Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I believe there is a 1-hour time agreement on this amendment, in accordance with the usual form.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am flattered by the comments of my colleague, my seatmate who sits right here. I appreciate his friendship, and I appreciate his many, many words of advice, our many conversations we have had together about the Senate, about our country, and about the Constitution. So if we can just think, as we do this poem--I always run the risk, of course, of having a lapse of memory. But after 50 years of quoting poetry, although I have had a few lapses of memory, I always take them as they come. It is something that is natural, nothing to be embarrassed about. Sometimes I start over and get the poem right. But I am thinking of this legislation that is before us, and I am thinking of what is going on here. I have referred to a cabal. It isn't that, of course, but there certainly is an understanding abroad here, among Senators on both sides--certain Senators I think are probably working with the administration--that there will be no amendments, no amendments will pass, they will vote down every amendment. Well, a few of my colleagues and I are trying to improve this legislation. We are not offering any killer amendments. But we are offering them because we think the bill would be improved. This action on my part, and on the part of my colleagues who are attempting to improve the bill, might be likened to putting a fence around the edge of a cliff while an ambulance runs in the valley. The ambulance represents this legislation, which, if passed, in the long run, I fear, will result in increased unfair trade and constitute an injury to the American worker and to the American businesspeople. `Twas a dangerous cliff, as they freely confessed, Though to walk near its crest was so pleasant; But over its terrible edge there had slipped A duke and full many a peasant. So the people said something would have to be done, But their projects did not at all tally; Some said, ``Put a fence around the edge of the cliff,'' Some, ``An ambulance down in the valley.'' But the cry for the ambulance carried the day, As it spread through the neighboring city; A fence may be useful or not, it is true, But each heart became brimful of pity For those who slipped over that dangerous cliff; And the dwellers in highway and alley Gave pounds or gave pence, not to put up a fence, But an ambulance down in the valley. ``For the cliff is all right, if you're careful,'' they said, ``And, if folks even slip and are dropping, It isn't the slipping that hurts them so much, As the shock down below when they're stopping.'' So day after day, as these mishaps occurred, Quick forth would these rescuers sally To pick up the victims who fell off the cliff, With their ambulance down in the valley. Then an old sage remarked: ``It's a marvel to me That people give far more attention To repairing results than to stopping the cause, When they'd much better aim at prevention. Let us stop at its source all this mischief,'' cried he. ``Come, neighbors and friends, let us rally; If the cliff we will fence we might almost dispense With the ambulance down in the valley.'' ``Oh, he's a fanatic,'' the others rejoined, ``Dispense with the ambulance? Never! He'd dispense with all charities, too, if he could; No! No! We'll support them forever. Aren't we picking up folks just as fast as they fall? Shall this man dictate to us? Shall he? Why should people of sense stop to put up a fence, While the ambulance works down in the valley?'' But a sensible few, who are practical too, Will not bear with such nonsense much longer; They believe that prevention is better than cure, And their party will soon be the stronger. Encourage them then, with your purse, voice, and pen, And while other philanthropists dally, They will scorn all pretense and put up a stout fence Round the cliff that hangs over the valley. Better guide well the young than reclaim them when old, For the voice of true wisdom is calling, ``To rescue the fallen is good, but `tis better To prevent other people from falling.'' Better close up the source of temptation and crime Than to deliver from dungeon or galley; Better put a strong fence round the top of the cliff Than an ambulance down in the valley.'' Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Very well. But that bill came over from the House to the Senate. Unfortunately for those of us who would like to see the bill slowed down and perhaps amended to make it a better bill, we find there has been kind of a contract entered into, if I may put it that way. It was not a written contract. Perhaps I should say it is an understanding rather than a contract. There seems to be an understanding among some Senators that perhaps with the House--I don't know how far this understanding goes, but Senators who have entered into this understanding will vote against any amendment--any amendment, any amendment--to the House bill. We are not going to debate the Senate bill. We are not going to act upon the Senate bill. We have taken up the House bill, and no amendments shall pass. That is it. No amendments shall pass. I want to say to the Chair, to the distinguished Senator from Alabama who presides over the Senate, that I have been in legislative bodies now 54 years. I have been in this Congress 48 years. I have been in this body 42 years. This is something that is absolutely new to me, this method of legislating where Senators and the administration--I am talking about Senators on both sides--enter into an understanding somehow. I don't know whether they met and had a show of hands or had a debate about it. But anyway, we have been told by Senators on this floor that they will vote against any amendment, no matter what its merits. It doesn't matter who offers the amendment. It doesn't matter how good an amendment it may be. The decision has been made to reject every amendment--reject all amendments. Why? Why the hurry? The powers that be--whoever they are--don't want an amendment because they say that would mean the bill would have to go back to the House. And they say that would cause a conference between the two Houses and that would mean a conference report. That would mean each House would have to vote on that conference report. As I gather from my grapevine information, these Senators are concerned that if the House were to vote again on this measure, it might not pass. There are some who think it would not pass the House if the House voted on it again. I think we have come to a pretty poor pass when we won't consider amendments seriously and judge them on their merits and vote accordingly. But that is apparently what is happening here. I feel like one of those poor rubes out there chasing the greasy China PNTR pig, trying my best to slow it down with some good amendments. But that pig is well greased, as you can understand by now. It is flying through the Senate, flying through the Senate. This pig is tearing along and Members have made a blood vow to keep hands off and just let ``old porky'' run; let ``old porky'' run. I will, however, continue to pursue some debate on this bill and to offer at least two amendments that I believe will improve the legislation. I shall offer an amendment momentarily that is straightforward. It would require the U.S. Trade Representative to obtain a commitment by the People's Republic of China to disclose information relating to China's plans to comply with the World Trade Organization, WTO, subsidy obligations. This is an important issue aimed at ensuring that the American people and their representatives here and in the other branches of the government truly realize what is inside the big Chinese trade fortune cookie. State-owned enterprises continue to be the most significant source of employment in most areas in China, and some reports suggest these subsidized enterprises accounted for as much as 65 percent of the jobs in many areas of China in 1995. That is two-thirds of the jobs. The most recent data that the Library of Congress could provide on this matter indicate those figures. Let me state them again: The subsidized enterprises in China accounted for as much as 65 percent of the jobs in many areas of China in 1995. Members of Congress need to remember that we are here to defend the people of the United States, to use our best judgment at all times, to exercise our very best talents in behalf of the people who send us here. I am here to represent the people of West Virginia, Democrats and Republicans, old and young, black and white, rich and poor. I am here to represent them. Other Members are likewise here to represent the people of their respective States. We are here to represent them. This includes, may I say, the average American worker. There are grave implications to Sino-American relations as a result of granting PNTR to China. I believe that the Chinese have developed a keen understanding of the American political system. I have no doubt that many Senators and U.S. businesses are naive about the increased workings of the Chinese Government and its agenda. China is not a free market economy. It is not on the verge of becoming a free market economy. It is a Communist, centrally controlled economy. The Chinese Government oversees the top-to-bottom operations of many industries such as iron and steel, coal mining, petroleum extraction and refining, as well as the electric power utilities, banking, and transportation sectors. The whole thing, one might say. Government control reigns from top to bottom, supreme in China. Government control. I was in China in 1975 along with our former colleague, Sam Nunn, and our former colleague, Jim Pearson, from the Republican side. At that time I was told that no individual in China owned an automobile. There were no privately owned automobiles. Oceans of bicycles but no privately owned automobile. There is some limited private enterprise in China. But private investment is heavily monitored and restricted by the Government. In fact, it has been suggested that the Chinese Government only sell minority shares, such as 25 percent of an enterprise, for the sole purpose of making money while still containing effective control over the operations of that enterprise. These conditions are serious impediments to fair trade and to free trade. Yet we really do not have much detailed information about China's state-owned enterprises and the type or amount of the benefits that those enterprises receive from the Chinese Government. It is almost impossible to measure accurately the extent of subsidized operations or the touted move to privatization in China, due to the lack of reliable Chinese statistics. My amendment today that I will shortly send to the desk would help to secure this information. What is wrong with that? This is information that is vital to many U.S. businesses and vital to American workers. My amendment is an effort to help secure that. What is wrong with that? I hope the American people are following this debate--I am pretty sure they are not; they are not following it. No, the American people are not watching. If they were watching it, there would be more Senators here in the Chamber today. How many Senators are there here today? One, two, three--that is the whole kit and kaboodle--three Senators. So the American people are not watching it. They don't know what is happening. My amendment would help to secure statistics that are vital to U.S. businesses and American workers. One of the basic principles of liberalized trade is to obtain obligations to restrict Government interference, which provides an unfair advantage to national commerce. The WTO agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures restricts the use of subsidies and establishes a three-class framework on subsidies consisting of red light, yellow light, dark amber, and green light. The SCM prohibits subsidies contingent upon export performance and subsidies contingent upon the use of domestic over imported goods. We know that a significant portion of the economy of the People's Republic of China consists of state-owned enterprises. We know that Chinese enterprises receive significant subsidies from the Chinese Government. We know that Chinese state-owned enterprises account for a significant portion of exports from the Chinese Government. We also know that U.S. manufacturers and farmers can not compete fairly with these subsidized state-owned enterprises. So, once again, the question remains: how can the United States ensure that Chinese subsidies do not undermine U.S. commerce and threaten American jobs? That is what we are trying to find out by way of my amendment. The U.S.-China bilateral agreement contains report language on the commercial operations of Chinese state-owned and state-invested enterprises. That language says that China, with respect to those enterprises, must follow private market export rules; China must base decisions on commercial considerations as provided in the WTO; China cannot influence, directly or indirectly, commercial decisions; China must follow WTO government procurement procedures; and China cannot condition investment approval upon technology transfer. That is a fairly comprehensive set of guidelines. If followed, these guidelines ought to level the playing field for competitive U.S. firms. That is, of course, a very big ``if.'' The Chinese government is pretty good at applying guidelines like these very selectively or not at all. The United States Trade Representative states that the U.S.-China bilateral agreements meet significant benchmarks, but acknowledges that work on the subsidy protocols is not complete. I understand that the USTR has stressed that the WTO basic rule is clear--namely, China must eliminate all red light subsidies or prohibited subsidies upon entry into the WTO. Nevertheless, the USTR is wary enough to continue negotiations on subsidy agreements particular to the agricultural and industrial sectors. In addition to the vague language in the protocol, another problem arises with regard to subsidies and the Chinese Government. The SCM agreement provides principles whereby the specificity of a subsidy can be determined, but it does so in the context of a market economy with private ownership of enterprises. The SCM Agreement does not have a specific reference to economies in which a significant share of economic activity and foreign trade is carried out by state-owned enterprises--which is the case with China. I understand that the USTR's protocol language attempts to address this in their bilateral language, but it seems to me that this is leaving U.S. businesses to the whims of an uncertain turn of fortune's wheel. In fact, China has expressed a view that it should be included in the grouping of the poorest countries in the WTO--effectively exempting China from the disciplines of the WTO subsidy codes altogether. This does not, it seems to me, presage good compliance on the part of China with regard to the subsidy restrictions outlined in the U.S.-China bilateral agreement report language. The Chinese already say they are exempt. I just got a note from our mutual good friend, Dave Obey, a Member of the House. I think I should make it known to my colleague on the floor, Senator Dodd--he happens to be the only colleague I have on the floor, not counting my colleague in the chair--but, I say to my colleague on the floor, Dave Obey called: He simply wanted to tell you--meaning me-- tell you that he is watching this debate and he hopes that you--meaning Robert Byrd--``will snare that pig,'' that greasy pig I was talking about. So what can U.S. businesses really expect from the protocol language in the U.S. China bilateral agreement? I have a gold watch and chain, and I'll bet my gold watch and chain that they can likely expect little to nothing with regard to potential benefits. I believe that U.S. businesses should expect to see continuing illegal subsidy programs by the Chinese to state-owned enterprises. I also hope I shall be proven wrong in the long run. Without doubt, subsidies have been a very difficult issue to resolve. In fact, with years of trade relations and negotiations, the U.S. has yet to reach a subsidy understanding with the European Union on agriculture or on some industrial sectors such as aeronautics. But the United States should not leave this matter--or U.S. firms and workers--hanging, and U.S. businesses should not be expected to pay millions in litigation fees to resolve subsidy disputes. My amendment will help address the vital issue of prohibited subsidies. It would improve the transparency of the subsidies provided by the Chinese to state-owned enterprises. It would facilitate U.S. Government and private efforts to monitor Chinese compliance by providing both an essential baseline of current subsidies and an explicit schedule for their removal. Finally, it would help provide information that strengthens the evidentiary basis for grievances by U.S. industries regarding continued subsidies and it would help spur China to reduce or eliminate subsidies to state-owned enterprises. Should we not better understand the level of control that the Chinese government exerts over their businesses? Again, my amendment simply requires the USTR to obtain a commitment by the People's Republic of China to identify state-owned enterprises engaged in export activities; describe state support for those enterprises; and to set forth a time table for compliance by China with the subsidy obligations of the WTO. This is basic information all members of the Senate and the Administration should be eager to have. Unfair subsidies hurt the working men and women of the United States every day. Unfair subsidies hurt scores, hundreds of Americans working in U.S. industrial and agricultural sectors such as steel, the apple industry and beef. It cuts across all of the vital products. I hope all Members will stand up for vital American interests by voting in support of my amendment. My amendment addresses the extensive control over the economy still exercised by the Chinese government, despite some window dressing of privatization. It might be looked upon as a reality check. The same kind of very heavy-handed government control is exerted over virtually every aspect of Chinese life. Heavy-handedness is evident all over China. Take a look at religious freedom for example, and I would like to touch briefly on that subject because it is an important barometer of the way the Chinese Government controls their society and their people. Freedom of religion is near and dear to hearts of Americans. That freedom is at the core of our Nation's being, and we do well to cherish it. Early settlers dared much to come to these shores so that they could freely practice their religious beliefs. They left everything they knew, every comfort of home, to escape the sometimes oppressive hand the heavy hand of governments that discriminated against them. The Pilgrims, the Puritans, the Quakers--all came to the New World seeking religious freedom. Even 171 years after the Pilgrim's Plymouth colony was established in 1620, that fire for religious freedom was codified in the Bill of Rights which were ratified by the necessary number of States on December 15, 1791. The first right--the first precious right--outlined in the First Amendment to the Constitution could not be clearer: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; * * * The proliferation of churches in the United States of all stripes, from the Roman Catholic cathedral to the independent Baptist church, the Muslim Mosque to the Mormon Tabernacle, the Shinto Shrine to the Jewish Temple--all of these are a living testament to our commitment to religious freedom. That same freedom is repressed in China. It is not that the Chinese people are opposed to free practice of religion, so far as I can tell. According to a recent article, in fact, the decay of communism, coupled with rising unemployment and a desire for the trappings of affluent society, has sparked a religious revival in China. Twenty years ago, only 2 million Chinese identified themselves as Christian. Today, the number is estimated at 60 million--60 million--according to overseas Christian groups. But, as an atheistic Communist state, China has long feared religion as a threat to the government's monopoly over its subjects. The People's Republic of China has a long and sorry history in this century of repressing religion and religious practice. The antireligious fervor of the Cultural Revolution is but one example. Its subjugation of Tibet and the destruction of many of the Buddhist lamaseries there is another example. The meditative group called Falun Gong, which mobilized more than 10,000 people for a mass protest in Beijing last year, has been outlawed. In the Washington Times on Wednesday of this week, September 6, the front page headline reads: ``Chinese religious rights `deteriorated' ''. The article concerns a State Department report released yesterday, on the eve of the United Nations Millennium Summit, a gathering of religious leaders from around the world in support of peace. I would observe, and not as an aside, that the exiled Dalai Lama, religious leader of Tibetan Buddhists and other Buddhists, was not invited, out of deference to China. In this, the second annual congressionally ordered report on religious freedom around the world, respect for religious freedom in China ``deteriorated markedly'' during the second half of 1999 and was marked by the brutal suppression of minority religious faiths. Members of such groups have been subjected to ``harassment, extortion, prolonged detention, physical abuse and incarceration.'' Those words are lifted out of the text. Though the Chinese government sanctions five carefully monitored religious organizations, including a state-supported Christian church, the government has shown no hesitation in outlawing any religious sect or church that has shown any sign of gaining support among the Chinese people. Missionaries are not welcome; nor are Bibles. In the past year, raids on worship groups meeting in private homes have increased from twice a month to once a week, according to human rights groups in Hong Kong. Yet Beijing's state-appointed bishop recently stated: ``There is no religious persecution in China.'' Just last month, on August 23, Chinese authorities raided a meeting of the Fangcheng Church in Henan Province, arresting three American citizens and over 100 Chinese church members. The Americans, Henry Chu and his wife Sandy Lin, and Patricia Lan, were visiting the church when it was raided. The Taiwanese-born American citizens were released after a protest from the U.S. embassy. They are luckier than Zhang Rongliang, the Fangcheng Church leader, who was arrested on August 23, 1999, and sentenced to 3 years in a labor camp under an anticult ordinance. It has been a long time, indeed, since a Christian church in the United States was described as a cult. And, of course, no single church or religion, or circumscribed list of churches, is officially sanctioned by the American Government. We do not have that in this country. That is why many of our forbearers came to these shores. The Government of the United States does not sanction any particular church. Again, in the Congress' annual renewal of China's NTR status, conditions favoring religious freedom or protesting Chinese actions against worshippers could be debated and voted upon. The United States could go on record, at least, in support of the principle of religious freedom. This annual debate on must-pass legislation, on legislation that does mean something to the Chinese Government, may well have moderated Chinese behavior. Who knows? It certainly did not fundamentally change that behavior, as proponents of PNTR have observed. But it likely did moderate Chinese actions, if only to reduce the embarrassment factor they may have faced during the annual debate. So it served a useful function, one that we will now consign to the dustheap of history. When next year's congressionally mandated report on religious freedom is issued, I for one will not be surprised to read about further deterioration in religious freedom in China, once PNTR is assured. Mr. President, I still read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Even though I have it--or once had it in my lifetime--just about memorized, seeing the words themselves reinforces the beauty, the power, and the simplicity of that magnificent document for me. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution in order to ensure the ratification of the Constitution itself, even though the framers did not believe that those rights needed to be spelled out. For them, those rights were so fundamental that they did not need to be spelled out. Others, less intimately involved in creating the Constitution, needed the reassurance of the written word. The words are powerful: ``Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . .'' I still respect those words, and I still cherish those principles. I hope that others around the world may eventually share in this great freedom. Until they do, I continue to think it is appropriate that we, our country, as a leader in supporting religious freedom, should take opportunities to urge other governments to allow unfettered worship of their Creator. Mr. President, I am sorry that Senator Wellstone's amendment in support of international religious freedom was not adopted. It was a message worth sending to the Chinese people--a message that the United States still places its principles and its values above mere avarice, above mere greed for maximizing profits through increased trade. I hope that my colleagues will support my amendment, which would provide needed and difficult-to-obtain information about Chinese Government subsidies to state-owned enterprises. This information is needed by the U.S. firms and U.S. workers who will be competing against those subsidized producers. If our trade provisions in support of fair trade are to have any chance, we must have this information. I hope that we will not put greed ahead of American jobs and interests. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Let us at least put up a fence before the ambulance careens over the hill, which reminds me of a poem, which I think would be nice to have in the Record right here. Before I attempt to recall it, let me ask my friend from Connecticut--he has been sitting here--does he wish the floor now? I can postpone this for some other time.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have returned to keep the vigil on my attempt, in concert with other Senators, to have a debate on permanent normal trade relations, PNTR, with the People's Republic of China. I shall once again implore my fellow colleagues to consider reason, to listen to our case as we discuss these amendments, and to consider them carefully; let your conscience be your guide, as the old saying goes. I hope that all Senators will look carefully at the merits of these amendments. Should we not crack this big fortune cookie? Just imagine the PNTR as a large fortune cookie. Should we not crack it and fully realize what lies inside PNTR before we rush to pass this legislation? What is the rush? Fortune cookies look sweet and tempting on the outside, but they can hold a less than appetizing message inside. Should we not look, should we not peer, lift the covers and see what is inside? Should we not look before we leap? So far, this debate reminds me of a greasy pig contest at a county fair. The distinguished senior Senator from Mississippi, who presides over the Senate today--and, of course, I would not expect a response from the Chair, but I daresay that the Senator from Mississippi has made his presence known at many a county fair in the great State of Mississippi. At those county fairs, I am sure he is acquainted with the greasy pig contest. We talk about the greasy pole, and now we refer to the greasy pig--the greasy pig contest at a county fair. Everyone tries to slow down that pig, everybody tries to catch that pig, but the hands just slip away. That pig is greased and nobody can catch hold of the pig. Everyone is trying to slow down the greasy pig, but the pig is greased and just keeps on running. I feel like one of those poor rubes out here chasing the greasy pig. By the way, one of the best pigs of all is the Poland-China hog. My dad used to buy 10 or 12 of those Poland-China pigs every year, and I would go around the community and gather up the leftovers from the tables of coal miners' wives. They would save these scraps of food for me and I would go around after school and pick up those scraps. I would take the scraps and feed them to the Poland-China pigs. Well, it just happens that today I am talking about the greased China PNTR pig. I am trying my best to slow it down. Here the crowd is standing on their feet, and they are shouting. They are saying: Robert C. Byrd tried to get his hand on that greasy pig and tried to hold that pig. But the pig gets away. He can't hold that pig. Here we are--a few Senators--trying to slow down this greasy China PNTR pig so that we can get some amendments added or, perhaps by display of our judgment on this legislation, cause some of our fellow Members to say: Whoa, whoa, here; let's wait a minute. What are we doing? Why are we in such a hurry? May I ask, do we have a copy of the bill that came out of the Senate committee? All right. I will have it in a moment. But that is not the legislation the Senate is talking about. That is not the bill that came out of the Senate committee. While I am securing that bill, I shall submit to the chairman of the Finance Committee a copy of the amendment I am about to call up. If he will take a look at it, we may want to discuss a time limit on it. Back to this greasy pig, other Senators and I are trying simply to get the Senate to stop, look, and listen before it rushes pellmell into a vote on this legislation. Here it is. This is S. 2277, a bill to terminate the application of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to the People's Republic of China. It is a very short bill. As all Senators may see, it is two full pages. Of course, it really is not two full pages. The first page simply states the number of the bill, the title of the bill, and the Senators' names who are supporting it. There it is. Page 1, page 2, page 3; and page 3 consists only of four lines. There are three and a half lines, as a matter of fact, on page 3. There it is. This is what the Senate Finance Committee reported to this body, reported to the Calendar. This is it. This is the product of the work of the Senate Finance Committee on the subject of trading with China. But this bill is not what we are talking about. This is not what we are debating. This is not what we are attempting to amend. The bill is not before the Senate, it is at the desk. But this is not the bill we are attempting to amend. What we are doing here in the Senate is this. We have taken the House bill. May I ask the chairman, has the House bill ever had consideration by the Senate Finance Committee? (Mr. SESSIONS assumed the chair.)

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Delaware.

Mr. BYRD. So the House bill was considered in executive session by the Senate Finance Committee. That was at the time of markup, I suppose.

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Fifteen minutes, 20 seconds. I can't find my poem--ah, my trusty aide has found it. I don't need it anyhow. God, give us men. A time like this demands Strong minds, great hearts, true faith and ready hands; Men whom the lust of office does not kill; Men whom the spoils of office cannot buy; Men who possess opinions and a will; Men who have honor; men who will not lie; Men who can stand before a demagog And damn his treacherous flatteries without winking. Tall men sun-crowned, who live above the fog In public duty and in private thinking; For while the rabble, with their thumb-worn creeds, Their large professions and their little deeds, Mingle in selfish strife, lo. Freedom weeps, Wrong rules the land and waiting justice sleeps. God give us men. Men who serve not for selfish booty, But real men, courageous, who flinch not at duty. Men of dependable character; men of sterling worth. Then wrongs will be redressed and right will rule the earth. God, give us men. Mr. President, I yield back my time. I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur, up or down, on my amendment.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?

Mr. BYRD. Can the distinguished chairman answer as to why the administration is opposed to any amendment as far as he, the chairman, knows?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, there are exactly three Senators on the floor, including the Senator presiding. Shouldn't we have better attendance than this on a matter so important as this legislation? I am going to suggest the absence of a quorum, and I will object to it being called off, so it will be a live quorum. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am going to break my own rule here and ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time on the quorum call which I am about to enter will not count against the 3 hours.

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I thank all Senators for listening. And in particular I thank the distinguished manager of the bill, a venerable Senator whom I greatly admire, and with whom I often talk. We engage each other in conversation about our little dogs. He has a little dog. I have a little dog. It recalls to my attention an old song, an old fiddle song: You better stop kicking my dog around. Every time I come to town, The boys start kicking my dog around. Whether he's a poodle or whether he's a hound, You better stop kicking my dog around. That is the way the Senator from Delaware and I feel about it. I treasure his friendship. He has been a fine manager on this bill. But he is wrong in taking the position that he should vote against my amendment. I also thank my friend on this side of the aisle, Mr. Moynihan; as always, a gentleman and scholar. I thank him for the way he has conducted himself on this amendment and on other bills. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank the clerk. In conclusion, Mr. President, this is a pro-business amendment. It is a pro-environment amendment. It is a pro-labor amendment. It is a pro- America amendment. It is a pro-commonsense amendment. The amendment helps businesses to get clean energy technologies into the Chinese market. The amendment helps to clean the water and the air. I have a book by the distinguished Vice President, Mr. Gore, entitled ``Earth in the Balance.'' This is where we can start to clean up the Earth. This amendment helps to clean the water and the air. It helps to reduce global climate change, and helps America use our resources and would help China to use its resources more efficiently. Finally, this amendment promotes American-made clean energy technologies that help the U.S. economy. Who can be against that? I haven't heard one word in these 3 hours, not one word, of criticism concerning my amendment. Not one word by way of attacking my amendment on its merits. As a matter of fact, not many Senators--two or three only--have spoken a few short words in opposition to the amendment, but their arguments are not going to the merits of the amendment. As a matter of fact, I believe the Senators who have spoken would probably support this amendment if it were on some other bill. I have crafted this amendment so that every Senator's interests are represented. Here is one of the cleanest, purest amendments that has ever been read at the desk where the clerk sits. Nobody is opposed to anything that is in the amendment. There hasn't been a word, not a single word spoken against this amendment. So it is a win-win opportunity that we should take advantage of today. The only problem is that Senators have blinders on. I can remember back in 1947 when the State of West Virginia had 97,600 farms, had 97,000 horses, and 6,000 mules. When farmers use their horses, they put blinders on them. I am sure Senators understand what blinders are. They keep the horses from seeing an automobile and shying away from it, possibly running away, wrecking the wagon or the buggy, and ending up killing the passenger. Senators who oppose this today say quite openly and frankly that they oppose it because any amendment adopted to this bill might kill the bill. This is not a killer amendment. I know a killer amendment when I see one. This is not a killer amendment. I have no interest in killing this bill by this amendment or any other amendment. I will vote against the bill. But I have not engaged in any dilatory tactics. I haven't engaged in any filibuster. I voted to take up the bill. I am not interested in killing it through dilatory actions. I am interested in improving it. This bill is going to pass the Senate. I read the handwriting on the wall. Belshazzar is not the only person who can see handwriting on the wall. I can read the handwriting on the wall. We have absolutely no chance of killing the bill if that is what we want to do. I prefer to improve it. It could be improved to the point that I would vote for it, but it will pass whether I vote for it or not. This is no killer amendment. This amendment is a highly beneficial amendment to our own country, to the working people, to the businesspeople of this country, to the environmentalists and to the environment, to industry, to the Chinese. I have gone over that already so I won't repeat it again. It is not a killer amendment. I plead with Senators to take off the blinders on this amendment. Take them off. Take off your blinders, Senators, and smudge that line that has been drawn in the sand. Take a good look at this amendment. That is why I have had it read again, just before voting on it. Take a good look at it. This amendment is no killer amendment. It is a sugar pill, candy- coated peppermint pill. There is no hidden ingredient. There is no arsenic here; no bitter aftertaste. It will not leave halitosis. It is a sugar-coated amendment. This amendment will help our trading relations with China because it can help to assuage environmental concerns about China's coming rapid growth. It will help China. It will help the business community in our own country because it will encourage and enhance the marketability of clean energy technology in China. God knows they are going to need it. They are going to need it. It will help those businesses employ more people as they develop and sell these new energy technologies. Everybody benefits, everybody. And I believe the amendment would pass the House, if the House were given an opportunity to vote on this amendment. But the Senators who oppose this amendment do not want that to happen. They don't want the House to have an opportunity to debate this amendment. They don't want the House to vote on this amendment. But it would pass the House, probably with flying colors. It is an opportunity that should not be missed just because some Members have taken what would amount to a blood oath to oppose all amendments--oppose all amendments. It is a winning horse, a winning horse. You can't do better over at Charles Town at the races, I say to my friend from Delaware. You can't find a better horse over at Charles Town, just 75 miles from here. Go over there and see the winning horses. But this is a winning horse that I have brought in here today; a winning horse. Look at its teeth, open its mouth--it is a winning horse. It is just waiting, just waiting, waiting patiently, may I say to the Senator from Massachusetts before he egresses from the Chamber, this is a horse that is just waiting to collect the prize. And all we have to do is say, ``giddy-up, giddy-up.'' It is my amendment that I am talking about--a winning horse. Senators, let this pony run. Don't draw the line in the sand. Don't say no. Don't close one's ears, like Odysseus was told by Circe to put wax in his ears so that he wouldn't hear the singing sirens. Take the wax out of your ears. Let this pony run. I plead with Members to take off the blindfolds and look at this amendment on its many, many merits. This will not hurt, Senators. Put just one toe, the big toe or the little toe, over that line in the sand that you have drawn. There is an oasis of benefits for everybody on the other side of the line. Take this step, take this brave, single step and cross over into the promised land, freed from the shackles of the oath that binds you. A poem comes to my mind, written by J.G. Holland. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BYRD. I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, once again, I ask the clerk to read my amendment in the Record so it appears once again before the Senate takes a vote. That time will not be charged to me?

Mr. BYRD. How much time remains?

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

Mr. BYRD. I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania, for a total of 15 minutes. (The remarks of Mr. Specter are located in today's Record under Morning Business.)

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator want?

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