work longer and longer hours just to maintain their standard of living. They are not getting ahead. They are simply maintaining what they have worked so hard for, if, indeed, they are even maintaining that. This is why the Congress must protect and exercise its right to amend trade agreements. Why do we give away Congress' power to amend trade agreements? We must insist on establishing universal labor and environmental standards. We must insist on protecting American industries from even more devastation by unfair competition from firms operating abroad, exploiting cheap labor pools, and tolerating working conditions which are unacceptably harsh, and environmental standards which are nonexistent. These essential universal labor and environmental standards can be extracted only through our trade agreements. In the 1930s, the United States instituted a range of laws and regulations to protect workers and the environment. We did this at the Federal level so that individual States could not take unfair advantage of other States by lowering their minimum wages, permitting child and prison labor, ignoring occupational and safety provisions, eliminating or reducing unemployment benefits, or disregarding environmental standards. We leveled the playing field domestically. No one could manipulate for advantage. Now we must level the playing field in international competition, where American workers are too often forced to play by the rules in a rigged game. In our new, globalized economy, we run the risk of undermining our own hard won labor and environmental standards if other countries choose to have none of their own or refuse to enforce reasonable requirements. Congress, which has the constitutional power, and therefore the duty ``to regulate commerce with foreign nations,'' must have the means to insist on reasonable labor and environmental standards as part of any and all trade agreements. This is to the benefit not only of American workers, but also of workers, both children and adults, who are laboring under oppressive, unsafe, and unhealthy conditions in other lands. Over the years, I have seen administrations--Republican and Democratic--repeatedly negotiate trade agreements that reflected priorities other than those of the American people. I say that with a background of 50 years in Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate, so let me say it again. I have seen administrations-- Republican and Democratic--repeatedly negotiate trade agreements that reflected priorities other than those of the American people. I have seen this Nation genuflect at the altar of big business interests. I have witnessed the holy battle cry of ``free trade'' become a club by which to beat into submission any voice that expressed an argument for balance and fairness. That is understandably the outcome of trade talks that ignore the constitutional role of the Congress in international commerce. While it is not surprising that Republican and Democratic administrations would attempt to enter into trade agreements that reflect their own priorities, it is absolutely distressing--it is extremely puzzling to this Senator--that the Members of Congress would willingly give up their right to shape trade agreements that reflect the priorities of the American people, and the best interests of the United States. It just demonstrates how cowed and how intimidating we in public life have become by the absolute terror of bumper sticker politics. Free trade is the battle cry. Don't complicate it with real world concerns. As a U.S. Senator from West Virginia, I am always--first, last, and all the time--for the protection of the interests of this country, of this Nation's workers, and this country's manufacturing industries and I am going to continue being that way by opposing the granting of blanket fast track authority for this or any other President. Call it trade promotion authority, if you will--it is still fast track--to give away American interests when it comes to trade. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this coming Sunday is Mother's Day, so recognized nationally. Of course, we all know that every day is Mother's Day. We should also know that simply having children does not make mothers. ``Simply having children does not make mothers.'' That is a quotation that I have taken from John A. Shedd, a very apt quotation in today's culture. Napoleon Bonaparte said, ``The future destiny of the child is always the work of the mother.'' All across the Nation, brunch reservations are being made, cards are being mailed, flowers are being ordered, gifts are being bought, and phone circuits will overload. It can mean only one thing, as I indicated earlier: This coming Sunday is Mother's Day. One day out of 365. Mother's Day. In a great spasm of tender sentiment, Americans will set out to honor and celebrate the women most important to them--not Hollywood celebrities, not rock music stars--if stars we must call them at all-- not fashion models, not athletes, but those who have devoted such energy and creativity to the timeless task of raising children and building families. I, too, wish to offer my tributes. It is fitting that Mother's Day is celebrated in May, when the Earth is vibrant with new life. Mother birds are busy on the nest keeping hatchlings warm and their gaping mouths filled. In the tangled thickets, wild young are venturing forth from warren and den. The little foxes that, in the Bible references ``spoil the vine,'' wrestle, and the little rabbits sample the first tiny wild strawberries. Butterflies visit the glossy, yellow buttercups and the snowy blossoms of the wild blackberries. The world seems as gentle, peaceable, and serene as any mother could wish for her children. Of course, we know the world is not always quite so benign, but we can still be impressed by those mothers who face tragedy with great courage in order to protect and shield their children. The mothers who lost husbands on September 11 and remained strong and positive examples for their children, when bitterness and despair would be so understandable, are heroes and heroines each and every day. Mothers set indelible examples, the effects of which last for generations. My own mother, whose early death during the great flu pandemic in 1918 meant that I would be raised by relatives, should have left no trace upon my character. After all, I was only about a year old when she went to Heaven. Yet her selflessness in thinking of me on her deathbed, and expressing the wish that I would be cared for by one of my father's sisters, left me with the deep and abiding assurance of her love for me. I had three older brothers and a sister, and it was in that great influenza epidemic that she was taken away, as millions of other mothers were taken away--perhaps 20 million people around the world lost their lives during that great influenza epidemic of 1917-1918. It is said that 12 million people in India died from the influenza, the swine flu. Perhaps 750,000 people in America died. As I say, it was her wish, my mother's wish, that I be taken by one of my father's sisters whose name was Vlurma. I believe my father had nine sisters and perhaps two or three brothers, but it was one of his sisters, a sister who had married Titus Dalton Byrd, who took me in response to my dying mother's wish. But for her wish, Mr. President, I would not be here today. I would never have gone to West Virginia to be reared in the coal mining communities in the southern part of the State had it not been for that mother's wish. I probably would have never sworn the oath in entering upon the office of U.S. Senator had it not been for that wish, my mother's wish, that I, the baby, should be brought up in the home of Titus Dalton Byrd and Vlurma Byrd, the only child in that home. The Byrds had one child before I was born. That child was named Robert Madison Byrd. That child died of scarlet fever. The Byrds moved away from North Carolina and to West Virginia and moved me with them. At first I had been named Cornelius Calvin Sale, Jr., by my father and my mother. My mother's name was Ada--Ada Mae. The two wonderful people who raised me changed my name to Robert Carlyle Byrd. So my mother's wish is a priceless gift even now, all of these years later. And the woman who raised me, my aunt, imbued me with her quiet faith and reverence for the Creator and impressed upon me her work ethic. I always call her ``mom.'' She was the only mother I really ever knew. There are millions of other men and women around the world who can speak of their mothers as I have spoken of mine. They may have lost their mothers early or at some point along life's way. Many of them have sweet memories of those mothers. I do not have any memory of my mother, but somehow I know that her prayers have always followed me. I believe that. And I believe that she is in Heaven today. The woman who reared me, my biological father's sister, was one of the few really, really great people I have known in my life. I had the good fortune to meet with many world leaders during my years in the Senate and especially during my years as majority leader in the Senate. I met with the Shah of Iran just a few weeks before he left Iran, never to return. I met with the current King of Jordan's father. I first met him 47 years ago. I met, as I mentioned earlier, the Shah of Iran. I first met him 47 years ago--in 1955. I met with the President of Syria. I shook hands with Nassar of Egypt. I visited with and talked with German Chancellor Schmidt and German Chancellor Kohl. I met with Margaret Thatcher in her offices in London. I met with the Saudi family. I met with Prime Minister Begin of Israel. I met with Vice President Deng of China. I met with Mr. Khrushchev in the Crimea in his summer home. I met with many other world leaders--Kings and Shahs and Princes and Presidents and Senators and Governors. These were outstanding personages, the leaders of the world. I had one-on-one meetings with these people. I met with President Sadat of Egypt. But the truly great people in my life and according to my standards were not national leaders or politicians, they were just common people. One of them was the man who raised me, Titus Dalton Byrd, a coal miner. I never heard him use God's name in vain in all of his life. He was a humble man. He paid his debts. He never spoke ill of a neighbor. He was a good man, as good as men can be. The Bible says no man is good, but he was as good as men become. He was a great man, in my sight. The woman who raised me was a great woman. Neither of them had any education to amount to anything. I doubt that either of them had ever gone to the third grade in school. I was the first person in all of my family line who ever graduated from elementary school or from high school or from college. They never made it to the third or fourth grade in school, but they were great souls, they had great hearts, they had honest minds, and they imbued me with a respect for the Bible and a respect for religion. I can listen to any man's religion. It can be a man of Islam. It can be a Hindu. It can be a Protestant. It can be a Jew. I can listen to any of them. I can pray with any of them. That is the way I was taught. These two people who raised me were great people. That aunt, as I say, I never knew any name for her but ``Mom.'' I did not know that she was not my mother until I was in my year of graduation from high school. I can close my eyes and see her, after a long day, working to make ends meet in a hardscrabble West Virginia mining community, sitting at a scrubbed kitchen table, and discussing the Bible. Those were some hard times in those days. When my wife and I married almost 65 years ago--in less than 3 weeks, if the Lord lets us live to see the day--our first refrigerator was half of an orange crate, or a grapefruit crate. I was a produce boy in a coal company store, so I sold grapefruits, oranges, other citrus fruits, other fruits, and vegetables. So I brought an empty orange crate home and nailed it up outside the kitchen window. That was during the Great Depression. During the late 1920s I lived as a boy on Wolf Creek in Mercer County, no electricity in the home, no running water in the house. Those were the days of the 2-cent stamp and the penny postcard. I know what the word ``mother'' means, and I know what the word ``father'' means, even though my father and my angel mother did not rear me. But this old aunt and uncle who knew little about their ABCs but who knew much about life and about the things that count mostly in life, they reared me; they loved me. I heard ``mom'' pray many times in the stillness of the night. When the kerosene lamp was out, I would hear her voice coming from another room. I knew she was on her knees. After I was elected to Congress, there were occasions when I would drive to West Virginia and go to her house. I would get there perhaps at 12, 1, or 2 in the morning. I would knock on the door, and she would answer the door. She would always ask me if I wanted her to fix me something to eat at that hour. Then after I spent most of the weekend in West Virginia and was about to return to Washington, she would fix a good noonday meal, and then say to me: ``Robert, you be a good boy; I always pray for you.'' It used to be when I was a little boy living on Wolf Creek Hollow, I would take bags of corn up to the mill on the top of the mountain. We had one horse named George. I had a pony. I would put a bag of corn across that pony's back, take it up to the mill, and the miller would grind the corn into meal, and that evening ``mom'' would make a cake of cornbread. We had one cow, and sometimes ``mom'' would take me out with her to milk the cow. I would sit there and have a cup, and she would squeeze that milk down in the cup. I would drink that cup of milk with the foam freshly wrought from the bag of the cow. I still see my aunt, who was--the only mother I ever really knew. She never kissed me in her life. I never received a mother's kiss, unlike Benjamin West, that great American painter who was living at the time the Constitution of the United States was written in Philadelphia. He would take to his mother, so the story goes, little drawings of birds and flowers, and she took him upon her knee. It is said that she kissed little Benjamin West's cheek as he sat on her knee and she told him he would grow up to be a great painter. So he grew up to be a painter of early American scenes. ``The Death of General Wolfe'' was by Benjamin West. The story is told that Benjamin West said a mother's kiss made him a great painter. I do not remember ever receiving a mother's kiss, but I received ``mom's'' love. I still see her in my mind's eye when my wife Erma and I sit together on Sundays and read the Bible. My aunt taught me a great deal about the quiet dignity with which she lived her life. Mothers teach when they insist that their children brush their teeth and eat their vegetables. Mothers teach by saying bedtime prayers, by reading bedtime stories, and by singing lullabies. As I say, simply having children does not make mothers, but mothers do sing lullabies at the bedsides of their children. They demonstrate their love not only through hugs and praise, but in each meal they make, each load of laundry they fold, each toy they put away. Children absorb lessons from the people around them, and especially from the parents they look up to. So, mothers teach by example when they read themselves instead of watching television, the vast wasteland that numbs peoples' minds or by being careful with their speech and with the way they live their lives. Each small lesson helps to weave the cloth of their children's lives. It is for these daily lessons, the laughter shared and tears dried, that we put so much effort into making Mother's Day special. And we ought to make it special. We ought to see Mother on this Mother's Day and every other day of the year that it is possible. A poem by an anonymous poet captures the inspiration that mothers provide: When Mother Reads Aloud When Mother reads aloud, the past Seems real as every day; I hear the tramp of armies vast, I see the spears and lances cast, I join the trilling fray; Brave knights and ladies fair and proud I meet when Mother reads aloud. When Mother reads aloud, far lands Seem very near and true; I cross the desert's gleaming sands, Or hunt the jungle's prowling bands, Or sail the ocean blue. Far heights, whose peaks the cold mists shroud, I scale, when Mother reads aloud. When Mother reads aloud, I long For noble deeds to do To help the right, redress the wrong; It seems so easy to be strong, So simple to be true. Oh, thick and fast the visions crowd My eyes, when Mother reads aloud. Manufacturers of greeting cards, florists, jewelers, clothing stores, even the phone company suggest that their products are treasured by mothers, and I am sure that they are. But mothers also treasure the lumpy clay vases made by young potters and filled with wild flowers torn from the yard. Mothers love the care and love that their loved ones put into this celebration. Flowers or no flowers, homemade cards or store-bought, mothers love being surrounded by their families most of all. Each child is some mother's treasure, her precious angel, even when that child is grown and gone to far away places. A mother's children are her greatest works, her magnum opus, her masterpiece. A phone call or a meal shared together provides an opportunity to relive the memories that make each family special. Erma and I can look around the table as we think of her mother, Erma's mother, a fine Christian woman who lived a good life. A wonderful mother-in-law. We think of her as we sit around the table with our two lovely daughters and their families knowing that our two newest members, our little great granddaughters,--let me repeat that, our little great-granddaughter, are fortunate to share in our close-knit family. As in all families, my mother, my aunt who raised me, my wife, my daughters, my granddaughters and my great-granddaughters our grandsons, our daughters-in-law, our sons-in-law, all share many titles. They are proud citizens of this fair land. They are strong, talented, independent women. They may hold many business titles. They are sisters, cousins, and aunts. They are, or may be, wives. But the title, the job, that will give them the greatest pleasure in their lives, will be to be called ``Mother.'' Remember that simply having children does not make mothers. The title comes with much labor, much patience some tedium, hopefully not too many tears, and love beyond measure. The job will call upon their every reserve of strength and every ounce of creativity, but it will never tax their ability to love and to cherish. This Sunday, scrubbed and shining, let us present the mothers in our lives with fitting tribute. Give them flowers, cards, good food, and presents, but most of all, let us give them our gratitude and repay, in small measure, the love and devotion that they have showered upon us. I close with a few stanzas from a poem by Elizabeth Akers Allen. It is called ``Rock Me to Sleep.'' I offer it to my own sweet angel mother, who hears me now, who is listening today with millions of other mothers like her who have gone on to that land where the flowers never wither and the rainbow never fades. Backward, turn backward, O time, in your flight, Make me a child again just for to-night! Mother, come back from the echoless shore, Take me again to your heart as of yore; Kiss from my forehead the furrows of care, Smooth the few silver threads from my hair; Over my slumbers your loving watch keep;-- Rock me to sleep, Mother--rock me to sleep! Over my heart, in the days that are flown, No love like mother-love ever has shone; No other worship abides and endures-- Faithful, unselfish, and patient like yours: None like a mother can charm away pain From the sick soul and the world-weary brain. Slumber's soft calms o'er my heavy lids creep;-- Rock me to sleep, Mother--rock me to sleep! Mother, dear Mother, the years have been long Since I last listened your lullaby song: Sing, then, and unto my soul it shall seem Womanhood's years have been only a dream. Clasped to your heart in a loving embrace, With your light lashes just sweeping my face, Never hereafter to wake or to weep;-- Rock me to sleep, Mother--rock me to sleep! I will yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it is rare that I get to extend a birthday greeting to someone older than I. It is even more uncommon for me to extend such a greeting to someone who has been working the halls of the U.S. Senate longer than I. Today, I do both. With delight, I want to take a few minutes to extend a very warm and sincere, if a little belated, birthday greeting to a dear friend, Ms. Evelyn Dubrow, whose birthday was May 6. Affectionately, as well as professionally, known throughout Congress, Washington, D.C., and the labor unions around the country as ``Evy,'' she has been involved in the American labor movement for more than sixty years, most of the time as a labor lobbyist. She was with the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, ILGWU, for more than forty years. More recently, she has been vice president and legislative director of the Union of Needles Trades, Industrial and Textile Employees, UNITE. Today, women lobbyists are quite common on Capitol Hill. According to the Hill newspaper, women now account for about one-third of the Capital's more than 11,000 registered lobbyists. When Evy first arrived as a lobbyist in 1956, women lobbyists were rare, and the U.S. Senate was still overwhelmingly a men's club. Evy was not deterred. She had come with a determination and a cause-- to improve the living and working conditions of American workers--and she was not to be denied. Her very first fight was opposing a proposal to outlaw secondary boycotts. For this effort, she enlisted none other than Massachusetts Senator John F. Kennedy, who sponsored her amendment. Her next issue was seeking an increase in the minimum wage to an unheard of level of one dollar an hour! Since then, she has had a tireless and active role in helping to bring about most of the important laws on economic and social justice since the 1960s. She has worked on civil rights legislation, the establishment of Medicare, minimum wage, pension protection, and occupational safety and health rules. She stands for everything that is good and best about the American labor movement. As my good friend and colleague, Senator Ernest Hollings said of her, ``She is the union label.'' Although Evy stands less than five feet tall, I have seen her stand eye-ball-to-eye-ball with the likes of the 6 foot 5 inch Senator Bill Bradley, the 6 foot 6 inch Senator Jay Rockefeller, and 6 foot 7 inch Senator Alan Simpson. And that is exactly the way she has always lobbied, eye-ball-to-eye- ball. It is not through the fax machine, or over the cell phone, or from e-mail. This little workhorse walks right into your office, meets you person-to-person, and makes her case. Evy is never heavy-handed. Good lobbying, she says, is ``presenting your case and proving it,'' and that is what she does. As a liberal labor lobbyist, her heros have tended to be liberal Democrats, including Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Hubert Humphrey. But on her list of heros, she also includes Senator Barry Goldwater, hardly a liberal Democrat. When asked why she did so, Evy replied, ``He was completely honest and didn't mince words.'' That is a perfect description of Evy, she is ``completely honest'' and does not ``mince words.'' As a lobbyist on Capitol Hill for more than four decades, Evy has become more than an institution, she has become a fixture in the U.S. Congress. She has known almost every member of the Congress from the first day she arrived, and today she is as well known, and just as equally at home in Congress, than many members. In addition to the Members of Congress, she has befriended doorkeepers, receptionists, Capitol Hill police, and many others who work here. She always has a kind word and a smile for anyone and everyone. Her credentials are as long as they are impressive. She worked a decade for the legendary president of the ILGWU, David Dubinsky. With but a single exception, she has attended every Democratic Convention since 1948. She has met with every President from Eisenhower to Clinton. She has been awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Nation's highest civilian honor. Perhaps her greatest accomplishment came years ago when she served as a babysitter for the likes of Al Gore and Chris Dodd when their fathers were Senators. But I want to make it clear, to most, if not all Members of Congress, she is more than a lobbyist. She is more than a friend. She is ``Evy!'' At any rally, any party, or any gathering in Washington, you will eventually hear someone say, ``Evy is here,'' and everyone knows exactly what is meant, and nearly everyone smiles. As I have heard it said many a time: ``Everyone loves Evy.'' Indeed we do. Her admirers are many. Her friends are legion. God bless you Evy and happy birthday!

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, since Congress passed the 1996 farm bill, farmers throughout America have been pointing out the holes in the farm safety net that was intended to help family farmers and prevent the demise of America's agriculture industry. The new farm bill, The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, authorizes a wide variety of U.S. Department of Agriculture programs and strengthens the safety net for America's farmers, ranchers, and rural communities. This farm bill, not unlike other authorizing bills that have moved through the Congress in recent years, approves, in one broad stroke, huge amounts of spending on the mandatory side of the budget. Without adequate controls and without the political will to make tough decisions, mandatory spending has been annually eating up greater portions of the nation's budgetary resources. That is not to say that there are not a number of worthwhile, and necessary, provisions in this bill. Certainly we do not wish to see our agricultural industry go the way of others that have drifted overseas, where costs are lower and health and safety precautions are weak or nonexistent. Moreover, at a time when we are becoming more attuned to the real threats of bioterrorism and agroterrorism, our farming industry and the need to preserve it can be seen in a new and different light. But Senators need to be more aware of the fact that voting for authorizing legislation is not just supporting policy. It is advocating spending, often uncontrolled mandatory spending, that has a real effect on our national budget. It also meets expectations for additional discretionary spending by authorizing new and expanded discretionary programs. I hope that Senators will remember that later this year when we debate the overall discretionary spending levels. I am disappointed about a few items that are not included in this farm bill. For example, I had hoped that this bill would include funding for livestock producers who are suffering from drought conditions that we know are going to worsen. Previous farm bills had provided this sort of assistance, and I wish that this one had. On the positive side, this bill provides funding for a number of programs important to America's family farmers and rural communities. It, as well, makes important repairs to the farm safety net. But, unfortunately, the conference report also allows significant holes to remain when it comes to the humane treatment of animals. Procedurally, it is discouraging that certain provisions to protect animals included in both the House-and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 2646 were eliminated or weakened during conference committee action. For example, both the House and the Senate versions included an identical provision to prohibit the interstate transport of animals for the purpose of fighting, but this language was weakened during conference. At the same time, a provision included only in the Senate version of the bill that would permanently limit the scope of Animal Welfare Act protections--the so-called birds, rats, and mice prohibitions--was retained during conference. The conference report, however, also eliminates the Senate-passed provisions that would have improved the standards of care and treatment for certain puppies intended for sale as pets. It is unfortunate and disappointing that the conference committee made these decision. Clearly, there is still so much more to do to promote the humane treatment of animals. Animals cannot vote, and cannot write or call to voice their concerns, but they do have many advocates, and I count myself as one of them. While the farm bill conference report is deficient in its protections for animals, the bill includes provisions that will greatly help family farmers and rural communities in West Virginia, and throughout the nation. By providing $17.1 billion for conservation activities, for example, the bill will help farmers in their efforts to be good stewards of their land, even while they continue to cultivate crops. Farmers from many states, including West Virginia, will also benefit from the expansion of assistance for producers who grow non-commodity crops-- crops like apples, peaches, and many types of vegetables. In addition, dairy farmers can look forward to counter-cyclical payments that will provide more assistance when prices are low. The new farm bill will also make a significant investment in rural communities. The Rural Development programs authorized in this bill will help rural communities invest in the kind of basic infrastructure necessary for economic development. Most notable is the $360 million provided to fund the backlog of applications for water and wastewater development projects. Although I am disappointed with the limited protections for animals included in the new farm bill, overall, The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 conference report is a compromise I shall support.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I had hoped to speak before that hearing. I don't think I will be able to because the Senator from Pennsylvania has the floor and the distinguished Senator from Minnesota wishes to speak. I don't want to be late for my own committee hearing. I have say to the Senate, the Members of the Senate, I want to speak on this Resolution before it passes. So the Senate is on notice of that fact. My speech won't be long, but I have a few things I want to say. I thank the Senator for allowing me to proceed.

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I withhold my suggestion.

Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, I do not want to object. I have a committee hearing on homeland security to begin at 2:30, and I believe the Senator from Pennsylvania has the floor; does he not?

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, first let me say, I cannot understand the rush to act on this amendment. This is a resolution. It was called up today as an amendment to the pending legislation. I had hoped to speak before the vote, not that my speech would have made any difference insofar as other votes are concerned, but I wanted to speak before the vote. I sent word to the leadership that I wanted to speak before the vote. For several days I have had hearings scheduled in the Appropriations Committee, hearings on homeland security, hearings on the supplemental appropriations bill. Those are important hearings. A couple of weeks ago, the Appropriations Committee conducted hearings on the supplemental and the homeland security request, and we heard from people at the local level, the local responders: The firefighters, the policemen, the health personnel. We had a good hearing. On the day before yesterday, the committee continued its hearings and we had administration witnesses. We again had administration witnesses today. The distinguished Senator from Washington, who is now presiding over this Senate, was there today at those hearings. The hearings were set. They were announced in advance. We had important witnesses today-- Secretary of HHS, Tommy Thompson; we had the Attorney General; we had the head of FEMA. And there was good attendance in the committee. Several Senators on both sides of the aisle were there to ask questions. All of a sudden, here comes, right out of the blue, this resolution expressing solidarity with Israel in its fight against terrorism. I had wanted to speak on that resolution before it passed. I am under no illusions as to whether or not my remarks would have made any difference. They would not have. I know that. I know that. The die is cast. On this subject, the American people should understand that when this subject is before the Senate, the vote can be predicted--any matter of this nature, where Israel is involved. I am as much a supporter of Israel as any Senator in this body. I have spent my years, in considerable measure, studying about the history and the creation of that great people, God's chosen people. I have read it in the Book of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, First and Second Samuel, First and Second Kings, First and Second Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job--and so on. I am a student of the history of this people. If the Bible were as small as the Constitution, I would carry it also in my shirt pocket; the Old and the New Testament. So the people of Israel have no greater defender of their national integrity than this Senator from the State of West Virginia. But I think it was a mistake to bring this resolution up before this Senate at this time. I do not think it is very helpful to the efforts that are being made to bring the two sides together. As the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I know what this Senate every year votes by way of appropriations in support of Israel. I know that each year, almost without any questions asked, we appropriate roughly $3 billion--$3 billion--to the State of Israel. We appropriate roughly $2 billion to the Government of Egypt. Those two countries count on these moneys as if they were entitlements. They count on receiving those moneys. Three-billion dollars. That is what the American taxpayers give them. I am not sure the American people are fully aware that this Government, this Congress, appropriates $3 billion every year--every year, as sure as the calendar rolls around--$3 billion for Israel, and $2 billion for Egypt. Despite the progress made over the past few days to ease tensions on the West bank and end the standoff over Yasser Arafat's headquarters in Ramallah, the Middle East remains a tinderbox. It is a tinderbox. Even the slightest spark could ignite another conflagration. Why do we have to come here with this resolution today? Why all the rush? I informed the leadership--I will say it again--that I wanted to speak on this resolution before the vote. I will not make too much of that. In the annals of history, that won't even merit an asterisk. But, as a Senator who has been a Member of this body and in my 44th year in this body, as a senior Democrat, as the President pro tempore of the Senate, as one who has served as majority leader, as minority leader, as one who has served as chairman and as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, I was denied what I asked for. I asked to speak on the resolution before the vote. That is fairly easy to interpret. That is not difficult language to understand. I was denied that. What is the hurry? Oh, the airport was going to be closed. So what? There is a storm. Senators need to go. OK. Senators have a right to go when they want to go. I was conducting a hearing. It was my duty as chairman to proceed with that hearing. I was told that the need was great. I sent word that I wanted to speak. Finally, realizing that the vote might occur anyway, I asked Senator Leahy to take the gavel in the Committee. And he had to go. I asked Senator Stevens, my Republican counterpart, my colleague, to take the gavel, and continue so I could come to the floor and speak. When I got to my office, they were already into the vote 5, 6, or 7 minutes--I don't know. So I found that the vote was already taking place. Well, that was unfortunate. This is not a time for chest-thumping rhetoric. This is a time for quiet diplomacy, measured speech, and clear direction. This is not the moment for Congress to stir the Mideast pot. Unfortunately, that is just what the resolution before us does. I am sure it is a well-intentioned resolution. I know there are many Members of this body who feel passionately about the devastating suicide bombers who have caused so much chaos and heartbreak in Israel. I recognize that there are many Senators who are aching to express in some tangible way their support for Israel. I understand their anguish, and I sympathize with their frustration. But this is not the time to express that frustration. It is not the time. According to the news reports I have read, the White House has strongly urged Congress not to inflame passions by staging a vote on Israel. The fear is that even a symbolic vote by Congress in favor of Israel would jeopardize the already precarious role of the United States in the Middle East peace negotiations and could even backfire by aggravating tensions and possibly provoking more violence in the Middle East. Does anyone actually believe--does anyone, anyone, anywhere actually believe--that the U.S. Senate needs to manufacture a vote to demonstrate its support of Israel? Do we not have an unblemished record of support stretching back to the founding of the State of Israel in 1948? According to the Congressional Research Service, since 1976 Israel has been the largest--the largest--annual recipient of United States foreign assistance and is the largest cumulative recipient since World War II. Since 1985, we have provided about $3 billion a year to Israel in foreign assistance. If Israel does not know by now the depth of United States support and solidarity, it never will. I object not only to the timing of this resolution--and I believe the timing is fraught with peril--I also object to the slant of the resolution. Yes. The United States Senate supports the State of Israel and abhors the violence that has been perpetrated against its citizens by Palestinian suicide bombers. The United States Senate also supports peace in the Middle East. And peace in the Middle East is a two-way street. Nowhere in this resolution--nowhere in this resolution--is Israel called upon to fulfill its role in working for peace in the Middle East. Why was this resolution written so hurriedly? Why was it incumbent upon this Senate to vote today? This resolution condemns Palestinian suicide bombing, demands that the Palestinian Authority dismantle the terrorist infrastructure in Palestinian areas, and urges all Arab States to act in concert with the United States to stop the violence. Where are the demands that Israel withdraw from Palestinian lands and cooperate in establishment of a Palestinian State? Where is the denunciation of the destruction of homes and water lines and roads and basic infrastructure in Jenin and Nablus and elsewhere in the West Bank? Where is the expression of support for humanitarian and reconstruction aid to the innocent Palestinian victims of Israel's incursions into the West Bank? Where? If the Senate is serious about promoting peace in the Middle East-- and I believe to the depths of my soul that the Senate is serious--then we should leave the grandstanding to others. We should support the real work of peacekeeping. For better or worse, the United States has been cast in the role of honest broker in the Middle East. But resolutions like this one do not enhance our ability to perform that role. The Middle East today is balanced on the head of a pin. This is not the time for the U.S. Senate to wade into the fray, waving an ill-timed, ill-advised, and one-sided resolution. I voted against it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record remarks I made before the U.S. Humane Society.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, an official of the People's Republic of China, who many say will be the next leader of China when the scheduled leadership succession occurs next fall, is making his first visit to the United States this week. Mr. H.E. Hu Jintao, the current Vice President of China, will be getting his first up-front taste of official Washington. This is an opportunity to make it clear how we feel about certain Chinese policies, most particularly in the area of Chinese proliferation practices. Let's hope he takes back with him the right impressions. President Bush made a summit visit to China, and met with President Jiang Zemin this past February. I liked the tone that he set in the meeting with Chinese leaders. He was serious and businesslike, and eschewed what had been a practice of overly positive glad-handing which runs the risk of communicating the wrong message. President Bush's approach, it would appear, did seem to be somewhat productive with the Chinese leadership. For example, during a speech at Tsinghua University in Beijing, the President made a strong case for American values and religious freedom. The speech was broadcast live and unedited throughout China, an unprecedented event for an American President. So that is a small step forward, and I commend the President on his speech, which I hope received wide attention in China. Less successful were the President's attempts to bring the Chinese around on the matter of proliferation of technologies associated with weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems. This has been a bone of contention between the U.S. and China for many years, despite repeated assurances by the Chinese that they would cease providing these technologies to states such as Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Pakistan, North Korea, Libya and others. For example, in November of 2000, the U.S. and China signed an agreement stipulating that China would stop its proliferation practices. The Chinese have not yet implemented that agreement. We should insist on implementation. The same goes for the multilateral Missile Technology Control Regime, the MTCR, a voluntary agreement among 28 nations to restrict the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. China, although not among the 28 member nations, has promised to adhere to the MTCR. Let's see some delivery on that. Although President Bush has made new proposals in this area to the Chinese leaders, to date, his efforts have been rebuffed. The Chinese have also stated that they are ready to issue export control regulations that will make it clearly illegal for Chinese companies to proliferate specific items. Where is the list? We might wish to consider making certain transfers of technology or other items the Chinese want from us contingent on an acceptable export control list plus the implementation and enforcement of export control regulations. This is an area where we need to close some loopholes and demonstrate to the Chinese that the United States is serious about stopping this dangerous practice. The Chinese are very attentive to actions, and not overly impressed by rhetoric. The Chinese seem to have the psychology backwards. In order for them to comply with commitments they have already made, they have said that the U.S. should provide more incentives to deliver on their promises. They would like, in particular, for the U.S. to free up and approve licenses for satellite launches in China. I see it the opposite way: in the face of noncompliance and lack of progress on the November 2000 pledges regarding missile technology exports, we should, first, refuse to grant any licenses for satellite launches in China; and, second, withhold or prohibit the export of additional high technology and science that the Chinese badly want. What is the current situation? First, the so-called sanctions regime which penalizes such behavior does not work. When a Chinese company is found to have provided missile technologies to, let us say, Iran or Iraq, U.S. law today provides that the company be prohibited from doing business in the U.S. The prohibition may look good on paper, but it appears to provide no real deterrent to Chinese companies that deal on the international market. Second, the Chinese government makes a pretense of not knowing that so-called private companies in China are engaging in this behavior. This boggles the mind. Of course the government knows, or can quickly find out. We need to help the Chinese government focus on this matter, and so I propose that we consider changing our sanctions laws in this area to penalize the Chinese government itself for this behavior, regardless of whether the culprit is the government or a private company. Restrictions could be immediately slapped on exports of various technologies and scientific advances from the U.S. that are of high importance to the Chinese, such as space launch and other technologies that they covet from us. Only by immediate and painful steps will the Chinese government be motivated to end this practice, and drop the pretense of being ignorant of these transactions. The Chinese government is capable of practicing a very effective form of brutal dictatorship in areas, such as religious freedom, and freedom of the press and assembly, any time it chooses to do so. It has been very effective, for example in crushing the Falun Gong religious movement in a very short period of time throughout China. Surely Chinese leaders can exert equal pressure to stop the proliferation of missile technology and end a practice that is anathema to civilized nations and the international community. I would remind my colleagues that the Chinese themselves do not hesitate to use trade sanctions to correct what they see as unfair actions by other nations. Recently, when the Japanese slapped high tariffs on Chinese mushrooms and other agricultural products, the Chinese immediately retaliated by stopping the importation into China of Japanese automobiles. The Japanese got the message in very short order and dropped the agricultural tariffs. So the Chinese know how to fashion punishments to fit the crime. That is all I am suggesting here. We should consider a credible sanctions regime, on items that the Chinese really care about, that could stop in its tracks the very dangerous practice of the proliferation of advanced missiles systems and weapons to states which should not be getting them. A related consideration is that the Chinese, who are relying more and more on imported oil, seem to be attempting to secure long-term energy contracts with the regimes which are the recipients of their advanced weapons technologies. To the extent that there is a quid pro quo here, and clearly that appears to be the case, we might consider helping the Chinese secure contracts for energy supplies from sources other than rogue states, on the condition that proliferation end. This form of carrot could well be used as an incentive to change behavior. In sum, I am suggesting a mixed basket of disincentives and incentives, penalties and rewards, to encourage the Chinese to get out of the proliferation business. Secretary of State Powell has called Chinese noncompliance on nonproliferation an ``irritation'' in the U.S.-Chinese relationship. I would characterize it as an open wound. The Chinese are dragging their feet on implementing agreements and assurances with the U.S. on proliferation, and hiding behind various transparent excuses. It is time for Congress and the Administration to consider specific changes in the laws dealing with sanctions on proliferation practices.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise to commend Ms. Suzanne Pearson who retired on December 31, 2001, after serving for almost 32 years in the Senate Office of the Legislative Counsel, including the last 10 years as Office Manager. Mr. President, as President pro tempore of the Senate, it was my pleasure to oversee the Office of the Legislative Counsel when Suzanne Pearson was appointed to her position as Office Manager and also at the time of her retirement. I appreciated the great professionalism and dedication she displaced in her role as Office Manager, particularly the meticulous attention she paid to detail in preparing the expense vouchers of the Office for my approval. We all rely on staff to effectively carry out our legislative responsibilities. Ms. Pearson has seen to it that the Office of Legislative Counsel and all Members of the Senate were well served due to her professionalism and dedication in helping to prepare legislative drafts. Mr. President, I am proud to sponsor this resolution. Suzanne Pearson has served her Nation well for over 33 years. I wish Suzanne the very best for the future, especially time spent with her sisters, Catherine and Adrienne, and her nephews.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I would like to thank my colleagues for their statements and indicate my support for the agreement that we have reached. I would also note the historic nature of what has been negotiated, refined, and supported by the Senate here today. The passage of a national climate change strategy, along with the improved integration of science and technology programs, is critical to our Nation's long-term energy policy. I appreciate that other Members also believe that, at a minimum, there needs to be a Senate-confirmed appointee in the White House to oversee climate change policy. While I understand that there is not full agreement on this issue at this time, I believe that it is important to have a new, separate office in the White House to serve as a focal point for this multifaceted, multidimensional, long-term issue. After further discussion, I hope that these important provisions will be supported by the House energy conferees and the White House as a part of a national energy policy.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am a product of West Virginia. I was pulled from the hard scrabble mountains of Appalachia, and I burn with a passion to serve this nation. I remember my roots. I am proud of them as they have served me well throughout my career in Congress. I recall the words of the legendary President of the United Mine Workers of America, John L. Lewis: When ye be an anvil, lie ye very still; When ye be a hammer, strike with all thy will. I believe that we should work diligently on legislation that is beneficial to the American people--on education reform, Campaign Finance Reform, border security, homeland defense, energy security, and a common sense climate change policy. But, surely, we should not allow the White House to hammer us, disregarding what we have introduced, debated, and passed in this Chamber on a number of important policy matters. We must let the democratic process work. It is an open process, and it is the process that the Founders established so long ago to make it possible to consider the people's business. It was a little over a year ago that the Administration began a comprehensive review of climate change--their alternative approach to the Kyoto Protocol. I understand that any new Administration must examine and develop its own set of policies and ideas on these issues, but they should also understand that so must the Senate. In the absence of any Executive Branch action last year, the Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle took the lead, putting forward new ideas and approaches to address this climate change challenge. In June 2001, I introduced bipartisan climate change legislation with Senator Stevens. Our bill received unanimous support in the Government Affairs Committee in July 2001, and Senators Daschle and Bingaman then included this bipartisan legislation along with other climate change provisions in the larger energy bill in December 2001. Our proposal is based on scientifically, technically, economically, and environmentally sound principles and would put into place a long-term, comprehensive, national climate change strategy. I believe that this is the right policy framework. The Byrd/Stevens legislation recognizes that what we truly need is to find new ways to begin to solve the climate change problem. Additionally, I believe that such innovation will be key to the long-term viability of coal as an energy resource. The primary cause of global climate change is due to the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, especially CO2 which results from the burning of fossil fuels. To deal with climate change during this century, the world must find better, more efficient, and cleaner ways to burn the very fossil fuels, including coal, that power virtually the entire economy. Addressing climate change is one of the greatest challenges facing the world in this century, and it will require the development of advanced energy technologies, ideas, and responses far beyond today's endeavors. Therefore, the U.S. must set in place a framework with a comprehensive strategy and structure to better address this global challenge. The Byrd/Stevens legislation calls for the development of a national strategy to coordinate the Federal Government's response to climate change and to examine how the U.S. and other nations can stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations over the long term. The strategy is built upon a foundation of four key elements, including technology development, scientific research, climate adaptation research, and mitigation measures to deal with climate change in an economically and environmentally sound manner. Byrd/Stevens recognizes that the large number of Federal agencies are engaged in climate change-related activities, often resulting in a hodgepodge of ad hoc approaches. Our legislation calls for the creation of a new, statutory office in the Executive Office of the President to serve as a focal point of accountability and to integrate the work of these Federal agencies while enhancing congressional oversight. Byrd/Stevens also fills a critical technology gap with a long-term research and development program through the creation of a new office at the Department of Energy which will focus on the innovative technologies necessary to move beyond the current, incremental steps being taken to address climate change today and authorizes $4.75 billion over ten years for such programs. We must develop the critical, innovative energy technologies that will help reduce emissions, while simultaneously preserving a diversity of energy options to support our growing economy. Additionally, Byrd/Stevens understands that enhancing international research and development efforts as well as opening markets and exporting a range of clean energy technologies globally will be key to addressing the long-term climate change challenge. Finally, while it is critical to put in place the framework to address this long-term, multifaceted issue, it should be noted that the Byrd/Stevens legislation does not purposely include a mandatory or regulatory regime for emission reductions. Senator Stevens and I want to work in a bipartisan way to thread this needle--to find a way to establish a balanced, long-term framework so that the U.S. can better address the climate change challenge in a more comprehensive way. Climate change policy is no more and no less than cumulatively addressing good economic, energy, environmental, transportation, agriculture, forestry, and other relevant policy measures. At no time, was it our intent to presuppose or dictate any specific policy outcomes to the Executive Branch or the public at large. Rather, the Byrd/Stevens legislation incorporated the views of many Members and was built upon the experiences from past Administration's efforts in order to create a stronger, more stable foundation that would span this and many Administrations to come. In summary, I believe that, by working in a bipartisan way in the Senate, we have refined the Byrd/Stevens legislation without undermining its core principles. I hope to work with the White House and other Members of Congress in the energy conference on this and other energy-related provisions. I look forward to the eventual inclusion of Byrd/Stevens in a comprehensive energy plan that can ultimately pass the Congress and be signed by the President. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that my full statement before the Senate Government Affairs Committee on July 18, 2001, be printed in the Record.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.