Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 177, submitted earlier today by Senator Boxer.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and the preamble be agreed to, en bloc; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements and supporting documents relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be discharged from consideration of H. Con. Res. 130 and that the Senate then proceed to its consideration.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, with no intervening action or debate; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the concurrent resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance have until 4 p.m. today to report the economic recovery stimulus bill, notwithstanding the adjournment of the Senate.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Record remain open today until 2 p.m. for the submission of statements and the introduction of legislation.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. That is the epitome of pork, isn't it? It drips with lard.

Mr. BYRD. Would that be cholesterol?

Mr. BYRD. When I was a young man, which was quite a while ago, I worked in a meat shop in a coal mining camp. All of the ladies who came to the store, including my mother and my wife's mother, bought lard. Those coal miners, before they went into the bowels of the earth and did that back-breaking work, ate sausage and bacon fried in a deep skillet with lard. We never heard of the word ``cholesterol'' in those days. That is a new word in my lexicon, coming along probably about in the middle of my life. So I was interested when the Senator used the words ``larding up.'' Was he talking about a spending measure or was he talking about pork? What did the Senator have reference to? I missed that. Would he say that again?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be recognized at the completion of the remarks by the distinguished junior Senator from New York and that I may be recognized for as much time as I may consume.

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. The Senator spoke of ``larding up.'' Would he say that is a cholesterol-laden piece of pork?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I again remind our colleagues that the next rollcall votes will occur at 5 p.m. on Tuesday next.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the nights are growing chilly, though the days remain warm and dry--dry for too long, really, over in McLean. The brilliant crimson maple and bright yellow poplar leaves have nearly disappeared, replaced by the more somber late autumn tones of deep bronze oak and rich golden hickory leaves falling in swirling waves across the road to join the drifts of leaves awaiting the rake. The more subdued coloring is in keeping with the holiday that approaches this Sunday. For, despite any attempts to mask the nature of this holiday behind sales and pre-Christmas hype, Veterans Day remains true to its purpose. It was the old Armistice Day when I was a boy-- Armistice Day, November 11. To say Veterans Day is to hear the haunting echo of taps being played on a lone trumpet on a West Virginia hill far away--I can hear its tones being wafted by the autumn air to this Capital City--and the sharp report of a 21-gun salute ricocheting across a field of sad white crosses. Out of the corner of one's eye is glimpsed the silent rank and file of heroes who came home, some whole and some not, but all remade by the shared experience of warfare. On Veterans Day, we travel in the company of heroes. Veterans Days, Armistice Day. My mother died on the eve of Armistice Day 1918; my mother, whom I never saw, as far as my recollection is concerned--the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, the day on which the guns fell silent at the end of the war to end all wars, World War I. Today it honors the veterans from all wars, and, sadly, there have been far too many of those: World War II, the cold war, the Korean war, the Vietnam conflict, the Persian Gulf war, and none-too-peaceful peacekeeping missions around the globe. America has in the last century been embroiled in some form of conflict far more often than she has known peace. No conflict is ever truly finished. In addition to the troops we leave buried in foreign soil, a living guarantor remains behind to protect each fragile and precious truce. United States forces remain in Europe, in Korea, a legacy of this war or that war. United States troops stand at the frontier between the two Koreas. They were there when I looked with binoculars at the Communists just across the dividing line in Korea 46 years ago this month. They have been there since the 1950s. More United States troops remain in Saudi Arabia and Turkey, vigilant against further aggression from Iraq. In these last months, the United States has been thrust unwillingly but unhesitatingly into a conflict of a new and more ambiguous kind, the war against terrorism. Already this conflict has added new names to the honor roll of heroes whom we honor on Veterans Day. Already active-duty Reserve and National Guard troops have responded to this latest call to arms. Much rides on their shoulders, beyond an understandable thirst to avenge the senseless slaughter of innocent men and women, leaving innocent widows and orphans behind. This war on terrorism must succeed. The New Testament's--``testament'' meaning covenant--admonition to turn the other cheek does not work here. The New Covenant's admonition to turn the other cheek does not work here, but rather we must hew to the Old Testament's--Old Covenant's--harsh warning regarding an eye for an eye. This attack must be answered or the scope and scale of terror attacks worldwide will be forever increased. That universal understanding is reflected in the broad consensus supporting the current U.S. military action and in the concerted efforts to cut off funding for terrorists. So this year, as we honor the veterans of past wars, it is appropriate to salute those who are still in uniform and to give them our support. In 1961, a veteran of World War II gave his Inaugural Address, his first speech as the new President of the United States. He said, in part: Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe. Now the trumpet summons us again--not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need--not as a call to battle, though embattled we are--but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, ``rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation,''--a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself. To President Kennedy's list of the common enemies of man, we can now add terror. Though we may hope for a quick and conclusive end to this new struggle, we must be prepared for the long haul, for a ``long twilight struggle, year in and year out . . .'' and for eternal vigilance. We have but to look to our own history to know that we can muster the will, we can muster the determination, we can muster the perseverance to achieve our goal and to preserve the liberty that this Nation has held dear through long centuries. In the wake of September 11, Americans have rallied by proudly flying American flags on their homes, on their mailboxes, on their cars, yes, and on their lapels. On November 11, those flags fly in remembrance not only of those who so recently lost their lives in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania, but also for all those men and women who have struggled or died to defend our freedom, our liberty, our Nation through the years. I am proud to salute them all, to remember them all, to honor them all. No amount of bloodshed and no amount of fear can turn this great Nation from the ideals that were forged in war in 1776, 1777, 1778, 1779, 1780, and 1781, and defended ever since. Our flag-- there it is standing beside the presiding officer's chair, in all of its grandeur, in all of its stately magnificence, in all of its quiet beauty. It still flies! Mr. President, I close with one of my favorite poems, by Henry Holcomb Bennett, entitled ``The Flag Goes By.'' It eloquently puts words to the message being sent by the many, many flags now bedecking our Nation. Hats off! Along the street there comes A blare of bugles, a ruffle of drums, A flash of color beneath the sky: Hats off! The flag is passing by! Blue and crimson and white it shines, Over the steel-tipped, ordered lines. Hats off! The colors before us fly; But more than the flag is passing by: Sea-fights and land-fights, grim and great, Fought to make and to save the State; Weary marches and sinking ships; Cheers of victory on dying lips: Days of plenty and years of peace; March of a strong land's swift increase; Equal justice, right and law, Stately honor and reverend awe; Sign of a nation great and strong To ward her people from foreign wrong: Pride and glory and honor,--all Live in the colors to stand or fall. Hats off! Along the street there comes A blare of bugles, a ruffle of drums; And loyal hearts are beating high: Hats off! The flag is passing by! Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned about the administration's top trade legislation priority: Fast track, known in administration circles as ``trade promotion authority.'' How crass. How crass. ``Trade promotion authority.'' To denominate fast track as ``trade promotion authority'' is the acme of crassitude. Hear me down there at the other end of the avenue: The acme of crassitude! To denominate fast-track legislation as trade promotion authority, or by its acronym, TPA, is the acme of crassitude. One might better interpret the acronym TPA as standing for ``tactic to prevent amendments''; TPA, ``Tactic to Prevent Amendments.'' Hear me! Colleagues on the other side of the Capitol Building, where the administration has put on its big push for the acme of crassitude: Fast track authority, calling it trade promotion authority. But it is a tactic to prevent amendments. That is what fast track is, a tactic to preclude Congress from fulfilling its constitutional obligations to debate and, if necessary, to amend. I hope they can stop this oafish piece of legislation on the other side of the Capitol. If they can't, then bring it onto the Senate Floor. Come one, come all, This rock shall fly From its firm base As soon as I! Yes, come one, come all. Hear me down there at the other end of the avenue, the White House: Bring on your TPA. Yes, ``tactic to prevent amendments.'' Come one, come all, This rock shall fly From its firm base As soon as I! Those words from, I believe it was Scott's ``Lady of the Lake,'' are very apropos here. This tactic to prevent Congress from fulfilling its constitutional obligations to debate and, if necessary, to amend trade bills. The administration hoists its flag on the flagpole of trade promotion authority. This is my flag, the Constitution of the United States! I hold it in my hand. Those who would defy the Constitution will find the battle lines formed here. I oppose this surrender of our constitutional authority. That is what the White House would have us do. I oppose this surrender. ``We've just begun to fight.'' The authority to ``regulate commerce with foreign nations'' is granted exclusively to Congress in Article I, section 8, of the Constitution. Congress, the House, and Senate of the United States--not the President--has this authority under the Constitution and has this responsibility under the Constitution. So let us not be persuaded by administration attempts to promote fast track as an antidote to the events of September 11, 2001. There are those who attempt to promote the idea that, under the rubric of a stimulus bill, Members in the House and the Senate would add language that would promote their pet ideas, their pet projects. Well, under the rubric of ``stimulus,'' the administration is attempting to promote its own pet project--TPA. Trade promotion authority? Fast track. Let us not be persuaded by these furtive attempts. U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick has stated that fast track is necessary because ``we need to strengthen the U.S. and global economies as they reel from the shocks of September 11.'' Who is Robert Zoellick? Was he elected by the people of any State? Did he stand before the bar of judgment of the electorate? Is that how he became Trade Representative? No! Yet he, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, has stated that fast track is necessary because ``we need to strengthen the U.S. and global economies as they reel from the shocks of September 11.'' I do not understand Mr. Zoellick's logic. Now is the time for the President and the Congress to stand by the Constitution; stand by the Constitution and work together. Now is the time for Congress to respond to the September 11 terrorist assault upon the American way of life. This is not the time for us to short-circuit our deliberative processes. Let us debate. Let us debate the trade measures. What are you afraid of, Mr. Zoellick? Moreover, the Ambassador cannot support his attempt to link fast track to global economic recovery. With or without fast track, it is going to take years, not months, for the President to negotiate a new world trade agreement. I question whether, in the current international climate, we should even desire to have a new global trade round. As the United States forges a coalition to fight terrorism, those countries that have been attacking the framework of fair trade for the past several years have absolutely no incentive to agree to mutually beneficial trade proposals. Rather, they will attempt--as they have in the past--to use cooperation on security issues as a bargaining chip--a bargaining chip to extract trade concessions from the United States. Just look at the so-called Harbinson text being considered at this very moment in Doha, Qatar. Is there any question that our trading partners are asking that our trade laws be substantially weakened? Is there any question that the administration is indicating a willingness to put those laws on the negotiating table? If we allow our trade laws to be gutted--gutted, what will happen to essential U.S. industries? What will happen to the steel industry? What will happen to other essential U.S. industries that are being picked apart by predatory foreign trade practices? In any event, it is indisputable that Congress and the President can work together, under the Constitution, to conclude and implement international trade agreements. Immediately after the September 11 terrorist attack, Congress passed the U.S.-Jordan trade agreement, one in a long series of trade agreements concluded and implemented by the United States since fast track lapsed in 1994. Bring it on. Trade promotion authority--ha, ha, ha--trade promotion authority! Of all the gimmicks that I have heard in my 84 years of life on this Earth, that one takes the cake. It is plain old fast track! The constitutional system works and the administration has not made the case for tinkering with it. President Bush claims to need this extra-constitutional negotiating authority in order to exercise leadership in opening up world trade. On June 21, 2001, he sent many of his highest ranking trade officials, including Secretary of Commerce Evans--for whom I have a great deal of respect--and Ambassador Zoellick, to the Senate Finance Committee to testify on the supposed need for fast track. Ambassador Zoellick maintained that fast track is needed in order for the administration ``to reassert America's leadership in trade.'' I remember very well the old-fashioned vaudeville shows where they sold those patent medicines, that snake oil. This is snake oil that Mr. Zoellick is peddling--snake oil! It will curl your hair. If you don't have any hair, it will grow hair for you: Snake oil! The United States can, and should, lead in opening up world trade by offering other countries arrangements that are mutually advantageous, not by undermining a key provision of the Constitution. Senators might well consider the impact of normal debate and amendment rules on the basic leverage available to U.S. trade negotiators. Normal rules should be a matter of enhanced leverage for U.S. negotiators in terms of including provisions that are of strong appeal to Congress, the people's elected representatives in the legislative branch, the people's elected representatives who take an oath when they stand before that Presiding Officer and put their hand on the Holy Bible. They take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Let's remember that oath. The threat that an agreement might be amended by Congress to include a provision gives all parties to a negotiation an incentive to conclude realistic and politically viable agreements. If I were a negotiator, I would like to have the leverage of being able to say, ``if we don't include this provision in the agreement, Congress may include it anyway.'' Congress may include it anyway. Fast-track Trade Promotional Authority--TPA--fast track eliminates this form of leverage. When you go to negotiate over the purchase of an automobile, are you better off going in on your own with your own free will? You can take it, you can leave it, or you can go somewhere else. It is common knowledge that you can strike a better deal if you are able to suggest to the seller that there is someone back home who may amend or modify any agreement that you might reach. The Administration, I think, has it exactly backwards: instead of concentrating its energies on accumulating as much leverage as possible vis-a-vis our trading partners, it is marshaling those energies to convince Congress to reduce its leverage on behalf of hardworking American families and their communities. This can only hamper our efforts to maintain, and enhance, U.S. leverage abroad. The Administration is implicitly saying: ``If you are for shortchanging the legislative process, you are for opening up world trade and combating terrorism.'' That makes no sense to me. I am for free trade that is fair to all parties. What is wrong with that? And I am certainly for rooting out terrorism and enacting measures to ensure our national security. We need not, however, abandon the Constitution in order to achieve these objectives! I didn't take an oath up here before this Presiding Officer to abandon the Constitution. That is what we are doing. I am not saying we ought to debate every little duty on every little toothbrush that comes into this country, or every little paper clip or every fiddle bow or every violin string. I am not saying we ought to debate the duties on toothpicks if they come from China or wherever. But I am saying, the elected representatives of the people ought not even to be asked to give up the cherished right to debate and amend trade legislation when the people's interests are involved. We need not abandon the Constitution in order to achieve these objectives. We Senators need carefully to consider and analyze the claims that we hear about the benefits of fast track. There may be one amendment or two amendments or three that go to policy when we deal with trade matters. I am not saying, as I have already indicated, that we ought to take a microscope and go over a trade bill and get ourselves involved in the teeny-weeny, itsy-bitsy little pieces here or there. But I am saying that there may be major policy amendments that we may wish to debate or on which we may want to vote. Now, I have a letter dated June 28, 1993, from then-United States Trade Representative Kantor, urging support for what he called ``the fast track negotiating authority needed to complete the Uruguay Round.'' He wrote: ``As the world's leading exporter and the world's most open economy, the U.S. stands to benefit greatly by reducing barriers and opening markets around the world for manufactured goods, agricultural products and services.'' How accurate was this prognostication? If, as the former Ambassador suggested, the last round of multilateral trade agreements was focused on reducing foreign trade barriers--not opening up the floodgates to imports--shouldn't our overall balance of trade have improved in the 1990s? The facts belie the fast-track sales pitch. That is what it is--a fast-track sales pitch. In the year 2000, the United States ran a trade deficit on the current account of $435 billion. That is nearly nine times the trade deficit in 1992. How much longer can this go on? Even more disturbingly, it equals 4.5 percent of America's total national output. On a percentage basis, that is the worst trade performance in U.S. history! How long can the United States continue to run these deficits? Have the laws of international economics been repealed? Is the so-called ``New Economy'' a land flowing with milk and honey, in which we no longer need a real economy, that is, an economy that produces goods and services, and employs workers? Have we entered the Promised Land of perspiration-free economics? I am afraid not. Even our foreign trading partners cannot be sanguine as the United States, historically the engine of growth for the entire world, is left without the means to play that role. America is becoming ever more dependent on foreign suppliers of basic manufactured products, even in areas--such as steel--where our producers are the most technologically sophisticated and efficient in the world. Has anyone stopped to consider the impact on our national defense of this foreign dependence? Has anyone attempted to determine how our international position will be affected as we become more susceptible to economic blackmail? Has anyone taken full account of how unfair international trade has helped to restrict income growth at home, particularly in the case of middle class families? Many such families now need two incomes--both parents out in the workplace--to maintain the kind of lifestyle that single-earner families could expect a generation ago. We hear a lot about the projected economic benefits of fast track. Of course, this administration does not dare call it fast track. No, it is ``trade promotion authority''--``trade promotion authority.'' That is an attempt to hoodwink those who would fall for it: fast track! We hear a lot about the projected economic benefits of trade promotion authority, fast track. Yet, as a recent study by the Economic Policy Institute pointed out, the forecast model most frequently cited by fast track advocates relies on unrealistic assumptions. For example, the model assumes that there is no unemployment here or anywhere else in the world and that there are no national labor or environmental standards. Moreover, the model assumes that denying elected officials the authority to set the rules of the marketplace has no costs either in terms of the functioning of the global economy or the achievement of domestic economic and social objectives. These assumptions tell us more about the prejudices of a global trade elite than they do about the economic circumstances in which we find ourselves. Let us have a trade policy for the new millennium. Let us demand that trade negotiations become a two-way street, both in form and in substance. Let us make it clear to our trading partners that we will not be duped by those who would grant America the mantle of ``leadership''--the mantle of ``leadership''--only in exchange for unilateral concessions. All countries stand to benefit from expanded international trade, and all countries should bear the costs of constructing the framework of that trade. American workers should no longer be left holding the bag in international trade negotiations. The steel workers have been left holding the bag all too long, the textile workers have been left holding the bag all too long in international trade. The automobile workers have been left holding the bag all too long in international trade negotiations. U.S. trade negotiators need congressional input. Let's debate it. Let's talk about it, and, if necessary, let's amend it. U.S. trade negotiators need congressional input in the negotiating process. Remember the ad? ``Do it here. Do it now.'' The same with trade negotiations. U.S. trade negotiators need congressional input. Enhanced legislative participation will help them in their efforts to reinforce the framework of fair trade. Is it only fair trade when the United States continues to run up huge deficits in the billions of dollars or in the hundreds of billions of dollars? It will give the results of trade negotiations greater legitimacy and increase public understanding of the costs and benefits of globalization. The Constitution--ah, there is the Rock of Gibraltar, the Constitution--the Constitution requires that we make this effort, and the American people expect it. Mr. President, toward the end of his life, in a letter to Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson brilliantly analyzed the fundamental issue upon which the debate over fast track turns. This is what he said: Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes, and, Those who identify themselves with the people. . . . In every country these two parties exist; and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Mr. President, from 1974 to 1994, Congress was, unfortunately, asleep at the wheel as the one-sided trade jalopy--I wonder if our little pages here have ever heard that word, ``jalopy''?--as the one-sided trade jalopy rumbled down the fast track. The people's branch of Government--ha, ha, ha--let's let that other branch of Government down the avenue become aware again that there is the people's branch, that does not bend before any President, that isn't elected by any President, that isn't sent here by any President, that cannot be fired by any President--let them hear it from Capitol Hill. Bring on your trade promotion authority. You will get your fight right here. The people's branch of the Government--the Congress--allowed itself, I am ashamed to say, to be shunted aside in the process of formulating and implementing U.S. trade policy. Let us resolve to seize the day, to restore the constitutional balance--bring it on; there isn't enough time left in this year, if we did nothing else, to pass it in this body--and to make international trade agreements reflect the interests of hard-working Americans. There is not enough time left in the year to pass ``fast track'' here, unless I am very, very badly and sadly mistaken. Now is the time to move past the failed trade paradigm of recent administrations, both Republican and Democratic. Now is the time to restore the people's faith that they can have an impact on the policies that shape their lives. Mr. Zoellick, we are talking about the people's lives. ``I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.'' Mr. President, I come to bury fast-track authority, not to praise it! Now is the time to reject fast track and to embrace republican self- government as it has been bequeathed to us by the Framers of the Constitution, by those who debated the Constitution, by those who ratified it in the State conventions. We must be steadfast in our loyalty to the Constitution. Forget about political party. Think of the Constitution and think of the people who send us here. We are not to be yeasayers or naysayers. We are here to debate and to amend and to render our considered judgment on behalf of the people who send us here, who pay our salaries, and who can bring us back home when the day of judgment comes. We must be steadfast in our loyalty to that Constitution. Here it is in my hand, the Constitution. There is my trade promotion authority! See it? There is my trade promotion authority, my TPA, the Constitution of the United States! We must be steadfast in our loyalty to the Constitution, that exquisitely balanced instrument of the people, by the people, and for the people. We must stand together and resist the temptation to once again ignore the clear dictates of our most fundamental law.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Order Nos. 541 through 546; that the nominations be confirmed; that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate return to legislative session.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have long been a supporter of collective bargaining rights. Although worthwhile, I oppose cloture on the Daschle amendment (SA 2044) because it would have further delayed the already backlogged fiscal year 2002 appropriations process. More than one month into the fiscal year 2002, we have sent only 5 of the 13 annual appropriations conference reports to the President. We must finish our work and pass these appropriations bills. While I support the Daschle amendment, the Labor-HHS appropriations bill was not the proper vehicle to address this issue.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank all Senators who have spoken. I particularly thank the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens. And I thank the majority whip. I am available if I can be of assistance to him in pursuing this matter. I believe, as he says, we can see the light at the end of the tunnel. There seems to be a willingness on the part of Senators who have an interest in the DC appropriations bill to come to some agreement. As chairman of the committee, if I can be helpful in engineering a reporting from the committee of the House bill with an amendment, I will be happy to be of help. I thank all Senators for listening. And I particularly thank the managers of the bill for the progress that has been made on the bill thus far. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, may I say to Senators that the Chair has been trying to get order. The Chair has been trying to get order. The Chair has been trying to get order. I think it is about time that Senators pay some respect, show some respect toward the Chair. Madam President, I thank the Chair and I thank all Senators. I have sought the floor at this time to urge that we get on with action on this bill. I believe today is the beginning of the period allotted by the fourth CR.

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

Mr. BYRD. Which extends from November 1 to the 16th. It is not a very pretty picture when we pause to reflect on the work that remains to be done--remains to be done on appropriations bills. Here we are on November 1. We have 2 months left in this year, in this calendar year, and we are far into the fiscal year: Two conference reports have passed the House and Senate and are pending at the White House, the Interior bill and the military construction bill. Three conferences have been completed with floor action pending--the House will act on these three conference reports and may have already acted on them by this time; I am not sure--on Treasury, on energy and water development, and on legislative branch. The Senate could proceed quickly to finish those. If the Senate is able to finish those 3 conference reports by the end of the day, that will make a total of 5 out of 13. There are five conferences that are expected to be completed by Tuesday, November 6. They are these: VA-HUD, foreign operations, Transportation, Agriculture, and Commerce-State-Justice. That will make a total of 10 if those conferences can be completed. Senator Stevens and I have talked with the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and urged that we get our conferees together and get these conferences going. So there is a lot of effort being expended. A lot of time is being expended that isn't seen on this floor. We do a lot of work off this floor. We are here in the evenings. We are here when darkness has fallen over the city. It is not a safe city to be in. It has not been for a long time, for that matter. But that is an aside. We need to get this work done on the floor. We have a bill here that we ought to move. I urge all Senators who have amendments not to put them off until next week thinking they can do better next week. They are not going to do as well next week. I urge Senators to call up their amendments and let the managers know. Both managers are here. They have been here. Let's get on with this business. Let me remind Senators how important this bill is. If any Senators are here expecting to increase the amounts of money for anything in this bill, or to add moneys, let me tell you what you are doing. If there is any effort here to alter the 302(b) allocation, you had better forget it because I am here ready, as one Senator, to move to table any such amendment. Just as quickly as I can get the floor, I will move to table it. I have discussed this with my counterpart, my distinguished friend, Mr. Stevens. He is here to speak for himself. But I can tell you one thing. You had better forget it if you are thinking about adding money to this bill. Let me tell you what you will be doing. You will be creating problems for items that are vital to you and your constituents. You will be creating problems in the House if you do that because the House Appropriations Committee and subcommittees have the same allocation that we have over here in the Senate. This bill includes $51 billion for the Department of Education, $4 billion above the President's request. I fought to get that additional $4 billion. We wrestled like Jacob with the angel overnight to get that additional $4 billion for education in this bill. Let some Senator come on this floor and try to alter the allocation. They are going to have a fight. You might as well get ready when they come here. I fought to get that additional $4 billion for education. It wasn't easy. All of us agreed on it. The four appropriators--the chairman of the House committee, the chairman of the Senate committee, the ranking member of the House committee, and the ranking member of the Senate committee--agreed to the $4 billion. I say to all Senators that I don't mean to be mean spirited, but I am trying to be realistic. We have to get this work done. If you are counting on coming here and adding moneys on this bill and calling the addition an emergency, forget it, because we included in that agreement among the four House and Senate chairmen and with the President that there would be $2.2 billion for emergencies. Please don't come on this Senate floor with the idea that you are going to add something and you are going to designate it as an emergency. We are going to fight you over that, if you do it, because we have fought over this and we have worked over there. There is no point in going through the motion just so you can get a headline in your papers. It is $4 billion above the President's request and nearly $6.4 billion for education. That is an increase of 15 percent over last year. Also in this bill is $1.549 billion, an increase of $136.4 million for dislocated worker programs. These funds are used by States for rapid response assistance to help workers affected by mass layoffs and plant closures. These fund are critical now more than ever with layoff figures increasing across the country. That is a very important item in this bill. There is $1.343 billion for community, school, homeless, and migrant health centers, an increase of $175 million. That is doing pretty well. These centers provide primary health care to over 12 million Americans, the majority without health insurance. By providing access to basic health care, health centers save the health care system billions of dollars in reduced use of costly emergency room, specialty, and hospital inpatient care. What an important bill this is. That is important. Senators and staff should not contemplate coming here messing with this bill. If you can really improvement it, we will be for you. But we think this bill is the best that can be done with the limited resources we have. Of course, we would like to spend more money for all of these things--some of us would. There is $4.419 billion for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That is an increased of $300.6 million, including funds for childhood immunization, HIV prevention activities, epidemic services, funds to strengthen the ability of State and local health departments to respond to bioterrorism, and to maintain the pharmaceutical stockpile. This deals with bioterrorism. What can be more important to the American people? The Centers for Disease Control has played a primary role in responding to the recent anthrax attacks in Washington, New York, and Florida. In addition, there is $23.695 billion for the National Institutes of Health. If Senators want to come in here and add moneys for something, what are they going to offset the addition with? Who wants to take moneys out of the National Institutes of Health? That is an increase of $3.4 billion over last year. This increase is the fourth year of a 5-year effort to double the funding for NIH. Saved lives, new cures and treatments, and a thriving biomedical research industry are the result of substantial Federal investment in medical research. Also in this bill is $2 billion for substance abuse treatment programs. Who wants to take money out of that to offset something else? That is an increase of $80 million. Studies have shown that substance abuse treatment is effective at reducing primary drug use by 50 percent, criminal activity by 80 percent, and drug- and alcohol-related medical visits by 50 percent. There is $2 billion in here for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Who wants to take money out that for an offset? This program is more important than ever, given the weak economy and the shortfalls experienced by State programs last year. There is $1.209 billion for aging programs, an increase of $107 million, including an increase of over $5.5 million for home-delivered and congregate meals. Last year, almost one out of every six Americans was over 60 years of age. While the total population of the US increased by 13 percent since 1990, those in the age category 75-84, increased at twice that rate. There is $10.2 billion for Title I grants to local education agencies, an increase of $1.4 billion. These grants provide funds to schools, especially in high-poverty areas, to help low-income, low- achieving students learn to the same high standards as other students. There is $3.039 billion for State grants to improve teacher quality, an increase of $440 million. States and local educational agencies use these funds to reduce class size, reform teacher certification requirements, recruit teachers, provide existing teachers with professional development opportunities, and implement teacher mentoring programs. The Senate bill includes sufficient funds to increase the maximum Pell Grant to $4,000, the highest ever and an increase of $250 over last year. Pell Grants are the foundation of postsecondary student aid, allowing millions of low- and moderate-income students to attend college and other postsecondary educational programs. That is all I have to say, except, please, let's get on with this bill. We are fast approaching Thanksgiving. We ought to be home with our families. Let's not be tied up here.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank my distinguished friend, the former chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I wonder if we might raise a question here concerning the DC appropriations bill. This is another bill that we could act upon, I would think, today. I wonder if we might be able to make some arrangement that will allow us to complete the DC appropriations bill today.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the amendment by Mr. Domenici is the text of S. 534, the Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 2001. This amendment would prohibit group health plans and group health insurance issuers that provide both medical and surgical benefits and mental health benefits from imposing treatment limitations or financial requirements for coverage of mental health benefits that are different from those used for medical and surgical benefits. The problem Senator Stevens and I encountered in processing this amendment is that the Senate Appropriations Committee would be charged with approximately $1.5 billion over the next decade if this amendment, worthwhile as it may be, were to be adopted. Both Senator Stevens and I, I believe, are cosponsors of the underlying legislation, S. 534. I did not realize that legislation was going to be offered as an amendment to an appropriations bill, however, or I might not have cosponsored it. Because of the adverse impact on discretionary spending, we would be forced to oppose this amendment in its current form. In an effort to find a workable solution to the problem, this amendment would direct that any expenditures resulting from this amendment be charged to the committee of jurisdiction under the budget process. If this amendment is adopted, I will drop my opposition to the underlying amendment. Senator Stevens and I have spoken with the chairman and ranking member of the Budget Committee, and they are in agreement. I yield the floor.