Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask that my amendment No. 4115 at the desk be called up.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, that is a forthright answer. It is quite enlightening. I certainly thank the distinguished chairman. I seem to recall that there have been many important measures over the years that have been debated. Many have been enacted; some have been rejected. The Versailles Treaty was rejected. What I am saying is, this is not the only important measure. I grant that it is very important. The chairman says it is such an important measure, the administration does not want it amended. At least that is his recollection of what the administration's position is. But there have been many important measures. I won't go through them now, but I can think of a good many that have come up here since I have been a Member of the Senate. I was here when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was enacted. I believe it was before the Senate 116 days, including the 2 weeks that were used in calling up that measure. But we had amendments. There had to be cloture filed on it in order to get a final vote. There was the natural gas bill of 1978. One could go on and name equally important measures that were far-reaching measures, but never was there the blood oath that was taken by Senators that they would stand to the man or to the woman against any amendment: Regardless of its merit, it shall not pass. And since when has the Senate bowed the neck to any administration and agreed, either publicly or in private or with a wink and a nod, that we will stand with you, Mr. Administration; we will be with you; we will stand against any amendment. It does not make any difference how it might affect my constituents. It does not make any difference how it might affect my sons, my daughters, my grandchildren. It does not make any difference, Mr. Administration, or Mr. President; we will stand with you; we will be against this amendment. What is the Senate coming to when the Senate engages in that kind of charade? I say Senators ought to bow their heads in shame. What is happening to the Senate when that kind of situation obtains? That is what we have come to here, where we follow, like sheep, the administration over a cliff. I dare say there will be some Senators who have taken that blood oath--I will refer to it as a blood oath; it is probably as good as a blood oath because apparently that is the way it is going to work--who will have agreed to pursue that kind of course in spite of the rules, the history, the traditions of the Senate, in spite of the oath of office they took. Each of us takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Here is the Constitution of the United States. I hold it in my hand. Are we supporting the Constitution of the United States which says that the Congress shall have power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce? Not exactly in those words, but it is in section 8 of article I of this Constitution: Congress shall have power to regulate commerce. That is what this bill is about, commerce. Yet we are not going to let Congress regulate it. We are not going to let the Congress of the United States uphold and utilize its power under the Constitution of the United States in this regard. This same Constitution says, with regard to amendments, that all revenue-raising measures will originate in the other body. But the Senate may amend, ``as on other bills,'' it says. So that would include the measure that is before the Senate. So we are giving the back of our hand to the Constitution of the United States. We are not exercising our responsibilities--not just our rights, but we are not exercising our responsibilities to the people, to the Constitution, to this country, to our children, to our grandchildren, and to ourselves. We are not standing by our duty and our responsibility if we enter into such an agreement as that among us. I daresay some of the Senators who have fallen into that pothole will come to rue the day. I will have more to say about this in that regard before we have the final vote. Today, I cast my 15,801st vote in this Senate; 15,801 votes. No Senator in the history of the Republic can match it. I have never entered into such an agreement. When I was in the leadership, when I was a leader, when I was a whip, when I was secretary of the Democratic conference, whether in the majority or minority, I never asked my friends in the Senate to stand to the man. I am not saying that the majority leader or minority leader have asked Senators to do that. But there is some kind of a virus that has come along here and seized on the Chamber and, all of a sudden, there are several Senators who are going to vote against any amendment. Think about that. I would not want my constituents to think I would do that. I might want to listen to a Senator. He might be a Republican. I might want to listen to that Republican explain his amendment, and I might want to vote for it, and I might vote for it. I might vote for it even if my fellow Democrats were against it. This Senator is not going to be bound by any ``blood oath.'' I objected to that when I was a member of the house of delegates 54 years ago. I stood up in a caucus and said, ``I'm not going to be bound by this caucus.'' It was a Democratic caucus. ``I am not going to walk around here with shackles and chains on my wrists and legs and, more importantly, on my conscience.'' I think a Senator is entitled to be heard on his amendment and entitled to have the frank opinions of other Senators. He is entitled to have his colleagues' opinions, short of any shackles and chains that are binding them, as it were, to vote against any amendment. So I am utterly wasting my time. I am just wasting my time. I am sorry to say I am impinging on the time of the Presiding Officer. We have the manager of the bill here and I am wasting his time. Why go through all of this when Senators have stood upon this floor and said-- I have heard them--that they will vote against any amendment to this bill. Why? Because if the amendment were to be adopted, it would mean that the bill would then have to go back to the House and go to conference. Well, so what. That is the way we do things. That is the process, and it has been the process for decades. That will continue to be the process. We go to conference or the House accepts the bill. In any event, both Houses have to act together in unison and have to agree upon any measure before it can be sent to the President, providing it is a bill or joint resolution. So there you are. That is the reason. I will tell you why. They are afraid; the administration is afraid. Senators are afraid--those who have taken this position--of being against any amendment. They are afraid that the Senate, in the free exercise of its wisdom and its judgment, might accept and adopt some of these amendments. When they go back to the House in that case, then the House, in its wisdom, might accept the amendments. And so this measure would not be passed as a clean measure. What are we coming to here? I can't remember that ever happening in my time in the Senate. It is an unwritten agreement, but it is an agreement, apparently. Shame, shame on us; shame on the Senate; shame on the administration, if that is the policy they are pushing. Are we slaves to the administration? Are we slaves or are we men? Are we free men and women? After all, when it is boiled down, in essence, Milton's Paradise Lost is about freedom of the will. God gave man freedom of the will. Now, why don't you Senators exercise that freedom of the will? I understand that all who vote against amendments are not doing so just because they have entered into some kind of unwritten agreement that they are going to be against all amendments. There are some Senators who will be against this amendment I am offering. They would vote against it, no matter what. So I certainly don't impugn the character or honesty and integrity of Senators. I am sickened by this idea that we have to pass this as a clean bill and no matter what amendment or whose amendment it is, or where it started, or what its impact or merits, we are going to vote down all amendments. That sickens me. You may say, so what, he is sickened. Well, it is more than ``so what.'' This is the United States Senate. What a sad day when Senators look at a measure and say: We will not support any amendment. What a reflection upon man's freedom of the will. In the body which is the premier upper House of the world, where amendments are assured and where freedom of debate is assured, what a sad reflection upon our attitudes toward our responsibilities and our duties and toward our rights on behalf of our people. The people of West Virginia want this amendment. The people of West Virginia support the amendment. But they are going to be gagged. They can support it all they want. It will not pass. It cannot pass. The same can be said for other amendments. I have heard it said here, we are going to influence the Chinese to move farther, to a more moderate society, farther in that direction; we have to pass this, we will have more influence. The Chinese have been around for thousands of years, thousands of years. The Chinese were one of the earliest peoples to have a civilized society. And they are in no big hurry. When they seek to achieve an objective, they can wait. They have the patience of that great man of Ur, Job. They have the patience. And they say we will influence them, we will influence them to become more amenable to our views and the views of the democracy. We don't even have a democracy here. This is a republic. The very idea that we are going to influence them. We have been in business for 212 years here; they have been in business for 2,000, 3,000, 5,000 years or longer. They were around when the pyramids of Egypt were created by the ancient Egyptians. So we are going to influence them? Well, let's see who is influenced in the long run. The amendment I offer is a good amendment. If we can influence them on this amendment, we will have achieved something. I say to the former Senator from Wyoming, we don't call attention to people in the galleries, but he has the right to the floor as a former Senator. I say to my friend from Wyoming, who is a man of utterly good sense, good judgment, that if he were a Member of this body, he would laugh at this charade, he would laugh at this charade, were it not so serious. I am glad he is back on the floor today. At least there is a little wisdom in the Chamber at this moment. Mr. President, as many Senators know, I have been working for many years to provide funding for a range of clean energy technologies. These technologies are essential to growing our economy while also ensuring that environmental improvements, energy security, public health, and air and water quality are met. The U.S. will need a range of energy resources if our nation is ever going to achieve a sustainable economic future, and we must expand the range of newer technologies and practices to meet even more challenging problems in the future. The very same argument can be made for China. It would be productive for both nations if we could leverage our hard-won technological advances while helping China develop in a more environmentally and economically sound manner. Let me say this over again: It would be productive for both nations-- China and the United States--if we could leverage our hard-won and costly, paid for by the taxpayers of America, technological advances, while helping China develop in a more environmentally and economically sound manner. By 2020, energy technology experts estimate that global clean energy technology markets are expected to double, and these markets in developing countries alone could require a multi-trillion dollar investment as infrastructure is built and replaced. Clean energy technologies and other such beneficial mitigation actions such as carbon sequestration are essential responses if any nation, in this rapidly growing economy, ever hopes to adequately address burgeoning environment and energy concerns such as energy security, resource diversity, land use changes, air and water quality, and ultimately, global climate change. If one realizes that two-thirds of the global energy infrastructure has yet to be built and much of the current infrastructure will need to be upgraded or replaced, then every nation must play a role and strategically plan for this anticipated development. I note that in May 2000, the U.S. and China signed a cooperative agreement on environment and development. Recognizing that these two intertwining issues are some of the most critical challenges in the coming century, our two nations have committed themselves to meeting ever-growing development needs in an economically and environmentally sound manner. As part of that agreement, the U.S. and China plan to expand and accelerate the transfer of clean energy technologies in order to meet energy demands and environmental protection challenges. Among a number of important features, this recent agreement specifically calls for the increased utilization of Clean Coal Technologies. I believe that agreements like this are a gradual but positive step in bringing increased cooperation between our two nations, and I hope that future endeavors that build upon this foundation are pursued. In 1985, I worked to create the Department of Energy's Clean Coal Technology program, a very successful research and development program. Originally designed to address acid rain reduction, the Clean Coal Technology program is now addressing a broader range of emission issues, including the reduction of greenhouse gases. It is well known that, just as coal has fueled much of the American economy, it will play a major role in China's development as well. The U.S. and China, two of the largest energy producing nations in the world, will only make substantial progress in reconciling the need for economic growth and environmental protection through increased cooperation that includes the use of clean energy technologies such as renewable, energy efficiency, nuclear, and fossil energy technologies including Clean Coal Technologies. In the end, it does not matter where clean energy technologies like American-made Clean Coal Technologies are demonstrated. More importantly, it matters that these technologies be deployed in any region or nation that uses coal to meet rapidly growing energy demands. While the U.S. should be deploying these technologies domestically, the best energy technologies for coal-fired generation facilities must be installed so that their real world benefits can be proven in China likewise. In a recent survey conducted by the Electric Power Research Institute, it is predicted that nations such as China, with large indigenous coal reserves, will use these plentiful resources for producing electricity to fuel their rapidly growing economy. China is the world's largest producer and consumer of coal. The study estimates--now, get this, the two other Senators who are here today. I won't name them. I want my two other Senators, though, to hear this. The study estimates that China could build as many as 180 electric powerplants per year for the next 20 years with about 75 percent of these powerplants utilizing coal. Now, where are the environmentalists? I need their support on this amendment. Let me say that again. The study estimates that China could build as many as 180 electric powerplants per year for the next 20 years, with about 75 percent of these powerplants utilizing coal. What is that going to do to the problem of global warming? Because coal is the largest energy resource that China can produce in great quantities domestically, it will almost certainly be China's dominant fuel resource choice. As a first step, one of the cheapest and easiest pollution abatement measures that China could utilize would include coal washing. We have been through that. We know what coal washing means. It would use coal washing to remove impurities from the ore. That distinguished Presiding Officer, who is from Illinois, knows what coal washing is. They produce coal up there in Illinois, and have been doing so for quite a long time. Today, less than 20 percent of the coal burned in China is washed. In the near term, China needs pollution abatement technologies like coal washing and sulfur scrubbing, with an increasing demand for additional clean coal technologies as new facilities come online. This evidence should serve as a wake-up call--China will use coal to fuel much of China's economic growth. Still, China's many other domestic environmental challenges are formidable, resulting in serious health and potential economic devastation if they are not addressed. For example, China, home to 5 of the 10 most polluted cities in the world, must address the serious impacts on people's health from this poor air quality. Today, few Chinese cities have adequate water treatment facilities. Approximately 40 percent of China's water in urban areas is contaminated, and land use changes could make agricultural production and food security increasingly more precarious. Additionally, China now ranks second in the world in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Hear me now, environmentalists. You should position yourselves at the doors of this Chamber. You should position yourselves at the elevators to the building and buttonhole these Senators when they come into this Chamber and tell them: Vote for this amendment. This is an environmentalists' amendment. The Energy Information Agency estimates that 84 percent of the projected growth in carbon emissions between 1990 and 2010 will come from developing countries, and one of the largest sources will be China. While I know there is no one silver bullet to solve the totality of these very complicated global environment and energy problems, if the international community is ever going to effectively combat issues of air and water pollution, land use changes, and global climate change, then the United States and China must work together to increase the use of clean energy technology. That window is now open. To ignore the benefits of clean coal technologies, knowing that coal will be a primary fuel of choice, would be folly, utter folly. The U.S. has grappled with many of these energy and environmental problems and is making slow but steady progress in addressing air, water, and land use problems. For example, the United States has done much to improve its own use of coal as a fuel for electric generation. While coal use has tripled since 1970, the emissions have decreased substantially while also providing the much needed electric generation necessary to light this Chamber, for example; to light the White House; to fuel the needs of the big cities on the Atlantic seaboard, the large industrial centers in the Midwest. I am talking about coal, C-O-A-L. While coal use has tripled since 1970, the emissions have decreased substantially, while also providing the much needed electric generation necessary for economic growth. We should, therefore, provide developing nations such as China with our expertise and experience--at their cost. These are not for free. These are paid for by the American taxpayer. But we should make them available, and our agencies operating in China should help to open the doors, open the gates so these technologies that have come at great expense to the American taxpayer can be utilized for great effect in China. We should help China to resolve its environmental and developmental dilemmas by learning from our own past mistakes, in part through the utilization of the most advanced energy technologies and practices. My amendment requires any U.S. Government agency that plays a role in environment and energy, and operates in China, to increase that agency's efforts to increase China's efforts to get clean energy technologies on the ground in China. I recognize that at this time there are particular limitations on specific agencies prohibiting them from working in China. These sanctions are another issue that Congress should address later. My amendment is not intended to overturn those sanctions. Rather, the United States should be using the collective resources and expertise of such Government agencies as the Departments of Commerce, State, and Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Export-Import Bank to provide greater technical assistance and other aid, to the maximum extent practicable, to assist in the promotion, the transfer, and the deployment of more American-made clean energy technology. The U.S. Government needs to help U.S. companies increase their market share for environmental and clean energy technologies in China's rapidly growing market. In June 1999, the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology released a report entitled ``The Federal Role in International Cooperation on Energy Innovation.'' The conclusions of that study strongly suggested that more needed to be done to fill the gaps in the ``technology innovation pipeline.'' The recommendations include strengthening the Federal foundation for capacities in energy technology innovation, promoting a range of energy efficient and clean energy technologies, and enhancing the interagency development of these ideas internationally. The scientific and technology experts outlining these recommendations have made a number of observations in their report that justify the need for this very important amendment. What are some of those observations? 1. Energy use will grow dramatically worldwide, particularly in developing nations. 2. Technological innovation and the policies adopted to promote efficient and clean energy technologies will determine the quantity of energy used in the future and the impact of that energy use. 3. A significant portion of the demand for new energy technologies will be outside the United States under any future scenario. 4. Government has a critical and legitimate role to play. 5. Strengthening industrial and developing country cooperation on clean energy technologies is a promising approach to helping secure developing country participation in any future international framework for addressing global climate change. 6. A unified vision and coordinated management will enhance U.S. international cooperation efforts on energy. In an effort to help implement many of these commonsense ideas, I offer my amendment today. If Senators believe that more needs to be done to address global environment and energy issues --and I not only say Senators, but I also include the White House. The Vice President has been a leader in the effort to have countries clean up the pollution. He has been a leader advocating measures to offset global warming. This is his chance. This is the time. This is the opportunity. If Senators believe that the United States has developed a package of commercial-ready, cutting-edge, clean energy technologies, if we believe the recommendations outlined in this report and believe that they make sense, if we believe the United States should be doing more to develop clean energy technology markets internationally, then I have the way to do it. I have the amendment. This amendment is a logical outcome. Clean coal technologies are just one of many examples of clean energy technologies that have been enhanced through U.S. investment in research, development, and demonstration. But many of these newer, cleaner technologies must eventually be deployed in the market so that their worthiness can be proved. It is imperative that we fill that gap. The United States should be doing even more to work with China to get clean energy technologies in place. If there is something real to this thing called global warming--and I believe there is. I believe there is something to global warming. This is the way to ameliorate it. China would benefit by utilizing cleaner technologies; growing its economy, and improving its citizens' lives. At the same time, U.S. companies would benefit by creating an even broader market opportunity for American-made technologies. Some people may believe that the United States should not be helping China make clean energy technology investments until China has formally committed itself to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, as outlined in Senate Resolution 98. I am a believer in Senate Resolution 98. As a lead sponsor of that resolution, let me be clear, we should be encouraging more action, not less action. The amendment that I offer today is not tied to S. Res. 98 or any climate change treaty. I recognize the underlying science of climate change and believe that every nation including China, must do its part to tackle this international problem. If the international community is ever going to tackle a truly global issue like climate change, then all nations must work to find equitable, cost-effective ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While clean energy technologies may help reduce greenhouse gases, they also address a wide range of equally important environment and energy concerns. Therefore, the United States should be taking further steps on many fronts, including encouraging China to use more American-made clean energy technologies. This is a win-win-win-win opportunity for both our countries and may eventually provide for future scenarios by which developing nations consider climate change commitments. While there are many issues that our two large, very powerful countries do not agree on, energy and environment challenges constitute common issues of concern in which we can work more closely. Chinese officials at the highest levels have acknowledged that increasing steps must be taken to fight pollution and ecological deterioration. China's domestic efforts must increase given the serious nature of their environmental problems. They have serious environmental problems, and they know it. It is clearly recognized that there are sound policy options and a range of commercial-ready technologies that can help China make substantial improvements in its energy sector but all parties must be ready to meet these challenges. International cooperation remains critically important, especially for introducing more clean energy technologies and mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. This can be done if the United States and China work more closely to enhance clean energy technology transfer for the benefit of both our nations. As the panel of scientific and technology experts from this assessment on clean energy technology innovation has concluded: The needs and opportunities for enhanced international cooperation on energy-technology innovation supportive of U.S. interests and values are thus both large and urgent. . . . Now is the time for the United States to take the sensible and affordable steps . . . to address the international dimensions of the energy challenges to U.S. interests and values that the 21st century will present. Therefore, I urge Senators to put aside the blood oath and support this amendment as it will help strengthen the American values, American-made technologies, and the PNTR bill that we are considering today. Mr. President, how much time have I used?

Mr. BYRD. This is the question: Does the chairman of the committee know whether or not the administration is opposed to any amendments being added to this measure by the Senate?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have been informed that several Senators are not here, they having thought there would be at least an hour and a half to 3 hours before there would be a vote. I am not going to take advantage of Senators in that way, and I, therefore, shall proceed. But with now the time running, let me say, I think this is a travesty upon the legislative process. This is a far-reaching measure. There are important amendments that will be called up and voted down--summarily voted down--by many Members; at least, many Members will summarily vote against any amendment. Some have already announced their intention to vote against any amendment. So a rhetorical question, I think, would be in order. Why have any debate? Why call up amendments? Why go through this charade? I have called up an amendment. We all know it is going to be rejected because some Senators are going to vote against any amendments, no matter what the amendment provides. They can be good amendments, they can be better amendments, they can be the best amendments. They are all going to be rejected. What kind of legislative process is that? I have been in this Congress 48 years. I have been in the Senate 42 years. I have never seen anything like this. Members are very forthright in saying--they don't make any bones about it--that they have agreed they will not support any amendment. Why? Because they say it would mean, if the amendment should carry, that the measure would have to go to the House and then to a conference. The House might accept the amendment. There might not have to be a conference. The House might accept the amendment. And if a conference did ensue, again, so what? That is the way we have been doing things for decades. The Senate votes. If there are amendments to the House bill, then there is a conference, unless the House accepts the amendment itself. Here are some amendments that, if the House should have an opportunity to vote on them, undoubtedly would receive good votes in the House and perhaps, who knows, they might pass the House. But this administration doesn't want any vote. I ask unanimous consent that I may ask a question of the distinguished chairman of the committee.

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

Mr. BYRD. Now, Mr. President, I would like to have a live quorum, so I will presently intend to object to the calling off of the quorum because I want Senators to give a little bit of attention to what is going on here. So I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I do not want to be dilatory. That is not my desire at all. I voted earlier today to proceed to the consideration of this measure. But it seems to me to be a sad reflection on us all if we are going to have a far-reaching measure of this importance before the Senate here at 5 minutes until 1 p.m. and with only three Senators on the floor. Now, it is not so much that this happens to be my amendment, but this does happen to be an important measure, and this does happen to be an important amendment, in my judgment. So I am going to suggest the absence of a quorum. I ask unanimous consent that it not be charged against the 3 hours.

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

Mr. BYRD. Do quorum calls come out of the 3 hours?

Mr. BYRD

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

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate is presently considering the extension of permanent normal trade relations status, or PNTR, to the People's Republic of China contingent upon China's accession to the World Trade Organization, WTO. Earlier this year, it appeared that China might seek to join the WTO this fall, but now, in the first blush of autumn, that possibility has receded. And so has the urgency for us to consider granting PNTR on a permanent basis or on a temporary basis to China. Yet, here we are, with but a scant handful of days left in this Congress and a large number of must-pass appropriations bills awaiting our attention, discussing the merits or demerits or lack of merits of forevermore foregoing our annual ritual of reviewing and extending normal trade relations to China. It might be worthwhile for the Senate to so consume its time, if we were taking this debate seriously. After all, it is quite a significant vote, the outcome of which may have long-lasting effects on our economy, on American jobs and on American workers. Proponents of extending PNTR to China note with some alarm that, should China join the WTO, the United States could be subject to sanctions by China because we do not currently treat it exactly the same as we do other trading partners, both in the WTO and outside the WTO. And that is true. We do not treat China the same as, say, the United Kingdom or Japan. We put conditions on our trade with China, human rights conditions and labor conditions and nonproliferation conditions. We do so out of concern for those issues with respect to China. Our annual debate and vote to extend for another year normal trade relations, with conditions or without conditions, allows us, here in Congress, to comprehensively review our relationship with China. The annual vote on NTR is important to China, more important, perhaps, than any other single piece of legislation might be. The United States is a huge market, an attractive market, and an important market for Chinese goods. The competitive advantage of NTR tariff rates is consequential. It is both a carrot and a stick to persuade China to alter its behavior with regard to issues near and dear to Americans, such as religious freedom, such as nonproliferation. I would be happy to spend many hours on this debate, and discussing this important trade and security relationship. I consider it an important debate. But I am somewhat dismayed to read news accounts about a cabal among Senators to stifle one of the most important rights granted by the Constitution to the Senate. That is the right to offer and have debate on and votes on amendments. In the House, the rule guides debate and the number and content of amendments that might be offered to a bill. That is perhaps necessary in a body with 435 Members. But the Constitution says: Each House may determine its own rules. The framers made the Senate a place where minority views, and small States, had an equal voice. Thus, West Virginia, a State consisting of 24,000 square miles--as a matter of fact, 24,231.4 square miles--is not a very large State when placed beside, on a geographic map, the great State of New York, which is so ably represented and which has been so ably represented by the senior Senator from New York, Mr. Moynihan. I oppose this legislation with due apologies to my friend. And he is my friend--a man of great wit, of great stature, a man of natural grace, a student, a scholar, a teacher--Pat Moynihan. I apologize to him for having to vote against this bill, but I shall do it with gusto. The framers established the Senate as a forum for unlimited debate and unlimited amendment. Or did they? They certainly did so with respect to unlimited amendments. But for several years, there was the previous question here in the Senate by which debate could be limited. But when Aaron Burr completed his tenure as Vice President of the United States and made his farewell address to the Senate, in early March of 1805, he recommended that the previous question be dropped from the rules. It had only been used 10 times in the previous years from the inception of the Republic. When the rules were revised in 1806, the previous question was dropped. It was then that unlimited debate reigned pure and undefiled and unchallenged in the Senate of the United States. So this is a precious birthright. By the way, there were no limitations placed upon debate from that time--1806 or 1805--until 1917, when the present rule XXII--not exactly the present rule; it has been changed some since then--but a rule providing for the invoking of cloture was adopted in the Senate in 1917. But this group of Members--I do not know who they are, and I am not sure that such a group exists, but I will take rumor for truth at this point because it very well could occur to some Members to want a ``clean'' vote, up or down. This group of Members, I read, want a ``clean'' vote, up or down, on the House-passed bill. They, and a number of House Members, do not want a conference. And they do not want a second vote in both Houses on a conference report. So these Senators--well-intentioned, well-meaning-- are determined to defeat every amendment, I hear, to this bill, regardless of merit. So having heard it, let me accept it as the truth and proceed accordingly. I am embarrassed to read that. I hope that it is not true, that Members of this body would relinquish a critical Senate prerogative, especially over so important an issue. Perhaps they would say: Well, it isn't exactly relinquishing a prerogative. Other Senators may call up amendments, but we will vote them down. They shall not pass. If it is true, then we are just spinning our wheels here, are we not, by trying to fulfill our Constitutional role of regulating foreign commerce? We are just spinning deep ruts in the Senate floor by attempting to offer amendments to improve this bill before we close off our opportunity to annually review and affect our relationship with China. I have reviewed the House bill, somewhat cursorily, I admit. It is not that the House-passed bill is a bad bill. It contains a number of reporting requirements that attempt to assuage concerns about human rights and labor rights in China. But without the goal of an annual renewal of NTR status behind it, what force does a report have to affect behavior in China? How can a report protect American workers whose jobs are in jeopardy because of unfair actions in the trade field by China? How can a report protect American missionaries in China or Chinese citizens who wish to practice their religious beliefs? How does a report turn back a shipment of missile technology? How does a report turn back threatening words and actions directed at another nation like Taiwan? The goal of this administration, and of the past few administrations--and I say this most advisedly; I have been in Congress now 48 years--and every administration since I came to Washington, Democratic and Republican, has been the same way, always singing the same old tune, and is guided, it seems to me, by the State Department. The goal of all of these administrations, including the present one, has been to, bit by bit, eat away at the constitutional powers of this body to regulate foreign commerce. This is the message behind limiting mechanisms such as fast track. The argument is that our trading partners do not like agreements to be amended so it is take it or leave it for the Senate. But the Senate must make judgments based on our national interest. Trade is a matter of increasing national interest. No one would dream of making the argument that we cannot vote for reservations or changes in arms control treaties because it would upset our negotiating partner. The Soviets promptly renegotiated the changes we made with respect to the INF treaty, a very fundamental change on the question of the very definition of the missiles that were the subject of the treaty. So are we to conclude that we can amend arms control treaties but not trade agreements, or even legislation dealing with trade agreements? Trade has now become a varsity sport in America, especially here in Washington. It is very important to our well-being, important to millions of workers, important to the quality of our environment, important to the world's environment. It is important to large industrial and service sectors, a matter of such importance that we should at least pay careful attention to our constitutional responsibilities. The final product will be more in the national interest and Senators will have done their duty to their constituents and to our Nation, as it was envisioned by our Founding Fathers, if we debate this matter at length and if we offer amendments, debate them in good faith, and have votes up or down on them and let the chips fall where they may. Is it not possible that we might improve this legislation by the vote of a majority here in the Senate? Suppose one were to offer an amendment vital to our security interest. It is not germane, but there is no rule of germaneness in the Senate except under rule XVI with respect to appropriations bills or when time agreements obtain or when cloture is invoked. So why not? Why not offer subject matter that is important to our national security interest? If there is a group of Senators who have, by tacit understanding, by a wink and a nod, or by words openly declared that they will oppose any and every amendment regardless of its complexity or its complexion or whether it is good or bad or in between--if there is such a group of Senators, why not abstain from that and let us vote? Let us have a vote up or down and have a vote based on the subject matter of the amendment without any prior agreement, without any wink or nod, if there be such. Let us see where the chips fall. Are we to say that this particular bill is the acme of perfection and we should not have any further amendments of any sort regardless of merit? I don't think that would be the right way to commence. Once granted, PNTR will be difficult, though not impossible, to retract. Any attempt to withdraw PNTR status in the future, if it is granted now, will cause an uproar, and not just in China. The diplomatic crowd in the aptly named Foggy Bottom here in D.C. will bleat that rejecting PNTR will upset delicate negotiations with the Chinese. The big business crowd will complain about lost opportunities to sell or invest in China. The Administration at the time will prate erroneously about Congress interfering with their sovereign right to conduct foreign affairs. And even in Congress, bills might be introduced, only to die an unremarked death in some committee or on some calendar. I have been here a long time. I have seen a lot of bills die and I know a thing or two about how to kill them. So I know that undoing a thing is much harder to do than doing it in the first place. It will be much harder to undo PNTR than it will be to grant it. So why are we apparently so gung-ho to have this sham debate and vote now, this year, this week or next? There is no great urgency. The bill will not even take effect until China's accession to the WTO is voted upon. Why do it now, just weeks after a damning report has been issued about China's role in the proliferation of missiles and missile technology? Why do it now--why not next week sometime or next month or next year sometime--mere weeks after Chinese authorities conducted another raid on a so-called Christian sect that resulted in three Taiwan-born American citizens and approximately 100 Chinese citizens being arrested for meeting in worship? Why do it now, just months after Chinese officials have made still more threatening gestures toward Taiwan? Why do it now, before the final negotiations on the bilateral U.S.- Chinese trade agreement, particularly the trade subsidy portions, have been ironed out? Perhaps someone was listening to that advertisement I have heard on the TV so many times: Do it now, do it here. Well, we don't do it now. China's record on trade agreements is not stellar. Since 1992, six trade agreements have been made--and broken--by China. In the last two years, we have seen the effects of dumping on the U.S. steel industry, as well as on the apple industry. So why are we rushing this vote? Why now? Why are we rushing this in such haste that we will not even seriously consider amendments that might improve the legislation? It is hardly perfect, sprung like Minerva, fully formed, from the forehead of Jove, or like Aphrodite from the ocean foam. In that vein, I have several amendments prepared which I believe could improve this agreement. One concerns prospective U.S. investments in the Chinese energy sector. This amendment, if adopted, supports the market for clean energy technology in China's admittedly booming economy. I believe this amendment would pass the Senate. I think it would command a decided majority in the Senate, if left to its own merits. Sales of such clean technology helps U.S. firms, of course, but also provide a mechanism for the Chinese to improve their air and water quality, a necessary step if China is ever to step up to what should be leadership role for her among the world's developing nations with regard to climate change. Now I am all for dealing with global warming. I am for the Kyoto Protocols, if China will get on board. So why not have an amendment to that effect. Let's have a vote here in the Senate. After all, by the year 2015 at the latest, China is expected--let's see, I will be serving in my tenth term; that will be my tenth term. After all, by 2015 at the latest, China is expected to surpass the United States as the world's leading emitter of greenhouse gases. For her own sake, as well as for the future of all of us, China needs to step up to the plate and tackle her role in addressing the global issue of climate change. The United States would also benefit from this effort, as increased volume of clean technology sales helps to reduce prices and make the best technology more affordable to retrofit on existing U.S. facilities. My other amendments are perhaps somewhat more specific in nature. In light of China's less-than-sterling record of abiding by previous trade agreements, these amendments are focused on increasing the transparency of Chinese Government subsidies made to China's many state-owned enterprises, and on improving existing U.S. procedures for acting on dumping complaints. China has made vague promises about not dumping and about not providing unfair subsidies to her enterprises. Yet China has also staked a verbal claim to the status of developing nations, which would exempt her from any sanctions with regard to subsidies made to Chinese industries. My amendments would require reports on China's state-owned enterprises--what's wrong with that?--and the advantages they enjoy, which would better enable us to determine if China's actions are fair. Another of my amendments would add certainty to the sometimes excessively lengthy process used to determine if such subsidies have adversely affected U.S. companies and U.S. workers. These amendments will help us better to protect American manufacturers, American jobs, American workers, and American families from unfair trade practices. American trade negotiators have crowed that, in the U.S.-China Bilateral Trade Agreement, the United States has given up nothing, while the Chinese have made substantial concessions and have offered to significantly lower tariff rates on certain goods. But I argue that the United States is giving up something substantial, though not directly through the U.S.-China Bilateral Trade Agreement. We are making our part of the bargain now. We are giving up our annual review and extension of normal trade relations with China in favor of a permanent normal trade relations status. And we are doing it now, before China has to make a single concession as a result of the bilateral agreement, which, like PNTR, is contingent upon China's accession to the WTO. But I suspect that the Chinese may also be gambling on the fact that having once made the plunge in granting PNTR to China, the United States will give it to them even if they never make it to the WTO, or even if the details of the bilateral change are ignored. That is the way we are, and the Chinese know it as well as I do. We have an obligation to our constituents and to the citizens of our great Nation to look out for their best interests. The Constitution gives us a role. Yes, it does. This is the Constitution that I hold in my hand for all to see through that electronic eye. This is the Constitution. Article I, section 8 gives Congress the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. So why don't we utilize that power? Why don't we utilize it? The Constitution gives us a role in regulating foreign commerce. I am not sure that we perform that obligation very well. We grant--I don't--fast-track authority to the Executive to negotiate massive trade deals and leave ourselves without the ability to amend. We take away the Senate's right under the Constitution to amend. We grant fast-track authority to the Executive to negotiate massive trade deals and leave ourselves without the ability to amend them, as we did with NAFTA and GATT, both of which I voted against-- proudly, I voted against both. My State certainly did not benefit from those actions. West Virginia lost jobs and lost a lot of the diversity in its manufacturing base. China is an enormous potential market, perhaps, but she is also an enormous labor pool competing for jobs and competing at a price advantage. Our economy is strong, but we cannot all sit at computer keyboards and be information age technology wizards. As a Nation, we also need to actually make things and grow things. Production and farming are important. But I would not invest in planting a new apple orchard right now, with Chinese apples and apple juice flooding the U.S. market. I would think twice about establishing a new assembly plant or some factory right now that faces competition from lower-paid workers in China, who do not have the same labor protections that workers in the United States enjoy and deserve. The future is uncertain and cloudy. Who will get the prize? Chinese or American workers? Will China be rewarded despite a history of broken trade agreements, weapons proliferation, religious repression, poor labor protection, and aggressive foreign policy statements? Will China be rewarded before the final trade issues concerning subsidies have been inked in? Or will American workers enjoy a respite? Will American concerns for security, human rights, and fair trade hold sway for a little while longer? I say to my colleagues, let it wait. Let it wait. This debate, this vote, can wait until we have the leisure and the will to do it right. If we persist in this misguided charade of a debate with no intention of considering any amendments on their merits, I will fulfill my obligations. I will offer amendments--good amendments, useful amendments, not dilatory amendments. I hope they will not be tabled simply to avoid a vote up or down, to avoid going to conference. At this time, I believe it would be extremely unwise to simply rubber stamp the House bill and approve PNTR with China without amendments. Granting PNTR to China with no amendments and no conditions signals that the U.S. Congress has given up on putting worker rights and environmental standards on the international trade agenda. Coupled with the rhetoric of the President, the Vice President, and the U.S. Trade Representative in support of PNTR, congressional acquiescence will reduce American credibility on labor and environmental issues to virtually nothing. At this time, it is not known whether China will actually apply for membership in the WTO. But one thing is clear; the Chinese Government has not wavered in its absolute opposition to any consideration of labor rights and social standards in the WTO. Despite claims that a market economy is bringing democracy to China, the U.S. State Department's 1999 human rights report on China concludes that the Chinese Government's ``poor human rights record deteriorated markedly throughout the year, as the government intensified efforts to suppress dissent, particularly organized dissent.'' Documented human rights violations include torture and mistreatment of prisoners, forced detentions, denial of due process, and extra-judicial killings. Violent repression of all efforts to organize independent union activity continues. Given such a record, it would seem unbelievable to many that the United States Congress would grant a green light to PNTR with China, without so much as even a nod toward conditions or amendments. Are we to turn a blind eye to every deeply held principle we have as a people about justice, freedom, and right and wrong for the pie-in-the sky promises of economic gain? I hope not. For that would be much, much more than a sell-out. That would be a shame. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished senior Senator from the State of Alexander Hamilton, New York. Alexander Hamilton was the only one of the New York delegation who finally signed the Constitution. He was one of the truly great statesmen in the early life of this Republic. He helped guide the people of that delegation at the Convention to a resolution concerning this great document, and one who helped, along with John Jay and James Madison, to write those, if I might use the word, ``immortal'' papers, the Federalist Papers. He helped to win the approval of the State of New York for the Constitution. There is no one with whom I would rather, very honestly, discuss this particular subject in the Senate than the Senator from New York because I am so opposed to the view that he has just expressed. I am so opposed to it. I could with much greater passion say that if it were someone else. I respect the Senator. I admire him. I know he was and is the great teacher. I wish I had had the good fortune to sit in a class and listen to Senator Moynihan speak as a Professor. I am proud to say that I had much to do with Senator Moynihan's being a member of the Finance Committee, as he also had to do with my becoming majority leader. But I am very, very much opposed to this approach. I am very, very much opposed to and somewhat chagrined and disappointed, I say with due apologies to my friend, at the philosophy which seems to govern the Senate at the moment with respect to this legislation, with respect to not adopting amendments. The distinguished Senator has had no hesitancy whatever. He is not doing something behind closed doors or under the table or under the desk, but sitting it on front of the desk: This we are doing and this is why we are doing it. He honestly believes that is the best for his country. I admire that. I respect the Senator for that forthrightness. He would not be otherwise but forthright. I respect his reasons, therefor. However, I cannot agree with him. I am totally, absolutely, unchangeably, unalterably set in my viewpoint that this is not the right thing to do; it is not in accordance with the Constitution of the United States; it is not in accordance with the wishes, the intentions of the framers. So be it. I am not going to argue that point. We will just disagree and be as great friends as we have ever been. And the Senator will win when we cast our final vote on this. His conscience will be clear and mine will be clear. My State has lost under these trade agreements--GATT. Our country has lost under NAFTA. It is my understanding that we have lost 440,000 workers in this country as a result of NAFTA. Those are the statistics my staff has been able to get from the administration. As I say, I will not belabor the point further. I thank the distinguished Senator for leadership that he has given the Senate. He is a man who has always enjoyed the respect of his colleagues whether he agrees or disagrees in a particular matter. He doesn't go out of this Chamber and carry it with him. We all love him, and we will all hate to see him go. But I will say to him, of his illustrious words that have been spoken in the Senate so many times, I have very carefully listened to them, and they will never dim from my memory.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, inasmuch as no Senator seeks recognition, and there is a little time remaining before the Senate goes back to the appropriations bill dealing with energy and water, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for not to exceed 10 minutes without the time being charged against time under the rule.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Vice President Gore on his particularly fine choice of a running mate for the coming Fall election. Joe Lieberman is an able Senator. More importantly, he is a sincere and thoughtful Senator. He really fits no ideological sleeve, although some are already busily trying to label him. Joe Lieberman is his own man, I believe. He follows his own conscience, I am confident of that, as even these early days of the Presidential campaign have already demonstrated. Senator Lieberman has firmly gripped the national political steering wheel, and he is bravely addressing one of the more fundamental issues before this Nation, namely the erosion of faith-based values from public life and public policy and the consequences of that regrettable loss. On July 17, I took this Senate floor to express my own general concern and alarm over the direction this nation seems to be taking when it comes to spiritual values. My speech on that occasion was aimed in particular at a recent Supreme Court decision regarding voluntary prayer at a high school football game, but my remarks reflected my long-held general view that the Supreme Court has gone too far on such matters, and has increasingly misinterpreted the Framers intent regarding the establishment clause and perhaps more to the point the free exercise clause of the first amendment. During my remarks, I called for a Constitutional amendment which might help to clarify the Framers' intentions. I even wrote to both Presidential candidates, with the hope of focusing attention on the matter, and thereby starting a national conversation about the proper place of religion in our public life, in our political life, in our country's life. My friend, Joe Lieberman, has done this Nation a great service by making his belief that faith-based principles and religion must and ought to have a place in our national policy and in our discussions about directions and priorities. To my utter amazement, however, Joe Lieberman has been misunderstood, and even maligned by some. My colleague, now a candidate for the second highest office in the land, is not trying to force his religion or any religion down the throats of any unwilling recipient. Nor is Joe Lieberman claiming, at least I do not read his remarks in this way, that a person cannot be moral if that person is not religious--even though I have to say that George Washington made it clear that without religion, morality cannot prevail; George Washington, in his Farewell Address. So, upon that authority I would rest my case. Joe Lieberman is simply saying that in trying to assure that no one is coerced into embracing any one religion, or any religion, for that matter, the pendulum may have swung too far. Joe Lieberman is simply expressing his own, and many other people's views, that it sometimes appears that persons of religious faith are not allowed their full freedom to practice and live their various faiths as their consciences dictate. He wants to have a national conversation about that, and I applaud his courage, for it is a subject easily misunderstood. Political correctness gets in the way of all too many things in this country of ours. I am not a subscriber of political correctness by any means, shape or form. It has gotten in the way of an honest and open dialogue about how to allow for the open expression of faith-based values and practices for those who want those things in their lives, without infringing on the rights and beliefs of those who don't. In my humble opinion, we must, as a Nation have this dialogue. The pendulum has swung too far. The Framers did not intend surely for a totally secular society to be forced on the populace by government policy. They only wished for individuals to be free to embrace whatever faith they wished, or none at all, if they desired none. Prayer abounds throughout the speeches of our great men. References to God virtually drip from our public buildings, and invocations of the Creator's blessing crop up at every important public gathering throughout our history. We have wandered off the Framers' track on this, and we need to work toward a better understanding of what was intended, what was to be protected and why. I hope that our fine colleague, Mr. Lieberman, continues to try to further the conversation. Not to do so would be detrimental. I fear that the misunderstanding about this issue is huge and growing. There is a new sort of intolerance about religion that I find most disturbing. It has become the thing we don't talk about, because it is not politically correct, so many of us are driven into a closet. It is seen as a divider in our culture, instead of the force for good it certainly can and should be. Where we do not want to go, and where we have rapidly been heading, is toward an instituted governmental policy which is prejudiced against all religion. We need to think long and hard about this together, as a country. How sadly ironic it would be if, after over 200 years, a nation grounded in religion and founded by religious men and women, with shining faith-based ideals about equality, fairness, freedom, and justice, and decades of effort to make those ideals a reality, wound up reflecting in its laws and policies a prejudice against religion and religious people.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the floor--I seek recognition again for 1 minute simply to express my joy in seeing my friend and our illustrious, highly respected, and able colleague, Dianne Feinstein, back with us on the floor today. We are sorry that misfortune has for the moment seen fit to not deal with her fairly, but in time all will be corrected and I am sure she will be just as always, as new. She is a fine Senator. She is a great friend of mine. I consider her to be someone we should all try to emulate. It might be very difficult for some of us to emulate her. But we are proud of her, proud of the work she does. I salute her today, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will vote against the cloture motion to proceed to the China Permanent Normal Trade Relations bill. The very nature of the discussions that have been taking place on the China PNTR issue demonstrates the complexity of trade, national security, democratic and economic issues that this nation faces in considering U.S.-China relations. One of my greatest concerns about the passage of PNTR for China is the very intensive scurrying to neatly package this deal as a ``win'' for America. I will concede that, on one hand, supporters of the PNTR legislation can make legitimate claims that China has, indeed, stated that it is willing to cut its tariffs, to allow greater foreign investment, and to abide by a set of internationally approved trade rules. Certainly, the people of the United States of America embrace the hope that China and the Chinese people can enjoy a beneficial exchange of commerce. But, I am a devout believer in the principle of fair trade--I repeat fair trade--rather than the so-called free trade, and I must note that China's track record in adhering to agreements is much less than perfect. I have little doubt that the vote today paves the way to rush to approve the PNTR measure without the deliberate, thoughtful consideration that this Congress should always provide. It has been years since this body gave U.S. trade policy the kind of consideration that we ought and that it certainly deserves. The Congress must not continue to neglect its duty to provide meaningful debate on U.S. trade policy that could plant the seeds of lasting, mutually beneficial trade relations with China. But, I will save my concerns about the China PNTR issue for the actual debate. The debate today is simply on the motion to proceed. Nevertheless, all Senators should be put on notice that this vote is about allowing the Senate to begin a hasty consideration of one of the most economically important relationships of our time, which also has huge national security implications. U.S.-China relations deserve better consideration from the body charged by the Constitution, as outlined in Article I, Section 8, with regulating commerce with foreign nations.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Those two. From there, we are going to try to move other appropriations bills as quickly as we can. I hope we do that. I hope we will push for that because I don't want to have the same old problems we have been having with appropriations bills; namely, to get down to conference and, at the last minute, Senators have plane reservations to go home and the administration comes in and is represented in the conference, and we have our backs to the walls and we end up with one major bill, as we did in fiscal year 1999, with eight appropriations bills and one tax bill, a $9.2 billion tax bill--all on an unamendable conference report, and we don't know what it is all about, it has 3,980 pages in it, and we can't amend it. That is a poor way to legislate. If the people of these United States knew what was going on here in that kind of a situation, they would run us all out, or they ought to. I just don't want to have that occur again.

Mr. BYRD. The two appropriations bills we are specifically talking about at the moment are energy and water and the Treasury-Postal Service.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, what was in the agreement that was entered into?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I was not on the floor when the agreement was entered into. I want to know what was entered into while I was not on the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I commend the Senate's guest Chaplain today, Father Thomas S. Acker, S.J., for his eloquent prayer opening today's session of the United States Senate. For the last 18 years, Fr. Acker has been serving as President of Wheeling Jesuit University in Wheeling, West Virginia. During that time, Wheeling Jesuit University has grown to become one of the leading universities in the State of West Virginia, and much of that growth is due to the insight and hard work of this Jesuit priest. During Fr. Acker's tenure at Wheeling Jesuit, the enrollment has doubled--doubled--and the number of buildings and square footage on campus has more than doubled. The addition of the Robert C. Byrd National Technology Transfer Center, the Erma Ora Byrd Center for Educational Technologies, and the Alan B. Mollohan Challenger Learning Center on campus places Wheeling Jesuit University in a unique position for growth into the 21st Century, which will begin next year, and has made a difference in the lives of the residents of West Virginia and beyond. Recently, Fr. Acker was presented, by Administrator Dan Goldin, with the Distinguished Public Service Medal of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, the highest honor given to a civilian from that agency. This award reflects the high confidence that NASA and its Administrator have in the stewardship of Fr. Acker in connection with agency programs administered--where? at Wheeling Jesuit University. Fr. Acker, a native of Cleveland, Ohio, entered the Jesuit order in 1947. That was my first year in the West Virginia House of delegates. He has a Ph.D. in biology. I don't have a Ph.D. in anything. But I have grandsons who have Ph.Ds. I have two grandsons who have Ph.D.s in physics; not political science but physics. But Fr. Acker has a Ph.D. in Biology from Stanford University. He has taught at John Carroll University. He has taught at the University of Detroit. He has taught at San Francisco University. He has served as Dean of Arts and Sciences at St. Joseph's University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and worked in the country of Nepal, first as a Fulbright professor and then as Project Director of the U.S. Peace Corps. Fr. Tom Acker's tenure as the President at Wheeling Jesuit University will end on Monday, July 31, 2000, the last year of the 20th century, but he will not be leaving the State of West Virginia. He has grown to love that State. Rather, he will remain in West Virginia, working in the southern sector to continue his great service to the great State of West Virginia. I look forward to my continued relationship with this strong, competent, and compassionate man of the cloth, and I congratulate him on his decision to remain in West Virginia. I listened carefully to his prayer today. He used the words, ``In God We Trust.'' I was in the House of Representatives in 1954, on June 7, when the House of Representatives passed legislation to include the words ``under God'' in the pledge of allegiance--June 7, 1954; ``under God.'' There are some people in this country who would like to take those words out of that pledge, but not Fr. Acker. I don't think anybody here in the Senate would be for that. That was June 7, 1954. June 7, 1955, 1 year to the day, the House of Representatives voted to include the words ``In God We Trust,'' to have those words, as the national motto, put on all coins and all currency of the United States. Those words were already on some of the coins, but on June 7, 1955, the House of Representatives voted to have the words ``In God We Trust''-- there they are-- ``In God We Trust,'' have that as the national motto and have those words on the coins and currency of the United States. I was in the House on both occasions. I am the only person in Congress today who was in Congress when we voted to include the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance. I thank our visiting minister today for his use of those words. He also used the same words from the scriptures that Benjamin Franklin used in the Constitutional Convention in 1787 when the clouds of dissension and despair held like a pall over the Constitutional Convention. Everything was about to break up. They were having a lot of dissension, I say to the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from Florida. They were not agreeing on very many things. They were very discouraged. But Benjamin Franklin stood to his feet and suggested there be prayer at the convention, and he used those scriptures in his statement: Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain. Thank you, Father Acker, for using those words and for having as the theme of your prayer this morning ``In God We Trust.'' Thank you. I thank our Chaplain also, and I thank you, again, Father Acker. We hope you will enjoy your work in southern West Virginia. We are privileged to have you in my part of the State finally, southern West Virginia. My part is the whole State. We thank you, and may God bless you.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Nevada, who has been very close to me for these several years in which we have served together in the Senate. I appreciate his friendship. I thank him for his good words today. I am grateful, flattered, and humbled by them. I thank the distinguished Senator from Florida.