Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order.

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

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Speaking of the old days, I sat in that presiding chair up there on one occasion 22 hours. I sat there 22 hours, through a night of debate on civil rights legislation, when I first came here. It fell to my lot to have that as a chore, as it falls to the lot of newer Senators. I sat there 22 hours. I can remember the civil rights debate of 1964. I hope my memory is not playing tricks on me. One hundred sixteen days elapsed between the day that Mr. Mansfield motioned up that bill and the day that we cast the final vote on that bill, 116 days. We were on the motion to proceed for 2 weeks. I believe the Senate spent 58 days, including 6 Saturdays and, it seems to me, 1 Sunday--the Parliamentarian will remember this-- but 6 Saturdays, get me now, in debating the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I voted against the act. I was the only Northern Democrat who voted against it. I was the only northern Democrat who voted against cloture. And the only other Democrats who voted against cloture were Alan Bible of Nevada--and I am talking about Senators outside the South--and perhaps Senator Hayden of Arizona. We spent six Saturdays. We didn't go home on Saturdays. We stayed here and we voted. I forget how many rollcall votes we cast. Even following the cloture, we were on that bill, I believe, 10 days or so, on the bill even after cloture was invoked but we stayed here and did the work. Had Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader, not voted for cloture and led some of the Senators on the other side to vote for cloture, had that Republican leader not worked with Mr. Mansfield and Hubert Humphrey in those days to pass an important act, that act would not have passed. Cloture would never have been invoked on that act, if Everett Dirksen, the leader on the other side, and some of the Senators who went with him, had they not decided to vote for cloture and vote for the bill. That was teamwork. That was cooperation. That was stick-to-it-iveness. That was the Senate at its best. I spoke against that bill. I spoke 14 hours 13 minutes against that bill. If I had it to do over again, I would vote for it. But I was just out of law school. I thought I knew a lot about constitutional law. And there were some great constitutional lawyers here then. Sam Ervin was here, Lister Hill, John Sparkman, Richard Russell, Russell Long; these were men who had been in this chamber for a long time. They didn't come to the Senate in order to use it as a stepping stone in a lateral move to the Presidency. They came here to be Senators. But the Senate argued. It debated. It amended. It took whatever time was necessary, and the Senate spoke its will. That is what we don't have these days. We don't have that these days. I thank the Senator for the service he is performing.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. The Senator--my distinguished friend from Idaho--misses the point. There may be CRs this year. There have been CRs before.

Mr. BYRD. They were in the CR and therefore subject to amendment.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. May I comment? The Senator is only telling half the story.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, last week the Senate unanimously approved for ratification the International Labor Organization Convention 176 on mine safety and health. I thank the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, for his committee's efforts in expeditiously approving this convention. I also thank the mining state senators from New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Montana, Kentucky, Nevada, Idaho, and my own West Virginia, who joined me in championing this convention. Coal mining has long been recognized as one of the most dangerous occupations in the world. In the United States, the frequency and magnitude of coal mining disasters and intolerable working conditions in the 19th century created a public furor for mine health and safety laws. The Pennsylvania legislature was the first to pass significant mine safety legislation in 1870, which was later followed by the first federal mine safety law that was passed by Congress in 1891. Over the years, these state and federal laws were combined into what are today the most comprehensive mine safety and health standards in the world. Since the beginning of the 20th century, mine-related deaths have decreased from 3,242 deaths in 1907, the highest mining fatality rate ever recorded in the United States, to 80 deaths in 1998, the lowest mining fatality rate ever recorded in the United States. These numbers stand in stark contrast to the recorded fatalities in other parts of the world. In China, for example, the government recently reported 2,730 mining fatalities in the first six months of this year. That is more than thirty times the number of fatalities recorded in the United States for all of 1999. And, this number does not even include metal and nonmetal mining fatalities in China. Many countries in the world have national laws specific to mine safety and health. Yet, in most of these countries, the laws are often times inadequate. In many South American and Asian countries, national laws have not kept pace with the introduction of new mining equipment, such as long-wall mining machines and large surface mining equipment, which create new hazards for miners. Similarly, many of these countries do not require employers to inform miners of workplace hazards or allow for workers to refuse work because of dangerous conditions without fear of penalties. What is worse is that even if these countries do have adequate laws, in most cases, the inexperience and limited resources of their mine inspectors often means that egregious violations by foreign coal companies are never penalized, encouraging repeat violations. As a result, miners in developing countries are exposed to risks and hazards that claim up to 15,000 lives each year. Severe mine disasters involving large loss of life continue to occur throughout Europe, Africa and Asia. The most recent accident to gain worldwide attention occurred in Ukraine in March of this year, when 80 miners were killed after a methane gas explosion because of an improperly ventilated air shaft. The United States competes against these countries with notoriously low mine safety standards in the global energy market. However, the disparity in mine safety and health standards with which foreign and domestic coal companies must comply, places U.S. coal companies at a disadvantage by allowing foreign coal companies to export coal at a cheaper cost. This has contributed to a decrease in U.S. coal exports in the global energy market. According to the Department of Energy, U.S. coal exports to Europe and Asia have decreased from 78 million tons to 63 million tons between 1998 and 1999. The Administration projects that U.S. coal exports will continue to decrease to approximately 58 million tons by 2020. This reduction in coal exports falls on an industry that is already experiencing a steady decrease in the number of active coal mining operations and employment in the United States. Faced with strong competition from other coal exporting countries and limited growth in import demand from Europe and Asia, the United States needs to level the playing field as much as possible with its foreign competitors, and should encourage foreign governments to adopt safety and health standards similar to those in the United States. Accordingly, representatives from the National Mining Association, the United Mine Workers of America, and the Mine Safety and Health Administration helped to draft a treaty in 1995 that would establish minimum mine safety and health standards for the international community. This treaty was based on the federal mine safety and health laws in the United States. Convention 176 was adopted by the General Conference of the International Labor Organization in 1995, and would designate that a competent authority monitor and regulate safety and health in mines and require foreign coal companies to comply with national safety and health laws. It would also encourage cooperation between employers and employees to promote safety and health in mines. By encouraging other countries to ratify Convention 176, the United States can increase the competitiveness of U.S. coal prices in the global market place, while, at the same time, increasing protections for miners in all parts of the world. In addition, the United States can build a new market for itself where it can provide training and superior mine safety equipment to nations struggling to increase their mine safety standards. The United States prides itself on having the safest mines in the world, while, at the same time, remaining a competitive force in the global energy market. This convention embraces the belief that other countries would do well to follow the U.S. example. I support this convention, and applaud the Senate for its approval.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. The majority leader is very, very gracious. I appreciate that. I have a speech I want to make today. Could the majority leader enter an order that I be recognized for 25 or 30 minutes at the close of day.

Mr. BYRD. I have my tie on today. This is Constitution Week and this is the last working day for us in the Constitution Week. I do have a speech about the Constitution.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I again thank the distinguished majority leader for arranging for me to have this time.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in commemoration of the signing of the Constitution and in recognition of the importance of active, responsible citizenship in preserving the Constitution's blessings for our Nation, the Congress, by joint resolution of August 2, 1956 (36 U.S.C. 159), requested that the President proclaim the week beginning September 17 and ending September 23 of each year as ``Constitution Week.'' That has happened each year since. This week the United States celebrates one of its greatest achievements. Two-hundred and thirteen years ago, on September 17, 1787, the Founding Fathers placed their signatures on the newly created Constitution in Philadelphia's Independence Hall. Eleven years earlier, 6 of the 39 signers of the U.S. Constitution signed the Declaration of Independence in the same building in Philadelphia. Within the lifespan of a single generation, Americans had effectively declared their independence twice. In many ways, the liberation claimed from Britain in 1776 was less remarkable than the historical achievement that Americans claimed by framing the Constitution in 1787. The Constitution represented a triumph of political imagination and pragmatism by recognizing that ultimate political authority resides not in the government, or in any single government official, but rather, in the people. The Founding Fathers had used the doctrine of popular sovereignty as the rationale for their successful rebellion against English authority in 1776 when they framed the Declaration of Independence. They argued that the government's legitimacy remains dependent on the governed, who retain the inalienable right to alter or to abolish their government. The Declaration of Independence set forth their justifications for breaking with Britain, but, until September 17, 1787, they had not yet been able to work out fully how to implement principles of popular sovereignty, while, at the same time, preserving a stable government that protects the rights and liberties of all citizens. The Constitution is a mechanism for advancing the principles of the American Republic stated so eloquently in the Declaration of Independence. To paraphrase former Chief Justice Warren Burger, the Declaration is the promise, the Constitution is its fulfillment. The new republican union created in 1776 was a truly unprecedented experiment, whose future was very much in doubt. Not only were the former British colonies unsure of whether they would be successful in their war for independence, but there was also doubt that the American colonials would be able to create a stable republican government, able to protect the rights and liberties of its citizens, without backsliding into the same authoritarian rule experienced under Britain. For this reason, it is appropriate that we take this moment, 213 years later, to reflect on a document that completed an uncertain process that was begun, from a documentary standpoint, on July 4, 1776. I have spoken on several occasions about the taproots and the origins of the U.S. Constitution. Of course, the State constitutions, some of which had been in existence since early 1776, greatly influenced the framers. Many of the ideas in the State constitutions had already been tested under colonial experience, and as a matter of fact, under the British experience, and were later reborn in our national charter. The establishment of a national bicameral legislature finds its roots in at least 9 out of 13 State constitutions. Of course, the roots extended prior to that but in at least 9 of the 13 State constitutions we find the enlargement of the roots, the fleshing out of the roots, the nourishing of the roots. Lessons derived from recent political experiences were arguably as likely to influence the thinking of the founding framers as the maxims and axioms of, among others, the English philosophers John Locke, Sir William Blackstone--one of the great legal authorities of all time--John Milton--that great author of ``Paradise Lost'' and ``Paradise Regained'', Algernon Sydney, and other great works--Scottish philosopher David Hume, and French philosopher Baron de Montesquieu, all of whom were part of the intellectual Enlightenment period. Likewise, many of the institutional practices embedded in the U.S. Constitution hark back to England and its Constitution, which, although it is largely unwritten, does contain such written documents as the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, and the English Bill of Rights. Many of the amendments incorporated into the U.S. Bill of Rights can be found, almost word for word, in those political documents. But, to truly understand and appreciate the U.S. Constitution and the political movement that led to its creation, one must become familiar with the first national charter that was established by the newly independent colonies--namely, the Articles of Confederation. Many Americans have heard of the Articles of Confederation, fewer Americans probably ever read those Articles of Confederation. The operation of government under that national charter provided the most visible examples of what republicanism meant in practice. Its failure not only drove the movement for constitutional reform--when I say ``its failure,'' I mean the failure of the Articles of Confederation--not only drove the movement for constitutional reform that brought the framers to Philadelphia in 1787, but also brought experimental evidence--ah, how important was that experimental evidence--from which the framers drew in creating a greatly improved model of republican government. From its inception, the first national charter--the Articles of Confederation--had limited goals. The Articles provided for what was essentially a continuation of the Second Continental Congress by creating a unicameral legislature, where each State was represented with one vote. This body had the authority to declare war, to conduct diplomacy, to regulate Indian affairs, to coin money, and to issue currency, among other things. However, to limit the threat of a centralized authority, Congress could not levy taxes or regulate trade. The crucial power of the purse rested solely with the States, which were to contribute funds at the request of the Congress. The Articles further limited centralized power by providing the States with total enforcement authority so that the Congress could do no more than to recommend policies to the States. When it came to money, it could do no more than just request the funds from the States. The States, which then could accept or ignore these recommendations, most of the time failed to provide the funds. Many times the States would provide some of the funds but not all of the funds requested. Looking back, the inherent weaknesses of the Articles seem obvious now, but all of these limitations on the Congress were designed with the specific intention of making the State legislatures the dominant force in the Government. This may seem peculiar to us today, but, at the time, loyalty to the State Governments rather than to the Nation underlaid the mentality of post-war America. We oftentimes forget that the Articles were drafted in 1777 in the midst of the Revolutionary War. At the time, delegates were more concerned about keeping up with the demands of the Continental army, and, perhaps more importantly, avoiding capture by the British army which had occupied New York City and Philadelphia in 1777 than in drafting a national charter. In fact, it was not until 1781--4 years later--that the Articles of Confederation had been ratified by the thirteen States. With the new Nation in the midst of a military crisis, Congress assumed correctly that the States would contribute funds and men to the common defense. From the Framers' perspective--the framers of the Articles of Confederation--the greatest problem in 1777 was curbing executive power. And that is still a problem today. What had driven the colonies into rebellion was an abuse of executive power by the king, his ministers, and his agents. To ensure that the executive could never again threaten the popular liberty, national government was made subservient to the States in order to preserve the sovereignty of the States. What ultimately began to alter the American psyche can only be described as Congress' impotence in addressing incidents of unrest in the Nation. Efforts had been underway to amend the Articles even before they took effect on March 1, 1781. One week earlier, Congress had asked the States to approve an amendment authorizing it to collect a five percent tariff on imported goods. This amendment was the outgrowth of the economic condition of the country at the time. By 1781, American merchants found themselves deeply in debt after the British and French closed markets in the Caribbean to their trade, and Americans continued to import large amounts of luxury goods. At the same time, the Congress and States were printing paper money to finance their debts, which were backed only by their promise to redeem the bills with future tax receipts. By 1781, the currency had become worthless and led Americans to coin the expression, ``not worth a continental.'' The printing of paper money combined with a wartime shortage of goods led to an inflationary spiral of fewer and fewer goods costing more and more money. The goal of the amendment introduced in February 1781 was to tax imports, which would simultaneously reduce the demand for imports while forcing British and French merchants to open their Caribbean trade routes. The amendment would ultimately fail when Rhode Island refused to approve it. Congress was faring no better in foreign diplomacy. In 1784, Spain closed New Orleans and the Mississippi river to American trade, preventing settlers living to the west of the Appalachian mountains from shipping their goods to the Gulf of Mexico, and thence to other markets. This action, coupled with the abortive separatist movements in Kentucky and Tennessee, threatened to divide the American Nation into two or three separate confederacies by forcing southwestern territories to accommodate themselves to Spain. In 1785, Congress instructed Secretary of Foreign Affairs John Jay to negotiate a treaty with Spain that would allow the southwestern States to navigate the Mississippi, and thus, ensure southwestern loyalty to the American Nation. The Spanish emissary, Don Diego de Gardoqui, however, proved to be the more formidable diplomat. He convinced Jay to sign a treaty by which the United States would relinquish all rights to the Mississippi for twenty-five years in return for Spain acknowledging U.S. territorial claims in the southwest. When the treaty became public knowledge, however, southwestern territories were outraged, further dividing the Nation. Congress attempted several times in the 1780s to give Congress greater authority to regulate both foreign and interstate commerce. The amendments, however, were never unanimously approved by the States. In both of these matters of diplomacy and economics, Congress under the Articles of Confederation, found that its proposals would founder on the requirement of unanimous State ratification. This requirement led the supporters of a stronger national government to believe that such a policy could only be pursued through a limited, piecemeal approach. The desultory history of all of the amendments that Congress had fruitlessly considered since 1781 suggested that more radical approaches stood little chance. However, by 1786, it became clear that the states stood little chance of ever unanimously agreeing to amendments. With Congress losing what little influence it had, it soon became clear to a group of Virginians that any reform efforts would have to first come from the states. The most important effort toward reform therefore took place in Virginia in January 1786, when the state legislature approved a resolution calling for an interstate conference to consider vesting more power in the confederation Congress to regulate commerce. The Convention was to take place in Annapolis, Maryland, and, although only five states sent delegates to attend the Annapolis convention in September 1786, the delegates did agree to a second convention in Philadelphia ``. . . to devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies of the union.'' The potential radical thrust of this proposal suggests that the gradual strategy of reform had collapsed, and that many of those present had turned to a desperate maneuver after having exhausted all other measures. Among those present were Hamilton and Madison. Yet, up until the winter of 1786-1787, when the Shays' Rebellion took place, the Founding Fathers did not suggest that the Philadelphia convention should address anything other than the conspicuous failings of the Articles. However, events in Massachusetts in the winter of 1786-1787 cast the problems of the nation in more comprehensible terms. Shays' Rebellion began as a protest by Massachusetts farmers laboring under heavy state taxation and private debt. Led by Daniel Shays, a veteran of the Revolution, an armed mob of two thousand men marched on the federal arsenal in Springfield, Massachusetts, and closed the county courts to halt creditors from foreclosing on any more farms. The State Militia quelled the uprising, but the news of the event left the rest of the country shaken. The Massachusetts state constitution was widely considered the most balanced of the revolutionary charters. If the Massachusetts state government could not protect the property of its citizens, one of the most fundamental aims of Republican government, how could the less balanced state and national governments endure if such unrest spread? As Minister to France in 1787, Thomas Jefferson dismissed Shays' Rebellion. ``A little rebellion now and then is a good thing,'' he wrote James Madison on January 30, 1787, ``and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.'' Madison was hardly inclined to agree. As he examined the ``vices of the political system of the United States'' in the early months of 1787, he became convinced that the agenda of the upcoming convention should not be limited to the failings of the Articles. The time had come to undo the damages caused by the excesses of republicanism. But, consider for a moment the odds that were against the delegates in crafting a workable government. The record of reform was hardly encouraging. The states had taken more than three years to ratify the Articles, and in the six years since, not one amendment that Congress had proposed to the states had been approved. There was also the question of whether the Congress should endorse the Philadelphia convention. By 1787, its reputation had fallen so low that it was unclear whether its endorsement would aid or kill reform efforts. Moreover, the convention had to attract an impressive array of legal minds to lend validity to whatever document would be produced. Yet, there was little guarantee that the convention would muster such persons. Even George Washington, who among all others probably most recognized the need for the convention, was hesitant to attend for fear that his reputation would suffer if the convention should fail. He accepted the invitation reluctantly at the urging of Madison, and even then, not until the last minute. But, perhaps more importantly, the Articles never provided for such a device of amending the Confederation, which caused many in Congress to question the propriety of the convention. After all, if the conventional delegates did produce a revised document, would it be considered law if the Articles never allowed for a constitutional convention in the first place? In the face of these obstacles, any proposal put forth by the Framers would have to be more complex than that of simply shifting the powers of taxation and regulation of commerce from the state governments to a national government. Because the state governments were already entrenched, it was unlikely that the states would agree to the creation of a powerful central government at the expense of their self-governing authority. Granting the states specific self-governing powers and rights was not only politically expedient, but also served the Framers' intent to limit the central government's authority. The sharing of power between the states and the national government was one more structural check in what was to be an elaborate governmental scheme of checks and balances. The Framers further decentralized authority through a separation of powers, which distributed the business of government among three separate branches. This ensured against the creation of too strong a national government capable of overpowering the individual state governments. In a seemingly paradoxical fashion, governmental powers and responsibilities were also intentionally shared among the separate branches. Congressional authority to enact laws can be checked by an executive veto, which in turn can be overridden by a two-thirds majority vote in both houses; the President serves as commander-in- chief, but only the Congress has the authority to raise and support an army, and to declare war; the President has the power to appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, but only by and with the advice and consent of the Senate; and the Supreme Court has final authority to strike down both legislative and presidential acts as unconstitutional. This balancing of power is intended to ensure that no one branch grows too powerful and dominates the national government. What happened in Philadelphia was then truly remarkable. Committed at first to limiting executive power by making state legislatures supreme, Americans created a constitution that provided for an independent executive branch and a balanced government. Committed at first to preserving the sovereignty of states, Americans drafted a constitution that established a national government with authority that was independent of the states. So each of the two--the National Government and the State governments--was supreme in its own sphere and, yet, separate, in a sense, and overlapping. Doubtful at first that a strong national republic was possible, Americans created a strong national republic that still endures. ``The real wonder,'' James Madison wrote in Federalist Number 37, ``is that so many difficulties should have been surmounted, and surmounted with a unanimity almost as unprecedented as it must have been unexpected. It is impossible for any man of candor to reflect on this circumstance without partaking of the astonishment. It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution.'' There is a story, often told, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. ``A republic, Madame,'' he answered, ``if you can keep it.'' Characteristic of Franklin's statements, we should not allow the brevity of his response to undervalue its essential meaning: it is not enough that democratic republics are founded on the consent of the people; they are also absolutely dependent upon the active and informed involvement of the people. Yet, opinion polls show that Americans have either never read the Constitution or have forgotten most of what they learned about it in school. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are the common bonds that unite the nation because they articulate our political, moral, and spiritual values. To a degree Americans recognize the ideologies of liberty and freedom that are contained in these documents, but we should also recognize that these beliefs were shaped by the political climate in large part in which they occurred. Too often these ideals are used as catch phrases to describe the founding documents which can obscure the complex political processes that produced both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The post-Revolutionary era provides Americans with perhaps the clearest examples of why the Constitution is so vital to the stability of the country and the protection of our most basic freedoms. It is critical that we reaffirm our knowledge of these events to preserve, in Madison's own words, ``. . . that veneration which time bestows on everything, and without which perhaps the wisest and freest governments would not possess the requisite stability.'' Those words can be found in the Federalist No. 49, by James Madison. In closing, let me refer back to something I said earlier when I said that it is not enough that democratic republics are founded on the consent of the people; they are absolutely dependent upon the active and informed involvement of the people. In this regard, the American people will shortly be called upon to be involved. There is a national election coming. Elections will occur in every State. I think it is very appropriate, if I may, to state those words again. It is not enough that democratic republics are founded on the consent of the people; they are also absolutely dependent upon the active and informed involvement of the people. It is a disgrace, if we look at the record of the voter turnout in this country, the American people, it seems to me, are less and less involved when it comes to voting. Fewer and fewer of the people exercise this right--this duty. This is a foremost duty of American citizenship. Fewer people are involved. I close with this reference to history. In 1776, in September, George Washington asked for a volunteer to go behind the British lines and draw pictures and develop information with respect to the placement of the British guns, their breastworks, their fortifications, and to bring that information back to the American lines. A young man by the name of Nathan Hale responded to the call. He was a schoolteacher. He went behind the British lines. This was an exceedingly dangerous assignment. Nathan Hale achieved his purpose, but on the night before he was to return to the American lines, he was discovered by the British to be an American spy. The papers, the drawings, were upon his person. The next morning, September 22, 1776--224 years ago today--he stood before the hastily built gallows. He saw just before him the crude wooden coffin in which his body would soon be laid. He asked for a Bible. The request was denied. Whether or not the British at that point had a Bible near, we don't know. But there he stood with his hands tied behind him. The British commander, whose name was Cunningham, asked Hale if he had anything to say. His last words, which are remembered by every schoolchild in America who has had the opportunity to read American history, were these: I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country. The British commander said: ``String the rebel up''. Nathan Hale gave his one life for his country. My final question is this: If Nathan Hale was willing to give his only life--all he had--for his country, why is every American, Republican or Democrat or Independent, not willing to give his one vote for his country? I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Yes. We have a duty. We have a responsibility. Now, I have been leader. I have been the majority leader, and I have been the minority leader, and I have been the majority leader again. I know what the problems and the pressures and the travails and the tribulations are of a majority leader. And I know what the tribulations and trials of a minority leader are. So I am well acquainted with their problems. I have had them all. I have been there. My footprints are still there. It isn't the quality of our life--that the people send us here for. It is the quality of our work on behalf of the people who send us here. I had bed check votes at 10 o'clock on Monday mornings. There are people who sit at the desk in front of me and there are some few Senators still in this body who will remember that: Bed check votes at 10 o'clock on Monday mornings. But I alerted my colleagues: That is what we are going to have. And we are going to have votes on Fridays. We are not quitting at 12. Now, in return for that, we are going to work 3 weeks, and then we are going to be out 1 week. So you can go home and see your constituents and get an understanding of what their needs are. But 3 weeks we are going to be here. You are off 1 week. We are going to be here 3 weeks. And they loved it. Senators loved it. They knew I meant business. And I took the attitude: If you don't like me as leader--you voted me in-- then you can vote me out. But as long as I am leader, I am going to lead. I may not have many who will follow me, but I will do what I think is right for this institution. Well, my speech did not go over well with a few, but take a look at the record of that 100th Congress. That was a great Congress. That is the way we worked it. I understand--as I say, I like both of our leaders. I personally have great admiration for Mr. Lott and for Mr. Daschle. They have their problems. And we have to help them. But let's draw back here and think of the institution. The most important thing in the world is not for me to be reelected. That is not the most important. The most important thing is for me to do my duty to this Senate--to the Senate, to the Constitution, and to the people who send me here. And if it means I have to work early and late, so be it. I thank the distinguished Senator, and thank the Senator from New Hampshire again.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Democratic whip. I know he is willing to do just what he says. He wants to cooperate. We have to save this institution. There are Senators in this body who have never seen the institution work as it was meant to work. I will have more to say about that later. But there are Members in this institution who think that this is the way the Senate has always worked. It is not. And I am not pointing fingers at anybody. I like both leaders. But we have to do something. We just must avoid coming back after the election. That is a disservice to the Members of the other body. They have done their work on these appropriations bills and sent them over here. Now we ought to do ours. And it is a disservice to the American people.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. That is the process.

Mr. BYRD. Absolutely.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as the end of the 106th Congress is fast approaching, I am deeply dismayed about the prospects of completing action on the thirteen annual appropriations bills for Fiscal Year 2001, which begins October 1st. Unfortunately, as has happened far too often in recent years, much of the work on appropriations bills remains to be done. There is really no valid excuse for the Senate's failure to do its appropriations work. The House has done its work in a timely fashion. Yet, to date, only two of the Fiscal Year 2001 appropriations bills have been signed into law--Military Construction and Defense. Of the remaining eleven bills, four have yet to even be brought up for debate in the full Senate. Those bills are Treasury, Commerce-Justice-State, VA-HUD, and The District of Columbia. As Members are aware, the conference report on H.R. 4516, the Fiscal Year 2001 Legislative Branch Appropriations is divided--broken into two divisions. Division A contains the conference agreement for the Legislative Branch bill. Division B, which was inserted into the Legislative Branch Bill without any input by Democratic Members of either the House or Senate, contains the entire Treasury-General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001. This was done despite the fact that the Senate has never taken up the Treasury-General Government Appropriations bill at all. In addition, again without any input from the Democratic Members of the House or Senate, a tax measure to repeal the telephone excise tax was inserted in this same conference report. The measure was soundly defeated in this body yesterday, as I believe it should have been. Here we are with only nine calendar days left before the beginning of Fiscal Year 2001, and we have enacted only two of the thirteen annual appropriations bills and had them signed into law; two more were contained in the conference report on H.R. 4516, namely the Legislative Branch and Treasury-General Government bills. That leaves nine fiscal year 2001 appropriations bills remaining. Since, on yesterday, we did defeat the conference report, actually the Legislative Branch and Treasury-General Government bills have not been acted on, we have eleven bills remaining. To conform with the Constitutionally envisioned process, all four of these bills should be passed in the Senate before being taken up in conferences with the other body. To shortcut that process means that the full Senate never has an opportunity to amend these bills or debate provisions in them. Especially when it comes to bills which spend the taxpayers' money, we ought to take the time to allow debate and amendment by the full membership of this body. I hear all of this talk about tax cuts and giving the people back their hard-earned money. How does that square with the rather cavalier attitude we sometimes exhibit here when it comes to appropriations bills? Do we forget, that when it comes to appropriations bills, we are spending the people's money? Don't Members of the Senate feel an obligation to let the full Senate scrutinize, debate, and, if necessary, amend, bills that allocate those hard-earned tax dollars? No public debate by the Senate on the billions of dollars contained in these bills for programs and projects means that the public is denied critical information about the use of the public's money. In a body formulated to foster debate and to protect the rights of the minority view, it is especially irresponsible to abdicate those functions when it comes to spending the people's tax dollars. There is plenty of blame to go around as to why the Commerce-Justice- State, VA-HUD, and DC bills have not been brought up, as well as the Treasury bill. I do not seek to point the finger at anybody. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the members of the Appropriations Committee have done their very best to work on these bills, to report them. The Commerce-Justice-State bill has been before the Senate long enough that we could have passed it, we could have stayed in on Fridays and, if need be, on some Saturdays. We have done that before, and we could have gotten that bill passed and, at the same time, let Senators have the chance to offer amendments to it. That is what the process is all about. The leadership too often files cloture on appropriations bills and other matters, in order to limit the number of controversial and politically loaded amendments that can be offered by Senators on the minority side of the aisle. Democratic Members too often bring up ``message'' amendments over and over again on appropriations bills because they find little opportunity to have those matters debated by the Senate on other bills. I have to say that the authorization committees, some of them at least, do not do their work and, as a consequence, the action and the responsibility then falls upon the Appropriations Committee. Members do not have an opportunity to offer amendments to authorization bills that ought to have been reported and brought to the floor. When those authorization committees do not act, naturally appropriations bills are the only vehicles to which Members can offer amendments that they would otherwise offer to the authorization bill. Every action has a reaction. Polarization breeds polarization. Nevertheless, we must find a way to accommodate the needs of all Senators, as well as fulfill the responsibility of the leadership to move must-pass legislation. This is not the first year that the regular appropriations process has broken down, but I urge us all to work on a bipartisan basis to ensure that it will be the last. Let us call a truce to the perennial warfare that we fight over these appropriations bills. Let us stop the drift that leads us to short cut the deliberative function of this Senate and all too often produces mammoth omnibus bills with everything but grandpa's false teeth thrown in. This one grandpa who does not have false teeth. Mine would not go in. Huge omnibus appropriations bills make a mockery of the legislative process, and sending appropriations bills direct to conference without Senate action on them also makes a mockery of the legislative process. For FY 1997, 1999, and 2000, Congress resorted to the adoption of omnibus appropriations acts which contained a number of appropriations bills, some of which had never been brought up in the Senate. Those omnibus acts also contained massive amounts of legislative matter, as well as tax cuts--legislative matter that never saw the light of day on the Senate floor. For fiscal year 1999, the omnibus appropriations package enacted at the end of the session contained eight appropriations bills, as well as a tax bill totaling some $9.2 billion, and more than 60 major legislative proposals. Appropriations subcommittee chairmen and ranking members were not involved in a number of major decisions in their areas of jurisdiction, nor were the full committee chairmen and ranking members included in the decisions regarding the tax bill or the major legislative proposals. In all, that FY 1999 omnibus package totaled some 3,980 pages. It was wrapped together and run off on copy machines and presented to the two Houses as an unamendable conference report. That measure provided funding of nearly $500 billion and more than half of 3,980 pages contained legislative provisions. No one could possibly have known everything that was included in that omnibus monstrosity, just as no Member could have known what was in the omnibus bill for FY 1997, or for that of FY 2000. But we are headed in that direction again. When we wait until the end of a session to take action on the overwhelming majority of appropriations bills, when we allow ourselves to be pressured by time, when we are forced to hurry because we are about to adjourn, it is an open invitation to the executive branch to sit down at the legislative table. The Constitution vests the power of the purse in the legislative branch. That is the House and Senate. That is where the Constitution vests the power of the purse. Yet the way we are acting, the way we delay and the results that come from such delay in the end constitute an open invitation for the executive branch to come to the tables. In that environment, most Senators are not in the room when the decisions are made. The President's men and the President's priorities carry great weight. It is late. The President's signature is needed, so the White House has the trump hand. Having squandered the whole year on meaningless posturing and bickering back and forth-- I say back and forth. That means both sides. I do not stand here and accuse either side of having a monopoly on the bickering. We are all involved. But we are much more likely to yield to the administration's every demand then to complete our work. I am hopeful we can avoid such a process for fiscal year 2001. I am encouraged by the fact that a number of conferences are either under way or soon will begin. I was in one yesterday afternoon, last evening, and this morning. I urge the leadership to find a way to bring up the appropriations bills which have not seen Senate action for debate and amendment in the Senate. I think it would be useful for both leaders, if I might presume to make a suggestion, to appoint a group of Senators to discuss these remaining appropriations bills, and what amendments our colleagues deem most important to be offered. Let us reach out across our respective aisles and find a way to do our business without resorting to an always contentious, usually counterproductive, lame-duck session. That would be the responsible way to do business. That is the fair way to do business. That would be the right way to conduct the people's affairs. The American public is disenchanted with politics as usual and with the constant warfare that seems to continually be waged in Washington. We must recommit ourselves to working together in the spirit of cooperation to ensure that we find a way to fulfill our duties and our oaths of office as U.S. Senators. Nobody looks good in this annual mad dash to complete work on spending bills that should have been done months before. There are no winners here. The Republicans don't win; the Democrats don't win. The people lose. The result is an institutional erosion that we see going on. The Senate is losing its powers, it is losing its prerogatives, they are being taken from us, when we do not let bills come up and be debated and be amended by Senators. There are no winners. There are no gold, silver, or even bronze medalists. When we engage in this sloppy, annual relay race to get the job done at all costs, the baton always gets dropped, and the losers, once again, are the people we represent and the trust they have in us. The Senate--the institution, the one place in which the people's interests can be debated at length, and where bills can be amended, and where a check can be made on the House of Representatives, as the framers intended, and where a check can be exercised against an overreaching executive branch, when that is short circuited--the Senate loses its powers, its prerogatives go by the wayside, and the interests, the freedoms, and the liberties of the American people suffer. It is time that we talk about these things. I am the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee. I am very, very, very concerned. I was up at 3 o'clock this morning working on a speech, not this one, but one that I still intend to make about this very subject. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire for his consideration and courtesy in allowing me to go forward. I hope I have not kept him waiting unduly.

Mr. BYRD

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

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed not to exceed 20 minutes.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I reserve my 5 minutes. We will be taken to the cleaners again. Mark my word. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print a chart prepared by the Economic Policy Institute on ``NAFTA job loss by State, 1993-98.''

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I believe that the Senate is about to make a grave mistake. It is hard for me to believe that after a year which has seen the Chinese Government rattling sabers at Taiwan, continuing to brutally repress religion, and, generally, behaving like the ``Bobby Knight'' of the international community--after a year like that--the Senate is still determined to hand the Chinese a huge early Christmas present called permanent normal trade relations. We are running a $70 billion deficit with China. China's string of broken promises on trade and nonproliferation matters is longer than the Great Wall of China. Yet, a majority in this Senate has agreed to put all of its eggs into one basket and rush to pass PNTR. ``Don't worry. Be happy,'' says the administration. We have the bilateral trade and investment pact to protect us. The bilateral trade and investment pact negotiated between the U.S. Trade Representative and China is one of a series of agreements which China is negotiating with members of WTO in order to join the body. The agreement has been used to assuage the many concerns of some Members of this body about granting PNTR to China. But I believe that PNTR and the new U.S.-China trade pact, that panacea of all good things, will encourage mainly one phenomenon--one phenomenon; namely, more U.S. corporations will move operations to China to capitalize on low-wage production for export back here to the United States. Now if Senators don't believe it, just look at recent history. Look at NAFTA. Clear evidence is right there--NAFTA, the Holy Grail of NAFTA. The North American Free Trade Agreement was supposed to right every wrong, cure every evil, and make us all healthy, wealthy and wise. NAFTA's proponents convinced Congress in 1993 that NAFTA meant large net benefits to the U.S. economy, and nothing more. There were no down sides. The line went that the U.S. could only gain from expanded trade with Mexico because Mexico was reducing its trade barriers more than the United States. Moreover--and this will sound very familiar-- proponents were positive that reducing trade barriers with Mexico would encourage ``reform'' politicians in Mexico to privatize the economy. Now, where have we heard that before? A new, vast middle-class would emerge, creating a new, vast middle class market in Mexico, just waiting with baited breath to gobble up American-made goods. The Clinton administration confidently predicted a giant boom in U.S.-made autos sold to Mexico. Well, my fellow Senators, what happened when we found the Holy Grail called NAFTA? Exactly the opposite happened, that's what. A 180-degree turn happened. NAFTA encouraged large U.S. investors to move production and capital and jobs south of the border to exploit cheap labor and lax environmental standards. These new factories then exported their products back to the United States. By 1999, the United States was running a trade deficit with Mexico of $23 billion. Automobiles were major contributors to the deficit. So were auto parts, computers, televisions, and telecommunications equipment. What happened to the large new Mexican middle class, salivating to buy American goods, which NAFTA was supposed to create? Instead of raising living standards in Mexico, NAFTA reinforced ``reform'' government policies in Mexico that reduced real wages for workers by 25 percent and increased to 38 percent the share of the Mexican population subsisting on $2.80 a day. Does all this sound familiar, I ask my colleagues? It should. It certainly should. Once again the administration is playing that same old tune to Congress and to the American people. The administration argues that U.S. exports to China will rise because tariffs will be lowered on goods like automobiles and auto parts. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Additionally, unlike the Japanese yen or the Euro, or the Mexican peso, the exchange value of the Chinese currency does not float in the international market. It is largely determined by the Chinese Government, itself. In 1994, the Chinese devalued their currency in order to expand their exports and reduce their imports. Nothing in the bilateral agreement we have negotiated with China prevents the Chinese from such manipulation again. In 1992, the Chinese and U.S. Governments signed a memorandum of understanding in which China agreed to provide access to U.S. goods in its markets, and to enforce U.S. intellectual property rights. President George Bush hailed this agreement as a breakthrough. The USTR under President Bush claimed that the 1992 agreement would provide ``American businesses, farmers, and workers with unprecedented access to a rapidly growing Chinese market with 1.2 billion people.'' Well, since that much-touted 1992 agreement, U.S. exports to China have risen by about $7 billion. But look at this. Imports from China to the United States have risen by $56 billion. Now, who won that round? Yet, the Clinton administration continues to claim that this new agreement will ensure the political triumph of democracy-loving, U.S.- friendly, free-market leaders in China, who can be trusted to live up to their end of the bargain. Someone downtown must be popping ``gullible'' pills. That claim gives new meaning to the word ``naive''. China's successful growth and modernization absolutely depend upon its ability to export to foreign markets in order to earn the hard currency needed to import new technology. China is currently running a $70 billion annual trade surplus with Uncle Sam, with the United States. But China is running a trade deficit with the other major hard currency blocs--the European Monetary Union and Japan--a trend that will continue into the foreseeable future. In order to pursue its own self-interests, China has to exploit the U.S. market to the maximum. Given this agenda, in a totalitarian state, one can be sure that the full force of the power of that state will be focused on protecting its manufacturing, technological, and agricultural markets. No faction of Chinese leaders can possibly deliver a more open economy to the United States or to the WTO. It is fool's gold to make that claim--fool's gold. It is the economic and political reality of the Chinese situation and agenda that makes it all but certain that China will violate any trade agreement, if it serves the national interests of China to do so. We have not yet in this Senate or in this Nation or in this administration come to grips with that fundamental reality. It will not be different this time. It will not be any different this time. The Chinese behave the way they do in matters of trade because they have to, to survive. They cannot and will not change. The Chinese Government is not some eager puppy, like my little dog Billy Byrd, panting to please the United States or anybody else. The Chinese are committed to their own goals and their own interests and they will do whatever it takes to further their agenda. The Clinton administration claims that China has agreed in the bilateral trade agreement to eliminate health-related barriers to U.S. meat imports that were not based on scientific evidence. But, let's listen to the words of Chinese trade negotiator, Long Yongtu. Let's hear what he said: Diplomatic negotiations involve finding new expressions. If you find a new expression, this means you have achieved a diplomatic result. In terms of meat imports, we have not actually made any material concessions. And there is even more interesting commentary from China's chief negotiator, Long Yongtu, in an article he authored on the impacts of WTO entry, as reported by the BBC. On the issue of a Chinese compromise with the United States on the import of U.S. meat products he said, ``. . . in the United States people there think that China has opened its door wide for the import of meat. In fact, this is only a theoretical market opportunity. During diplomatic negotiations, it is imperative to use beautiful words--for this will lead to success.'' We need to take note of the words of these Chinese officials. We need to listen more carefully. Beautiful words do not mean promises kept. Sometimes when we in the United States hear ``yes'' the Chinese are only saying ``maybe.'' The USTR asserts that ``China will establish large and increasing tariff-rate quotas for wheat--with a substantial share reserved for private trade.'' Yet again, Chinese negotiator Long Yongtu sees it differently. He has publicly stated that, although Beijing had agreed, on paper, to allow 7.3 million tons of wheat from the United States to be exported to the China mainland each year, it is a ``complete misunderstanding'' to expect this grain to actually enter the country. The Chinese negotiator said that in its agreement with the United States, Beijing only conceded ``a theoretical opportunity for the export of grain from the United States.'' We are suckers. And yet, in the face of all of this contradiction by the Chinese, the Clinton Administration actually expects us all to believe that the bilateral agreement, PNTR and the WTO will magically force the Chinese government to shred its own national agenda, disregard its own needs and interests, even risk its own viability, in order to live up to an agreement with the United States. How naive can we be? If anyone actually believes that, then let me introduce you to the tooth fairy; Tinkerbell; Mr. Ed, the talking horse; Snow White; the seven dwarfs; and Harvey, the invisible six foot rabbit. This Senate and the administration--by all means, this administration--should pay a little more attention to history. Let us look again for a moment at the history of NAFTA. From the time of the North America Free Trade Agreement took effect in 1994 through 1998, the net export deficit with Mexico and Canada has grown. Over 440,000 American jobs have been destroyed as a result of this growth. Although gross U.S. exports to Mexico and Canada have shown a dramatic increase--with real growth of 92.1 percent with Mexico and 56.9 percent to Canada, that is only half the picture. Let us turn the corner. It is like knowing only one team's score or looking at only one side of the coin. We have to look at the other side of the coin to know who is winning; namely, what are we importing from Mexico? The increases in U.S. exports have been overwhelmed by what we import from Mexico. Those imports have shot up 139.3 percent from Mexico and 58.8 percent from Canada. In 1993, before NAFTA was in effect, we had a net export deficit with our NAFTA partners of $18.2 billion. From 1993 to 1998 that same net deficit increased by 160 percent to $47.3 billion, resulting in job losses to American workers The first year NAFTA took effect, foreign direct investment in Mexico increased by 150 percent. Foreign direct investment in Canada has more than doubled since 1993. Those are American workers' jobs that are flying like geese--we have heard the wild geese flit across the sky on their way south--across the borders. Factories move over the border to take advantage of cheap labor costs, and they take good-paying American jobs with them. But, Senator Byrd, you may say, unemployment in the United States is at 4.1 percent. Our people have jobs. Our unemployment is very low. The answer to that question lies in a closer scrutiny of the composition of U.S. employment. Good paying jobs with good benefits, largely in the manufacturing sector, are leaving our shores and being replaced by low skill, low wage jobs in the services sector. There is a hidden agenda that becomes apparent if one remembers the lessons of NAFTA and then ponders PNTR with China. You heard them say at the convention: You ain't seen nothing yet? Well, you ain't see nothing yet. Against that backdrop, it becomes more than clear where we are headed. We have been here before. The objective for U.S. business is not access to the Chinese domestic consumer market. Forget it. They cannot afford our goods. The objective is the business-friendly, pollution-friendly climate in China, which is advantageous for moving production off U.S. shores and then selling goods, now made in China, back to the United States--selling goods made by American manufacturers that move overseas back to the United States. Are we really going to expect anything different from a deal with the Chinese? Our trade deficit reached $340 billion in 1999. China accounts for 20 percent of the total U.S. trade deficit. A U.S. International Trade Commission report stresses that China's WTO entry would significantly increase investment by U.S. multinationals inside China. Additionally, the composition of Chinese imports has changed over the last 10 years. In 1989, only 30 percent of what we imported from China competed with our high-wage, high-skilled industries here in the U.S. By 1999, that percentage had risen to 50 percent. The unvarnished, unmitigated, ungussied up truth is that American companies are eagerly eyeing China as an important production base for high-tech products. And these made-in-China goods are displacing goods made in the good ole USA, Additionally, most U.S. manufacturing in China is produced in conjunction with Chinese government agencies and state-owned companies. So much for the claim that U.S. corporate activity in China benefits Chinese entrepreneurs, and will lead to privatization and, lo and behold, the emergence of a democratic China. Get it? The emergence of a democratic China. If all this were not enough, a Senate report, made public last week, charged the Chinese government with consistently failing ``to adhere to its nonproliferation commitments.'' In addition to outlining numerous instances of Chinese weapons sales to Iran, Libya, and North Korea, the report states, ``In many instances, Beijing merely mouths promises as a means of evading sanctions.'' Yet Senator Thompson only got 32 votes in favor of his amendment, which would have given the Congress a role in monitoring China's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Senators, I could go on and on and on, but I believe there is more than ample evidence that to grant PNTR to China at this time is very unwise. The signal we send by granting PNTR now is a signal of abject weakness. It is a signal of greed. It is a signal of ambivalence on the issue of nonproliferation. It is a signal of total disregard for the overwhelming evidence that the Chinese Government will not keep its word. I fear that the benefits claimed to be derived from PNTR are really only PR from the White House. They are selling us soap and we are lathering up. We are risking a lot on the unfulfilled promises contained in the so-called bilateral trade agreement with China. Of course, the price for that deal was the administration's commitment to China that they could get PNTR through the Congress this year. It is a package deal--a nice little wagonload of a Chinese signature on the bilateral trade agreement and an unencumbered PNTR present from the Congress. The only problem is that the wagon might be riding on Firestone tires. Shouldn't we Senators use a little caution and put off climbing in that wagon? I am not getting on that wagon. Wouldn't it be more prudent to stay off that wagon? Wouldn't that be the right choice for our Nation's people, the right thing for our national security? This legislation--PNTR--can wait and it ought to wait. As far as this Senator's vote is concerned, it will wait. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. The Senator mentioned my name. That is why I am asking him to yield. I appreciate the fact that he has given us his viewpoint. My remarks were largely based on research that has been done by the Economic Policy Institute. It is dated November 1999. I am reading from a paper issued by the institute. It is headed with these words: NAFTA's pain deepens. Job destruction accelerates from 1999 with losses in every State. It shows Colorado as having a net NAFTA job loss of 3,625 jobs. It doesn't show as much for West Virginia as Colorado. West Virginia has a net NAFTA loss of 1,183 jobs. Let me say this to the Senator. I have been in Congress now 48 years. I have seen Democratic administrations, and I have seen Republican administrations. The kind of talk we just heard from this Senator--I respect him as a colleague, but I have to say this--is the same kind of talk I have been hearing from these administrations for 48 years. That is State Department talk. It is the same old State Department talk. I will say to this Senator, we are going to get taken to the cleaners. We have been taken to the cleaners all these 48 years by other countries. In these ventured agreements, our negotiators for some reason or other always come out second. We have been taken to the cleaners. We will be taken again. The Senator stated his opinion. That is this Senator's opinion, and it is based on 48 years of hearing this same line that emanates from-- --