Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, is time under control?

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, over the weekend, a glimmer of light broke through the war clouds shrouding Yugoslavia. That light was kindled by the release of the three American soldiers who have been held hostage in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia since their capture by the forces of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic on March 31. The individual responsible for this remarkable turn of events is the Reverend Jesse L. Jackson. For his efforts, he has earned the thanks of a grateful nation. Due to the faith and determination of Mr. Jackson, the Reverend Joan Brown Campbell of the National Council of Churches and the delegation of religious leaders that Mr. Jackson led to Yugoslavia, in this one small corner of a terrible conflict, good has triumphed over evil. I have no doubt but that the motives of President Milosevic in freeing the American servicemen will be analyzed, dissected, and ruminated on by the commentators in the coming days. Despite all the conjectures, we may never know what he was hoping to achieve. Surely Milosevic will be disappointed if he believes that this gesture, welcome as it is, will blind the United States and the rest of NATO to the atrocities that he is inflicting on the ethnic Albanian population of Kosovo. But in contrast to Mr. Milosevic, we do know what the Reverend Mr. Jackson was hoping to achieve. He has faced some of the most ruthless strongmen in the world, including Syrian President Hafiz Assad, Cuban President Fidel Castro, and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. In 1984, Mr. Jackson won the release from Syria of Navy Lieutenant Robert Goodman Jr., who was shot down over Lebanon. That same year, he persuaded Castro to release 48 American and Cuban prisoners. In 1990, he helped to win freedom for more than 700 foreigners who were being detained as human shields by Saddam Hussein following the invasion of Kuwait. His trip to Yugoslavia marks the fourth time that Jesse Jackson has won freedom for hostages. In the faces of the freed soldiers and their families, I am reminded once again that faith can move mountains. I salute the Reverend Mr. Jackson and his delegation for their remarkable success. Mr. President, as a mark of respect for Mr. Jackson and the delegation of church leaders, I am today submitting a Sense of the Senate Resolution commending Mr. Jackson for the deep faith that marked his mission to Belgrade, and for his successful efforts to free Staff Sergeant Andrew A. Ramirez of California, Staff Sergeant Christopher J. Stone of Michigan, and Specialist Steven M. Gonzales of Texas. We welcome these soldiers home with open arms. We also salute the brave men and women of our armed forces who remain in harm's way in the Balkans. Their courage and patriotism, and the dedication and sacrifice of their families, are appreciated and honored by all Americans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may send the resolution to the desk and that it be held there until the majority leader and the minority leader decide upon a proper disposition of it, but that it can't be held longer than a day, the end of business today.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have retrieved my resolution from the desk. I ask unanimous consent that S. Res. 94 be printed in the Record.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator. Mr. President, I make that request.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for not to exceed 5 minutes out of order.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona. I thank him for his courtesy. I thank him for his leadership on this resolution and for his leadership on many of the great issues that we have debated in this Senate from time to time. There are occasions when I vote with Mr. McCain. There are occasions when I feel that we do not see eye to eye. That is not to say that I do not have the greatest respect for his position, for his viewpoint. I do have. Mr. President, I commend Senator McCain, and I commend the other Senators, Senator Biden and the others, who have cosponsored this resolution, for having the courage of their convictions and for standing up for that in which they believe. I am sorry that I cannot agree on this occasion, but there may be a time down the road when we will be working together and I can agree and they can agree with me. I shall not use more than 5 minutes, Mr. President. The course of action that they are advocating--giving the President blanket authority to use whatever force he deems necessary to resolve the Kosovo conflict--is a bold and possibly risky stroke. But whatever the outcome, they are forcing the Senate to confront the Kosovo crisis head-on, and that in itself is noteworthy. Unfortunately, this resolution troubles me for a number of reasons. First, in my judgment, it is premature. In response to a request from the President, the Senate authorized air strikes against Yugoslavia in March. To date, the President has not requested any expansion of that authority. In fact, he has specifically stated on numerous occasions that the use of ground troops is not being contemplated. I think that has been a mistake from the very beginning, virtually saying to the Yugoslavian leader that we have no intention whatsoever of confronting you with ground troops. That loosens whatever bonds or chains Mr. Milosevic may otherwise feel constrain him. But the President has not announced that. Now it is deep into our spring, and by the time we put ground troops on the ground, I assume it will be nearing winter in the Balkans. I think that the President has made a mistake from the very beginning in saying we have no intent. I would prefer to let Mr. Milosevic guess as to our intent than tell him we have no intent of doing thus and so. If the intent of this resolution is to send a message to Slobodan Milosevic that the United States is serious about its commitment to the NATO operation in Kosovo, there are better ways to accomplish that objective. Swift action on the emergency supplemental appropriations bill to pay for the Kosovo operation would be a good first step. Second, this resolution has the practical effect of releasing the President from any obligation to consult with Congress over future action in Kosovo. With this language, the Senate is effectively bowing out of the Kosovo debate and ceding all authority to the executive branch. My friends may say that the Senate is not entertaining any debate anyhow, but at least it might do so. I do not think this is in the best interest of the Nation. The President needs to consult Congress, but nobody can seem to agree on just exactly what ``consultation'' means. The President has had a few of us down to the White House upon several occasions. I have gone upon three occasions, and I have declined to go upon one, I believe, but those consultations, while they are probably beneficial and should be had, are really not enough. But the President does need to consult with Congress, and if he determines ground troops are needed in Kosovo, he needs to make that case to the American people. He has to make the case. Nobody can make that case for him. The Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, cannot make the case. The Vice President cannot make the case. Who is going to listen to Sandy Berger? I am not going to listen very much. So who can make the case? Nobody but the President can really make the case. We in the Senate will do the President no favor by giving him the means to short circuit the process. Third, this resolution goes beyond policy and infringes on the power of Congress to control the purse. If the Senate gives the President blanket authorization to ``use all necessary force and other means'' to accomplish the goals and objectives set by NATO for the Kosovo operation, the Senate has no choice but to back that up with a blank check to pay for it. I think I have to agree with the distinguished Senator from Arizona in most of what he said. Practically speaking, he is exactly right. He is precisely correct when he says that the only real check that the Congress has upon the President is the power over the purse. Money talks. That is the raw power. Congress alone has that power. If we were to adopt this resolution, we would be essentially committing the United States to pay an undetermined amount of money for an unknown period of time to finance an uncertain and open-ended military offensive. Mr. President, that, by any standard, is not sound policy. I believe there are better ways for the Senate to address the conflict in Kosovo, ways in which we can encourage the administration to work with Congress and to listen to the views of the American people as expressed through their representatives in Congress. I have repeatedly urged the President to provide Congress--and the American people--with more details on the Kosovo strategy, including the projected level of U.S. involvement in terms of personnel and equipment, the estimated cost and source of funding, the expected duration and exit strategy, and the anticipated impact on military readiness and morale. Of course, we heard the promises made in connection with Bosnia: We were only going to be there a year. Repeatedly, we put that question to the administration people and they assured us, ``It will only take about a year.'' We have heard those promises before. We do not pay much attention to them anymore. Those assurances do not mean anything. The President has certainly made a good faith effort to date to consult on this matter, with Members of Congress, but we are only in the opening stages of this operation, and the path ahead is very unclear. The President would be well served to continue consulting closely with Congress and to seek Congressional support for any decision that he contemplates involving ground forces. For its part, the Senate should not take any action that would jeopardize this dialog, as I believe this resolution would do. Mr. President, again I commend Senator McCain and Senator Biden, and the other Senators who are cosponsors, for seeking a straightforward determination of the role that Congress will play in the Kosovo conflict. There is no question where the Senator from Arizona stands. He steps up to the plate, takes hold of the bat, says, here is how I stand, this is what I believe in. He is willing to have the Senate vote. I admire him for that. I admire his patriotism. I admire his determination to have the Senate speak. But I do not believe that this resolution is the appropriate action to take at this time. I urge my colleagues to table it. I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how is the time controlled?

Mr. BYRD. Who has control of the time in opposition to the resolution?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I join with my distinguished colleagues, Senators Murkowski, Hagel, Craig, Hutchinson, Grams, and Roberts, in cosponsoring the Energy and Climate Policy Act of 1999 which was introduced earlier today. The legislation provided in this bill is one of a number of options that the U.S. could undertake to improve energy efficiency and security and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While the complex issue of climate change will not be solved by a single bill or action, this legislaiton provides additional funding for research and development for important programs that I have long supported, like clean coal technologies, an American-developed initiative. The bill would also take steps to coordinate and implement energy efficiency research as well as begin the process of better reporting greehouse gas reductions at the Department of Energy. If substantial steps are going to be taken globally to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we must accelerate the development and commercialization of new technologies, anticipate changing conditions, and encourage public/private partnerships. Both developing and industrialized nations must find ways to tackle this complex and multi- faceted problem. There is no single answer--there is no one silver bullet to fix this issue. Any viable climate change policy must include efforts to develop cleaner and more efficient fossil fuel-based energy production in order to meet growing energy needs. Clean coal technologies must be a part of that solution. When one examines the increase in global greenhouse gas emissions over the next several decades, the utilization of clean coal technologies is essential. Nations that are serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the long term, especially many of the largest developing nations like China, cannot ignore clean coal technologies. In 1984, I proposed, and the Congress adopted, a $750 million Clean Coal Technology program. Originally, the program was designed to achieve long-term, real reductions in acid rain. Since then, the program has expanded, thanks to a joint government-industry investment of more than $6 billion. This investment has led to 40 first-of-a-kind projects in 18 states, including an array of high-technology ideas that can spearhead a new era of clean, efficient power plants which will continue to burn our nation's abundant coal resources. Much useful technology has resulted from this synergy of effort between government and private investment by incorporating leading-edge federal laboratories and practical business applications. More needs to be done, and the Energy and Climate Policy Act of 1999 seeks to fuel this synergy by encouraging more public-private projects in all areas of energy production and use. This boost will help to move ideas into reality. It is critical that the U.S. find better ways to use our own energy resources by encouraging more research and development. These initiatives have both environmental and economic benefits. This bill provides an additional $200 million per year for ten years for research, development, and demonstration programs through competitive grants. It would also take further steps to coordinate and implement energy research and development. These programs build upon the many voluntary efforts that government at all levels and industry have already undertaken to improve energy use as well as to reduce, avoid, or sequester greenhouse gas emissions. All sectors of the economy should be able to benefit from these programs. In addition to its many benefits at home, the clean coal technology program can also provide an economically beneficial and environmentally sound solution in the international market. According to the coal industry, coal production will continue to increase worldwide. Coal can be a cost-competitive source of fuel for electricity generation, but, like other fossil fuels, it will require improvements in its environmental credentials. Developing nations are currently searching for cost-effective ways to upgrade their older, higher-polluting power plants and to expand their power production capacity. These nations can learn from our experiences and utilize our new technologies to combat these problems. I note that during the recent visit of Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji, the U.S. and China both agreed that more should be done to employ clean coal technologies. After 2015, China is expected to surpass the U.S. as the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases. Global warming is a global problem. It is not just an American problem. It is not just a European problem. And as such, it requires a global solution. Industrialized nations' efforts to reduce our own greenhouse gas emissions will be for naught unless reductions are also made by nations like China and India. Coal will continue to be a major source of their energy production; therefore, clean coal technologies are essential to their responsible growth. The U.S. must support further efforts to encourage clean coal and other energy efficient technologies and to take them from the drawing board to the marketplace. Funding for these programs is pointless unless our government works in conjunction with the private sector to break down market barriers and prove the viability of such programs in the global market. Research, development, and demonstration programs provide numerous benefits to improve air quality standards, increase our energy efficiency, and reduce greenhouse gases. While the intent of this bill is independent of the Kyoto Protocol, this legislation, in addition to its many other benefits, could help the U.S. in addressing climate change challenges that might result from the implementation of any future treaty. In its present form, the Kyoto Protocol does not meet the conditions outlined in S. Res. 98, which passed the Senate on July 25, 1997; namely, it must include developing country participation as well as provide sufficient detail to explain the economic impact of such an agreement for the United States. I recognize that the Protocol is a work in progress. The international negotiations to bring it into compliance with S. Res. 98 will require perseverance and patience and are part of a long-term effort to address global climate change. The Administration has not submitted the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate for its advice and consent and has indicated it has no intention of doing so in the foreseeable future. the Administration has indicated that it needs at least two additional years to complete negotiations on the Buenos Aires Action Plan which includes negotiating major aspects of the Protocol such as developing country participation, emissions trading, the Clean Development Mechanism, and forest and soil sinks. The Administration has also pledged not to implement any portion of the Kyoto Protocol prior to its advice and consent in the Senate. I hope that that pledge will continue to be honored. Over the last year and a half, a number of economic studies have been completed, but we have yet to see a comprehensive analysis of the Kyoto Protocol. I remain firmly convinced that it is critical that the United States knows in some detail the probable costs and benefits of the specific actions proposed to address global climate change. In summary, improved resource use, energy efficiency and security, and global climate change will all be critical issues for every nation in the new millennium. Market-based solutions and research and development funding will play a vital role in addressing these issues. By cosponsoring the Energy and Climate Policy Act of 1999, I hope that U.S. firms can receive additional funding to help increase research and development for important new technologies. These initiatives, in addition to other market-based solutions, could provide vehicles for real improvements in energy efficiency as well as reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and an important marketable solution for global participation in such reductions.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as we consider this resolution before the Senate to remember those who lost their lives just one short week ago in Littleton, Colorado, we are once again reminded of an event which is heart-wrenchingly tragic and one that bears out the need for educators, parents, and government officials to work together to ensure that the classroom is a safe place for all students. The tragic events last Tuesday at Columbine High School serve as yet another warning that something has gone terribly wrong in our nation. Schools are not the idyllic places that they once were. They are less and less safe havens, conducive to study, but, rather, increasingly, are proving to be unstable communities, teetering on the brink of violent outbursts. It makes me long for the old high school which I attended and from which I graduated 65 years ago. It makes me long for the little two- room schoolhouse in which I began my studies along about 1923. Sometimes I think schools are too large these days. They don't allow for the personal attention that teachers could otherwise show students. They are conducive, I think, by their very largeness to the creation of gangs, hate groups, and so on. The scene of screaming students rushing outside through schoolhouse doors, some hobbling or clenching a gunshot wound to the arm or leg, and others overwhelmed with fear for their own lives, has become all too familiar to this nation during the past few years. From West Paducah, Kentucky, to Jonesboro, Arkansas; Springfield, Oregon; and now to the community of Littleton, Colorado, gun shots have shattered the silence and tranquillity of an otherwise typical high school day, abruptly ending the innocence of youth, and launching families and friends into some of the most difficult days of life that no human being should have to confront. We would have never dreamed of this kind of thing in my school days. Mr. President, there is a crying need to do more to protect our children. But, the unfortunate reality of the situation is that there is no single-step panacea to prevent further bloodshed at schools across the country. One could make many suggestions. Many suggestions are readily obvious. But the problem of school violence does not begin and end on school grounds. It is much more pervasive. It reaches beyond the schoolyard gates, into our communities and into our homes. It is unfortunate that we live in a country where criminals find ways to get around the law and do evil, but it happens. Hatred is a powerful demon that can draw people to do things we do not truly understand. I have seen it in my own lifetime, and, I try, whenever possible, to help teach young people to avoid such egregious mistakes. Of course, the young are not alone in the making of these mistakes. But mine is only one voice. But it is one voice. I often take time out to talk with the pages here. I don't have to do it. Nobody makes me do it. Nobody tells me to do it. But I like to talk to these young people. These are fine young people, these pages of ours on both sides of the aisle. I often pause to take a half hour with them to talk about wholesome experiences, and to relate good stories from Chaucer, and from other great authors, as I feel that if I can do a little good with these young people here, who knows where this influence will stop? While it is my intention to make any and all efforts to prevent this kind of tragedy before it visits another region of the country, it is essential that we take up the effort and the responsibility to raise our children, to nurture them, to protect them, to guard them as much as we can from these evil influences that are always ready to prey upon them, and it is my desire always to try to provide these young people with a solid foundation, to encourage them to engage in wholesome pursuits and to read from good literature, and in this way I think adults can help to provide them with a solid foundation--spiritually, emotionally, and intellectually. We have to indulge with caution any idea that there can be morality without religion. Protecting our Nation's children should be a team effort, not simply a matter of public policy. If we ever have a hope of preventing violence in the classroom, parents must take an active role in their child's life and monitor their child's behavior for unusual actions or alarming conduct. Teachers carry similar responsibilities and must no longer ``chalk up'' unusual behavior to the simple conclusion of a student having a bad day. We have witnessed too many oversights like this which have snatched the lives of other innocent children caught in the line of fire. Moreover, we should not be surprised, given the excessive and mindless violence--I tell you, it is excessive, because I see it when I turn on the television--mindless violence, excessive violence. We should not be surprised then, given the excessive and mindless violence infiltrating, permeating, the television airwaves and now the Internet, that we really have a problem in today's society. It is not a hidden fact that I am no fan of the muck that spews out over the tube or the obscenities rumbled by so-called actors and actresses in a TV drama, but there is little that we in Congress can do to regulate children from jumbling their brains with this nonsense. Parents must no longer give their children free rein of the remote control or unmonitored access to dial up those polluted websites running rampant over the Internet. Children, with their inquisitive young minds, too often repeat what they see on TV or read about over the Internet, and with little guidance from parents, it is next to impossible to prevent this often fatal ``copycat'' action from recurring. Probably most disappointing to me is that in watching the news recently, it seems that the tragic news of a school shooting has become somewhat of a feeding frenzy for the media to hit the airwaves with explicit details, often those that are too easily digested by a listening youngster experiencing emotional distress. It seems counterproductive, even dangerous, to offer what amounts to free advertising by reporting on the Internet websites that hand out free explanations on how to make a bomb or where to obtain a gun. Mr. President, when is enough enough? Efforts to end school violence can be, and will likely be, undone by this practice of revealing too much information with little thought of the future implications. I urge the media to think about the possible consequences of their actions before trying to beat the other news team to the latest punch line. Supplying children with information that could lead to the perpetuation of school violence is not the solution. Children need not be confronted with all of the finite details of the gory pictures as they sit down to the breakfast table with their parents. The tragedy at Columbine High School may be impossible to ever, ever truly understand. But that should not deter us from seeking answers and working for solutions. It is time to stop wringing our hands over this issue and take action so that we in Congress can support measures that might prevent a recurrence of this nightmare. I am concerned that we may be approaching the day when our nation's students spend more time in the classroom thinking about the potential for a gun pop than a pop quiz. A day when teachers are too preoccupied with their own fear of a gun emerging into their classroom to teach their students the basic grammatical structure or algebraic formula properly. Today's children deserve the opportunity to get an education. Today's teachers deserve the opportunity to teach. They deserve this just as much as the children and the teachers of yesteryear. We must all do whatever we can to ensure that today's children and those of the future have an opportunity to excel academically in an environment free from guns, knives, and other weapons. I look forward to working with Senator Lieberman in the upcoming weeks to author legislation that would establish a National Commission on School Violence to help get at the root of this problem if that is possible. It is my hope that by joining forces between educators, children, parents, media, and others, we will gain a more vivid perspective on what leads to violent behavior behind the schoolhouse doors, and that we can begin to remedy this harrowing problem overtaking our nation's schools. I urge teachers and parents, church and civic leaders to do the same. This type of disaster can occur anywhere--we must act now if we are to prevent a replay of this nightmare in another American community. I hope parents throughout the Nation are thinking soberly, soberly about this problem. I took a piece of plastic clay And idly fashioned it one day And as my fingers pressed it still It moved and yielded to my will. I came again when days were past. The bit of clay was hard at last. The form I gave it, it still bore, And I could change that form no more. I took a piece of living clay And gently formed it day by day. And molded with my power and art. A young child's soft and yielding heart. I came again when years were gone, He was a man I looked upon. He still that early impress wore, And I could change him nevermore. There is a lesson in this for all of us. I hope we will learn it. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I join with my distinguished colleagues, Senators Murkowski, Hagel, Craig, Hutchinson, Grams, and Roberts, in cosponsoring the Energy and Climate Policy Act of 1999 which was introduced earlier today. The legislation provided in this bill is one of a number of options that the U.S. could undertake to improve energy efficiency and security and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While the complex issue of climate change will not be solved by a single bill or action, this legislaiton provides additional funding for research and development for important programs that I have long supported, like clean coal technologies, an American-developed initiative. The bill would also take steps to coordinate and implement energy efficiency research as well as begin the process of better reporting greehouse gas reductions at the Department of Energy. If substantial steps are going to be taken globally to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we must accelerate the development and commercialization of new technologies, anticipate changing conditions, and encourage public/private partnerships. Both developing and industrialized nations must find ways to tackle this complex and multi- faceted problem. There is no single answer--there is no one silver bullet to fix this issue. Any viable climate change policy must include efforts to develop cleaner and more efficient fossil fuel-based energy production in order to meet growing energy needs. Clean coal technologies must be a part of that solution. When one examines the increase in global greenhouse gas emissions over the next several decades, the utilization of clean coal technologies is essential. Nations that are serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the long term, especially many of the largest developing nations like China, cannot ignore clean coal technologies. In 1984, I proposed, and the Congress adopted, a $750 million Clean Coal Technology program. Originally, the program was designed to achieve long-term, real reductions in acid rain. Since then, the program has expanded, thanks to a joint government-industry investment of more than $6 billion. This investment has led to 40 first-of-a-kind projects in 18 states, including an array of high-technology ideas that can spearhead a new era of clean, efficient power plants which will continue to burn our nation's abundant coal resources. Much useful technology has resulted from this synergy of effort between government and private investment by incorporating leading-edge federal laboratories and practical business applications. More needs to be done, and the Energy and Climate Policy Act of 1999 seeks to fuel this synergy by encouraging more public-private projects in all areas of energy production and use. This boost will help to move ideas into reality. It is critical that the U.S. find better ways to use our own energy resources by encouraging more research and development. These initiatives have both environmental and economic benefits. This bill provides an additional $200 million per year for ten years for research, development, and demonstration programs through competitive grants. It would also take further steps to coordinate and implement energy research and development. These programs build upon the many voluntary efforts that government at all levels and industry have already undertaken to improve energy use as well as to reduce, avoid, or sequester greenhouse gas emissions. All sectors of the economy should be able to benefit from these programs. In addition to its many benefits at home, the clean coal technology program can also provide an economically beneficial and environmentally sound solution in the international market. According to the coal industry, coal production will continue to increase worldwide. Coal can be a cost-competitive source of fuel for electricity generation, but, like other fossil fuels, it will require improvements in its environmental credentials. Developing nations are currently searching for cost-effective ways to upgrade their older, higher-polluting power plants and to expand their power production capacity. These nations can learn from our experiences and utilize our new technologies to combat these problems. I note that during the recent visit of Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji, the U.S. and China both agreed that more should be done to employ clean coal technologies. After 2015, China is expected to surpass the U.S. as the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases. Global warming is a global problem. It is not just an American problem. It is not just a European problem. And as such, it requires a global solution. Industrialized nations' efforts to reduce our own greenhouse gas emissions will be for naught unless reductions are also made by nations like China and India. Coal will continue to be a major source of their energy production; therefore, clean coal technologies are essential to their responsible growth. The U.S. must support further efforts to encourage clean coal and other energy efficient technologies and to take them from the drawing board to the marketplace. Funding for these programs is pointless unless our government works in conjunction with the private sector to break down market barriers and prove the viability of such programs in the global market. Research, development, and demonstration programs provide numerous benefits to improve air quality standards, increase our energy efficiency, and reduce greenhouse gases. While the intent of this bill is independent of the Kyoto Protocol, this legislation, in addition to its many other benefits, could help the U.S. in addressing climate change challenges that might result from the implementation of any future treaty. In its present form, the Kyoto Protocol does not meet the conditions outlined in S. Res. 98, which passed the Senate on July 25, 1997; namely, it must include developing country participation as well as provide sufficient detail to explain the economic impact of such an agreement for the United States. I recognize that the Protocol is a work in progress. The international negotiations to bring it into compliance with S. Res. 98 will require perseverance and patience and are part of a long-term effort to address global climate change. The Administration has not submitted the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate for its advice and consent and has indicated it has no intention of doing so in the foreseeable future. the Administration has indicated that it needs at least two additional years to complete negotiations on the Buenos Aires Action Plan which includes negotiating major aspects of the Protocol such as developing country participation, emissions trading, the Clean Development Mechanism, and forest and soil sinks. The Administration has also pledged not to implement any portion of the Kyoto Protocol prior to its advice and consent in the Senate. I hope that that pledge will continue to be honored. Over the last year and a half, a number of economic studies have been completed, but we have yet to see a comprehensive analysis of the Kyoto Protocol. I remain firmly convinced that it is critical that the United States knows in some detail the probable costs and benefits of the specific actions proposed to address global climate change. In summary, improved resource use, energy efficiency and security, and global climate change will all be critical issues for every nation in the new millennium. Market-based solutions and research and development funding will play a vital role in addressing these issues. By cosponsoring the Energy and Climate Policy Act of 1999, I hope that U.S. firms can receive additional funding to help increase research and development for important new technologies. These initiatives, in addition to other market-based solutions, could provide vehicles for real improvements in energy efficiency as well as reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and an important marketable solution for global participation in such reductions.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the distinguished senior Senator from North Carolina for such time as he may require to introduce some guests.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this weekend, the 19 member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization will gather in Washington to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the establishment of NATO. Some may see the juxtaposition of this summit against the images of NATO airstrikes over Yugoslavia as being ironic. I see it differently. I see it as prophetic. The world has changed in the past 50 years, but as the events in Kosovo so graphically illustrate, the world has grown no less dangerous. NATO, likewise, has undergone significant changes over the years but remains no less important to the security of Europe. The key challenge facing NATO today is the dramatic change in the nature of the threat. The cold war is history; the Soviet Union is defunct; the Berlin Wall is just a pile of rubble. Forces massed along the borders have given way to flash points dotted around the globe. The tense but symmetrical standoff in Europe between the East and the West has been exchanged for the capriciousness of terrorists and tyrants. Just as the nature of the threat has evolved, so must the structure and mission of NATO metamorphose if it is to remain relevant into the 21st century. In 1949, when the alliance was formed, the Soviet Union and its satellites posed the only credible threat to Western security. It was the chilly dawn of the cold war era, and NATO was precision-tuned to meet the cold war challenge. In the ensuing decades, as NATO expanded from the original 12 to 16 member nations, the alliance grew in strength and stature to guard Western Europe against the formidable forces of the Warsaw Pact nations. Conflict in Korea and Vietnam, turbulence in the Middle East, the growing influence of China--none of the cataclysmic events of the second half of the 20th century deterred NATO from its focus on the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. And, in the end, NATO's intensity and single-mindedness paid off handsomely, with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. Through the years, NATO has adjusted its strategy and its mission to meet changing circumstances, but never has the challenge been as great or as far reaching as it is today. Where once NATO contended with the shifting fortunes of a cold war enemy massed along a single front, today the alliance is confronted with brush fires in its backyard, the threat of terrorism from geographically remote nations and organizations, and the proliferation of nuclear weapons in virtually every direction. To meet this shifting political and military landscape, NATO has expanded on its primary focus of defending its members against the threat of attack by reaching out to its former foes to promote European stability and security. Only last month, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic were welcomed into the alliance. And nine other nations are clamoring for membership. It is in this context that the 19 members of the alliance will gather in Washington to mark the anniversary of NATO and to discuss the future of the alliance. And it is in this context that the conflict in Kosovo can serve as a useful template for many of the challenges that the alliance is likely to face in the early years of the 21st century. The lessons learned in Kosovo, preliminary though they may be at this point, should be brought to the summit table. The lessons that are still to come, as NATO prosecutes the attack on Yugoslavia, must be accommodated in any future strategy. Several specific issues arising from the Kosovo conflict deserve careful consideration by the members of the alliance. And these include the following: First, NATO should discuss the wisdom of establishing a more robust forward operating presence in Europe beyond alliance headquarters. Given their history, the Balkans are a logical choice. The time and logistical constraints built into ferrying people and equipment from the United States, Britain, France and elsewhere to the front are formidable. The result is a potentially serious disconnect in the ability of commanders in the field to respond rapidly and effectively to changing circumstances. One example of the problems this remote staging has caused is the agonizing wait for the U.S. Apache helicopters to arrive in theater--a delay that has cost NATO in terms of tactical flexibility and has given the Serbs in Kosovo a lethal window of opportunity to carry forward their ethnic cleansing activities. Second, and in conjunction with a more aggressive NATO forward operating presence, the allies must accelerate their efforts to field common systems and increase interoperability. This does not mean that the United States should become an open-ended pipeline for the transfer of technology to our NATO allies, but there are basic military tools that should be available to, and designated for, NATO operations. Third, the Kosovo operation should be the genesis for a top-to-bottom review of the NATO decisionmaking process. While the system seems to be working reasonably well considering that it is a conflict being fought by committee, there is no doubt in my mind that decisionmaking must be streamlined. It is, for example, far too cumbersome to give each of the member nations veto power over the list of military targets. It may be well for NATO to consider establishing subgroups of responsibility defined operationally and perhaps even geographically. At all costs, NATO should not blunder into the decisionmaking no-man's-land that has paralyzed the effectiveness of the United Nations. And finally, NATO should continue to engage Russia as a vital partner in its quest for stability and security, and redouble it efforts to bring other former Soviet bloc nations into the alliance once they have met NATO membership criteria. This is the time to reach out, not to pull back. NATO's sphere of interest and influence no longer spans just the Atlantic Ocean; it spans a vast and complex territory never contemplated in 1949. In this new operating arena, a broader but still solid base will mean a stronger, more vigorous alliance. We would be foolhardy to believe that Kosovo is an anomaly, just as we would be foolhardy to believe that Kosovo will be the only model of future conflict. The threats that face the NATO alliance at the beginning of the 21st century are many and varied, and they will doubtless proliferate in the coming years. The threat of nuclear attack from rogue nations, the possibility of so-called ``loose nukes'' falling into the hands of terrorists, the danger of chemical or biological warfare, the prospect of cyber-attack, the reality of increasing ethnic tensions amid shifting resources and contested borders--these are some of the threats that the United States and its NATO allies face in the coming years. And these are just the threats we can predict today. Who knows, ten years or twenty years from now, what perils the world will face and what shape our defenses will have to take. But as the conflict in Kosovo so sharply indicates, we must be prepared for the unexpected, even the unimaginable. If NATO has the staying power to celebrate its centennial fifty years from now, it will be in a world that few of us can image today. NATO has served a worthy purpose since its inception in 1949. Its role in the future security and stability, not only of Europe, but also of the United States as well as far-flung corners of the world, is equally essential. And so I salute NATO on its 50th anniversary, and I urge its representatives to weigh carefully the future goals and mission of the alliance. NATO is at a crossroads: it can remain a force for security and stability in the world, or it can become just another relic of the cold war. For the sake of us all, I hope that NATO charts a course of action that will steer it safely through the turbulence of today and into the 21st century. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I am proud to join my colleagues from Michigan, Senators Abraham and Levin, in sponsoring S. 531, legislation authorizing the presentation of a Congressional Gold Medal to Mrs. Rosa Parks. As we approach the 21st century, it is only fitting that the Senate take this moment to recognize the efforts of Rosa Parks, who, on December 1, 1955, proved that one person can make a difference in the world in which we live. By refusing to give up her seat on a city bus, an act which put her in violation of the segregation laws then in place in her community, Mrs. Parks sparked a series of events that have helped to shape this nation's path. For refusing to acquiesce to the systematic degradation placed upon her and other black-Americans, Rosa Parks was arrested. But rather than accept the status quo, this quiet lady from Montgomery, Alabama, chose to challenge the segregation order by seeking redress in our federal courts. During the court battle, Mrs. Parks was harassed, threatened, and even lost her job as a seamstress at a local department store. In the end, though, Rosa Parks won her battle when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled segregation unconstitutional, thus vindicating her simple, but monumental, pursuit of justice and equality. Madam President, the actions of Rosa Parks were not staged for the television cameras. They were not part of a grand scheme to create a test case. On the contrary, they were the actions of a single individual determined to preserve her dignity as best she could. They were the actions of a simple lady who, at that moment in her life, decided that enough was enough. It is fitting, then, that the Senate should award the Congressional Gold Medal to Rosa Parks, the highest award that the Congress can bestow on a private citizen, in recognition of her courage and her lifelong commitment to the Jeffersonian ideal that ``all men are created equal.''

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am pleased to add my name as an original cosponsor of the bill introduced by Senator Rockefeller that would provide the necessary authority to implement the trade drawback allowance based on the commercially interchangeable feature of two rubber vulcanization accelerators. These two chemicals, commonly referred to as CBS and TBBS, are one- and-the-same for all practical purposes. CBS and TBBS belong to the same class and subclass of rubber vulcanization accelerator chemicals; they can be manufactured by similar industrial processes using the same active ingredients and identical process steps; and they generally cannot be distinguished by informed analysts once used in the finished rubber product. In short, CBS and TBBS are commercially interchangeable in function and use--the specified circumstances required under Section 202 of U.S. trade law to receive duty drawback benefits on a substitution basis. By establishing the commercial interchangeability for CBS and TBBS, duty drawback law can be implemented. Under duty drawback law, a company would receive a refund of import duties--called a duty drawback--paid by that company on its imports of CBS, based on the exports of the company's production of TBBS, or vice-versa. In other words, for every ton of TBBS that a company exports out of the United States, the company would receive a refund of duties that it paid on a ton of CBS that was imported into the United States. A drawback allowance on the commercially interchangeable standard is granted on a case-by-case authorization. The bill I join Senator Rockefeller in cosponsoring would simply provide the commercially interchangeable CBS and TBBS chemicals with the necessary authorization required by law. This bill is vital to a West Virginia company, Flexsys, that produces both CBS and TBBS. Flexsys provides 230 jobs in West Virginia with an average annual salary of $42,000. Without the duty drawback, these jobs are at risk due to the increasingly competitive chemical market. The purpose of the drawback statutes is to permit American-made products to compete more effectively in world markets. The Congress adopted drawback provisions recognizing that U.S. manufacturers need the authority to enable them to select the most advantageous production methods. Flexsys meets the conditions set forth under drawback law, and my review of Flexsys has convinced me that it is the type of company that was in mind when this Body approved the drawback statutes. In closing, I urge my colleagues to support our effort to aid hardworking Americans through passage of this bill. Enactment of this bill would fulfill the purpose of drawback law by advancing the continued operations at Flexsys and, as a result, the utilization of American labor and capital.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am pleased to add my name as an original cosponsor of the bill introduced by Senator Rockefeller that would provide the necessary authority to implement the trade drawback allowance based on the commercially interchangeable feature of two rubber vulcanization accelerators. These two chemicals, commonly referred to as CBS and TBBS, are one- and-the-same for all practical purposes. CBS and TBBS belong to the same class and subclass of rubber vulcanization accelerator chemicals; they can be manufactured by similar industrial processes using the same active ingredients and identical process steps; and they generally cannot be distinguished by informed analysts once used in the finished rubber product. In short, CBS and TBBS are commercially interchangeable in function and use--the specified circumstances required under Section 202 of U.S. trade law to receive duty drawback benefits on a substitution basis. By establishing the commercial interchangeability for CBS and TBBS, duty drawback law can be implemented. Under duty drawback law, a company would receive a refund of import duties--called a duty drawback--paid by that company on its imports of CBS, based on the exports of the company's production of TBBS, or vice-versa. In other words, for every ton of TBBS that a company exports out of the United States, the company would receive a refund of duties that it paid on a ton of CBS that was imported into the United States. A drawback allowance on the commercially interchangeable standard is granted on a case-by-case authorization. The bill I join Senator Rockefeller in cosponsoring would simply provide the commercially interchangeable CBS and TBBS chemicals with the necessary authorization required by law. This bill is vital to a West Virginia company, Flexsys, that produces both CBS and TBBS. Flexsys provides 230 jobs in West Virginia with an average annual salary of $42,000. Without the duty drawback, these jobs are at risk due to the increasingly competitive chemical market. The purpose of the drawback statutes is to permit American-made products to compete more effectively in world markets. The Congress adopted drawback provisions recognizing that U.S. manufacturers need the authority to enable them to select the most advantageous production methods. Flexsys meets the conditions set forth under drawback law, and my review of Flexsys has convinced me that it is the type of company that was in mind when this Body approved the drawback statutes. In closing, I urge my colleagues to support our effort to aid hardworking Americans through passage of this bill. Enactment of this bill would fulfill the purpose of drawback law by advancing the continued operations at Flexsys and, as a result, the utilization of American labor and capital.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in the report accompanying the budget resolution now before the Senate (Senate Report 106-27), the first paragraph on page seven contains this statement: A budget resolution is a fiscal blueprint, a guide, a roadmap, that the Congress develops to direct the course of federal tax and spending legislation. It is a set of aggregate spending and revenue numbers covering the twenty broad functional areas of the government, over a long-term fiscal horizon. It is less than substantive law, but is much more than a sense of the Congress resolution. Unfortunately, this budget resolution, this guide, this blueprint, is a roadmap which, if followed for the next ten years, will wreak untold devastation. Having just achieved the first year with a unified budget surplus ($70 billion) in thirty years, last September 30--the end of Fiscal Year 1998--and having been unable to pass a congressional budget resolution for this fiscal year, fiscal year 1999, at all, we now have before the Senate not the usual five-year budget resolution, but a much more ambitious ten-year budget to carry us for the period fiscal years 2000-2009. Over that period, we are told by the Congressional Budget Office that unified budget surpluses will total just over $2.5 trillion. Of that amount, Social Security surpluses make up some $1.8 trillion, or 72 percent. Non-Social Security surpluses, according to CBO, will total $787 billion over that period. For fiscal year 2000, there is, in fact, a non-social security deficit of some $7 billion. That is, there would be no surplus at all in Fiscal Year 2000 except in the Social Security Trust Fund. What does the blueprint now before the Senate, the Republican budget resolution, propose that we do with these multi-trillion-dollar surpluses? Keep in mind that these are only projections; they are not real, and we will not know until after the fact as to whether any of the surpluses projected for any of these 10 years will come to pass. No human being can ever project accurately what Federal revenues or Federal spending will be. No one can know what interest rates will be, or unemployment, or GDP growth. We have had tremendous variances historically with CBO projections, even within one year. To count on their projections for not one, not five, but for 10 years is extremely unwise. But, let us look at the budget resolution now before the Senate. This budget resolution proposes a Federal tax cut which, according to the committee's report, will approximate $142 billion over the next five years, and $778 billion over the next 10 years. The resolution includes a reconciliation instruction to the tax writing committees instructing them to report out these huge tax cuts in a reconciliation bill. Pursuant to that reconciliation instruction, a tax bill of the magnitude contained in the resolution, some $800 billion, will be before the Senate later this year. If enacted and signed by the President, those tax cuts will go into effect regardless of whether any of the projected surpluses take place. This is the height of irresponsibility. Just when we have succeeded in turning the corner on the multi-hundred-billion-dollar annual deficits of the 1980's, here comes the Republican budget resolution saying let us take the as-yet, unachieved future budget surpluses and cut Federal revenues now, whether or not those surpluses ever occur. On that basis alone, if for no other reason, I urge Senators to oppose this budget resolution. But, that is not the only problem we find in this blueprint. There is the question of the levels of discretionary spending that will be made available over the next 10 years if we follow this budget resolution. It is well known that the 1997 Balanced Budget Act placed severe constraints on discretionary spending for the period 1998-2002. Those caps were considered necessary in order to help rid ourselves of the annual Federal budget deficits and achieve surpluses. Nevertheless, it is my view that the discretionary caps for 2000, as well as for the following two years--2001 and 2002--are too tight and will require massive cuts which should not be undertaken at the same time we are providing the huge tax cuts which I have just described. This resolution calls for funding non-defense discretionary programs in Fiscal Year 2000 at a level of $246 billion, a cut of more than $20 billion, or 7.5 percent, below the present year. To make matters worse, the pending budget resolution would provide increases for a handful of favored programs, such as health, education, and other popular priorities. These plus-ups would mean that other vital, yet unprotected programs, would face cuts of more than 11 percent in Fiscal Year 2000. Cuts of that magnitude, according to the Office of Management and Budget, would affect vital programs such as the following: food safety would be undermined with the lay-off of an estimated 1,000 meat and poultry inspectors; Head Start funding would be cut in excess of $1 billion--cutting services to as many as 100,000 children; the FBI would be cut $337 million, which could result in a reduction of 2,700 FBI agents and support personnel; more than 2,200 air traffic controller positions would be cut; IRS Customer Service would suffer a reduction of 5,000 employees; the number of students in the Work Study Program would decrease by 112,000; and the list goes on and on throughout the entire Federal government. While making these cuts in vital human and physical infrastructure programs across the nation, this budget resolution would increase defense by $18 billion above a freeze in Fiscal Year 2000. Yet, even with this large increase in budget authority, the resolution comes nowhere near covering the outlays that would be necessary to fund the reently-passed pay increase for the military. Mr. President, we are on a collision course, once again, when it comes to passing the thirteen annual appropriation bills. If you liked the omnibus appropriations monstrosity that was necessary to complete action on Fiscal Year 1999 appropriation bills, wait until you see the super-monstrosity that I believe will be necessary for Fiscal Year 2000, if we fail to provide relief from the massive cuts that I have just described. You ain't seen nothin' yet! And, as if Fiscal Year 2000 were not enough, the problems only worsen in the subsequent years. By 2004, OMB projects that this budget resolution would require cuts in non-defense discretionary programs of as much as 27 percent below a freeze. Furthermore, the current statutory discretionary spending caps expire in 2002 but, under this budget resolution, the cuts to non-defense discretionary programs would deepen to 29 percent by 2009, as non-defense discretionary spending would remain substantially below inflation each year through 2009. In conclusion, while I appreciate the difficulties faced by the Budget Committee chairman, Mr. Domenici, for whom I have great respect, in crafting this budget resolution, I nevertheless have concluded that it is a roadmap leading us back to the 1980's--a period when we saw trillions of dollars of tax cuts enacted by the Reagan administration, based on faulty projections of budget surpluses which never came to pass, as well as spending cuts which were too extreme and likwise never occurred. Consequently, once those tax cuts were enacted, we entered a period of unprecedented budget deficits with their accompanying tripling of the national debt and the interest on that debt rose to where it is today--a level of almost $1 billion per day. We have turned the corner after many years of hard work and a number of deficit reduction packages. We appear to be headed to a time of budget surpluses which should be used for reducing the debt and providing necessary increases in our national physical and human infrastructure that are so vital to the 21st Century. I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this ill-conceived journey along the road back to a repeat of the budgetary disasters of the 1980's. Surely we can do better than this.

Mr. BYRD. I will tell you how the leader can stop me from keeping everybody else here waiting. He can tell them up there to call the roll, and announce the results. And if he catches me off the floor once, I will take my lumps. I ought to be here, and not keep everybody else waiting. I have a wife who is 81 years old. I am 81 years old. She is there waiting on me. I am here. I think Senators ought to have a little compassion and respect for one another. If the leader will just teach us one time, for those who are not here when that announcement is made, they are going to show up as absent, that will break Senators from imposing on other Senators by being late for votes.

Mr. BYRD. Will the majority leader yield to me?

Mr. BYRD. My question is, does the leader's request preclude a vote up or down on the resolution itself?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.