Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. The Senator is correct. Why wait? Why toy with ``wait''? Why gamble? Why not act now? The Senator knows we have wrapped a ribbon around this homeland defense package which says, in essence: Mr. President, you may use this or you may not use it. So we have an emergency designation. It is an emergency, Mr. President, and you have the key. You have the key. So it is your call, but here are the tools. If you need them, you won't have to wait until next spring. The thing about waiting until next spring is we are really waiting until next summer or next autumn because the supplemental request doesn't come up on one day and end up being signed by the President on the next day; there have to be hearings and so on. We have had the hearings now that indicated a dire need for these emergency items. So we are putting this ribbon, this blue ribbon that says emergency, E-M-E-R-G-E-N-C-Y, on it. Why? Of what are we afraid? Why don't we want the President to have this so he can carry out his commitment to protect the American people from the attacks of terrorism? He made that promise.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. I also included $150 million in this package for cyber security. It is alarming to know that the next terrorist attack could cripple our Nation's economy simply by a few strokes of the keyboard. Cyber-attacks have cost our economy $12 billion this year alone. Just imagine the frightening consequences if a cyber-terrorist were to take control of one of our financial institutions, or to take control of one of our power grids, or to take control of our air traffic control system. That can happen. Of the $1 billion included for antiterrorism law enforcement, one- half, or $500 million, would be directed to State and local law enforcement agencies. This is where the rubber meets the road in law enforcement. State and local police departments are stretched thin enough, due to the need for an increased security presence throughout our cities and States. Twelve-hour days and overtime pay for State and local law enforcement personnel have become the norm since September 11. Right here in this city, in the capital city here around this Capitol Building, this building which is the most splendid edifice in the world, this has happened. It is taking place here: 12-hour days, overtime pay for State and local law enforcement personnel. The Office of Homeland Security has asked State police to increase their patrols of State nuclear facilities, without any Federal compensation or timetable for how long state assistance will be needed. Meanwhile, the activation of 57,000 National Guard and Reservists to support the Armed Services during our operations in Afghanistan and our counter-terrorism activities here at home has drained the manpower of many State and local police departments. According to the National Governors' Association, State police patrols of our nuclear facilities will cost States an extra $58 million this year. It will cost another $46 million to secure our dams and bridges, $28 million to protect gas pipelines and power stations, and $75 million to assist Federal authorities with patrolling our borders. Who makes up the National Guard? If I am wrong, I would like someone to point it out to me. Do doctors serve in the National Guard? Do policemen? Do law enforcement personnel? Do paramedics at the homefront and at the local level serve in the National Guard? Then why should we take those men and women away from the local level where they are most needed and where they will be the first to answer the call and send them up there to the northern border to patrol the border? What sense does that make? We need to keep them at home. According to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Los Angeles has spent more than $11 million so far due to increased security costs and lost revenue related to the September 11 terrorist attacks. The city's police and fire department deficits have doubled. In Boston, Mayor Thomas Menino must now pay $20,000 in additional security costs every time a tanker enters his port carrying liquefied natural gas, and 42 tankers are on the way. Police overtime expenses alone in Boston so far total about $700,000. Denver Mayor Wellington Webb is facing a long list of emergency needs, including biohazard-decontamination units, protective suits, bigger stores of antibiotics and drugs, special cameras, an anthrax detector, and a preparedness guide for every household that will cost in total $610,000. In Baltimore, Mayor Martin O'Malley spent $2 million in overtime for police and fire departments in the first three days following Sept. 11. By year's end the added security costs are expected to hit $14 million. Security costs in Dallas have passed $2 million and could reach $6 million by the end of the year. At a time when our State and local governments are cutting budgets due to the recession, our State and local law enforcement need our support, and they need it now.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to the distinguished Senator.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate has now turned to consideration of the conference report accompanying the Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002. The bill includes a combination of appropriations and obligation limitations totaling $59.643 billion. That is $1.526 billion or 2.6 percent higher than the level provided for fiscal year 2001. This is the ninth of the thirteen appropriations conference reports to come before the Senate. It is the ninth conference report that is within its 302 (B) allocation and it is fully consistent with the $686 billion bipartisan budget agreement on discretionary spending for the thirteen bills. When the President signed the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, he placed into law a provision I and my colleague from Texas, Senator Gramm, championed here in the Senate. That provision served to guarantee that we appropriate every year on our Nation's highway system the funds that are received into the Highway Trust Fund through fuel taxes at the pump. I'm pleased to say that this year's Transportation bill, like every Transportation bill enacted since TEA-21, honors that commitment. Indeed, this year, for the first time since 1998, the Transportation bill provides more money for highways than was assumed in the highway guarantee--$100 million more. This is made possible since we still have an unobligated balance in the trust fund that existed before TEA-21 was enacted. So I commend the managers of the bill, Senators Murray and Shelby, for making this significant investment in our Nation's highway infrastructure which is very much in need of repair, restoration, and expansion. As long as I have had the pleasure of serving on the Transportation Subcommittee, it has always operated in an open and bipartisan manner. I am pleased to see that this tradition has continued under the leadership of Senator Murray. She and Senator Shelby have cooperated on all aspects of this bill. Both of them were required to take on the very contentious issue regarding the safety risks of Mexican trucks traveling on our highways. We debated that issue for several days here in the Senate and took a total of three cloture votes during that debate. Senators Murray and Shelby stood their ground on the floor of the Senate and they prevailed. They then went to conference and negotiated a compromise with the House that maintains the strong safety requirements passed by the Senate but eliminates the threat of a veto against this bill. I commend both managers and their respective staffs for a job well done and I encourage all members to support the conference report.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I have, on many occasions, spoken from this desk about the tendency of many in the entertainment industry to appeal to the least common denominator in our society in order to make the largest possible profit. Whether it be through the promotion of sex to young people or through the glamorization of violence, drug use, or other illicit behaviors, the entertainment industry has, too often and for far too long, popularized activities that promote negative and often dangerous behaviors. Until last week, that idea dominated my opinion of much of the entertainment industry--television, film, and video games. But a creative and intelligent film director, some very talented actors, and a large and dedicated crew showed me that not all of Hollywood takes aim at the most base elements of our society. On November 20--my 84th birthday--I was provided the opportunity to participate in the filming of the movie, ``Gods and Generals.'' This film is directed by Mr. Ronald Maxwell and is written as a prequel to the film ``Gettysburg,'' which Mr. Maxwell also directed. At Mr. Maxwell's invitation, I made my film debut, making a cameo appearance as General Paul J. Semmes, an adviser to General Robert E. Lee during the Civil War. Early in the morning on a western Maryland farm, I stepped out of my reality representing West Virginia in the Senate and into a small piece of the real-life history that gave birth to my State. I arrived at the set at Flook's Farm near Keedysville, MD, at 7:30 a.m. and was met by Mr. Maxwell and by my nephew, William T. ``Tommy'' Sale. It had been years since I had seen Tommy. He was playing the part of a Confederate artillery gunner in the film. After some time, I was escorted to my trailer by Mr. Maxwell, where I changed from my 21st century business suit to my mid-19th century Confederate uniform. From there, I walked to the make-up trailer, where my white locks were highlighted with shades of grey and black, and my normally clean-shaven face was suddenly a well-rounded grey beard. I no longer looked like Robert C. Byrd. I had been transformed into Paul J. Semmes. We drove up to the film location on the top of a nearby hill. At the peak were two rows of cannons, several columns of Confederate Civil War reenactors, including my nephew, and a tent that was to serve as the ``Telegraph Hill'' headquarters of General Lee. Under this tent were gathered some of the top military leaders of the Confederacy--Robert E. Lee, played by Robert Duvall, A.P. Hill, William Sanderson, J.E.B. Stuart, Joseph Fuqua, James Longstreet, Bruce Boxleitner, George Pickett, Billy Campbell, Thomas J. ``Stonewall'' Jackson, Stephen Lang, John Bell Hood, Patrick Gorman, and others. Scene 158--a little more than 3 minutes of film in which General Lee and his military advisors plan the Battle of Fredericksburg--took several hours to complete. The director, cast, and crew were not interested in speed; they wanted quality and were committed to historical accuracy. After a few hours of rehearsing and filming, we broke for lunch. It was a delicious meal and the company of such talented professionals made it memorable. For instance, not only are these men portraying Confederate generals, they also can talk at great detail about military history, tactics, and lessons. They can speak with certainty about the Civil War--its causes, its terrible loss of life, and the aftermath. They can regale one with stories of the period and the people. They are not simply reciting words on a page; rather, they are bringing to life a period of American history that ended an inhuman practice and solidified our future as one nation. At the conclusion of this lunch, they surprised me with a birthday cake and serenade, and then called on me to say a few words. I was touched. I rose to my feet and recited a few lines from memory that I thought appropriate. Fame is a vapor; Popularity, an accident; Riches take wings; Those who cheer today may curse tomorrow; Only one thing endures: Character! Then I told those of the cast and crew, ``You have it! You have that character.'' After lunch, we had several more hours of rehearsing and filming. Finally, as the sun was disappearing behind the mountains in the distance, we completed our work and called it a day. My beard and uniform were removed. I changed back into my business suit, and re- entered the 21st century. And while I was able to return to my wife and my home for the evening, the cast and crew retired to nearby hotels and started preparations for the next day's filming, which would start with the first light of the morning sun. Many have asked me why I would take the time to play this role in a film, especially considering that I do not attend many movies. The answer is simple. I have long sought to promote the teaching and understanding of our Nation's history. I have helped to create Federal initiatives that focus on American history. I have talked countless times about George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, the Founding Fathers, the Constitutional Framers, Nathan Hale, Abraham Lincoln, and other true American heroes. I try to encourage young people to learn about these great figures of our country's past. I urge students to read, to visit historical sites, and to soak up as much knowledge as they can. This film allowed me the opportunity to help bring American history to life, to spring it from the pages of history books into the flickering images of the movie screen. In a small way, through this role, I am continuing to promote the understanding of our Nation's history. I thank Mr. Maxwell and the other actors for giving me such an opportunity. In the days since my cameo appearance as General Semmes, I have reflected on our Nation's experiences during the Civil War and what lessons we can draw from our past during the current conflict at home and overseas. I worry about the men and women of our Armed Forces who are engaged in action in Afghanistan. I am concerned about our lack of preparedness to prevent further terrorist attacks from occurring on our home soil, and to respond should, God forbid, another tragedy be inflicted upon our shores. I wonder what kind of world we will leave for my two great-granddaughters, Caroline Byrd Fatemi and Kathryn James Fatemi. I hope that those of us in positions of leadership can have the same strength of character and dedication to our country as the Nation's leaders exemplified during the Civil War. I pray that the American people have the fortitude, the willingness to sacrifice, and the patience that will no doubt be necessary during what I continue to believe may be a long battle against terrorism. At the same time, it is clear that the American people will need steadfastness and determination to move forward from the September 11 tragedies. I am thankful that we live in a country that can confront a crisis with strength and moral certainty without abandoning the very principles and values that we hold most dear. The final words in scene 158 of ``Gods and Generals'' come from General Lee. After hearing from his advisors about the preparations and planning for the upcoming battle, General Lee commends them and says, ``The rest is in God's Hands.'' We can say the same today. We are making preparations and planning for the future. The rest is in God's Hands.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I stood in this place last Friday to warn Congress that we must not allow the administration to arrogate to itself the full authority to determine the trade policy of the United States, that we must not be asleep at the wheel as the one-sided trade jalopy goes rumbling down the fast track--the fast track. There we go again. For what this Congress calls fast track, the administration uses the euphemistic term ``trade promotion authority.'' Trade promotion authority--it certainly has an innocent enough sound. It is a sound that is rather sweet to the ears--trade promotion authority. But lift up the cover of this euphemistic term, lift the cover, just peep a little under it, and you will find the real villain: fast track, fast- track authority. So last Friday I stood in my place here and said to Congress that we must not allow the administration to arrogate to itself the authority to determine the trade policy of the United States, that we must not be asleep at the wheel ``as the one-sided trade jalopy'' goes rumbling down the fast track. I was referring, of course, as I say, to the administration's request, its wolf in sheep's clothing request for special authority to negotiate trade agreements that would not be subject to normal rules of debate and amendment. I was also referring to the penchants of Presidents, both Republican and Democrat, in these more recent years to offer our trading partners unilateral concessions in exchange for the mantle of global leadership. As Jackie Gleason used to say, ``How sweet it is''--to wear the mantle of global leadership. The news from Doha, Qatar, confirms my worst fears. According to the Wall Street Journal, our trade negotiator, Ambassador Robert Zoellick, ``led the way in making extraordinary concessions to developing countries,'' including ``agreeing to renegotiate America's anti-dumping laws.'' I quote a little further from the Wall Street Journal news story. U.S. Trade Rep. Robert Zoellick faced a stark choice when he arrived in Doha, Qatar, last week: He could win either fast-track negotiating authority from Congress or a new round of trade talks. To get a World Trade Organization deal, Mr. Zoellick would have to make concessions to poor countries that would so infuriate Congress that lawmakers wouldn't grant fast-track authority. To get fast track, which would allow President Bush to negotiate trade deals that Congress could approve or reject, but not amend, he would have to make concessions to liberal Democrats that would so anger poorer countries that they wouldn't open new trade talks. On Monday, Mr. Zoellick announced his decision to a group of ministers and delegates at the convention center in Doha, where the WTO was meeting. The U.S., he said, would cede to their demands to allow negotiations on America's hated antidumping laws, which punish other countries that ``dump'' products on the U.S. market at below cost. Before going to Qatar, Mr. Zoellick said he was fed up with Democrats' demands for more concessions on fast track. He pointed to his decision to allow a big steel trade case to go forward, which could temporarily shutter the U.S. market to some foreign steel. He said his fast-track proposal also addressed labor and environmental concerns of Democrats. ``At some point, people are going to have to decide if they can take yes for an answer,'' Mr. Zoellick said. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire story from the Wall Street Journal of November 16 be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, so you see Mr. Zoellick, according to the Wall Street Journal, ``led the way in making extraordinary concessions to developing countries,'' including ``agreeing to renegotiate America's anti-dumping laws.'' Among the big winners, according to the Journal, were foreign steel makers and big multinational manufacturers. The big losers? Guess. I will give you one guess. U.S. steel makers and auto makers are the big losers. Our trading partners, who often protect their home markets by turning a blind eye to anticompetitive practices by their big manufacturers, hypocritically call our trade laws ``protectionist,'' and they find allies here in the United States among those who claim for themselves the banner of ``free trade.'' Let us be clear: the American people demand that the fruits of their labor be able to compete without fear of foreign predation. They want trade that is both free and fair. Let us also clear away--once and for all--the cant about ``protectionism.'' Our antidumping law is based on a very simple requirement for foreign manufacturers. What is it? Do not injure producers in our market by selling below cost or charging less here than you charge in your home market. The plain fact is that foreign producers of certain products, such as steel and autos and lumber, dump in America year after year after year, and put all of their efforts into weakening our antidumping laws. Their home governments, whose markets are much less open than ours, work fist-in-glove with these predators. Our countervailing duty law, which the Administration has also placed on the negotiating table, is no more protectionist than our antidumping law. The law is based on a very simple requirement for foreign governments: Do not seek trade advantages by subsidizing the production of merchandise that your companies sell in the United States. Hands off. If you do, we will apply an offsetting tax to the unfairly traded goods that come into our country. Why should we permit our trade laws to be eviscerated by foreign interests? What possible rationale could there be for putting our antidumping and countervailing duty laws on the negotiating table? Is it to further distort competition to the disadvantage of U.S. producers? Let me give you an example of what passes for a so-called ``legitimate'' trade dispute in the eyes of many of our trading partners. In many countries, government-owned steel companies have been the beneficiaries of massive subsidization over a period of decades. Without these subsidies, the steel companies would simply not exist in those countries. They would be gone with the wind. After pouring billions of dollars into a government-owned company, the foreign government then sells it off for pennies on the dollar--pennies on the dollar, or pennies from heaven. The newly privatized company, which wants to sell its subsidized overcapacity in the United States, then has the audacity to claim a ``privatization exemption'' from U.S. countervailing duties. Mind you, there is nothing in any agreement to which we are a party that gives privatized companies such an exemption. Nevertheless, under current international rules, the United States must fight like the dickens to apply countervailing duties in these situations. What will happen after we put our trade laws on the negotiating table? In short, the United States must not capitulate, Mr. President, to these foreign predators. More to the point, Congress--the body which is closest to the people--must not cede its authority over foreign commerce to the Chief Executive. The Framers of the Constitution did not cede that authority to the Executive, no. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive authority over such matters. Let's take a look at article I, section 8, of the Constitution, which I hold in my hand. What does it say? Section 8: The Congress shall have Power-- It does not say the executive branch; it does not say the President of the United States; it does not say that vaunted title: The Commander in Chief-- The Constitution says: The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations-- Aha, there it is. There it is in black and white. Read it and run. The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. . . . Well, you say, Congress can delegate certain authority. Well, that is true. But can it delegate the authority given to the Congress by the Constitution to debate and amend? And that is what we do. That is what we do when we support something like fast track. So, Mr. President, the Constitution is what I have just read. Let the Constitution, our Nation's shining glory, be our guiding light. Let us demand that our trade negotiators take a strong stand for American jobs and American values. All countries benefit from international trade, and all countries must share in the costs of constructing the framework of that trade. Now, as I have said many times on this floor--I ought not have to repeat it--I am not suggesting that Congress get involved in the minutiae of international trade agreements. I am not suggesting that we inject ourselves into each little teensy-weensy, itsy-bitsy tariff determination. Our trade laws, however, are not minutiae. They represent the sole hope for companies that are being picked apart by vulturous foreign trading practices. Communities across America, all across the land--the East, the West, the North, and the South--are waiting to see whether we are strong enough to stand up for their interests--their interests--the people's interests. They are waiting to see whether the United States will once more be duped by those whose unabashed--unabashed--motive is to gut the framework of fair trade. If we stand by the Constitution--if we stand by the Constitution--that magnificently balanced instrument of the people, by the people, and for the people, we will not fail our constituents. As well, we will herald a trade policy for the new millennium, a trade policy according to which we do not sacrifice hard- working Americans at the altar, at the altar, at the ``Golden Calf,'' if you please, of nebulous foreign policy objectives, a trade policy that is based on the pursuit of mutual benefit among sovereign nations. Now, Mr. President, that is not protectionism. If it is, then I am for it. That is not protectionism. It is a policy based on the traditional principles of national sovereignty as well as the absolute respect of each law-abiding nation for every other such nation. It is a policy the American people expect, and it is one that we--the elected representatives of the people--have a constitutional duty to uphold. May God bless America. But in doing so, may God bless the Constitution of this Republic. Thank God for that Constitution. I hope the administration will read it over the Thanksgiving holiday. It might be well if we ourselves all read it again. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit I [From the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 16, 2001] Politics & Policy Zoellick's Trade Concession Wins WTO Talks But Could Cost Bush Fast- Track Authority (By Helene Cooper and Shailagh Murray) Washington.--U.S. Trade Rep. Robert Zoellick faced a stark choice when he arrived in Doha, Qatar, last week: He could win either fast-track negotiating authority from Congress or a new round of trade talks. To get a world Trade Organization deal, Mr. Zoellick, would have to make concessions to poor countries that would so infuriate Congress that lawmakers would't grant fast-track authority. To get fast track, which would allow President Bush to negotiate trade deals that Congress could approve or reject, but not amend, he would have to make concessions to liberal Democrats that would so anger poorer countries that they wouldn't open new trade talks. On Monday, Mr. Zoellick announced his decision to a group of ministers and delegates at the convention center in Doha, where the WTO was meeting. The U.S., he said, would cede to their demands to allow negotiations on America's hated antidumping laws, which punish other countries that ``dump'' products on the U.S. market at below cost. Bill Klinefelter, the United Steelworkers of America representative who sent to Doha to keep Mr. Zoellick from negotiating on U.S. antidumping laws, was furious. Mr. Zoellick, he said, could ``kiss fast track goodbye. He's never getting it now.'' The irony is that without fast track, Mr. Zoellick won't be able to conclude the trade talks launched at the WTO meeting. Trade envoys hope to wrap us the talks in three years, though few really believe they will finish that early. Thursday, lawmakers were still digesting the details of the Doha agreement. Republicans praised it and said they still plan to try to get fast track. House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R., Ill.) said he still hopes to bring fast-track authority to a vote the week after Thanksgiving. But there is little chance of passage without some support from moderate Democrats--and few were cheering. Mr. Zoellick's fast-track proposal ``was not tenable before Doha, and it's even less tenable after Doha,'' said Rep Sander Levin, (D., Mich.) the only lawmaker who attended the WTO meeting. House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D., Mo.) told reporters Mr. Zoellick's concessions were ``negative in terms of getting agreement on'' fast track. ``They put on the table for negotiation our antidumping laws,'' he said. ``We are in the middle of a steel crisis now in terms of losing sales and losing capacity in our steel system.'' The U.S. steel industry is one of the biggest beneficiaries of antidumping laws, so lawmakers from steel states don't want to see those laws weakened. Mr. Zoellick's decision ``is a stunning betrayal of America's workers,'' said Rep. Peter Visclosky (D., Ind.) vice chairman of the Congressional Steel Caucus. ``Putting our trade laws on the table flies in the face of fair trade and totally disregards the expressed will of Congress that our trade laws not be negotiated away.'' Before going to Qatar, Mr. Zoellick said he was fed up with Democrats' demands for more concessions on fast track. He pointed to his decision to allow a big steel trade case to go forward, which could temporarily shutter the U.S. market to some foreign steel. He said his fast-track proposal also addressed labor and environmental concerns of Democrats. ``At some point, people are going to have to decide if they can take yes for an answer,'' Mr. Zoellick said. Some moderate Democrats defended Mr. Zoellick's concessions on steel and said they still hope to salvage fast track. ``The challenge is making sure everyone understands the provisions,'' said Rep. Calvin Dooley (D., Calif.). In Doha, Mr. Zoellick steadfastly protected America's textile industry. He repeatedly turned down demands from India and Pakistan that the U.S. import more clothing. That decision was looking almost fortuitous, but it clearly won't be enough to bring about converts on fast track: Burlington Industries Inc., Greensboro, N.C., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and blamed it on cheap imports. Burlington Chief Executive George W. Henderson specifically cited the U.S. government as a culprit, saying it used the textile industry as a bargaining chip in international relations.

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate earlier today approved a conference report that will increase security substantially at our Nation's airports. And this is a good step--a good step--toward restoring the American people's confidence in their own safety. And it is a good step forward in rejuvenating our economy, the American economy. This is very fine legislation. But I wish to remind ourselves that a few days ago we had a golden opportunity to enact other very fine legislation that would go far in rejuvenating the hope, the faith, and the confidence in the minds of the American people that the Government was looking out for their security, for their welfare. And I refer to that amendment which Senator Harry Reid, the distinguished Democratic whip in this body, and the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Daschle, and Senator Hollings, and other Senators and I offered, to guarantee, to a much greater extent than I have to explain today, the defense of our homeland, homeland defense. That legislation was rejected by the minority in this body. So while we congratulate ourselves--and rightly so--on enacting legislation dealing with safety at our airports, safety to the travelers on airplanes, that does not bring an end to the threat of bioterrorism. The legislation we passed today will not provide for smallpox vaccines and anthrax antibiotics. My amendment a few days ago, the homeland defense amendment to the so-called stimulus bill, would provide for smallpox vaccine, would provide money, $4 billion, to end the threat of bioterrorism. Our Republican friends rejected it. I hear that some of the House conferees don't want to have any conferences over there in which the majority leader, Senator Daschle, or Senator Robert Byrd are in attendance. They don't want to hold any conferences, I hear. I read that in the paper, that certain Members of the other body have said: We don't want Senator Daschle and Senator Robert Byrd to be in the room when we are talking about homeland defense. Will this legislation provide for smallpox vaccine and anthrax antibiotics? No. But our legislation which we offered the other day would have. It was turned down. The Republicans said: No, no, no. The bill we passed today doesn't improve the training of our doctors and nurses, but that $15 billion homeland defense amendment would have improved the training of our doctors and nurses, would have expanded the capacity of local hospitals and medical labs. The legislation we passed today is good legislation, but it leaves much work to be done. Of course, nobody ever told us that that legislation was the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end, of homeland security legislation. I am not making that charge. But I am talking about some other homeland security provisions that were in the amendment which I offered at the time Mr. Max Baucus, the Senator from Montana, was offering his tax legislation. Does the legislation we passed today provide counterterrorism training for our local police and fire departments? Does it give them access to new resources and equipment so that they are prepared to respond to possible future terrorist attacks? Does it tighten security at our borders and at our shipping ports? Does it provide for better protection of our food supply against possible biological attack? Sadly, the answer to these questions is a resounding no, no, no. We in Congress have a responsibility to provide for the common defense. That is what the preamble to the Constitution mentions, among other things: Provide for the common defense. We have a responsibility to provide resources to prevent future potential terrorist attacks and to ensure rapid response should another attack, God forbid, occur. We have a job to do. While we are at home on Thanksgiving Day, we should give thanks for our many blessings, but we should also be thinking about the job that is still left undone. We have work to do. To date we have been unable to do that job because of partisan gridlock. What a sad commentary on the Senate. What a sad commentary on the Congress. When we return from the Thanksgiving break, we will refocus. We will be back, Lord willing. We will be back. We will refocus on homeland security, homeland defense. I hope we can make the same kind of rapid bipartisan progress to improve our defenses here at home as we have achieved today in airport security. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Nation's attention is focused on the threat of biological weapons. The pernicious nature of these types of weapons has been shown in the anthrax-laced mailings that were sent to the office of the majority leader, Tom Daschle, NBC news in New York, and American Media in Florida, which have resulted in contamination of a number of post offices in Washington, D.C., New Jersey, Florida, and perhaps elsewhere. One question is on all American's minds: how can we defend ourselves against a threat that is literally microscopic? In the days of the Cold War, we became accustomed to being able to quantify the threats posed to the United States: we could count the number of Soviet missiles, bombers, tanks, and soldiers, and respond by increasing the capabilities of our own military. But now, the threat to our security has changed. We can not quantify this threat and we can not track its movements until it might be too late. Building up our military will not affect our security from biological weapons. We must adjust our thinking on how to deal with these abhorrent weapons of pestilence. Mr. President, remember that Jesus said: You shall hear of wars and rumors of wars, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and pestilences and earthquakes. Pestilences, that is what I am talking about; germ warfare, viral warfare, anthrax. Building up our military, I said, will not affect our security from these pestilences. We must adjust our thinking, I say again, on how to deal with these abhorrent weapons of pestilence. We do not yet know for certain whether the anthrax attacks were carried out by foreign or domestic agents, by someone across the seas or someone in our midst. We also do not know when the next biological weapons attack might happen, what type of germs or viruses might be used, or who might be planning it. But the U.S. must take action. The time is right now, in the midst of intensified international condemnation of the use of biological weapons, to form an international regime to eliminate the manipulation of nature for violent purposes. Over 140 countries have signed the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972. It is one of the simplest arms control treaties in existence. Parties of the treaty agree not to develop or retain any biological toxins or agents that are to be used for other than peaceful purposes. There are no means to verify this binding commitment, but the Convention has succeeded in its limited purpose by confirming among most of the world that biological weapons are abhorrent to all mankind. Negotiations began in 1995 on how to add a binding protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention to create a regime that would verify compliance with the treaty. Parties to the Convention would thereby submit themselves to the same kinds of inspections that are conducted at nuclear facilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and chemical facilities under the Chemical Weapons Convention. The purpose of these inspections would be to assure the whole wide world that potentially dangerous microbes, which are needed to conduct scientific and medical research, are handled in a safe manner, and are not being diverted to nefarious purposes. Representatives at the last conference on the Biological Weapons Convention, which took place in July, hoped to gain consensus on the final text of the protocol, which may open for signature within weeks. The results of that conference were disappointing. Rather than negotiating toward the resolution of many outstanding issues on the protocol, the Bush Administration took the view that no protocol would be preferable to a negotiated protocol. Like much of the world, I was left wondering whether this Administration takes arms control seriously. I am pleased to see that on November 1, the Administration unveiled a number of proposals to complement the Biological Weapons Convention. These voluntary measures are well-intentioned and they make sense. However, they do not go far enough. I am wary of addressing our urgent and serious national security concerns simply through voluntary measures by foreign countries. With no formal multilateral protocol to spell out exactly what each country's responsibilities are, I fear that the future of the international ban on biological weapons will be a patchwork quilt of full compliance, non-compliance, half-measures, and more talk and less action. This could ultimately leave us even less secure from these horrific weapons. There are other important treaty matters before our country. We are closing in on an agreement with Russia for sharp reductions in our nuclear stockpiles, and negotiations will continue on altering the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 to allow increased national missile defense testing. These deals, if concluded, would be a major development in our relationship with Russia and have a major impact on geopolitics. The strategic arms of the two biggest nuclear powers would be cut to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads, which is less than a third of our present level. We have not had as few as 2,000 strategic warheads in our nuclear arsenal since 1955. I am not against reducing the nuclear stockpile. I am not against reducing the number of missiles, the number of warheads. I am not against that. But as important as this agreement would be, I am shocked by the President's view that an agreement on arms reductions need not be on paper. Legally and technically he is right. It need not be on paper. But, Mr. President, it ought to be on paper. The President said that he was content to conclude arms reduction talks with nothing more than a handshake. Nothing more than a handshake. Now, that is troubling me. If I sell a piece of property or if I buy a piece of property, I will shake hands with the person who buys my property. I will shake hands with the person from whom I buy property. But there will also be a deed and it will be registered at the courthouse in the county where the property exists. There will be a handshake--that is fine. A handshake carries with it the indication of honor. ``It is an honor to deal with you--it is a pleasure, I have enjoyed doing business with you.'' But it is that deed that is in writing that assures my grandchildren, and their children if necessary, that that property, that transfer of property is on record. So I say again, the President said--he is reported to have said that he was content to conclude arms reduction talks with nothing more than a handshake. Are you? Are you, the people who are watching this Senate floor through those electronic eyes behind the Presiding Officer, are you content? Are you content that arms reduction talks be concluded with nothing more than a handshake? We are closing in on a historic compact, and I cannot understand why this agreement should not be done as a formal written treaty. That would require a two-thirds vote, yes. But a simple handshake leaves many questions unanswered. I would like to see one or both Houses of the Congress having some say in that, and backing up that handshake, if needed, with their votes, the representatives, the elected representatives of the people. A simple handshake leaves many questions unanswered. What will happen to the nuclear warheads once they are removed from their missiles? I must note that in this year's budget request, the Administration cut more than $131 million from the programs that keep these powerful weapons from falling into the wrong hands. How will we verify? How will we verify that Russia carries out its arms reductions, and how will Russia, how will President Putin verify that we carry out ours? That we are carrying out our arms reduction? It was Ronald Reagan himself that said, ``Trust, but verify.'' In other words, yes, shake hands. But verify. And what will happen to the agreement when President Bush and President Putin leave office? President Bush under the Constitution can serve 3 more years after this year, and if he is then elected again, he can serve 4 more years. But who knows what the attitude of his successor will be. If there is no treaty, no formal agreement in which this Senate, or on which the Senate and House--whichever type of agreement it might be--has been able to put a stamp of approval, who knows what his successor might say. Or who knows how the successor to Mr. Putin might feel about it. A written treaty could provide clear answers to each of these important questions. It would be a real mistake to make such an important international agreement in any other form, I think, than a treaty. We do not need fly-by-night arms control. We need arms control measures that are carefully examined to support our national security. We do not need hush-hush agreements with other countries on our nuclear weapons. We need public confidence in our military and foreign policy. Lacking the full confidence of the public, an informal agreement on nuclear arms and national missile defense is not worth the paper that it is--or is not--written on. President Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, ``Treaties are the cornerstones on which all relations between nations must rest.'' Treaties are useful in clearly elaborating the responsibilities of each party, and formal ratification of treaties indicate a country's full acceptance of those responsibilities. The Founding Fathers of this country The Founding Fathers who wrote this Constitution and made reference to treaties in that Constitution, understood that, and that is why they secured for the Senate advice and consent responsibilities to any treaty made by the President. We should not turn away from this treaty-making process for the simple convenience of the executive branch. The Kings of England make treaties. The Kings of England have always made treaties. But this country has no King. This Republic has no King. Gentlemen's agreements on matters as important as international security or the control of weapons of mass destruction are simply not sufficient to inspire the confidence of the public in this or other countries. By making treaties, with the advice and consent of the Senate, the United States shows itself to be a reliable ally to our friends, and a principled actor to our opponents. We should also consider the President's role in conducting our foreign policy, and his role as commander-in-chief. Is his hand in conducting future negotiations with Russia, in the case of the ABM Treaty and nuclear arms reduction, or with the other nations of the world, in the case of the Biological Weapons Convention, the Kyoto Protocol, and a host of other treaties, strengthened if he concludes these types of agreements without the advice and consent of the Senate? Is his hand strengthened if he doesn't have the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate standing behind him? No. I don't think his hand would be strengthened. I would think just the opposite. Senate approval or ratification of important international agreements is a signal to all the world that our nation not just a branch of our government approves of and will carry out those agreements negotiated by the President. Senate approval of important treaties, such as a protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention or a new strategic agreement with Russia would strengthen the Chief Executive's hand to negotiate from a position of strength on other international matters, such as the Kyoto Protocol, possible NATO expansion, and future arms control treaties. So I say that legally and technically, the President might not need to have it written on a piece of paper. Legally and technically, he may be able to do it with a handshake. Let me say again that I am not proposing that we shouldn't reduce our nuclear weapons stockpile. I am not proposing that at all. I think the MX missile, for example, is old, and we shouldn't continue to keep that around. But a handshake is not enough. I don't rest easy. Do you, Mr. President? I am saying to the Presiding Officer, and I am saying to other Senators, would you rest easy with just a handshake in a matter of this nature? The two issues I have just discussed, the Biological Weapons Convention and our strategic situation with regard to Russia, are very important to the security of our country. The United States must take a leadership position on these issues to crack down on the use of germs and viruses as weapons, and to clarify our relationship with the nation that has emerged from our Cold War opponent. These matters cannot rest on voluntary measures or unwritten pacts. I urge the Administration to pursue formal agreements on these issues in order to recognize their importance to Americans and the world. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. I yield the 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished Senator from Illinois.

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield 30 seconds?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. I thank Senator Durbin, the very distinguished and able Senator from Illinois, for his kind remarks and for his references to the amendment of yesterday. We will be back. I again thank the distinguished Senator who yielded me the time.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I join in the thanks.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Delaware for his statement. I well remember in 1987, with respect to the INF Treaty, the Reagan administration sought to reinterpret the provisions of the ABM Treaty--to reinterpret those provisions because the Reagan administration did not want to live up to the ABM Treaty. They wanted to get away from that ABM Treaty. There were some people in that administration who sought to reinterpret the ABM Treaty. But as we prepared for the subsequent approval by this U.S. Senate of the ratification of the INF Treaty, the distinguished Senator from Delaware was adamant in insisting that there be an amendment written to provide that there be no reinterpretation of any treaty by a subsequent administration; that the treaty had to be interpreted based on the four corners of the treaty plus interpretation of the treaty as explained by witnesses of the administration in power at the time the treaty was ratified. Any new understanding would have to be agreed upon by the executive branch and the legislative branch. The distinguished Senator from Delaware rendered a great service in that instance, as did the then-Senator from Georgia, Mr. Nunn, who was chairman of the Armed Services Committee; the then-Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Boren, who was chairman of the Intelligence Committee; and the then-chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Pell.

Mr. BYRD. Those three Senators and I insisted on having it in writing from the Soviets. And Secretary of State Shultz went to--I guess it was Paris--went to Europe, at least, and worked with Mr. Shevardnadze, I believe, and came back with a document in writing saying that all parties agreed that that would be the interpretation, that there would not be any subsequent reinterpretation by any administration, any subsequent President. Because if that were the case, how could we ever depend upon any treaty as having credibility, if a subsequent administration could reinterpret it according to its own wishes? How would a subsequent administration interpret an ``understanding'' that was entered into by a handshake? All the more reasons for wanting to see it in writing and having it debated by the elected representatives of the people. I thank the distinguished Senator.

Mr. BYRD. No.

Mr. BYRD. It is done.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, let me say I am deeply appreciative, and I thank the very able Senator from Montana for his observations.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 3 minutes.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr, President, nearly 4 centuries ago, a courageous little group of people left their homeland, boarded a small, flimsy sailboat-- it was not a steamboat; it was a sailboat, a sail ship--and they journeyed across a mighty ocean, and settled in an inscrutable unfriendly wilderness. They did all of this, took all of these risks. Think about the risks that they took. They did not have any cell phones. They did not have any radios. They did not have any weather predictors. They did not have any newspapers to tell them what might lie ahead or what the weather conditions might be 24 hours away. They did not have any hospitals nearby. But they had faith. They had the guiding light of God's word. Many of them took all these risks so that they could go to church, the church of their choice. Think about it. How many of us today have difficulty getting up on Sunday morning in order to go to church? I do. Ah, how I like to lie in bed on Sunday morning. My little dog Billy gets me up many times, or that alarm clock does. But I like to go back to bed on Sunday morning. Can't do it on Monday, you see. Can't do it on Tuesday. But Saturday and Sunday--ah, Sunday. How many of us do not like to walk those few blocks or drive those few miles to go to church? But here were the Pilgrims, crossing a vast ocean--2,500 miles, 3,000 miles--a vast body of water, facing the darkest of unknowns. They did not know what would lie in wait for them. They knew it would be a long time before they could get back home, and perhaps there would not be friendly winds that would bring their sail ships back home. They faced the darkest of unknowns just to preserve the sacred right to worship as they pleased, or not to worship, to go to this church or that church, the church of their choice. Many of them came for that reason only. Stop and think about it. Doesn't one stand in awe, absolute stark awe, as one thinks of the courage of those men and women to strike out across the stormy deep, in awe of their courage and their devotion to God? One cannot help but be awed by that courage that they had to go against odds, to face hunger and deprivation and danger, to be away from their loved ones there in the British Isles or in the Netherlands or in Germany or in France or Italy, or wherever, to leave those friends and relatives, those loved ones, perhaps forever, not knowing whether they would ever in this world see those loved ones, those friends, those acquaintances again. The journey was not easy. Turbulent weather, including rough winds and strong currents, forced the Pilgrims to anchor at Cape Cod, MA, far north of their destination and well outside the boundaries of their patent. This meant that, once on land, there would be no legal authority or government over them. Therefore, before disembarking, the Pilgrim leaders assembled together all the adult men who made the journey on the Mayflower in order to formulate a government. It was a covenant. One might call it a contract. I prefer to call it a covenant. Drawing upon their church covenant which vested religious authority in the congregation, they established a form of self- government. It seemed simple enough, but little could these men aboard the Mayflower that fateful November night in 1620 have realized the mighty forces that they were unleashing. By binding themselves into a ``civil body politic,'' by giving themselves the power to enact laws for the common good, and obligating themselves to obey such laws, the Pilgrims were establishing the fundamental, the basic principles of democracy in America, namely a belief in self government, the rule of law, and government by mutual consent. The Pilgrims had also established that the government of their new world would be a government under God. The Mayflower Compact made this intent perfectly clear as it read, in part: In the name of God, amen, we whose names are underwritten . . . Having undertaken for the Glory of God . . . Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politik, for our better Ordering and Preservation. . . . There you have it. These were our forebears. The next year, these same men and women established the custom of gathering together each year to express their gratitude to God for protecting them, for the harvests that their labors had brought forth in the new land, and for the preservation of their community. In the middle of October of 1621, a group of hunters sent out by Governor Bradford brought back a great store of wild turkeys. I can just see them. They wouldn't go the back streets with this big bundle of turkeys they had shot. No, they would go the front street, wouldn't they? They would go right down front street so that everybody could see the turkeys they had bagged, a great store of wild turkeys. When these were added to the collection of lobsters and clams and fish and corn and green vegetables and dried fruits that the community had collected, the Pilgrims had the makings of a great feast. Hot diggity dog, they had it, didn't they. They had something good to eat. Yes, indeed. So they invited their neighbors to join them in a day of celebration and worship and in a common giving of thanks. Two years later, in 1623, the Pilgrims made this day of thanks, feasting, and worship a tradition. The spirit of that glorious day, which some people recognize as the first official Thanksgiving, was captured in a proclamation attributed to Governor Bradford. That proclamation read in part--let us read it together: Inasmuch as the Great Father has given us this year in an abundant harvest of Indian corn, wheat, peas, squashes and garden vegetables, and made the forest to abound with game and the sea with fish and clams, and inasmuch as he has . . . spared us from the pestilence and granted us freedom to worship God according to the dictates of our own conscience, now I, your magistrate, do proclaim that all ye Pilgrims, with your wives and ye little ones, do gather at ye meeting house, on ye hill, between the hours of nine and twelve in the daytime on Thursday, November ye 29th, of the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred and twenty-three, and the third year since ye Pilgrims landed on ye Plymouth Rock, there to listen to ye Pastor and render Thanksgiving to ye all Almighty God for all his blessings. ``Thanksgiving day,'' wrote President John Kennedy, ``has ever since been part of the fabric which has united Americans with their past, with each other, and with the future of mankind.'' Thanksgiving has become one of America's oldest and most beloved holidays. It is one of our most important holidays. It has become a day devoted to turkey, mashed potatoes, and cranberries. I can tell these pages to savor that day when they can meet at mom's house and have all these goodies. They are not going to Shoney's or some other restaurant. They are going to eat with mother or grandmother, with their parents, with their brothers, with their families. It has become a day devoted to turkey, mashed potatoes, cranberries, family togetherness, football games, parades, and the beginning of the Christmas holiday season. But it also remains a day that should be devoted to God and country because it always has been. During the American Revolution, following the important American victory over the British at the Battle of Saratoga in October 1777, which marked a turning point in the war, the Continental Congress approved a resolution proclaiming December 1 as a day of ``Thanksgiving and praise.'' You see, our fathers did not forget. Our fathers and mothers remembered the great God of heaven. They remembered the God who had watched over them through that perilous trek across the deep waters and had protected them in their homes and the forests, had provided food and sustenance for them. They remembered. They gave thanks to him. Following the establishment of the new Government of the United States in 1789, President George Washington issued a ``Thanksgiving Proclamation'' designating Thursday, November 26, as a ``day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many favors of Almighty God.'' This is George Washington. This isn't Robert Byrd. This is George Washington, our first President, the greatest of all, George Washington. ``By acknowledging with grateful hearts,'' he said, ``the many favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.'' Those were George Washington's words. At President Washington's request, Americans assembled in churches on the appointed day and thanked God for his blessings. One thing, if I forget all else, that I will always remember about President Eisenhower is this: In his first inaugural address, he, Dwight D. Eisenhower, prayed. In his first inaugural address, President Eisenhower prayed. I shall never forget that, and I shall never fail to honor him for that. Dwight D. Eisenhower prayed a prayer in his first inaugural address. During the American Civil War, following the bloody battle of Gettysburg that marked a turning point in that war, President Abraham Lincoln asked the people of the United States to set aside the last Thursday of November ``as a day of thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father.'' This was Lincoln, not Robert Byrd. ``In the midst of a civil war of unequal magnitude and severity,'' President Lincoln proclaimed the country should take a day to acknowledge--listen to his words--the ``gracious gifts of the most high God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered in mercy.'' Two towering Presidents, Washington and Lincoln, humbled themselves to call upon God's name and to give him thanks. This year, as was 1863, has been a year of tragedy and adversity for our Nation. We again find ourselves at war. Because of this, on this Thanksgiving, as in 1863, there will be too many empty chairs at the table. Nevertheless, as in 1863, we should recognize that there is so much for which to be thankful. While I recognize that today, as in 1863, we live in a time of uncertainty and danger, we should all be thankful that the American people have the steadfastness and the determination to move forward. While I recognize that many young American men and women will spend this holiday in harm's way protecting our country and protecting the values we hold dear, we can all be thankful we do have the best, the bravest, and the most determined Armed Forces--and always have had--in the world, Armed Forces that are now fighting the scourge of terrorism. I am thankful we live in a country that can confront a crisis with strength and moral certainty, without forcing us to abandon the very principles and values that we hold most dear. Like President Washington, I am thankful for ``the many favors of Almighty God,'' including a government that ensures our ``safety and happiness.'' Like President Lincoln, I am thankful for the ``gracious gifts of the most high God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins''--and there are many--``hath nevertheless remembered mercy.'' Finally, I am thankful for those men and women, who, 381 years ago, had the courage, the faith, and the devotion to God to challenge the most difficult and dangerous of journeys and face the darkest unknown. They left friends and homes and warm hearths to launch out upon a dangerous, deep journey, led and guided only by the faith they had in a higher power and a desire to create a new home where they could go to the church of their choice. Thank God for them. On this Thanksgiving, let us remember: Our fathers in a wondrous age, Ere yet the Earth was small, Ensured to us an heritage, And doubted not at all That we, the children of their heart, Which then did beat so high, In later time should play like part For our posterity. Then fretful murmur not they gave So great a charge to keep, Nor dream that awestruck time shall save Their labour while we sleep. Dear-bought and clear, a thousand year Our fathers' title runs. Make we likewise their sacrifice, Defrauding not our sons. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I certainly don't want to be an impediment to what the distinguished majority whip is trying to do. I do have a couple of speeches I want to make. I will go down to my office to get them. One has to do with Thanksgiving. The other has to do with another matter of great importance.