Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I join with the distinguished Democratic leader and other colleagues in cosponsoring the Energy Security Tax Act of 1999. I thank Senator Daschle for his leadership in crafting this targeted tax proposal that offers incentives for the more efficient use of a broad range of energy sources vital to the American economy. This targeted proposal has a multiplicity of economic and environmental benefits. I have long been an advocate of programs that encourage the more efficient use of energy. This proposal does exactly that. The United States is a highly energy-intensive nation, and it depends heavily on energy for manufacturing, communications, transportation, and many other purposes. While the United States is currently enjoying the benefits of an expanding economy, that economy demands even more energy. The United States has already invested heavily in the research and development of many innovative clean and efficient technologies that will allow our Nation to help meet these demands, and we must continue exploring these opportunities. This bill provides key incentives to demonstrate and to deploy these technologies, including clean coal technologies, a program that I have long supported. Now that we are at the threshold of a new millennium that begins the year after next--not next year; next year completes the current second millennium. Next year completes the 20th century. It is not the beginning of the 21st. So much for that. Now that we are at the threshold, just a little over a year away, of a new millennium, Congress can and Congress should help to prepare a pathway for the new era of energy and resource use. New technologies should be part of that path. For example, with the use of clean coal technologies, it remains economically feasible to produce electricity in coal-fired powerplants while also improving environmental quality. By demonstrating and deploying these technologies, coal continues to be a viable ``cleaner and greener'' fuel for power generation. Clean coal technologies are American-made technologies that provide a variety of positive benefits for the U.S. as well as other developing nations with large coal reserves. Coal currently provides the energy to generate more than fifty percent of the electricity consumed in the U.S. The Energy Information Administration, an arm of the Department of Energy (DOE), projects that coal will continue to provide our nation with the energy needed to generate more than one-half of its electricity needs in 2020. Equally as important, the International Energy Agency has projected that coal will provide forty-six percent of the world's electricity in 2020. Significant growth in coal use to generate electricity is expected to take place in developing countries like China and India. The challenge associated with the continued use of coal, the nation's most cost competitive and abundant energy resource, is to preserve our nation's energy security while also meeting important environmental goals. There has to be a balance. Also, the opportunity exists to use better, more advanced technologies in those developing countries that will experience increases in the use of coal. The current Clean Coal Technology Program has demonstrated a number of first-of-a-kind technologies that increase efficiency and reduce greenhouse gases and other emissions from coal combustion. As a result, a number of emerging clean coal technologies are ready to be deployed commercially. However, full commercial penetration first requires constructing and operating several early commercial-scale applications. In order to install these early commercial applications, all stakeholders including the designer, manufacturer, financier, and owner will have to face both the technological and economic risk associated with the ``not yet fully commercial'' technology. Development of these early commercial clean coal technology applications will require a new program of limited tax and financial incentives to overcome the associated technological and economic risks that will complement continued research and development (R&D) funding. The required R&D funding has come under the DOE's Fossil Energy Program. The associated tax and financial incentives program proposed here would be limited in scope and timing and the proposed technologies would be required to meet ever-increasing performance levels to qualify for the tax incentives. The U.S. tax code would be amended to provide for: (1) a ten percent investment tax credit; and (2) a production tax credit. In addition, annual appropriations would be provided for a risk pool to offset costs, if any, for modifications resulting from the technology's need to reassess its design performance during start-up and initial operation. Mr. President, another section of this bill provides tax incentives to encourage newer, more innovative steelmaking technologies. Although threatened by a flood of cheap, even illegal, foreign steel imports, the U.S. steel industry still employs some 160,000 workers and forms an important element in overall U.S. industrial strength. It is in the U.S. national and security interests, I believe, to ensure that U.S. steelmakers have the ability and encouragement to remain energy efficient, environmentally sound, and economically healthy. By continuing to make investments in the steel industry through tax incentives, we will be helping to preserve high-paying manufacturing jobs in the United States. Of course the obvious other benefit is its effect on our environment and the preservation of our natural resources. The steelmaking provisions would provide incentives for investment in cutting-edge steelmaking technologies and allow the steel industry to work with other sectors in the production of more efficient energy through co-generation. In conclusion, I strongly support this targeted tax incentive package. This legislation embraces the belief that the U.S. is a leader in developing energy efficient technologies as well as stressing the importance of fuel diversity. I support the adoption of these tax incentives, which demonstrate that economic growth and environmental protection can go hand-in-hand. Again, I thank the distinguished Democratic leader.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. Clean coal technology also provides a very important key to the problem of global warming. I hope that we can interest other countries, such as China. China is in the process of constructing many new powerplants. They are new in the sense that they are newly constructed. But they are old in the sense that they use the old technology, if I may use that word. They depend on the burning of coal in ways that contribute to the deterioration of the environment. I hope these countries such as China and Brazil and India will join with the developed countries of the world in the attempt to do something about global warming. I have lived a long time--82 years, Saturday 3 weeks from tomorrow. And I have seen changes in climate. I don't know much about the science and global warming, but I know that I have seen changes in the climate. When I was a young man, when I was a man in my middle ages, I never saw storms of the frequency and the intensity, floods and droughts that we are seeing today, and seemingly increasingly. There is something going on out there. As I say, I am not a scientist. But there is something going on, and I am concerned about it. But whatever it is, whatever the part may be that it is manmade, can be limited considerably if the developing countries would utilize the technologies that our country through its research and demonstration projects, through the millions--yea, billions--of dollars that this country has spent on research, if those countries would utilize these technologies in the building of their powerplants, they would diminish the emissions of carbon dioxide and the other gases that I think are having some considerable impact upon climate worldwide. I congratulate the leader for this legislation. I hope that we can continue to do research on clean coal technology. I hope, as I say, when countries meet in various places, such as Bonn and Buenos Aires, to discuss global warming, that they will somehow be able to persuade the developing countries in the world to use our technology, because while we are plugging the holes in the front of the boat that we have helped to create through two world wars--by defeating Hitler, and the German Kaiser, and others in the interest of the freedoms that these developing countries enjoy to some extent--I hope that the developing countries would not be in the back of the boat drilling more holes, and thus increasing emissions which affect all of us. It is not a boat only part of which will sink. The entire boat will sink. We need the cooperation of the developing countries. We can help them through clean coal technology and other technologies. I thank the distinguished leader.

Mr. BYRD. Well, I am certainly aware of it now. I am heartened by this information.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished minority leader yield?

Mr. BYRD. Yes. I thank the distinguished Senator. I am proud to say I have been fighting this fight for clean coal technology now for years. I was in the position to do it during the time I was the Senate Democratic leader. It may have been back when I was the whip. I was able to put money in appropriations bills for clean coal technology. I also thank the distinguished Democratic leader for his kindness and courtesy in allowing me to introduce this bill. I thank him for his drafting of the legislation, and I thank him for his leadership. I thank him for allowing me to be a cosponsor. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, much of the controversy surrounding U.S. trade policy arises from differences in opinion about the economic benefits achieved from trade agreements. Trade agreements, in principle, have winners and losers. In recent years, regrettably, U.S. trade agreements seem to be pitting U.S. conglomerates and foreign policy interests against the traditional American workers. By traditional worker, I mean craftsmen, artisans, and laborers who, in this information age, still actually make things. Man cannot live on information alone--we still need clothes, shoes, dishes to eat from, watches, and tangible items. I believe the underlying issue for the traditional American worker is the question of who benefits from our trade negotiations. I believe that the traditional American worker perceives that a selected few U.S. industries keep winning, while other domestic industries keep losing, and that the promised trickle down of benefits from the winners to the losers never happens. Certainly, this is the case with the trade legislation now before the Senate. The same industries keep losing. Under the African and Caribbean provisions in the bill, the losers will likely be textile and apparel, footware, glass, electronics, handbags, along with canned tuna and petroleum. In this decade alone, the Senate approved two major trade bills, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and in each of these bills the losers were many of the same players. The deemed ``losers'' were workers in traditional industries such as textile and apparel production, footware, glass, electronics, watches, and handbags. I believe that many in the textile and apparel industry understand only too well about the stigma of losing so often in trade agreements. I am bothered by the ``loser'' sign that has been placed on the traditional U.S. workers, and the lack of concern about workers who lose their jobs as a result of a trade agreement. I believe that the so-called ``losers'' in U.S. trade policy ought not to be thoughtlessly discarded. In the U.S. trade policy process, we have become heartless, insensitive, merciless, and numb to the potential pain that these trade agreements can inflict on Americans--on mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, and children. The so-called Trade Adjustment Assistance program falls woefully short in providing meaningful benefits to the workers who lose their jobs as a result of trade agreements, and I hope that members are not fooling themselves about the true hardships that are ahead for many workers as a result of the trade legislation that we are considering today. Yes, today the economy is booming, in most parts of the United States. I hope this state of well-being lasts forever. However, we know it will not. Many of my colleagues eagerly point toward the benefits in the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program. TAA is touted as the sure thing to make a winner out of the loser from a trade agreement. Under TAA, in return for their years of contributions to the local and national tax bases, workers who can prove that their company went under as a result of foreign trade might get a federal extension of unemployment checks, which is approximately $250 a week in West Virginia, and two years of ``approved'' retraining. Possibly, if no ``approved'' jobs are available in the area, these workers might also be eligible for a one- way ticket to another region or state, with a whopping $800 from the federal government to start them off in their new lives. With good reason, most workers do not want TAA. They want to earn full wages, with benefits, and two years of unemployment does not cut it. Advocates of the trade bill proclaim that we have to think about the future U.S. relations with Africa and the Caribbean basin, and that we have to accept the fact that many traditional industries are a thing of the past in the United States. There are numbers of members who dismiss the textile and apparel industries, as sure to go the way of covered wagons or the steam locomotive. Advocates want to make the case that you are either for the trade bill before us, or against U.S. relations with Africa and the Caribbean. I support meaningful economic development in Africa and the Caribbean, but I also care about what happens to the traditional worker here in the United States that might lose his or her job as a result of this bill, and I simply have not received any reasonable assurance that these workers will receive the support they deserve. From my years in the Senate, I have a very strong viewpoint on accepting winners and losers as deemed by the Administration--any administration--or by the committee of jurisdiction. I can tell you that there are many, many industries that would be at risk, if certain special tax or procurement provisions failed to exist. In my view, the main reason that textile and apparel workers are so-called ``losers'' is because decade after decade we have chipped the tariffs away, allowing our trading partners to enter the U.S. market under very advantageous conditions. This strategy was called free trade, but, in reality, I believe that it was mostly a heyday for our trading partners who had no labor or environmental standards. Regardless, decade after decade, this country has relentlessly chipped away at the textile and apparel manufacturing base, mostly on the grounds that this is a natural procession of development, like the demise of the covered wagon and steam locomotive. My staff informs me that advocates of the African and Caribbean trade provisions actually use the metaphor of the covered wagon and steam locomotive as evidence that this is just the way the world works. I guess someone forgot to educate this group that, unlike covered wagons and steam locomotives, Americans will likely continue to wear and use textile and apparel products! I wonder if members supporting this legislation recall that during debate on GATT only five years ago, we implemented drastic cuts in the textile and apparel tariff rates. We told the textile and apparel industry that they would have to swallow the cuts, but that we would phase the tariff reductions in over ten years to help them make business decisions and adjust to the new rules. Let me repeat that: five years ago this body implemented deep tariff cuts on textile and apparel with the understanding that the cuts would be phased in over ten years. Well, it is 1999, and here we are again, chipping relentlessly away at the nominal base that the textile and apparel industry has left. Does the word of this body have no meaning? Under the African and Caribbean trade provisions, there are U.S. industry ``winners,'' mostly retailers, most notably apparel retail companies, and the bill would help U.S. fabric manufacturers and growers. To those winners, I say ``good for you.'' I know the value of a dollar. I spend my money carefully. I like the benefit of consumer savings from our free-market economy. I have never been against trade agreements on fair trade. I am here to tell you, however, that the consideration of trade agreements should be completed in a serious, deliberative, and scrutinizing manner, as trade agreements have broad impacts, and negative consequences. There has been only one relevant hearing held on this legislation, and that hearing pertained solely to the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act. There were no hearings on the Carribean Basin Initiative, the Generalized System of Preferences, or on Trade Adjustment Assistance during this Congress. While the proponents argue in behalf of the potential long-term benefits that the bill might provide to the United States, the fact remains that this bill lacks real reciprocal benefits for the United States. This bill is generally a foreign aid package financed on the backs of a few industries, such as the textile and apparel industry. Is that fair? It is time for the Senate to be sensitive to the costs of trade agreements. We are preparing to approve a bill that imposes enormous costs on direct segments of our economy. TAA is a start, but it is not the whole answer. I urge my colleagues to put a human face on workers in industries such as textile and apparel, footware, glass, electronics, watches, and handbags. I can put a human face on these workers, and I put a value on their hopes and dreams, and on their future prosperity. I am a product of the coal fields of West Virginia. I have seen what it is to work hard, physically hard, to sweat, and to toil. American workers, traditional workers, are the soul of America. They are the essence of our values. They bleed and hurt as U.S. trade policy tightens around their necks. With proper review, hearings, and consideration, I am convinced that we could find a better way to achieve U.S. foreign policy goals for the fine people of Africa and the Caribbean nations. I support a long and prosperous relationship with our friends in the sub-Saharan African and the Caribbean Basin nations. We need to restore the average American worker's faith in our trade policy. We need to move forward on a trade process that provides fair and equitable treatment to all Americans. We need to recognize that all American workers should be able to depend upon our understanding and regard for their position upon enactment of trade law. This bill is not what we are looking for. It does not do these things. For these reasons, I cannot support this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, for his graciousness in yielding the floor. I realize this is somewhat inconvenient for him, but I deeply appreciate his kindness in yielding at this time.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate today is a sadder, lesser place. Like many others, I am shocked and saddened by the sudden loss of Senator John Chafee. My thoughts, and my wife Erma's, go out to his family--to his wife, Virginia; his sons, Zechariah; Lincoln; John, Jr.; and Quentin; and his daughter, Georgia. I understand the funeral will take place this coming Saturday in Providence. Senator John Chafee is the eighth Senator from Rhode Island to die in office, the second in this century, since Senator LeBaron B. Colt on August 18, 1924. Since his first election to the Senate in 1976, Senator Chafee was the kind of Senator upon which the smooth running of the Congress has always depended. He was a man of great humor, gentleness, thoughtfulness, and compromise--none of which detracted from his clear views and opinions as to what the best course of action was for the nation. He could disagree with his colleagues and still find a way to move forward on issues that were important to him. This was a man devoted to the well-being of his country, in war and in peace. As others have stated, Senator Chafee served in World War II and in Korea. He also served as Secretary of the Navy. He served in the state legislature and as Governor of Rhode Island before his election to the Senate. He is a man who heard the clear call of duty and of love for his country and its people like a church bell ringing over the gentle hills of his beloved Rhode Island. His acts of faith came daily in his service to that calling bell. His golden locks time hath to silver turn'd; O time too swift, O swiftness never ceasing! His youth 'gainst time and age hath ever spurn'd But spurn'd in vain; youth waneth by increasing: Beauty, strength, youth, are flowers but fading seen; Duty, faith, love, are roots, and ever green. So wrote poet George Peele in the 16th century. But surely John Chafee's sense of duty and his faithful service to the nation will prove equally evergreen, living beyond his untimely demise in laws and legislation that bear his stamp of compromise and caring for even our smallest and most helpless citizens. We live in deeds, not years; in thoughts, not breaths; In feelings, not in figures on a dial. We should count time by heart-throbs. He most lives Who thinks most--feels the most--acts the best. Senator Chafee was consistent in his feelings, in his outlook, and in his actions. He always looked out for children in the health care debates that have consumed the Senate. His love of nature and his championing of environmental causes is well known, but tempered by his sense of fairness and practicality. He supported the Clean Air Act and the Rio treaties on global climate change and biodiversity, but he also supported requiring cost-benefit analyses of Environmental Protection Agency regulations and voted in support of the Byrd-Hagel Resolution requiring developing nation participation and a cost-benefit analysis of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming before the Senate would consider that treaty. Senator Chafee was a principled man. He was true to his bedrock beliefs, but he was not so idealistic that he would sacrifice success for unyielding principle. In doing so, he advanced his causes most effectively. For a man as battle-tested as his history suggests, Senator Chafee was known for his civility and his ability to seek a gentler, more civil path in the often strife-torn and partisan Senate. I have not served on any committees with Senator Chafee, but I was well aware of his ability to work with colleagues from both sides of the aisle to ensure the success of his legislative agenda. This talent ensured that he would be sorely missed upon his retirement from the Senate next year. Upon announcing his retirement plans last March, he made it clear that he was not ``going away mad or disillusioned or upset with the Senate. I think it's a great place,'' he said. I think it was a greater place for his presence. It is merely unlucky chance that he is gone before we could all savor our last months in his company. Now, we must instead hold close our best last memories of this kind and gentle man, crusty New Englander that he was. We must measure the legacy that he leaves in legislation and in the fine example that he set with his life. Only thus can we, in the poet William Wordsworth's words, aspire to ``Intimations of Immortality:'' Though nothing can bring back the hour Of splendor in the grass, of glory in the flower; We will grieve not, rather find Strength in what remains behind; In the primal sympathy Which having been must ever be; In the soothing thoughts that spring Out of human suffering; In the faith that looks through death, In years that bring the philosophic mind. Senator John Chafee leaves behind a rich legacy that honors his name, his State, and the United States Senate. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, according to recent results from the 1998 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), only about a quarter of fourth, eighth, and twelfth graders write well enough to meet the ``proficient'' achievement grading level, and a measly one percent of students attained the ``advanced'' grading level. Approximately six out of ten pupils reached just the ``basic'' level-- defined as ``partial mastery'' of writing skills by the National Assessment of Educational Progress exam. What startling results, Mr. President! How do we expect our nation to forge ahead in a global economy with a ``partial mastery'' of writing skills? From the typical thank-you note to a cover letter for a job opening to a simple exchange with friends over the Internet, writing is a skill essential to everyday existence, no matter what path in life one may choose to pursue. The power of words and the blending of thoughts in a succinct, clear, and grammatically correct manner is often a daunting endeavor, and one that is too easily dismissed with a poor letter grade or a critical evaluation by a mentor or coworker. The path to becoming a solid writer is a long and arduous road. I continue to improve my writing skills each day through reading and through practice. As the old saying goes, ``practice makes perfect.'' Well, Mr. President, this dictum does not just apply to perfecting your baseball swing or your tennis serve. It is an edict we all ought to follow with a little greater will and fortitude in all of life's quests. What makes someone a better writer? Lots of things, I say, but perhaps a strong foundation is the most critical, and often the most neglected, step along the way. Today's children are ripe with great ideas and creativity, but without proper instruction and strong reading skills, bright promise fades into fractured thoughts and misspelled words on paper. Based upon the results of the 1998 NAEP test, students who did well tended to be those who planned out their compositions and had teachers who required practice drafts. Moreover, youngsters from homes filled with books, newspapers, magazines, and encyclopedias had higher average scores. So often, we hear students gripe about burdensome summer reading lists, and even more shockingly, we witness parents encouraging their children to buy the ``Cliff Notes'' of the book to provide them with the basic character and plot summaries while avoiding the hefty task of reading the novel from cover to cover. What nonsense! Perhaps, the greatest benefit of a child's summer agenda is reading. Skimming and reading shortened versions or the so-called ``Cliff Notes'' rob children of wonderful learning experiences. Reading is an essential ingredient to enhancing one's writing skills. From enjoying the morning newspaper over a cup of coffee to reading an educational magazine or a novel, one can benefit greatly from this endeavor. Given the expansive English vocabulary, there is much to learn from different styles of writing. How often does a person come across an unfamiliar word or phrase in reading? Quite often, I suspect. But how often does the person actually interrupt their reading to consult the dictionary for the word's definition or origin? Not very often, I venture to guess. An appreciation of the soaring majesty of the English language is the key to unlocking one's own writing skills and letting one's own words take wing. I am pleased to be a cosponsor this year of S. 514, legislation to reauthorize the National Writing Project. The National Writing Project (NWP) is the only federally funded program that specifically works to improve a student's writing abilities and provide professional development programs in the area of writing instruction for classroom teachers. This program operates on a ``teachers teaching teachers'' model, meaning that successful writing teachers conduct workshops for other teachers in the schools during the school year to improve overall writing skills. It is critically important that our nation have skilled teachers in the area of writing, and this program goes straight to the heart of that. West Virginia is home to three federally funded National Writing Projects, including programs at West Virginia University and Marshall University. The act of writing is itself an art, one which not only requires creativity, but one that can also glisten with beauty. Calligraphy, for example, is a beautiful form of writing, very popular in formal invitations and for special events. And while most of us are not gifted calligraphers by nature, we all ought to take a little more pride in the presentation of our writing. A beautifully worded poem or essay can be easily tarnished by poor penmanship. Conversely, good penmanship can enhance the overall beauty of one's writing by simple finishing touches, beginning with the dotting of our i's and the crossing of our t's. It is very easy to become sloppy in one's writing, but we must not forget that appearance does matter, and a good essay that is illegible will have little impact. Sadly, today's young generation seems to be more happily occupied with a telephone in one hand and a television remote control in the other than with a book or a newspaper. I fear that the entertainment luxuries of the twentieth century have misplaced the old-fashioned art of reading and writing. Computer electronic mail too often has become a replacement for a hand-written thank-you letter to a deserving colleague or peer. Reading from Plutarch's ``Lives,'' Homer's ``The Iliad'' and ``The Odyssey,'' or a Shakespearean play has taken a backseat to video games and Hollywood movies. I challenge all of us to set higher standards in our reading and writing skills, and to help our young people do the same. Put down the remote control and pick up a good book. Write a poem for a friend on her birthday. Poetry is a wonderful gift--such heartfelt thoughts on paper tend to last much longer than a piece of clothing exhibiting the latest fashion trend. Embrace the English language and take pride in each word that you place on paper--after all, your writing is a reflection of you. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, earlier today I voted against tabling a sense of the Congress amendment proposed by Senator Harkin regarding the Supreme Court's 1973 decision in the case of Roe v. Wade. Because that vote was, to the best of my recollection, the first time the Senate has directly and specifically addressed the issue of the Court's ruling, I wish to take a few moments to explain my position for the benefit of my constituents in West Virginia. First, despite the fact that I supported the Harkin amendment, I reiterate that I am, as I always have been, personally opposed to abortion, with few exceptions--such as when the life of the woman would be endangered, or in cases of incest or rape, when promptly reported. However, the reality of the situation is that the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. No matter what I think personally of the procedure in question, I accept the fact that the Court, in a 7-to-2 ruling, has definitively spoken on this matter. Accordingly, I felt it was appropriate to support the language of the Harkin amendment.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I cannot support amendment No. 2323, offered by the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu. I appreciate her concern regarding the devastating financial impact that having a special-needs child can place on working families. However, I am also mindful of the fact that, as we strive to complete our budgetary work, nearly all Members have agreed that we should do so without using Social Security Trust Fund surpluses or raising taxes. Despite the fact that this is a sense of the Congress amendment and therefore has no statutory consequence, I am nevertheless concerned with the unknown financial consequence that a commitment of this magnitude could have. For that reason, I am constrained to oppose the Landrieu amendment.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Fiscal Year 2000 VA/HUD Conference Report (106-161) contains bill language regarding implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. This bill language is identical to bill language included in the Fiscal Year 1999 VA/HUD Conference Report (105-769). I would like to ask the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member of the VA/HUD Subcommittee two questions to clarify their understanding of this provision. I note that last year, the conferees carefully crafted bill and report language that clearly addressed the concern that the Administration does not implement the Kyoto Protocol through domestic regulatory action before the Senate gave its advice and consent to the Protocol. At the same time, the conferees clarified that they did not intend to jeopardize ongoing, voluntary programs. These voluntary programs have numerous benefits and are consistent with our treaty commitments under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, ratified by the U.S. in 1992. In the Fiscal Year 2000 VA/HUD Appropriations bill (S. 1596), the Senate included bill and report language that remains consistent with last year's bill and report language. By doing so, the Senate believes that this language provides the necessary consistency and prohibits only funding for proposing or issuing federal regulatory action called for solely to implement the Kyoto Protocol. These programs have long had the support within both the public and private sectors, and thus it makes both economic and environmental sense that we take this course. It is, therefore, my understanding that, like last year, the provision in question is not intended to restrict ongoing, voluntary programs or activities that, in their entirety, help to improve air quality standards, increase energy efficiency, develop cutting-edge technologies, and reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. Is my understanding correct? As you also know, the Senate has clearly expressed its bipartisan view regarding the Kyoto Protocol in S. Res. 98, adopted unanimously by the Senate on July 25, 1997. That resolution calls on the Administration to achieve commitments from developing countries, especially the largest emitters, as well as protect U.S. economic interests by emphasizing market-based mechanisms and the use of energy efficient technologies. Is my understanding correct that this provision would not prohibit the Administration from working to achieve S. Res. 98?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this afternoon the Senate is scheduled to vote on final passage of the fiscal year 2000 Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. It is critical that we complete action on this bill today to speed assistance to American farmers in need. Therefore, I shall vote for the bill and urge my colleagues to support it also. The severe drought that has gripped the Eastern United States this year is, by all accounts, the most damaging and prolonged such occurrence since the early 1930s. Just like that period nearly 70 years ago, springs have gone dry, streams have ceased to flow, pastureland and crops have broiled in the relentless Sun until all possible benefits to livestock or man have burned away. In the 1930s the drought turned much of our Nation's farmlands into a veritable dust bowl. Modern conservation practices today may have helped to reduce the erosion by wind, but the soil is just as dry, and farmers in West Virginia and all along the East Coast are suffering from the natural disaster of a generation. Some farmers have had to make the painful decision to sell off their livestock or to give up farms that have been in their families for generations. This is what has been happening in West Virginia. This is nothing short of an emergency. It demands our attention and response. This bill provides funding for many ongoing and long running programs as well as much needed assistance to farmers who suffered at the hands of Mother Nature this year. The $8.7 billion emergency package that is attached to this appropriations bill contains $1.2 billion specifically for 1999 natural disasters, including drought. In all, more than $1.2 billion will be available for direct payments for farmers suffering crop and livestock losses from natural disasters this year, up significantly from the $50 million in the version that first passed the Senate in August. That may not be enough to fully cover the still- mounting losses to farmers, but it is a good start. These emergency funds will be able to be distributed upon enactment of this legislation to farmers who have been waiting and waiting for the Federal Government to deliver. American farmers cannot afford to wait any longer for Federal assistance, and the Senate cannot afford to delay final passage of this fiscal year 2000 Agriculture Appropriations Conference Report. Unfortunately, once this measure reached the conference committee, the process that we follow yearly as routine in conferences was sidelined. When difficult issues came before the conference, after only an evening and a morning of debate, the conference committee adjourned for lunch, and never returned. For several days, the conference was ``out to lunch,'' until deals could be reached behind closed doors guided by invisible hands, and our tried and true procedure was circumvented. I believe that this selective bargaining is why some Members have expressed their dissatisfaction with the final bill. The best work of the Congress is demonstrated when, as a body, we cooperate and allow ourselves to be guided by the rules and the traditions that have allowed our Government to flourish under the Constitution now for over 200 years. I have stood before this body on numerous occasions since visiting West Virginia with the Secretary of Agriculture on August 2 of this year to impress upon my fellow Members what a significant impact the drought has had in West Virginia, and, of course, in other Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern States. Many of these States received a secretarial emergency declaration that has provided some limited USDA assistance to farmers who have experienced losses as a result of the drought. But, unfortunately, much of the assistance came in the form of loans to farmers who were already deep in debt. The recent losses caused by Hurricane Floyd make clear that more emergency assistance will be needed. We can do better for farmers, so I supported the Statement of Managers language directing the administration to conduct full estimates of the remaining need, and to submit to the Congress a supplemental budget request as soon as possible for both hurricane and additional drought assistance. When we consider all of the natural disasters that have affected farmers this year, from frosts that killed citrus trees, to devastating drought, to States ravaged by storms, and by the hurricane, I feel that it is highly appropriate that the Senate act now because it seems a certainty that the $1.2 billion will be insufficient to help farmers who have been harmed by nature. But the current emergency package attached to the conference report is essential to begin addressing the crisis in rural America that has only been compounded by the weather disasters of 1999. Failure to pass this measure will only allow the suffering of struggling farmers to continue without relief. The House of Representatives passed this measure on October 1, 1999. It is now time for the Senate to pass this measure. I want to thank Senator Cochran in particular for his study and consideration and for the skill with which he has brought this bill to its present status. I want to thank him also for supporting some of my requests in the bill. I requested that there be grants to farmers, livestock farmers in particular, in the amount of $200 million and also that there be provisions whereby farmers could restore their land, where there could be new vegetation planted so that they could have a chance of starting over again. It was in that conference that the chairman, in particular, supported my effort. I was one of the three Democrats on this side who signed the conference report, and did so in particular because of the funding which had been provided, at my request, for the livestock farmers. There are livestock farmers in my State who were selling out their entire herds, not just for this year but for good. Some of those livestock farmers have been in the farming business for years, and the farm indeed has come down to them after one or more generations. It is important not only from the standpoint, I think, of helping these people who are so in need and who have to work every day, 365 days a year, who can never be sure what the weather is going to be, and who are at the mercy, in many instances, of Mother Nature--it is important that we come to their aid--it is also important for our country that we continue to sustain the small farmer. In the Roman Republic, the small farmers left their farms in the Apennine Mountains and went into the cities and joined with the mob. When those farmers, those peasants of the land in Italy, left the land and migrated into the cities, the Roman republic began to collapse. It was in the homes of the Roman farmers that family values and the Roman spiritual values flourished. When those peasants left the land, the spiritual values of the Romans began to deteriorate because it was in the homes that they venerated their ancestors and worshipped their gods. They were pagan gods, but the Romans worshipped those gods. Those family values, which included respect for authority and order-- there is where the stern Roman discipline had its beginning. It was because of that stern Roman discipline that came out of the homes of the peasants--it was because of that stern Roman discipline that the Roman legions were able to conquer the various other nations around the Mediterranean basin. It was the same way in our own country in colonial days. Most of the people in this country were from farming stock. There was a time when over 90 percent of the people in this country were from the farms. That day has long gone, as the corporate farms have largely taken over, just as in the Roman Republic, the latifundia--large corporate farms--which were owned mostly by Roman senators, pushed the small farmers off the land. I suppose Oliver Goldsmith had that in mind when he wrote ``The Deserted Village.'' In his lines, he told the story of the Roman farmers as well as our own people. Ill fares the land, to hast'ning ills a prey, Where wealth accumulates, and men decay: Princes and lords may flourish, or may fade; A breath can make them, as a breath has made: But a bold peasantry, their country's pride, When once destroy'd, can never be supplied. I thank all Senators for listening. I hope Senators will soon vote for this important bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. Mr. President, I regret that the Senate has arrived at this juncture, that we are forging ahead with a vote that many, if not most, of us believe is ill-timed and premature. The outcome is a foregone conclusion--the Senate will reject the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. I sincerely hope that this vote is being driven by something other than pure partisan politics, but for the life of me, I fail to see it. Nevertheless, here we are, and vote, it appears, we will. In the consideration of a matter as important as a major arms control treaty, we need, at a minimum, sufficient time to examine the issue, sufficient opportunity to modify the treaty, and last, but not least, the answers to a few basic questions. First, do we support the objectives of the treaty? In the case of the CTBT, I think it is quite possible that a large majority of the Senate does support the goal of banning live nuclear weapons tests worldwide. I suspect that the 80 percent or more approval ratings that we hear in reference to this treaty are based on that question. Second, is the treaty in the national security interests of the United States? Would the security of the United States be enhanced if we could flash-freeze the practice of nuclear weapons testing worldwide, or are we leaving ourselves frozen in time while other nations march forward? Given our vast superiority in both numbers and technology over other nations, including Russia, it would seem that a freeze on testing could be an advantage to the United States, if--and it is a big if--other nations fully respect the treaty. Third, does the treaty accomplish its objectives? This is where the questions become more difficult. Verification is a legitimate issue, as is the security of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. What will the impact be on our national security if some countries cheat on the treaty, and others simply refuse to ratify it? Can we really trust an untested Stockpile Security Program to maintain our arsenal of nuclear weapons, and what signal will we be sending to the rest of the world if we find flaws in the program or in our weapons, flaws that mandate live testing to fix the weapons? These types of questions require time and research to fully explore. We have neither the time nor the information we need on this treaty. Finally, can the treaty be improved by the addition of amendments, reservations, understandings or the like? Few documents that come before this body are perfect, and treaties are no exception. It is easy to criticize, easy to find fault, easy to point out the flaws--it is much easier to renounce a piece of legislation or a treaty than to improve it. We have heard a fair amount of discussion about the safeguards to be attached to this treaty. That is all well and good, but I wonder if they are good enough. I wonder how much scrutiny Senators have really given those safeguards. Could they be improved, or perhaps expanded? Maybe we need more safeguards. The point is, under these circumstances, we do not have the ability to fully explore ways to strengthen this treaty, and perhaps make it acceptable to more Senators. A treaty of this nature--one that would bar the United States from testing its stockpile of nuclear weapons in perpetuity--deserves extensive study, careful debate, and a floor situation that allows for the open consideration of amendments, reservations, or other motions. Treaties of this importance, of this impact on the Nation, are not to be brushed off with a political wink and a nod. Treaties of this importance must be debated on the basis of their merits, not calibrated to the ticking of the legislative clock. As the distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden, noted on Friday, in comparison with Senate consideration of other national security treaties, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty has been given short shrift indeed. The 1988 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), which was considered during a time in which I served as Majority Leader, was the subject of 20 hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 12 hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee, a number of hearings in the Intelligence Committee, and eventually, nine days of Senate floor debate. The SALT II Treaty, which again was considered when I was Majority Leader, was the subject of 21 hearings by the Foreign Relations Committee, and nine hearings by the Armed Services Committee before President Carter and I reached agreement in 1980 that, as a result of the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, consideration of the treaty should be suspended. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is of equal importance and deserves the same consideration as those earlier treaties affecting our national security. Senator Warner and Senator Levin, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committees, and their respective staffs, did a yeoman's job in scheduling three back-to-back days of hearings on the Treaty last week. They managed to wedge an enormous amount of information into a remarkably brief window of opportunity. They deserve our thanks and our commendations. But what are we left with at the end of the process? What we are left with is a cacophony of facts, assessments, and opinions. Few in this chamber are steeped in the intricacies of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. I am not. Few of us have a full enough understanding of the treaty to sift the competing opinions that we have heard this week and to draw informed conclusions. It is often said that the devil is in the details. To accept or reject this treaty on the basis of such flimsy understanding of the details as most of us possess is a blot on the integrity of the Senate, and a disservice to the Nation. Mr. President, I refer now to the Federalist No. 75 by Alexander Hamilton. Let me quote a bit of what he says in speaking of the power of making treaties. Its objects are contracts with foreign nations, which have the force of law, but derive it from the obligations of good faith. They are not rules prescribed by the sovereign to the subject, but agreements between sovereign and sovereign. The power in question seems therefore to form a distinct department, and to belong properly neither to the legislative nor to the executive. . . . However proper or safe it may be in government where the executive magistrate is an hereditary monarch, to commit to him the entire power of making treaties, it would be utterly unsafe and improper to entrust that power to an elective magistrate of four years duration. . . . The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind as those which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world to the sole disposal of a magistrate, created and circumstanced, as would be a president of the United States. . . . It must indeed be clear to a demonstration, that the joint possession of the power in question by the president and senate would afford a greater prospect of security, than the separate possession of it by either of them. In The Federalist Essays, Number 75, Alexander Hamilton lays out a compelling case for the fundamental and essential role that the Senate must play in the ratification of a treaty. Mr. President, in accordance with what Hamilton said, in these words that I just spoke, we should pause to take his words to heart. He leaves no room for quibble, no margin for question. The Senate is a vital part of the treaty-making equation. And yet, on this treaty, under this consent agreement, the Senate has effectively abdicated its duty. This is an extraordinary moment. The Senate is standing on the edge of a precipice, approaching a vote that is, by all accounts, going to result in the rejection of a nuclear arms control treaty. All of us are by now aware of a coup d'etat which has occurred in one of the more unstable nuclear powers in the world--Pakistan--a state that conducted underground tests of nuclear weapons just last year, but which in recent weeks, sent signals that it would sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. While the two events are not necessarily related, the Senate's rejection of this treaty, coming on the heel of this coup d'etat, could send a powerful message to the as-yet-unfamiliar government in Pakistan. Would it not be prudent to assess this new situation, with all of its potential ramifications to our own security situation, before we act on this treaty? I believe all of us know that it would. But, Mr. President, I fear that what is driving the Senate at this moment instead of prudence or the security interests of the United States, is political agenda. Indeed, it is political agenda that has brought us to this uncomfortable place, and it is political agenda which blocks our exit from it, despite the desire of most members to pull back. Once we have disposed of this vote, if the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is returned to the Senate at some future date, I urge the leaders to work together to re-examine it in a bipartisan fashion. We have a number of ready made vehicles to do so--the Foreign Relations Committee, the Armed Services Committee, the Intelligence Committee, and the National Security Working Group, of which both leaders are members. Our leaders should sit down with the experts whose opinions represent both sides of the Treaty debate. They should talk to the Russians, eyeball to eyeball. They should talk to our allies, eyeball to eyeball. An opinion piece in the New York Times is no substitute for face-to-face talks with the leaders of Britain, France and Germany. We have made the effort on other treaties, and we should do no less for this Treaty. And above all, we should undertake this examination of the treaty on a bipartisan basis. No treaty of this importance is going to receive the consideration that it deserves without the cooperation of the leaders of both parties. It is just that simple. Mr. President, I look forward to the day when we can deliberate the full implications of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. What we do on this treaty will affect national--and international--security for generations to come. We owe it to the Senate and to the Nation to give this Treaty thorough and informed scrutiny, to improve it if needed, to approve it if warranted, or to reject it if necessary. That is our charge under the Constitution, and that is the course of action that I hope we will be given another opportunity to pursue. In closing, Mr. President, I cannot vote today either to approve or to reject the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. I will do something that I have never before done in my 41 years in the United States Senate. I will vote ``Present.'' I will do so in the hope that this treaty will sometime be returned for consideration, under a different set of circumstances, in which we can fully and dispassionately explore the ramifications of the treaty and any amendments, conditions, or reservations in regard to it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. I will yield in a moment. I will accord the Senator that courtesy. Mr. President, what is the majority leader afraid of? Is he afraid to hear an expression of opinion that may differ from his? As majority leader, I never did that. When I was majority leader, I sought to protect the rights of the minority. That is one of the great functions of this Senate, one of its reasons for being. I would defend to the death the right of any Senator in this body to speak. Fifteen minutes? Consider the time we have spent. We haven't spent a great deal of time on this treaty. I regret very much the majority leader saw fit to object to my request to speak. Now, I am glad to yield to the distinguished majority leader. Mr. President, I ask that my rights to the floor be protected. I am not yielding the floor now.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I say what I am about to say without rancor. I hope I can. I have been in this body now 41 years at the end of this year. I was majority leader for 4 years, then minority leader for 6 years, and then majority leader for 2 more years. Mr. President, as majority leader, and as minority leader, I never once objected to a Senator's request to speak for a few minutes--15 minutes in my case today--nor do I ever expect to object to another Senator's request to speak. My request was for only a short amount of time. The distinguished majority leader objected. He has a perfect right to object. I don't question his right to object. But, Mr. President, I think we have come to a very poor pass in this Senate when Senators can't stand to hear a Senator speak for 15 minutes. Our forefathers died for the right of freedom of speech. I may not agree with what another Senator says, but, as someone else has said, I will defend to the death his right to say it. Mr. Leader, I very much regret that you objected to my request to speak for 15 minutes. I don't get in your way in the Senate often. Mr. President, I want to adhere to the rules. I don't get in the distinguished majority leader's way very often. He doesn't find me objecting to his requests. I know he has great responsibilities as the majority leader of the Senate. He has a heavy burden. Having borne that burden, having borne those responsibilities, I try to act as I should act in my place and let the two leaders run the Senate. I don't cause the majority leader much trouble here. He will have to say that. He will have to admit that. I don't get in his hair. I don't cause him problems. But, Mr. President, when a Senator, the senior Senator of the minority asks to speak for 15 minutes, I think it has to be offensive, not only to this Senator but to other Senators. I would never object, Mr. Majority Leader, to a request from your side. Suppose Strom Thurmond had stood to his feet. He is the senior Member of this body. I think there has to be some comity. I think it comes with poor grace to object to a senior Member of the Senate who wishes to speak before a critical vote. Now, the majority leader said in his opinion, or something to that effect, that I could speak after the motion had been decided upon, and there would be time allowed under the order, and there would be time then to make a speech. That was his opinion. In this Senator's opinion, this Senator felt that it was important for this Senator to speak at that time. Not that I would have changed any votes, but I think I had the right to speak. What is the majority leader afraid of? What is the majority leader afraid of?

Mr. BYRD. The Senator doesn't have the floor to yield.

Mr. BYRD. If the distinguished majority leader will listen, I want his attention. I don't want to say anything behind his back. He might be offended. I want him to hear what I say and be able to respond to it. Mr. President, the distinguished majority leader spoke about how long he served in the House. That had nothing to do with my request for 15 minutes. I served in the Senate 30 years before the distinguished majority leader ever got to the Senate. Two-thirds of the Members of this Senate have never served with me when I was majority leader in this Senate. Two-thirds. I am not interested in what the rules of the House are. I served over there. I am interested in free speech, freedom of speech. May I say, in response to the distinguished majority leader, I know what the rules are. I know that the motion to return to executive session is not debatable. I know that very well. Mr. President, the distinguished majority leader alluded to an extension of debate on this treaty-- something to the effect that he had heard there were going to be efforts to extend that debate. I am not one of those. I wasn't part of that, and I never heard of it. So help me God, I had no desire to extend the debate. I wanted to say something about that motion, not just about the treaty. I wanted to speak before the motion. I was denied that right--not that I would have changed any votes, but it is my right as a Senator. There is too much of what the House does that we don't need to do in this Senate. I am afraid that too many Senators feel that we need to be like the House. This Senate exists for the protection of the minority, for one thing. It also exists to allow Members to speak freely and to their heart's content. I understand unanimous consent agreements. I have probably gotten more unanimous consent agreements than any other majority leader that ever was a part of this Senate. I walked in the Senator's shoes. I walked in the majority leader's shoes. But never-- never--would I object to a Senator asking for 15 minutes to speak on a motion, notwithstanding the fact that the rules preclude debate. That is why unanimous consents have to be made. You have to get unanimous consent to speak in a situation like that. I was denied that. Mr. President, this Senate needs to remember that we operate here by courtesy. We have to be courteous to one another. We have to remember that we work together for the country, we work for the Senate; and it is going to take cooperation and understanding. I try to be a gentleman to every Senator in this body. I don't think there is any Senator who can say I have not been a gentleman to him in my dealings with him or her. The Senate is for two main purposes; there are two things that make the Senate different from any other upper body in the world--the right to amend, which this side is often denied, and which I never denied. If there were 50, 60, or 70 amendments, I said find out from both sides how many Senators wanted to offer amendments and then we will try to get consent that there be no other amendments, and vote. So there is the right to amend and the right to speak--freedom of speech. As long as Senators may stand on their feet and speak as long as they wish, the liberties of the American people will be assured. Mr. Leader, I will not carry this. I have said my piece today. I am offended by what the majority leader did, but I am going to forgive him. I am. I don't live with yesterday regarding relations in this Senate. I think too much of the Senate. That is why I am running again; I think too much of the Senate. I could retire and receive $21,500 more annually in my retirement than I will earn as a Senator. Besides, I could be free to take another job. But it isn't money that I seek; it isn't wealth that I seek. I love this Senate. I am a traditionalist. I live by the traditions of the Senate. I try to live by the rules of the Senate. I try to remember that if I offend a Senator today, he may be the very Senator who will help me tomorrow. I try to remember that. I try to make that a practice. The majority leader made a mistake, if I may respectfully say so. But I will not hold that against him. I will shake his hand when this is over, because first, last, and always I try to be a man, one who can look in the eye of my fellow man and, if I have done him wrong, I want to apologize to him before the Sun sets. That is my creed. We need to have better comity than we are having in the Senate-- not that I will be a problem. But the American people are watching. They see this. And the majority leader has the votes. He doesn't have to be afraid of a motion the minority might make. He doesn't have to care what the minority may say. Nobody needs to be afraid of an opinion I might express before a vote. And no time is saved by it, as we now see. No time is saved. (Laughter) If I had any real ill will in my heart, I would take the rest of the afternoon to speak, and maybe more. But I thank the majority leader for his kindness to me in the past. I understand his problems. I don't want to get in his way. I have said things behind his back that were good. I have talked about the attributes of this leader behind his back. And anything I say today, that is all; I am getting it off of my heart. The majority leader, I think, will contemplate what has been done here today and, in the long run--if I may offer a little bit of wisdom that I possess from my 41 years of experience in this body--he will be just a little less relentless in his drive to have the majority's will uncontested. Remember, there will come a day when he will need the help of the minority. The minority has been right in history on a few occasions and may be right again. The day may come when the minority in the Senate of today will be the majority of tomorrow. If I am still living and in this Senate at that time, I will stand up for the rights of the minority because that is one of the main functions of the Senate. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished majority leader if he wishes to respond to anything I said.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may I have the attention of the majority leader. Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes prior to the vote.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, for the great patriot, fine citizen, and extraordinary American that he is.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. That was a child.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I call attention to something that I have not seen in the Senate, now, in over 5 years. It has been 5 years since I saw a Democrat in that chair. But who better than the distinguished senior Senator from New York, Pat Moynihan, to grace that chair. This is truly a record day. We will be celebrating Columbus Day on next Tuesday, but I am ready to start now because there sits Senator Moynihan--in the chair. Let me comment just a little further on that. Imagine our good Republican friends allowing a Democrat to sit in the Presiding Officer's chair. They trust him. I think it was with great grace that Jesse Helms, the senior Senator from North Carolina, the State in which I was born and the State whose motto is ``to be rather than to seem,'' that he chose Pat Moynihan to preside over these last few minutes.