Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Exactly.

Mr. BYRD. What other impression could one get?

Mr. BYRD. It does not change current law at all. It doesn't touch current law.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the White House has pressed for changes in this amendment. The White House, according to Mr. Podesta's letter to the Speaker and Mr. Podesta's letter to me, wants a ``time limited solution.'' This amendment is limited to 2 years or to the completion of the ongoing Federal study which was ordered by a court in December of last year and the issuance of any regulations resulting from that study. The White House argues that because the district court has stayed its ruling, the jobs of thousands of miners in West Virginia and hundreds of thousands of workers in mining and related jobs on the east coast are no longer threatened. The White House is wrong. The court, when it ordered the stay, said this stay has no legal basis. In other words, he said: The only reason I am issuing this stay is to pour a little oil on troubled waters, let the waters calm down a little bit. All this chaos and confusion flows from my decision; I am going to put a stay on that. You can have a little time to get your breath. But he said there is no legal basis for it, which means that the court could lift the stay. When Congress gets out of town, who knows, the court may lift that stay. The court itself, as I say, noted that there is no legal basis for the stay, but, in fact, that the stay was issued in response to the uproar created by the court's ruling. That is why we have a stay. The administration, whose representatives had been working with me on the language of this amendment, said to me there is no need now for any legislation. Do not believe it. The White House argues that because the district court has stayed its ruling, the jobs of thousands miners in West Virginia and hundreds of thousands of workers in mining and related jobs on the east coast are no longer threatened. The court could lift its stay. Let me say again, the court itself noted that there was no legal basis for the stay. We have no assurances as to how long that stay will remain in place. It provides no comfort for coal miners. It provides no comfort for mining companies who want to invest in new mines to employ more miners than their sons. It provides no comfort to others whose jobs rely on coal, such as the trucking industry, the barge industry, the railroad industry, the suppliers. To them, the stay is a stay. It is more like a weekend pass. That stay has placed a cloud of uncertainty, a cloud that hangs over the mining industry in West Virginia, a cloud that is sprouting long, gray tentacles that will stretch across the skies of other States. I ask my colleagues and those who are watching--and I hope the White House is watching--just how many companies do you think are going to sign up to any real commitment of financial resources and invest the millions of dollars that it takes to operate? How many of them are going to sign up with this stay hanging over their heads? Why would they want to? The permitting process was going along swimmingly before the judge's decision. It was going along under the regulations that were agreed to and created by the White House's own regulatory agencies: the EPA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Interior Department through the Office of Surface Mining. Fifty-nine of 62 pending permits could not be approved under that stay. There are 62 pending permits; 59 of these could not be approved under that stay, according to the West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection as of Monday of this week. If this amendment is not adopted, there are those who will point to this day and call it a victory for environmental protection, but those individuals have not lifted a finger--they have not lifted a finger, have not lifted the smallest finger--to help the many residents of Appalachia who do not have safe water piped into their modest homes for their little children to drink. They do not carry banners. They do not carry banners and placards and write letters and lobby Congress about the fact that those same streams they applaud themselves for protecting from rock and dirt are being polluted by the wastewater of communities that are too poor to build sewage plants. These head-in-the-clouds individuals peddle dreams of an idyllic life among old growth trees, but they seem to be ignorant of the fact that without the mines, jobs will disappear, the tables will go bare, the cupboards will be empty, schools will not have the revenue to teach the children, and towns will not have the income to provide even basics. But what do they care? They will have already thrown down their placards and their banners and gone off somewhere else. These dreamers--I know, I have been down there. They have been carrying their banners around some of the meetings that I have addressed. They might as well talk to the trees. I am speaking for the coal miners. I lived in a coal miner's home. I grew up in a coal miner's home. I ate from a coal miner's table. I slept on a coal miner's bed. I lived under a coal miner's roof. Loretta Lynn sings the song ``I'm a Coal Miner's Daughter.'' I married a coal miner's daughter more than 62 years ago. My wife's brother died of pneumoconiosis. He died of black lung, contracted in the coal mines. And his father died under a slate fall--under a slate fall. He died in the darkness. He died in the darkness. Many times I have gone to the miners' bath house and pulled back the canvas cover and peered into the face of a coal miner whom I knew and who had been killed under a slate fall or killed by being run over by an electric motor. Many times I have walked those steep hillsides and helped to carry the heavy--and I mean heavy--coffins of miners who died following the edict of the Creator, when he drove Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, saying: In the sweat of thy brow shall thou eat bread. And those coal miners know what that means. But this court ruling will take away the right of thousands of coal miners and truckers and railroad workers and barge operators to earn their bread in the sweat of their brow. Hear me, coal miners! If you do not know now who your friends are, you soon will know. These dreamers would have us believe that if only our mountains--if only our mountains--remain pristine, new jobs will come. ``Or,'' they suggest, ``perhaps coalfields residents should simply commute to other areas for employment.'' To these individuals I say, ``Get real!'' Those of you in the White House, who have been working behind my back on this amendment, go down there and talk to those coal miners. Tell them what you have done. You do not have to drive the dangerous, winding, narrow roads over which these workers would have to commute each morning and evening. When the picket signs are gone, when the editorials in the big city papers are lining bird cages, the people of the small mining communities will be left. You will be gone. You have thrown down your banners. You have thrown down your placards. You have thrown down your candles. But those people of the small mining communities will still be there. They will be left to repair the economic damage. Mining will be part of the economic base of my State for the foreseeable future, and new ways must be explored to make mining practices more environmentally friendly. And I am for that. At the same time, we have to recognize that the amount of coal reserves in West Virginia is finite. We must continue to broaden our State's economic base. But such change cannot happen over night. A new economic base cannot spring from the ocean foam. It cannot emanate from the brain of Jove, like Minerva, fully clothed and in armor. That effort requires time. And it requires money. And if you want to know the worth of money, try to borrow some. It requires the development of improved infrastructure, better highways, more modern highways, up-to-date highways, safer highways, like those Appalachian corridors that I have been trying for years to build, and for which I have been horse whipped orally and with the pen. I do not mind. I know for whom I am working. I am working for the people of West Virginia, and always will as long as the Lord lets me stand. Water and sewer systems, accessible health care, safe schools--these are the kinds of basic facilities and programs that I have been promoting for many years. I do not carry my banner today and throw it down when the speech is over and go on somewhere else. Those coal miners are still there. And they are going to still have my attention, my respect, my reverence. In a letter threatening a veto of legislation containing this amendment, the White House claimed to be prepared to discuss a solution that would ensure that ``any adverse impacts on mining communities in West Virginia are minimized.'' Well, talk is cheap. But any real solution to minimize economic impact on these West Virginian communities won't be cheap. Back in July, the President of the United States appeared in Hazard, KY, where he delivered an address to the people of Appalachia. Appalachia is my home. I was married there. Our first daughter was born there. Our second daughter was born there. I went to school there. I graduated from high school there in Appalachia. The President of the United States expressed great sympathy for the economic distress in these mountainous States. It was an uplifting speech. He is very capable of giving uplifting speeches. It was a speech that reached out to the human spirit and built great expectations. Calling on corporate America to invest in rural America, President Clinton said: ``This is a time to bring more jobs and investment and hope to the areas of our country that have not fully participated in this economic recovery.'' And I say: Amen, brother! Amen. I agree with that message. It is the right thing to do. We should be bringing jobs to Appalachia. We should be bringing new businesses, too. But how can one peddle hope while undercutting the real jobs and businesses that do exist in Appalachia? If we don't act now, if the court lifts its stay, we will be back here a few months from now battling this issue all over again. It may not just be West Virginia then. It may be your own States, Senators. It may be your people, Senators. It may be your families. There may be an appeal of the judges ruling, and that appeal may lead to a more equitable outcome. However, that appeal may simply maintain the judge's decision and put us squarely back where we have been in recent weeks, trying to address the matter Congressionally--trying to reaffirm well-established Congressional intent that has been followed for the past 20 years while striving for improvements in the way mining is conducted. In the meantime, with the scales tipped against them, mining families must hold on to a crumbling ledge. The heel is poised above their fingertips, ready to mash down. We have a pretty good idea who the opponents of this effort are. But what of the supporters? Let me tell you who is standing by us: The United Mine Workers of America; the National Mining Association; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; the Bituminous Coal Operators Association; the AFL-CIO--hear that, White House, the AFL-CIO--the National Association of Manufacturers; the Association of American Railroads; the United Transportation Union; the Norfolk Southern Railroad; CSX Railroad; the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen; the International Union of Operating Engineers; the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees; the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; the Transport Workers of America; the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; the Utility Workers Union of America; American Electric Power. You see, the environmentalists sent a letter to the White House, and they listed a few organizations that were supporting their opposition to this amendment. But listen to this list, too. This amendment has its friends. I continue with the reading of the list: the Southern States Energy Board; the Southern Company; the United Steelworkers of America; the Independent Steelworkers Union--it isn't just coal miners, you see; these are brothers--the Laborers International Union of North America; the American Truckers Association; the International Brotherhood of Teamsters; the American Waterways Operators; the International Union of Transportation Communications; the American Federation of Teachers; the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees; the American Federation of Government Employees--White House, it isn't just Robert Byrd and Mitch McConnell and Jay Rockefeller and Senator Bunning, Pete Domenici, Larry Craig, and Phil Gramm, and the fine Senator who sits in the Chair, Pat Roberts. It isn't just these. It isn't just the House delegation, the three Members of the House from West Virginia. These are not alone. It is also the National Council of Senior Citizens. These groups--representing millions of citizens--agree with us that a legislative remedy is needed, and is needed now. They agree that there must be a balanced approach. What this amendment does is simple. It establishes a fair, moderate balance between jobs and the environment, while also providing for additional review and regulation once the environmental impact study is complete. It is time to put aside whatever animosity exists between the coal mining industry and the environmental movement. I am not much for making predictions, but I can make this one: the coming years will bring us more challenges like this, when the environment and the economy must be harmonized. Today is a test of our ability to deal those challenges ahead. This nation can put a man on the moon. Surely, we can adopt a solution to this problem that protects the environment and protects jobs of the coalfields. This amendment seeks to go back to the regulations and the agreements that made up the status quo ante before the judge's order--that is all we ask--the status quo ante agreed upon by the administration's EPA, by the administration's Army Corps of Engineers, by the administration's Department of the Interior, the Office of Surface Mining. That is what we ask. And we ask not only for justice, but we ask also for mercy for the coal miners and the other working people of America. I ask unanimous consent that the names of the cosponsors and sponsors of this amendment be printed in the Record, and they are as follows: Senators Byrd, McConnell, Rockefeller, Bunning, Reid, Craig, Bryan, Hatch, Bennett, Murkowski, Crapo, Enzi, Burns, and Kyl. I have not put forth any big effort to shop this around. I also add Senators Breaux, Shelby, Gramm, and Grams, as cosponsors.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I forgot to mention the specific names of two Senators cosponsoring this amendment. The two are Nevada Senators, Mr. Reid and Mr. Bryan. I wanted to mention their names for the Record.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, would my distinguished colleague briefly yield for a comment in connection with something he said?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, when I went up to Rhode Island on Saturday, a few weeks ago, to attend the funeral services of the late Rhode Island Senator John Chafee, the national press people--the Washington Post, the New York Times--who were right on that plane indicated that the administration was supportive of that amendment. That was on Saturday. I had run the language by the administration's representatives, who come to this hill often. I hoped the administration would support the language. So I was quietly running the language to the administration and certainly getting the support of the administration--if not openly, at least they were not opposed to it. We were working with them tacitly. The very next day the tune changed, and the newspapers announced the administration was against the Byrd amendment. So they flip-flopped over night; they made a 180-degree turn over night. One day I had the confidence of them. They were looking at the language, making any responses they wished to make to express their viewpoint. The next day they were 100 percent on the other side. So I say this amendment is a test. I say to the working men and women of America, do not believe the pretty words you may hear. Pretty words are easy. And I have heard pretty words myself. Watch what happens with this amendment, I say to the working men and women of America. Watch what happens to this amendment. See if the actions of those who say they are your friend do match those pretty promises. I thank my distinguished friend and colleague. I am pleased to associate myself with his remarks. Well done, my friend.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. The distinguished Senator has mentioned my name. The word ``waste'' has been used. The newspapers have repeatedly used the word ``waste,'' saying this amendment that I am sponsoring is to let coal companies continue to dump their waste into the streams. As to the use of the term ``waste,'' the Clean Water Act, section 404, governs the disposal of ``dredged and fill'' materials into waters of the United States. Excess material from coal mines has always been regulated in this fashion as ``dredged and fill'' material under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Judge Hayden in West Virginia, however, determined that excess material from coal mines is ``waste'' and, as such, could not be disposed of in valley fills. For 20 years, the stream buffer zone regulation has not been interpreted as preventing the disposal of excess material from coal mines into streams. Rather, Congress relied on the Clean Water Act to govern this activity. I thank the distinguished Senator for yielding. I ask unanimous consent Mr. Shelby be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized as one of the managers of the continuing resolution. I am entitled to that recognition. I ask I be recognized immediately after the distinguished Senator from Texas.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment.

Mr. BYRD. I yield to the majority leader first.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment.

Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be waived.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I had earlier planned to speak at least 2 weeks on this amendment. We are getting a bargain. I am only going to speak 3 minutes, not 2 weeks. Let me just say this: I made my speech earlier today. I will not make it again now. I urge my friends to vote for this amendment. When God drove Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, he pronounced an edict: ``In the sweat of thy brow shalt thou eat bread.'' The coal miners of West Virginia and Kentucky and other States of this country earn their bread in the sweat of their brow. But not only the coal miners have been affected by this court's jurisdiction, by its ruling; the truckers, the railway workers, the men and women who operate the barges that go up and down the rivers, the suppliers--these people, their families are affected by this judge's order. This amendment does not seek to undercut, undermine, alter, modify, amend, or repeal the Clean Water Act or the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. I say that on my honor. The other cosponsors and I do not seek to do that. We only seek to put the situation back to where it was prior to the U.S. District judge's order, the status quo ante, which at that time made West Virginia the most strictly controlled State in the Union environmentally as far as mountaintop mining was concerned, mountaintop mining--the strictest in the Union. We want to go back to that, and the regulations that controlled then were agreed upon and devised by the administration's own regulatory agencies--the Army Corps of Engineers, the EPA, the Interior Department through its Office of Surface Mining. This amendment states, so there can be no doubt about it: Nothing in this section modifies, supersedes, undermines, displaces, or amends any requirement of, or regulation issued under, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the ``Clean Water Act'') . . . or the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 . . . as applied by the responsible Federal agencies-- Which are the agencies of this administration-- on October 19, 1999. So there it is. The amendment has been misrepresented. There has been much misinformation about this amendment. Mr. President, I close by thanking those who have cosponsored this amendment with me. Their names are on the amendment. How much time have I used?

Mr. BYRD. I yield myself another minute and a half.

Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that I may speak another minute and a half.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. The amendment is proposed by Mr. Byrd, for himself, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Reid, Mr. Craig, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Burns, and Mr. Kyl--I thank all those Senators who supported this amendment and others who will vote for it. Particularly I want to recognize the efforts of my chief cosponsor, the distinguished senior Senator from Kentucky, whose early and strong support was given to this amendment, for which I am extremely grateful. I thank both leaders for making this vote possible. I could speak longer, but I have said enough already. I urge all Senators to vote for this amendment.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3 minutes.

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as daylight hours shorten and brightly colored leaves fall from the tree branches, we gradually descend into the winter season. The master hand of nature, after painting the hills glorious colors, leaves us with a chilly palette of greyer skies, leafless trees, and a long wait before the spring blossoms emerge from their underground bulbs. Although we may feel the bounce in our step that a crystal clear, crisp-aired fall day can bring, with the sun shining brightly as it makes its low arc across the sky, we are reminded during this time of the year of the cycles of the natural world. We are reminded that all too soon, we will be in the quarter of the year naturally suited for hibernation--a season, despite festive gatherings, associated with the death needed for renewal. During this season we celebrate Veterans Day to honor veterans who, with their death and sacrifice, have renewed and sustained the freedom and promise of our great republic. Each year at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month we celebrate the end of the fighting in Europe in 1918 that ended the Great War. When I was a boy, we called this day Armistice Day in honor of the Armistice between the Allies and the Central Powers that ended the horrible trench warfare that had torn Europe apart. In 1926, Congress proclaimed that Armistice Day would be celebrated yearly with an annual observance of ``thanksgiving and prayer and exercises designed to perpetuate peace through good will and mutual understanding between nations.'' After World War II, on June 1, 1954, Congress approved the Veterans Day Act that changed the name of Armistice Day to Veterans Day. I am the only Member of Congress who was serving in Congress at that time who is still serving today. Officially, on Veterans Day, we celebrate and recognize the sacrifices of our nation's soldiers, sailors, and airmen to protect our freedoms during all of the wars and conflicts involving the United States. That same year, President Eisenhower declared that on Veterans Day, Americans should ``solemnly remember the sacrifices of all those who fought so valiantly, on the seas, in the air, and on foreign shores, to preserve our heritage of freedom, and let us reconsecrate ourselves to the task of promoting an enduring peace so their efforts shall not have been in vain.'' From the beginning of our nation, America's sons and daughters have been ready to answer a call to duty. In particular, West Virginians have a proud enviable record of service to this country in the perilous times of war and conflict. Of the twenty-five million living veterans, one-hundred-ninety-thousand reside in the great State of West Virginia. More than ten-percent of the people of West Virginia are veterans who have served our nation proudly--that is more than ten of every one- hundred West Virginians. This tradition of dedication to serving is something I am proud of as a West Virginian. Through the turmoil and change of the twentieth century, one thing has remained constant--the dedication and commitment of our veterans to the survival and strength of this nation. Largely through the might of our Armed Forces, the United States enjoys an unprecedented position of international leadership. Yet, the promise of lifelong health care that this country made to our men and women in uniform has been threatened, not by the aggression of a foreign power, but by inadequate funding. Caring for America's veterans is an ongoing cost of war. As America's veterans grow older, they require increased dependence on health care services. But, the Department of Veterans Affairs cannot be expected to provide the necessary care which veterans will need in Fiscal Year 2000, at the Fiscal Year 1999 level for veterans health care services. Veterans should not be expected to wait in longer lines, and travel farther for services. They must be provided quality service. If we fail in this obligation, how can we justify sending more and more young service members into harm's way? How can we expect our children and grandchildren to volunteer for military service in the future, if we are not prepared to keep promises to veterans today? This year the budget came dangerously close to failing to provide for health care that veterans need and deserve. The Department of Veterans Affairs warned many veterans that they might not be eligible for veterans medical care services in Fiscal Year 2000. The strong need for quality medical care for veterans, and a sense of duty to these men and women who valiantly served, caused me to work very hard to meet the funding level for veterans' medical care recommended by the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs--some $1.7 billion above the Administration's budget request. I would like to thank my colleagues who supported my efforts to raise the funding level for veterans medical care to $19 billion for Fiscal Year 2000. This level of funding will enable the VA to continue to provide quality health care to veterans, and will prevent the kinds of cuts in services that many veterans feared would place their eligibility for care in question. As a nation, we are good about honoring our war dead, with memorial days such as Veterans Day, and with memorials of stone that dot our capital and other towns and cities across the country. We need to be as good to our living veterans. Today, many of our veterans are still affected by the time they spent in service. We can best honor them by continuing to provide a high quality of medical care. We can also honor our veterans by continuing to search for answers to questions of service-related injury, and by providing for those who have experienced such injuries. We must also work to prevent such injuries from recurring. For instance, we must remain committed to pin-pointing the cause of the illness of Gulf War Syndrome. Recent reports issued by the Department of Defense indicate that certain substances our military men and women were directed to take during their service in the Gulf War cannot be ruled out as causes for this syndrome. We must continue to focus our attention on narrowing in on the cause of the symptoms experienced by more than one-hundred thousand Gulf War Veterans. So, this year on Veterans Day, let us reflect on the men and women who have valiantly served our Nation, both living and dead. Upon reflection, we should realize the need to recommit ourselves to honoring veterans, not only with unfurled flags and patriotic up-tempo marches but also by serving them as they have served our nation. As the leaves fall from the trees, and our veterans age and pass on, we must remember that what has always kept the tree of liberty safe and strong through the frost and chill of many brutal winters is the commitment of our veterans to nourish the roots of freedom.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, we still do not have order. May we have order in the Senate? You may have to rap that gavel to be heard.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate? The Senator is addressing the Senate. May we have order.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am pleased that yesterday the Senate adopted my amendment to H.R. 434, the African and Caribbean trade legislation, regarding the upcoming World Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial Conference in Seattle, Washington, from November 30 to December 3, 1999. My amendment is straightforward. It expresses the sense of the Congress on the importance of the new round of international trade negotiations that will be launched at the WTO Ministerial Conference, and would require the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to submit a report to Congress regarding discussions at the Ministerial on antidumping and countervailing duty agreements. My amendment sends a message from the Congress that these talks are significant and that we will be examining these discussions closely. Specifically, it sends a message to our trading partners that we have no intention of allowing the antidumping and countervailing duty agreements to be nonchalantly relinquished, and that we will be keeping an official record of any discussions on these topics. I am strongly opposed to opening the antidumping and countervailing duty agreements to negotiation, and, therefore, I am very pleased that the Administration reports that it will put forth a U.S. trade agenda that reaffirms trade remedy laws, and, specifically, U.S. rights to enforce antidumping and countervailing duty measures. Nevertheless, we should expect that certain WTO member governments will attempt to weaken the current antidumping and countervailing rules during the next round of talks. Certain WTO member governments will likely attempt to use the antidumping and countervailing rules as leverage against other U.S. priority issues, thus, pitting U.S. industries against one another. Without the antidumping and countervailing duty agreements, I believe that many of our trading partners would not hesitate to flatly dismiss their WTO obligations in order to maximize their own profits. Antidumping and countervailing duty rules offset foreign countervailable subsidies and below-cost pricing schemes intended to harm a U.S. industry. Prohibiting these unfair trade practices is the essence of our most basic trade agenda, and laws to thwart and penalize this behavior were enacted as early as 1897. As in 1897, antidumping and countervailing measures are a vital tool to combat unfair trade. My amendment would help the Administration put forth a U.S. trade agenda at the Seattle talks that reaffirms U.S. rights to enforce antidumping and countervailing duty measures, and that protects these codes from any negotiation. Undermining the right of the U.S. to respond to unfair trade practices will hinder the ability of many U.S. manufacturers, including U.S. steel mills, to fight against unfair trade. It would also undermine a century of work to build a straightforward and responsive international trade system.