Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Today, the Senate passed the fiscal year 2001 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States. Mr. President, the emergency supplemental appropriations bill adopted earlier today is an extraordinary response to extraordinary events. It sends a strong and unmistakable message to the world that the United States is prepared to move swiftly on all fronts to respond to the horrific attacks on our citizens and our territory. The unity and determination that have propelled this bill through Congress 72 hours after the assault on America speaks volumes about the strength and resiliency of our system of government. The supplemental provides $40 billion, to remain available until expended, to respond to the terrorist events of September 11, 2001. This is an extraordinary bill that responds to extraordinary events. The President has not presented the Congress with any detailed estimates of agency needs in response to these terrorist acts. This is not a criticism. Federal Government agencies, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Department of Defense, and the Corps of Engineers, are on the ground, focusing all of their attention on responding to the crisis. Initially, the administration requested authority to spend any amount of money, for any purpose. The Constitution gives the power of the purse to the Congress. It is the Congress that has the responsibility to make sure that the needs of our people are met. This left my good friend Senator Stevens and me with a dilemma. How do we meet the clear and immediate need for funding while protecting the prerogatives of Congress? On Wednesday, Senator Stevens and I joined with our Senate leaders and the House leaders at a meeting with the President to discuss our response to these evil terrorist acts. At that meeting, I laid out four goals for funding the Federal response. First, we must appropriate a specific amount for particular purposes, not a blank check, not a Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, with ill-defined goals. Second, to reinforce bi- partisan unity, we must all have trust and candor on the use of these funds. Third, the President must consult with the Congress in the allocation of the funds. Finally, there must be regular reporting to the Congress. Mr. President, the supplemental bill that the Senate approved today meets each of those goals. The bill provides $40 billion, all designated by the Congress as an emergency, and is contingent on the President designating the full amount as an emergency. Funds are available to: (1) provide Federal, State and local preparedness for mitigating and responding to the attacks; (2) provide support to counter, investigate, or prosecute domestic or international terrorism; (3) provide increased transportation security; (4) repair public facilities and transportation systems damaged by the attacks; and (5) support national security. Not less than $20 billion of the $40 billion is for disaster assistance and disaster recovery activities in New York, Virginia, Pennsylvania and elsewhere. Funds are available in three segments. The President has $10 billion available to him after consultation with the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Appropriations Committees. The President has a second $10 billion available to him after the Director of the Office of Management and Budget has submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a proposed allocation and plan for the use of the funds, and he then must wait 15 days. This will allow the Committees to review the President's plans and make suggestions--possibly enter into some negotiations with the President or his Office of Management and Budget Director. The President has an additional $20 billion available only when the amounts are allocated to specific programs in a subsequent emergency appropriations bill. Mr. President, I stress that this bill is just the first order of business for Congress. This bill deals with what has already happened but does not fully deal with it. Of course, even as scores of rescue workers continue to sift the rubble of the World Trade Center and search for victims in the shattered wing of the Pentagon, we in Congress must start looking forward. We must take steps now--today, tomorrow, next week--to re-double our efforts to intercept would-be terrorists before they can launch an attack. As most Americans, I am amazed by the sophistication, organization, and complexity of Tuesday's attacks on the United States. This was not a casual effort or the work of a lone madman. These attacks took elaborate planning, significant manpower, and detailed knowledge of U.S. aircraft and aviation systems. I have great admiration for our nation's intelligence agencies. I believe that they provide tremendous service to our nation with the resources they have, and I know that we rarely hear about their success stories. But it is, frankly, beyond belief that such a massive and well-coordinated assault on our nation could be executed without any discernable signals. It is beyond belief that our nation, with its vast and powerful network of worldwide intelligence resources, could be caught so utterly unprepared. It has long been acknowledged that to be forewarned is to be forearmed. Well, we have been forewarned. Now, we must focus our efforts on improving our intelligence-gathering systems so that we have a chance to thwart a terrorist plot before it can be executed, before innocent lives can be lost. The stunning attack on the heart of America's military, financial, and transportation centers has exposed our vulnerabilities. As we move quickly to provide assistance to the victims of these horrible acts, to improve security at our airports, to rebuild the Pentagon, and to repair the devastation of New York's financial district, so must we move to rebuild our intelligence capabilities. This emergency supplemental appropriations bill is the first step in a long road that will not end in my lifetime. We must guard against being sidetracked by politics or partisanship. There will still be politics. We have other things to do along with these matters. There will still be some politics and some partisanship, but we must not be sidetracked by politics or partisanship. Congress and the President have demonstrated this week that in times of crisis there is no center aisle. There is no aisle between us. We can overcome our political differences and work together. Make no mistake about it, we are in a time of crisis, and it is a time of suspended crisis. We will weather this crisis, but it will last a long time. We will emerge stronger. We must work together to achieve that goal. I close by commending Senator Ted Stevens, former chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, a very valued Member of this body, for his tireless strength and dedication and patriotism. I commend Representative Bill Young of Florida for his dedication to purpose, for his cooperation, for his characteristic courtesy to those across the Capitol and across the aisle. I commend Representative David Obey for his tenacity and determination, his patriotism, his dedication to the separation of powers in this great country of ours--all of these people for their outstanding contribution to this extraordinary bill. I could not sit down without commending, also, the Speaker of the House, our two leaders, in particular, Mr. Daschle and Mr. Lott, and our excellent staffs who have worked long hours and rendered invaluable assistance, without whom we could not succeed in this mighty effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. There will be no necessity to worry about a Presiding Officer. There will be one. Would the Chair state the question when the leader is finished for the benefit of the Senate?

Mr. BYRD. I agree with the Senator from California on the importance of increasing airport and airline security to prevent our Nation from experiencing a tragedy like this. In my opinion, funds in this bill could be for air marshals and airport security personnel.

Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, and, of course, I will not, Mr. President, may I say to the distinguished majority leader--if I may have 1 minute----

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, during World War II, 36,000 Americans were captured and held prisoner by Japan. The story of the often horrific treatment of these prisoners is punctuated by episodes such as the Bataan Death March, where ten Americans lost their lives for every mile of the gruesome journey, and by the pictures of the emaciated soldiers who spent years in confinement on starvation rations. I cannot think of any way in which we, as a nation, could begin to repay the men who suffered through such abhorrent treatment. The amendment before us today, offered by Senator Smith and Senator Harkin, however, puts in jeopardy constitutional principles that each member of the Armed Forces, and each member of this body, swore to uphold. The amendment would prevent the Department of State and the Department of Justice from defending the U.S. Government in court against lawsuits that challenge whether provisions in the Treaty of San Francisco will continue to be in force as the law of the land. The treaty, which brought peace between Japan, the United States, and our Allies in World War II, explicitly settled all wartime reparations claims that might arise against Japan. The text of the peace treaty is very clear in this regard. Because, under Article VI of the Constitution, a ratified treaty is the supreme law of the land, it is equally clear that this treaty prohibits the Government of the United States, or its people, from seeking further reparations from the Government of Japan, or its people. This is the position that the Department of State and the Department of Justice have maintained since ratification of the treaty in 1952. The amendment before us would prohibit those departments from arguing in court against lawsuits that violate the peace treaty. It would prevent the U.S. Government from upholding a supreme law of our land. It would prohibit our government from acting in a responsible manner in support of our international obligations. It would stop the executive branch from taking action on this issue, which affects our foreign policy. I cannot support an amendment that challenges so many of our basic constitutional principles on the importance of treaties and the conduct of foreign policy. This is not to say that our veterans who were held prisoner by Japan must be denied compensation or restitution for the inhumane treatment they suffered. Those veterans were eligible for compensation distributed by the U.S. Government under the War Claims Act of 1948. The proponents of the amendment before us may believe that compensation was not sufficient, which may be true. There are other ways to compensate our veterans that do not tread upon constitutional principles. One proposal is in the Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Authorization bill, as reported by the Armed Services Committee last Friday. The bill authorizes the Department of Veterans Affairs to pay $20,000 to former prisoners, or their surviving spouses, who were forced to perform slave labor while held by Japan. Such a proposal would allow those veterans to receive the compensation they seek, without challenging the legal status of a ratified treaty. There may be other proposals to compensate the veterans in question as well. We must also consider how other countries would react to an action by Congress that would question our Nation's adherence to a 50-year-old treaty with one of our closest allies. Already this year, the United States has shown an alarming tendency toward unilateralism in regard to a number of international agreements: the Kyoto Protocol, the Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty, the International Criminal Court, the Biological Weapons Convention, and the U.N. convention on small arms. A move to reverse a major provision of such a longstanding peace treaty would be an disconcerting confirmation, and escalation, of this trend. This is a particularly inopportune time to raise further questions about our Nation's ability to cooperate with other countries. I urge my colleagues not to view the vote on the Smith-Harkin amendment as an up-or-down vote on our veterans. There are serious constitutional and foreign policy issues at stake, and other means to compensate these veterans have not yet been exhausted. We should take a closer look at alternative means of compensation, and reject this attempt to tie the hands of our government in discharging its constitutional duty to defend a ratified treaty.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. What are those figures representing our drowning?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. Please.

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield briefly?

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

Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent to speak for not to exceed 45 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Are there any limitations?

Mr. BYRD. Sign me up. Sign me up as one of those who will stand with the Senator to defeat fast track. We have seen too many American jobs take a fast track out of this country. We have seen what happened to pottery in my State. We have seen what happened to glass, what happened to leather goods, what has happened to textiles, what is happening to steel, what is happening to chemicals. I will be with my colleague. I am opposed to fast track. I am for free trade but fair trade. Next year will be my 50th year in Congress, and I see one administration after another, Republican and Democrat, go down this same fast track, and I am tired of it. I have been against it. I do not stand here today and propose we ought to deliberate on putting a duty on every toothbrush or every fiddle or fiddle string or every paint brush that comes into this country, but there are a few major questions that we should be allowed to debate and offer amendments on when that measure comes before the Senate. What's wrong with that? I wouldn't mind, half a dozen, six, three, but why should we go along with our eyes closed and continue to join in this fast track of American jobs and American industries across the seas? Getting our ducks in a row, we have become sitting ducks. These are the ducks that our forefathers gave us to put in a row. Section 8, article I, the U.S. Constitution: The Congress shall have Power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States * * * It doesn't say anything about getting our ducks in a row. It doesn't say anything about fast track. It doesn't say anything about binding and gagging ourselves when it comes to trade legislation. It says the Congress shall have power to regulate commerce. Let's exercise that power. Let's exercise our rights as Members of the Senate, elected by a free people. Count me, register me, make me a first lieutenant in the ranks. I am ready. I volunteer. I thank the Senator for his contributions. I thank him very much for his leadership on this issue. Is the Senate in a period for morning business?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, the inscription on the base of the Statue of Liberty that has welcomed immigrants for generations can be found in the poem, ``The New Colossus,'' by Emma Lazarus: Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from land to land; Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame. ``Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!'' cries she With silent lips. ``Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!'' The United States has a proud history of welcoming immigrants fleeing religious persecution, political oppression, and economic hardship. My own forebear on my father's side came to these shores in 1657, settled on the banks of the Rappahannock River where all--with the exception of possibly one in this Chamber--are children, grandchildren, great- grandchildren, and great-great-grandchildren of immigrants. The magnanimous promise of a better life that is inscribed in the base of the Statue of Liberty has deep roots in both the American mind and American law. George Washington captured that promise in his dictum two centuries ago that the United States should be ``a country which may afford an asylum, if we are wise enough to pursue the paths which lead to virtue and happiness, to the oppressed and needy of the Earth.'' I understand the American dream that has lured immigrants here for more than 200 years. I have a son-in-law who is an immigrant from Iran. He is a physicist. I have a grandson who is married to an immigrant from Korea. My own State of West Virginia has benefitted from the many contributions made by our foreign-born citizens. West Virginia's coal miner population in the early part of the 20th Century reads like a United Nations roster: British--English, Welch, Scottish--Irish, Italian, Hungarian, Lithuanian, Swedish, Austrian, Russian, Greek, Syrian, Romanian, German, Polish, Slavic, and on and on. In recent months, this administration has been working with its Mexican counterparts to craft a new immigration policy that would, among other things, legalize three to four million undocumented Mexican immigrants now working in the United States. According to the latest numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau, immigrants now comprise about 11 percent of the total U.S. population. That is about 30 million immigrants living in the United States--13 million to 14 million of whom arrived just in the last 10 years. These numbers are quite extraordinary because they suggest that at least 1.3 million immigrants are settling in the United States each year. That is more than arrived during the last great wave of immigration between 1900 and 1910, when about 850,000 people entered the country each year. In addition to their arrival in the United States, during the 1990's, immigrant women gave birth to an estimated 6.9 million children. If we add together the number of births to immigrants and the number of new arrivals, immigration during the 1990's led to the addition of 20 million--or two-thirds of the nearly 30 million people who populated the United States over the last 10 years. If current trends continue, according to the Census Bureau's middle- range projections, the U.S. population will grow from 280 million to 404 million people by 2050, with immigration accounting for about 63 percent of that growth. That means the number of new immigrants entering this country over the next 50 years, about 78 million immigrants, will be roughly equal to 43 times the current population of West Virginia. As I have said, many of these immigrants will contribute to the economic, cultural, and political development of the United States. But, let us not forget, let us not be unmindful of the fact that there will also be real costs associated with this population increase. Many of these new citizens will come in search of access to quality health care services. Yet too many of our Nation's 5,000 emergency rooms are already operating at critical capacity. Go over to Fairfax Hospital. I just had my wife of 64 years over to that hospital twice within the last 6 weeks. And I took her both times--once through a call to 911. You will be amazed at what you see. The hospitals are overcrowded. According to the LA Times, at many of the nation's hospitals, ``ambulances are being turned away and patients are stacked in the hallways.'' If we are to accept these new citizens, it is clear that we will have to spend billions of taxpayer dollars to expand our health care infrastructure. This Nation also has the responsibility to provide a quality public education to its citizens. Yet, the Department of Education recently reported that the number of children in public schools has grown by nearly 8 million in the last two decades. This growth has strained the resources of many school districts, resulting in overcrowded classrooms and overgrown schools where discipline is difficult if not almost impossible, and individual attention is nearly impossible. These are questions we ought to think about. We need to think about these things. In 2000, there were about 8 million school-age children--ages 5 to 17--of immigrants who had arrived since 1970, according to the Center for Immigration Studies. This is roughly equal to the total growth in elementary and secondary school enrollment over the last 20 years. If we invite more immigrants into our public school system, we must consider the absorption capacity of American public education. This means that we will have to spend billions of taxpayer dollars to expand our public education infrastructure. The current infrastructure is being strained to the hilt. We also have a responsibility to ensure that these new citizens, at the very least, have access to the resources to become proficient in the English language. The Census Bureau recently reported that nearly one in five Americans does not speak English at home. Among Spanish speakers, only half the adults described themselves as speaking English well, and only two-thirds of the school-age children in Spanish- speaking homes described themselves as speaking English very well. If we accept these potential citizens, we have an obligation to help ensure that they can assimilate themselves into our society. Population growth will also continue to cause more and more land to be developed. Both past experience and common sense strongly suggest that population growth of this kind has important implications for the preservation of farm land, open space, and the overall quality of life throughout our country. A nation simply cannot add nearly 120 million people to its population without having to develop a great deal of undeveloped land. There are also environmental concerns that must be considered. A growing nation requires increasing amounts of energy and greater recovery of natural resources, which results in larger output of pollution in our streams and greater accumulations of solid waste in our landfills. Our resources, as never before, are limited. For all the talk we have heard in recent months from the administration about liberalizing our immigration laws, the President has not made any suggestions--I haven't heard them if he has made any--about how to pay for the additional infrastructure investments that will be required. Just look around you. The infrastructure is being asked to bear far more than the traffic will bear. Look at our schools. Look at our hospitals. Look at our welfare programs. Does the Administration want to increase taxes to support these newcomers? We have been cutting taxes. How much of our limited resources is the administration willing to sacrifice? At what price are we willing to accept all of these new immigrants? These are the questions that our immigration policy needs to address if we are to offer a higher standard of living and a better life to the immigrants that our nation accepts. Instead, the American public is witnessing an immigration debate unfold that threatens to move this nation's immigration laws in exactly the wrong direction. Today the President of Mexico, Vicente Fox, in addressing a joint session of Congress, spoke about the need to regularize the flow of migrant workers between the United States and Mexico. The Bush Administration contends that we can regularize this migrant flow through a new ``temporary worker'' program. I assure you, that there is nothing new about ``temporary worker'' programs and the amnesties that usually accompany them. In fact, these kinds of proposals have become a frightenly familiar routine in recent years that have contradicted our immigration laws and sent exactly the wrong message abroad. In 1986, Congress granted an amnesty to 2.7 million illegal immigrants, based on the promise that it would stem the tide of illegal immigration when combined with a ban on the hiring of illegal immigrants by employers. I supported that proposal, although it later proved to be a false promise. Illegal immigration increased dramatically. More recently, there have been efforts by Congress to pass the so- called 245(i) status adjustment, which would allow illegals--for a $1,000 fee--to waive the requirement that would force them to leave the country and effectively bars them from reentering the United States for up to 10 years. This kind of legislation, in particular, flies right in the face-- right in the face of the Congress' recent efforts to stop the flow of illegal immigrants. The section 245(i) provision nullifies those measures passed by the Congress that would punish immigrants who enter this country illegally. Not only is this legislation unfair to every immigrant--both present and past--who waited to legally enter this country, but it sends the message abroad that as long as you can gather together enough money, you can circumvent our laws whenever they prove to be inconvenient. State and local governments have not done much better at discouraging illegal immigration. Many States are making it easier for undocumented immigrants to apply for a driver's license, government health care benefits, and lower state college tuition. None of these initiatives will act as a deterrent to illegal immigration. Let us continue to have legal immigration. Let us not offer attractions to illegal immigration. The Immigration and Naturalization Service estimates that there are about 6 million illegal aliens living in the United States, a number which increases by more than 200,000 per year. And these numbers are based on 1997 population statistics. Once the Census 2000 population statistics are available, immigration experts expect this number to increase to somewhere between 8.5 million illegals and 13 million illegals. That's double the estimated number of illegals in 1986. The number of amnesties that have been proposed in recent years, and the corresponding rise in illegal immigrants, suggests that something is seriously wrong with this country's immigration laws. It suggests that the basic framework either doesn't work or that we are not serious about enforcing it. I am amazed at the political support for these amnesty proposals. As I say, I voted for them. I was misled. Both political parties--Republican and Democrat--support broader immigration rules. But no one is talking about the additional costs to the American taxpayers. Not one is talking about the strain on our natural and financial resources. Building a political base is no reason to encourage illegal immigration, nor is building up union membership, nor is importing cheaper labor to replace U.S. workers. We must not glibly rush forward on immigration policy without adequate thought about unintended consequences, tangential ramifications or adequate public education and debate. Whether this rush to loosen our enforcement of immigration laws is due to jockeying for political advantage as cynics might contend, or simply an outgrowth of commendable altruistic urges on the part of our nation's political system, we need to step back, slow down and take a serious look at our immigration policies. I well understand that there are segments of the American economy which profit greatly by the labors of illegal immigrants. I well understand the human sorrows endured by immigrant families who cannot earn an adequate living in their native land, and so must send a wage earner across the border to work and establish a foot hold for future generations. My experience growing up in the coal fields during the years of the Great Depression was not too far afield from the immigrant experience of today. I know extreme poverty. I know what it is to start out life with the bottom rungs of life's ladder missing. I remember being at the mercy of the coal company employer in the coalfields. I understand the stigma of being undereducated, poor, and without the bottom rungs in the ladder. I understand that. That is why I am so concerned about the direction of our immigration policy of today. I believe that not enough thought has been given and not enough questions have been asked. I question the sincerity of our rush to appease. Are we really acting in the best interests of the Mexican immigrants or of our own citizens? I have lived 84 years and one lesson that I have learned in my years of observation and service is that the most precious commodity in public policy is that of honesty--intellectual honesty. I hope that this rush to further relax our immigration laws is not just a competition for political advantage, but I fear that that is in fact the driving force. If I am right, and ``votes ripe for plucking'' is driving the altruistic claims of both parties, I urge that we draw back and face the ugly possibility of unintended exploitation of foreign workers as the outcome of political jockeying for the Hispanic vote. In the first place there is no easily identifiable ``Hispanic vote.'' Cuban peoples, Mexican peoples, and other Latin peoples who may have immigrated to the United States have radically different political views and decidedly different priorities. In the second place hispanic peoples who have resided in the United States for some years often deplore the laxer rules which allow new immigrants easier access to U.S. shores, and resent the unfortunate image which newer immigrants may project. The Hispanic votes is not a monolith and it is an insulting, shallow proposition to portray all people's of Latin descent as such. Then there is the question of honesty again. Are we not skating dangerously close to falsehood when we politicians pretend that we can handle these vast numbers of future immigrants in any sort of decent and humane way? Anyone even vaguely familiar with the health care system in this nation knows that it is inadequate to service our present population and becoming more inadequate each day. Go visit the hospitals in the area. How can we pretend that we can address even the most mundane health care needs of these new immigrants? We read about those needs in the newspapers--in the Washington Post and the Washington Times. The stories are frequent in those newspapers about the health needs, about the poverty, and about education shortcomings. We are so stretched now that we cannot handle the present load. Our infrastructure just simply can't handle it. How can we pretend that our overcrowded, underachieving school system can possibly deal with thousands of new immigrant children and come even close to preparing them to cope with the competitive job market in America today. We are not being intellectually honest. We are not being honest with the legal immigrants who are already in this country. We are not being honest with these people. We are not being honest with ourselves. We can't assure these children an adequate education, and that is the truth. Are we consigning these children to a sort of permanent underclass when we fail to give them basic tools with which they can achieve? The truth is, our American infrastructure--both physical and human resource related--is 20 years behind, and falling further behind with each passing year. From everything to inadequate roads and transportation, to a health care system that assists fewer and fewer people, to an education system that fails to impart either discipline or knowledge, we need to face the fact that our resources are limited. It is a sad yet very true fact that we must all face. And we ought to think about it. I think these are proper questions to ask. We are no longer a land of unlimited possibilities because we no longer provide the basics which allow the people to flourish. We have disinvested in our own Nation. We have disinvested in our own people. The cupboard is not bare, but its contents are decidedly skimpy, and it is a grave disservice to invite the neighbors to a sumptuous feast at our house when we know that there is nothing left in the cupboard, nothing to serve but poke greens and salads that are cut from the hillside. We risk turning a blind eye to the needs of our own Nation in future years when we try to absorb huge, huge numbers of underskilled, uninsured, undereducated immigrants without a cogent plan for handling their needs and fostering their eventual assimilation into our own society. We must not rush to appease the demands of our friends to the south of our border without stopping to contemplate the consequences. President Fox of Mexico has the responsibility of delivering on his promise to the Mexican people of more jobs and a stronger economy. He cannot look solely to the United States to solve his economic and political problems. We must also proceed with caution when we advocate policies that circumvent the intent of our own immigration laws. Those laws are passed by the Congress of the United States and signed by a President of the United States. Those laws are intended to allow for the orderly absorption of immigrant populations, and to prepare that population to become productive, participating English literate, United States citizens. I can tell you Madam President, as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the Senate and as a member of the Senate Budget Committee--as is the distinguished Presiding Officer at this moment--we do not have the infrastructure in place to absorb the number of immigrants to whom this administration is seeking to open our borders. It would be nice, it would be good, if we were able to solve the economic problems of other countries and provide a higher standard of living for people around the world--but, we cannot. This is no longer the late 19th century or the mid 18th century. Our resources are more limited today than they were a hundred years ago. The Congress already faces enormous challenges in stretching our ever shrinking financial resources--and they are ever shrinking. The Congress will have to appropriate the 13 annual appropriations bills this year with less than adequate resources to finance our infrastructure needs. I am opposed to the further erosion and draining of the limited resources that are available. I did not vote for the tax cut. I vigorously opposed it. And my wife and I are returning our check. And as resources shrink, we run the risk of resentment, increasing resentment between those who are coming and those who are here, and those are forces that we do not want to unleash. We cannot be so generous that we strain our own resources to the breaking point. And if we allow illegal Mexicans to come here, and to stay, what about illegal immigrants from elsewhere? How can we be fair to them if we do not treat them all alike? We cannot be so generous that we strain our own resources to the breaking point. It is time for us to think of the people of America, and their children and their grandchildren. We need a national debate. We do not need something that can be rushed through on the consent calendar. We need a national debate on our immigration policies. The people out there must seriously ask the politicians, what are the answers to these questions that are being asked? They are legitimate questions. What are the answers? We must seriously ask ourselves just how many more people our country will be able to accommodate. This is not something, Madam President, that should be rushed through Congress in 4 months or in 4 years, without adequate debate. These are questions that should be thoroughly aired. Whatever proposal the President sends to Congress, it should be debated at length in the Senate. The American people must know what costs they are being asked to absorb. They must know what sacrifices they are being asked to make. And legal immigrants should be asking the same questions. What are the sacrifices they are supposed to make on behalf of illegal immigrants? Those immigrants who have waited patiently, knocking at the door, how do they feel about it? America is a nation of immigrants. Our golden door should always be open to those who seek refuge from oppression--``those huddled masses yearning to breathe free.'' But we must not turn America's promise into a hollow shell. It is well to remember that illegal immigrants don't just break the law when they come here. They undermine the earning power of America's workforce by reducing wages for the U.S. workforce who do not have high school diplomas. Madam President, in 1939, John Steinbeck's epic novel, the ``Grapes of Wrath,'' was published. Its protagonists, the Joad family, traveled from the Midwest to California, not to make their fortunes but merely to survive as migrant workers. Through labor camps, hobo jungles, and ruined farms westward to California, they faced a peculiar kind of torment--the torment and isolation of hardship and poverty amid plenty. Let us proceed with caution--I say this to my political colleagues in this body, in the other body, and in the executive branch, and in the State legislatures, in the counties, in the towns and communities, cities across this Nation--let us proceed with caution, lest we turn America's sweet promise of a cornucopia to bitter grapes of wrath for us all, including our legal immigrants. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his tenacity, his determination, and his desire to pass all nine of the appropriations bills which have been reported from the Appropriations Committee before the August recess. Our committee, Democrats and Republicans, have worked together to report these bills. It is a committee sui generis, one of a kind. The Democrats and the Republicans on that committee work together. There is no hemming and hawing. We work until we get the work done. The leader said he wanted those bills out of the committee. They are out of the committee. They are on the calendar. He wanted to act on them in the Senate before the August break. The Senate appointed conferees on at least three of the appropriations bills. I see three on the calendar. Three bills in conference, three appropriations bills with the Senate conferees appointed but there are no House conferees appointed, which concerns me. I hope when we return from the August recess the other body will appoint its conferees, and we can join with our House counterparts on these conference reports and report them back to the Senate at good speed. I have been in consultation with the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and with the subcommittee chairman on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, and others. They assure me they will move rapidly when we do return, but in the meantime our staffs can be doing some of the preliminary work which will make it much easier for our conferees to do their work speedily upon our return. I thank the majority leader.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield?

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, the Commerce Department reported last week, July 27, that the U.S. economy grew at an anemic 0.7 percent rate in the second quarter of this year, April 1-June 30. This is the slowest growth rate in 8 years, and considerably lower than the 8.3 percent growth rate seen just 18 months ago. ``If you applied logic to the [economic] news these days,'' wrote Allan Sloan in the Washington Post on Tuesday, July 31, ``the logical conclusion would be that the economy has fallen off a cliff and is about to splatter all over the canyon floor and take us with it.'' This week, July 30, the Wall Street Journal reported, ``the economy has been pushed to the edge of a recession by a breathtaking decline in business investment.'' In the second quarter, nonresidential investment tumbled at a 13.6 percent rate. Consumer spending, along with robust state and local government spending, is the only thing that prevented the economy from shrinking over the last three months. In an effort to stem the tide, the Federal Reserve has dramatically cut short-term interest rates by almost 3 percentage points over the last 7 months. These are the most aggressive rate reductions since the 1982 recession under President Reagan. Despite this negative economic news, the Administration remains resolutely optimistic about the economy's future, pinning their hopes on the recently enacted tax cut. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said last week, July 23, that the U.S. economy might grow by more than 3 percent next year. The President's chief economic advisor, Larry Lindsey, in a speech before the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, reaffirmed this optimistic outlook. What concerns me is the effect that these tax cuts have had on the economy so far. Despite the Fed's efforts to cut short-term interest rates to simulate the sluggish economy, long-term interest rates have remained flat or have even risen since earlier this year. The interest rate on the 10-year bond, for example, increased from 4.75 percent in mid-March to just over 5.1 percent today, August 3. Long-term rates have limited efforts by the Fed to stimulate the economy. What's keeping those rates from falling is the expectation by Wall Street that the recently enacted tax cut has seriously jeopardized our debt retirement efforts. Fed Chairman Greenspan said last week, July 24, before the Senate Banking Committee that long-term rates are higher than expected because of Wall Street's uncertainty about the size of the surpluses and how much debt the federal government will be able to retire. Just 4 months ago, the President sent his budget to Congress and projected a $125 billion non-Social Security surplus in the current fiscal year. Today, that surplus may have virtually disappeared. Now you see it. Now you don't see it. It did a Houdini on us. It virtually disappeared. The Treasury Department this week, July 30, announced its debt retirement plans for the next 3 months. Instead of retiring $57 billion in debt, as the Treasury had expected on April 30 before the tax cut was passed, the Treasury now plans to borrow $51 billion. That's a difference of $108 billion. In part, this quarter's borrowing results from a bookkeeping gimmick in the tax cut bill and will be paid back next quarter. But, the fact remains that interest rates are higher than necessary because of Wall Street's perception that our debt retirement efforts have been threatened in recent months. If the Federal Government fails to meet Wall Street's expectation about debt retirement, and if surpluses do repeatedly come in below forecasts, investors will continue to drive up long-term interest rates, offsetting the limited stimulus that the tax cuts were supposed to provide, and further stifling economic growth. Madam President, in his ``Report on the Public Credit'' to the House of Representatives in January 1790, Alexander Hamilton--our Nation's first Secretary of the Treasury and arguably our Nation's most gifted Secretary of the Treasury--wrote that ``states, like individuals, who observe their engagements are respected and trusted, while the reverse is the fate of those who pursue an opposite conduct.'' When the administration makes false promises about a budget that can adequately provide for the operations of Government and allow for a massive tax cut without disrupting debt retirement efforts, and then does not deliver on those promises, that administration breaks faith with the American people and undermines trust in their government. That is the message that the financial markets are sending to the American people. Fiscal responsibility is slipping. After 10 years of belt tightening and two deficit reduction packages--OBRA of 1990 and OBRA of 1993--signed into law by Republican and Democratic Presidents, this administration's reliance on 10-year projections and its dogged determination to force a massive tax cut through the Congress has put this country in danger of falling back into the deficit dungeon. Will we never learn? The Senate Budget Committee--based on the administration's own informal estimates--projects that $17 billion in Medicare surpluses will be used in fiscal year 2001 to offset the loss of revenues from the tax cut recently enacted into law. What is worse is that, in fiscal year 2002, the Budget Committee estimates that the entire Medicare surplus and $4 billion of the Social Security surplus will have to be used to offset the loss in revenues from the tax cut. Meanwhile, this administration is trying to divert attention from its own complicity--divert attention from its own complicity, you see--in creating our current budgetary morass. Despite a tax cut that cost $74 billion in the current fiscal year, White House officials have routinely said that--aha--``the real threat''--they say down there at the other end of the avenue--``the real threat''--this is the White House now; the White House is talking--``the real threat to the surpluses comes from spending (Fliescher, July 9).'' Well, Madam President, I just have to ask, whose spending? Whose spending? The President, himself, requested the only appropriations spending bill that this Congress has passed for the current fiscal year. The Congress passed the supplemental appropriations bill at exactly the same level--exactly the same level--that was requested by the President--not one thin dime more did the Congress appropriate; not one thin dime more than the President requested. So whose spending? The only other spending that has occurred so far is the spending caused by this year's colossal tax cut. Remember, tax cuts spend money--your money--from the U.S. Treasury just like appropriation bills. Well, I already have the notice for my check. Here it is: ``Notice of status and amount of immediate tax relief.'' Here is what it says: ``Dear taxpayer: We are pleased to inform you that the U.S. Congress passed, and President George W. Bush signed into law, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. As part of the immediate tax relief, you''--me; ``you'' it says--``will be receiving a check in the amount of $600 during the week of September 10, 2001.'' That is spending. That says the Treasury is going to send me and my wife of 64 years $600. That is spending. Tax cuts have spent that surplus that we were talking about a few months back, and we have smashed the piggy bank to the tune of $74 billion in just 1 year. That is just $74 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. Moreover, it costs an additional $116 million just to mail out the checks. Here is part of it. Here is part of the $600 million it cost to process and mail out the checks, and to tell taxpayers like Robert Byrd that he is going to get $600. Half of it will be his and half will be his wife's. Now, as the fiscal outlook worsens, there are some who are running for cover or spinning the old blame game wheel as fast as it will go. In fact, I have noted media reports that some Senators are considering raising the old specter of a constitutional amendment--aha, they are going to amend this Constitution now, they say, the Constitution which I hold in my hand--the old specter of a constitutional amendment that would require a balanced budget. Talk about gimmicks. That one is the mother of all gimmicks. Now because of this flashy tax cut--because of this flashy tax cut--and a sluggish economy, we are poised to spend the Medicare surpluses, disrupt our debt retirement efforts, and dive right back into the deficit doldrums. The present course threatens to push the economy and the American people off a cliff into that old familiar sea of red ink. Look out below. The Congress had the opportunity earlier this year to pass a responsible budget--to exercise some restraint, to show some caution-- before pressing ahead with a budget based on half-baked economic projections and political promises that were made first in the New Hampshire snows of a campaign year--last year, the year 2000. We could have afforded a smaller tax cut, we could have lived within our means while protecting Social Security and Medicare. That is your money. Madam President, in spite of the hand that was dealt to us, this Senate is trying to craft 13 responsible appropriations bills. The Senate Appropriations Committee, on which I have sat now for 44 years, has successfully reported out 9 of the 13 appropriations bills-- Agriculture, Commerce-Justice-State, energy and water, foreign operations, Interior, legislative branch, Transportation, Treasury- General Government, and VA-HUD--and stayed within our 302(b) allocations. There you are. We have stayed within our 302(b) allocation. In other words, we have not bust the budget. So don't blame it on us. These are balanced and responsible bills. We have done our best. Unfortunately, the full Senate has not been able to act as quickly. To date, the President has not signed one--not one--of the 13 regular appropriations bills for the coming fiscal year into law--not one. The full Senate has passed only five appropriations bills so far, energy and water, Interior, legislative branch, Transportation, and VA- HUD--five of the nine that the Senate Appropriations Committee has reported out. That means that when the Congress returns from its summer recess, the Senate will have to pass eight appropriations bills and all thirteen conference reports before the fiscal year ends on September 30. Earlier this year I was optimistic about the appropriations and budget process. Our new President was preaching bipartisanship. We were being told that there would be a new spirit, a new spirit in Washington, a new tone, a new era, a new era of cooperation between Democrats and Republicans working together to address our nation's challenges. What a pretty picture! Aha. When the President missed the deadline for submitting his budget to Congress, we gave him the benefit of the doubt. We knew it takes a new administration time to get up and running. We all know that. The details of that budget were not sent to the Congress before Congress took up the budget resolution, although this Senator and others asked for those details repeatedly. Yet, Congress passed the President's plan. Cooperation ruled. When the President delayed sending us his Defense budget amendment until after his tax cut bill had been passed, Congress again gave him the benefit of the doubt. Congress was doing its part to encourage the new spirit, the new tone in Washington. A review of our national defense needs was underway, and it seemed logical that the administration would need time to complete that review before requesting additional defense funds. When Congress learned that the administration's Office of Management and Budget would miss the July 15 statutory deadline for submitting its mid-session review to Congress, not much grumbling was heard in these quarters. It is not unprecedented for an administration to miss these budgetary deadlines, but it is also well to remember that these are statutory deadlines, not recommendations that the administration may choose to meet whenever it is convenient. Now in the final days before the August recess, I have detected a distinct slowdown in the appropriations process. With only 17 legislative days left before the start of the new fiscal year, we still have to pass eight appropriations bills, and we have not conferenced one single bill with the House. It is becoming clear that Congress is very likely to blow right by the September 30 deadline for passing 13 appropriations bills. I do not want to see the budgetary train wreck that we have sometimes witnessed in recent years. Senator Ted Stevens and I, and the other members of the Appropriations Committee--Republicans and Democrats--have been working diligently to avoid just such an outcome. However, unless we change track soon, this train is heading straight for a thirteen car pile-up once again. I can see the sign. Just read it with me: ``Danger, stop, look, listen: Omnibus Bill Ahead!'' If that happens, much of the fiscal restraint that this Congress has mustered is likely to be jettisoned. No matter how carefully Congress tries to craft disciplined, balanced spending bills, when it comes to the final hours before the end of the fiscal year, the pressure to bundle these spending bills has a way of melting all fiscal restraint. Both the Senate and the House need to redouble our efforts to pass these appropriations bills, get them to conference and send them to the White House before September 30. Let us work diligently instead of playing the blame game and letting the chips fall where they may. I hope the American people will not be misled by the fancy rhetoric that will certainly fill the political balloons over the coming weeks. You are going to heat lots of it. The tax cut and spending plan that were passed earlier this year were sheer madness. The political balloons may fill the air--even though we are past the fourth of July, the balloons are going up--but they cannot obscure the clear, plain fact of what has happened here. It is not traditional Congressional spending which has cut the surplus, headed us back towards deficits, and threatened our efforts to pay back the debt. Rather, a Republican-led Congress, at the prodding of the administration, took a gamble and played the odds that the shortfalls of a fiscally irresponsible tax cut could be held off for several years. Maybe we would be lucky. Maybe the gamble would work. But the chickens are coming home to roost much sooner, and lady luck seems to have taken a hike. In 1981, then-Senate Republican leader Howard Baker called the Reagan tax-cut plan a ``river boat gamble.'' The country lost on that bet. Two decades later, we are only just beginning to recoup our losses. President Bush took another spin at the roulette wheel and he has wagered our economic prosperity and retirement security that our budget will land in the black. It seems like nothing ever changes in this city. I have been here 49 years. Some things do change. The Senate will soon recess for the month of August, and, before we leave, it is important that the American people understand that the wheel was rigged. The earnest claims of bipartisan cooperation have vaporized like the smoke at the poker table. In this tax cut casino, the budget can only land on red. But, some of us knew that before we ever got into the game. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the distinguished Senate leaders have called attention to the fact this is the last day on which Republican Secretary Elizabeth Letchworth will work with us in this Chamber. Thus ends the extraordinary career of an extraordinary Senate staff person. Elizabeth originally came to the Senate as a page. She stayed for 26 years. That is almost as long as Robinson Crusoe was on that island. He was on that island 28 years, 2 months and 19 days, so Elizabeth has almost equaled that. Her diligent, dedicated work, and her loyalty to the Senate led to her eventual rise to Republican Secretary, the first woman, the only woman, to serve in that capacity. Ms. Letchworth has worked for or with six different Senate majority leaders, including myself. Therefore, I am speaking from personal experience when I say she made life and work easier and more enjoyable for all of us. Through the years, I came not only to respect Elizabeth's work, but also to admire her as a person. She always provided an oasis of calm in the middle of the many storms that brewed about her on the Senate floor. She was friendly and courteous. She worked on the Republican side, but she was always straightforward with me, always accurate. Not once did she ever mislead me, but she always was willing to be so helpful. Hers were the qualities so important to Members on both sides of the aisle because those qualities engender that precious commodity, and it is a most precious commodity in this Chamber, a most precious commodity if the Senate is to work its will. It is a commodity called trust. The Members on the Democratic side of the aisle developed such a high regard for Elizabeth that when we learned she was leaving, the Democratic Conference passed a resolution commending her for her extraordinary work and her illustrious career. Elizabeth's work here in the Senate will be remembered. I hope she will come back and see us. She has served the Senate well and in serving the Senate well, she served her country well. I wish the best for Elizabeth Letchworth and her husband Ron as they embark upon a new phase in their lives. I doubt that our paths will ever cross in that new phase because I do not play golf. I do not have much time for it, but I hope this new phase in her life will be enjoyable. I trust she will remember us as fondly as we will certainly remember her. Life's Mirror There are loyal hearts, there are spirits brave, There are souls that are pure and true, Then give to the world the best you have, And the best will come back to you. Give love, and love to your life will flow, A strength in your utmost need, Have faith, and a score of hearts will show Their faith in your word and deed. Give truth, and your gift will be paid in kind; And honor will honor meet: And a smile that is sweet will surely find A smile that is just as sweet. Give pity and sorrow to those who mourn, You will gather in flowers again The scattered seeds from your thought out-borne, Though the sowing seemed but vain. For life is the mirror of king and slave, Tis just what we are and do; Then give to the world the best you have, And the best will come back to you.--Madeline Bridges. May God always bless you, Elizabeth.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, what is the time limit for Senators to speak?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak using whatever time is necessary.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, last week, 178 countries reached an agreement in Bonn, Germany, on implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. While this agreement does not settle all the details of how a ratified protocol might work, nearly all the signatories to that treaty hailed last week's agreement as a step forward in the worldwide response to global climate change. I am disappointed, however, that the United States remained on the sidelines of this latest round of negotiations. I urged the Bush administration not to abandon the negotiation process. I think that we have seen, in last week's agreement, proof that the rest of the world will not sit idly by and wait for the United States. Perhaps this is a good lesson for the administration to learn. America must make an effort, in concert with both industrialized and developing countries, to address the real and serious problem of global climate change. While I believe that the United States must remain engaged in multilateral talks to address the ever-increasing amounts of greenhouse gases that are emitted into our atmosphere, this does not mean that we should simply sign up to any agreement that may come down the road. The Senate has been very clear on the conditions under which a treaty on climate change may be ratified. Developing countries must also be included in a binding framework to limit their future emissions of greenhouse gases. It makes no difference if a greenhouse gas is released from a factory in the United States or a factory in China; the global effect is the same. Quizzically, the Kyoto Protocol, as now written, does make such distinctions. It ignores scientific knowledge about the global nature of the problem. The question of developing country participation was not addressed at the conference in Bonn. Without the United States' full engagement in the talks, there is no other country that can raise this issue and stand a chance of success. This is not meant to disparage the herculean efforts of some of our closest allies to improve the technical aspects of last week's agreement. Some of our allies made substantial contributions to the agreement on technical issues such as allowing the use of forests to absorb carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas, and attempting to improve the compliance mechanisms of the treaty. Those allies should be applauded for their efforts to craft an agreement that does not preclude the United States from participating in future talks, but even our allies would agree that the United States must return to the table. Despite the shortcomings in the agreement reached at Bonn, I see a window of opportunity for the United States to rejoin the multilateral talks on the Kyoto Protocol. It is a small window, and it is closing, but it is a window nonetheless. In October 2001, the next round of negotiations on climate change will begin in Marrakesh, Morocco. If the administration were to formulate a new, comprehensive, multilateral plan to address climate change before that conference, I believe there would be several factors working in our favor. The world agrees that any treaty on climate change will be of limited use unless the United States is a full participant, because we are, for now, the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. Developing countries know that we will be the source of much of the new technology that will allow them to use cleaner, more efficient forms of energy. The United States also has much to gain by working with other countries to secure ``emission credits'' that will help us to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions in a manner that lessens the impact on our economy. Other countries recognize these facts, and many may be willing to hear a bold, new proposal from the United States that may facilitate our return to an improved version of the Kyoto Protocol. Make no doubt about it, if the United States does return to negotiating on the Kyoto Protocol, progress will not come easy. But in some respects, our role as an international leader is at stake. In Bonn, by remaining on the sidelines during the negotiation, the United States ceded its leadership because of a hasty declaration that the Protocol was, in the words of the President, ``fatally flawed.'' I continue to urge President Bush to demonstrate the indispensability of our leadership in the world by rejoining the negotiations on global climate change, and directing those negotiations toward a solution that encourages developing country participation and protects the health of our economy. I note that my colleagues on the Committee on Foreign Relations also recognize the importance of remaining engaged in these discussions. On Wednesday, that committee accepted, by a unanimous vote, an amendment to the State Department authorization bill that expounds upon the Senate's position on climate change. Sponsored by Senator Kerry, this amendment expresses the sense of the Congress that the United States must address climate change both domestically and internationally, and supports the objective of our participation in a revised Kyoto Protocol or other, future binding climate change agreement, that includes developing country participation and protects our economy. It is a wise and well-crafted statement, which I support fully. Formulating an international response to climate change is an ambitious goal. It is a challenge to which the United States must rise. I hope that when Congress returns to session in September, the President will have made the decision that our country must be a full participant in international talks on the Kyoto Protocol, and that he will have made progress in developing specific proposals to improve a multilateral treaty on climate change. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as the Senate prepares to adjourn until September, I thank the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee who have worked so hard to report nine bills from committee for the fiscal year that begins on October 1. In particular, I thank my distinguished colleague, the ranking member on the full committee, Ted Stevens and the chairmen and ranking members for the five bills that have passed the Senate. The five chairmen and ranking members include Senator Barbara Mikulski and Senator Kit Bond on the VA/HUD and Independent Agencies bill, Senator Harry Reid and Senator Pete Domenici on the Energy and Water bill, Senator Patty Murray and Senator Richard Shelby on the Transportation bill, Senator Richard Durbin and Senator Robert Bennett on the Legislative Branch bill and Senator Conrad Burns on the Interior bill. We have a longstanding tradition on the Appropriations Committee of working together on a bipartisan basis to produce the thirteen appropriations bills. This year, we established a goal of reporting nine bipartisan and fiscally responsible bills prior to the August recess. We have met this challenge. I thank my good friend Ted Stevens for his leadership in helping us meet this goal. Based on that tradition of bipartisanship, the transition in party leadership on the Appropriations Committee was seamless. The hard work of the committee to produce 13 bills preceded the transition and continued after I assumed the chairmanship and the committee was reorganized on July 10, 2001. This is a credit to all of our colleagues and our dedicated staff who have labored unceasingly to bring these bills to the Senate. Producing the fiscal year 2002 appropriations bills has been a particular challenge this year. With the election of a new President, the President's budget was sent to the Congress on April 9, 2001, 2 months later than in a normal year. When we received the President's budget, it included a number of proposed reductions in discretionary programs. We have scrutinized the budget and where appropriate we accepted the proposed cuts, but in other cases we had to restore cuts in programs that have broad bipartisan support in the Senate. Restoring these cuts, while funding programs that are important to all Americans, has been very difficult, given the very tight limits on discretionary spending contained in the budget resolution. I did not vote for that budget resolution, but we have worked together on a bipartisan basis to produce bills that are within their 302(b) allocations. We do not have unlimited resources at our disposal, so we have been forced to make difficult decisions. Nevertheless, we believe the bills that the committee brought to the Senate have been fair, balanced, and served the needs of the American people. We have held the line while making sure that we kept our promise to our Nation's veterans, we have helped the poor move to a better life by rebuilding neighborhoods, we have protected the environment and invested in science and technology and we have funded disaster relief programs in response to floods and other natural disasters to provide assistance to our citizens in their time of need. We have funded our Nation's transportation systems to promote safe travel on our roads, in the air and on our waterways. We have invested in our Nation's energy independence and funded our natural resource programs. We have invested in our Nation's infrastructure for bridges and dams and navigation projects. I thank the many Senators who have dedicated themselves to this task and I look forward to working to send thirteen bipartisan and fiscally responsible appropriations bills to the President. I have spoken with the House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young and the Ranking Member David Obey and urged them to move quickly to conference on the appropriations bills. I had pressed the House to complete conference action on two of the bills before the August recess, but the House did not name their conferees. However, our staffs will be working during August to resolve differences between the House and Senate bills so that we can go to conference on several of these bills when Congress returns in September. I am committed to producing 13 bills this year. We should not go down the road employed in recent years of producing omnibus appropriations bills that rob Members of the opportunity to read, let alone understand the contents of the bill. We intend to work together on a bipartisan basis to meet the challenges that lay before us.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I congratulate the Senator from Montana on his longtime leadership in the trade field and for his services on the Finance Committee which has jurisdiction in very great measure over this subject matter. I thank him for his leadership. I thank him for sponsoring the legislation that he has just discussed and for allowing me to be a cosponsor with him. I value his leadership in this area. I have been long concerned about the U.S. trade policy. It extends over these 49 years in which I have been a Member of the Congress. I am for free trade, and I am for fair trade. I have in recent years voted against the North American Free Trade Agreement. I voted against the GATT/WTO agreements. I voted against the permanent normal trading relations with China. It is my belief that American interests, particularly the interests of American workers, have not been properly represented in these developments. I believe that Congress has allowed itself to take a backseat to the intent of Presidents on making international trade negotiations an executive-to-executive preserve. Congress should vigorously defend the authority it has been granted under the Constitution, whether the issue is a legislative enactment that strips away the authority of Congress to debate and, if necessary, to amend trade agreements or a constitutional amendment that--in the name of balanced budgets--strips away our power over the purse. The balanced budget amendment is an issue for another occasion. The need for Congress to restore its role with respect to foreign trade, however, is something that Senator Baucus and I wish to highlight. We note that article I, section 8, of the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive authority to ``regulate commerce with foreign nations.'' Congress, not the President, has this authority and responsibility. Unfortunately, over the past few decades, Congress has been less than zealous in safeguarding its prerogatives with respect to foreign trade. The result is that the American people have less input into our trade agreements than they should have. Is there any doubt that the process is less democratic than was intended by the Framers of the Constitution? U.S. trade negotiators need our input at each and every stage of the process. Enhanced congressional participation will help them in their efforts to reinforce the framework of fair trade. It will give the results of trade negotiations greater legitimacy and increase public understanding of the costs and benefits of globalization. The Constitution demands that we make this effort, and the people we represent expect us to make that effort. Madam President, now is the time for the House and the Senate to create a Congressional Trade Office modeled after the Congressional Budget Office. Regardless of how each of us may feel about the great trade issues of the day, we should be able to agree that Congress needs better access to information about trade negotiations and the impact of trade agreements on the U.S. economy. It is indisputable that we live in an increasingly interdependent world, and it is our duty under the Constitution to make sure that American interests are properly reflected as the architecture of that world is established. Senator Baucus and I agree on the urgency of this task. Our legislation would establish a nonpartisan Congressional Trade Office the purposes of which would be to first, provide Congress with trade data and analysis; second, participate in all future trade negotiations; third, observe and evaluate international trade dispute resolution processes; and fourth, monitor compliance with major bilateral, regional, and multilateral trade agreements. The Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee cannot possibly address the full panoply of issues that arise in this day and age in connection with trade legislation. Consequently, trade bills can be--and are--referred to multiple committees in both Houses of Congress. Our bill recognizes this trend and provides that the resources of the Congressional Trade Office will be available to all House and Senate committees of relevant jurisdiction. I join with Senator Baucus in urging our colleagues to seize this opportunity to move toward the restoration of our constitutional role in trade policy. Let us resolve to put ourselves, the Congress, back in the center of the great game of formulating and implementing mutually beneficial international trade agreements. Madam President, I thank my colleague, Mr. Baucus, again, for his leadership, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the motion to waive the Budget Act with regard to the Wellstone amendment to provide additional resources for veterans health care. We all recognize that the limits on discretionary spending contained in the budget resolution are totally inadequate. However, the Senate Appropriations Committee is doing its best to produce responsible bills that meet the needs of the American people. Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond have done an excellent job in bringing the VA/HUD bill to the floor. The pending bill provides $21,379,742,000 for Veterans Health Care, an increase of $1.1 billion or nearly 6 percent over fiscal year 2001 and $400 million over the President's request. Given the tight spending limits in the budget resolution, this is a responsible level of funding. I voted against the budget resolution because it provided for an irresponsible tax cut and inadequate discretionary spending limits; but now is not the time to break the budget. This bill meets the needs of America's veterans. I urge Senators to oppose the motion to waive the Budget Act.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today, I thank the Senator from Colorado for proposing his amendment on the issue of cockfighting. He is a veterinarian and speaks with special credibility on the topic of the humane treatment of animals, given his academic training and professional experience in service to animals and their well-being. I understand that the distinguished Senator from Colorado has retained his veterinary credentials and license in Colorado, continuing to practice on occasion and giving periodic check-ups to some of the dogs who are the companions of U.S. Senators. I am also so pleased to note that one of our newest Senators, the distinguished junior Senator from Nevada, is a veterinarian. This may be the first time that two veterinarians have served in the Senate. About 2 weeks ago, I took to the floor of the Senate and spoke about disturbing trends in our culture with respect to the inhumane treatment of animals. I decried wanton, barbaric acts of animal cruelty, spending some time recounting the awful circumstances of the small dog, a Bichon frise named Leo, who was yanked from a car after a minor traffic accident and thrown into oncoming highway traffic, in an act of terror directed at both the dog and his horrified and traumatized owner. The innocent creature met a brutal and painful death as a consequence of this hate-filled act. In this case, I am happy to report that some measure of justice prevailed in the end. The man who perpetrated this appalling and indefensible act of animal cruelty was apprehended, tried before a California court, convicted of animal cruelty, and sentenced to the maximum penalty allowed under California's anti-cruelty code--3 years in prison. It is interesting to note that this same man was convicted earlier this week of stealing a vehicle--indicating once again to me that there is a link between acts of animal cruelty and other types of criminal conduct. Two weeks ago, I also spoke about the transformation in American agriculture. In all too many cases, we have moved away from small farms, where animals are treated with dignity and respect, to large corporate farms where animals are treated as nothing more than unfeeling commodities. Pregnant pigs confined in two-foot-wide gestation crates for years at a time; egg-laying hens crammed into battery cages and also deliberately starved in order to induce a molt so that they will produce bigger eggs; young male calves jammed into two-foot-wide crates to produce veal, which is tender because the animals are so completely immobilized in the crate that they cannot move and, as a consequence, their muscles don't develop. I also spoke of the abuse of cattle and pigs in slaughter lines, in which animals are disassembled before they are killed. I don't think that there is a person among us who can countenance these acts of cruelty--whether they are random acts of violence against animals or institutionalized agriculture practices. It is one thing to determine as a culture that it is acceptable to raise and rear and then eat animals. It is another thing to cause them to lead a miserable life of torment, and then to slaughter them in a crude and callous manner. As a civilized society, we owe it to animals to treat them with compassion and humaneness. Animals suffer and they feel. Because we are moral agents, and compassionate people, we must do better. In our society, there are surely some activities or circumstances which cause us to weigh or balance human and animal interests. In terms of food production, most people choose to eat meat but insist that the animals are humanely treated. That is a choice we make in our culture, and it is grounded on the notion that we must eat in order to survive. Breeding animals just for the pleasure of watching them kill one another cannot be justified in a society that accepts the principle that animal cruelty is wrong. It brings to mind the days of the Colosseum, where the Romans fought people against animals or animal against animal in gladiatorial spectacles, and the people in attendance reveled in the orgy of bloodletting. Yet, even then, in an age known for its callous disregard for animals, there were pangs of remorse and even revulsion. The great orator Cicero, after a day at the Colosseum during which gladiators spilled the blood and eventually killed more than a dozen elephants, recalled that the crowd was moved to tears by the sheer cruelty exhibited. In the same way, our country is turning against spectacles involving the injuring and killing of animals for the amusement of spectators. Placing dogs in a pit, instigating them, and watching them fight to injury or death for our amusement is wrong. If dogfighting is wrong, then surely cockfighting is wrong, too. These hapless birds are bred to be aggressive, pumped full of stimulants, equipped with razor-sharp knives or ice-pick-like spurs on their legs, and placed in an enclosed pit, which bars their retreat or escape. They fight to the death, hacking one another to death--with punctured lungs, gouged eyes, and pierced eyes the inevitable consequence of the combat. Mr. President, today, I speak in support of the amendment from the Senator from Colorado, a veterinarian and a humane-minded person. Pitting animals against one another and causing them to fight just so that we can witness the bloodletting presents a clear moral choice for us. There can be no confusion on this issue. As decent people, we must act to stop it. The law must bar this activity, and impose penalties upon those who would flout this humane standard. I thank the Senator from Colorado and offer my support of his amendment. I yield the floor.