Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if I may----

Mr. BYRD. If I may ask the majority leader to yield, and I won't take long, but having been majority leader myself, I know that there are a number of things involved there, and there may be one particular item on a particular occasion, and for a particular reason, that Senators would want to have operative according to the usual rules. I urge that we not--Mr. President, that we not speed the operation up to the point that Senators' rights may be eclipsed. And I am not suggesting that the majority leader intends that. He has already indicated--and I knew what he was doing--he was trying to speed the operation up in a way that would be more efficient. But there are things involved in that particular phraseology which might take 30 minutes to discuss here if we started to do so. I just hope that the distinguished Senator will have his staff look at that language and that we might be able, Senators, to reserve their rights while even agreeing to such a request, if the circumstances required it.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished leader. It is not my point here to quibble or to find fault with the leader. I appreciate the spirit in which he has accepted this. I can see that someone who really understands these rules, like myself, and I have forgotten probably more than I will ever know again, I just want to protect the rights of all Senators, and I know that the leader wishes to do that. So I hope that there is no connotation of what I am saying that appears to be sinister. I have no objection.

Mr. BYRD. So I would like, in the future, if the distinguished majority leader would find it appropriate and agreeable to do so, that that particular verbiage be a little clearer, as to just exactly what is meant.

Mr. BYRD. I have been in that position and I know I never liked other Members to create problems for me--but they did, often. That phraseology includes several items, especially for a Monday.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will not object on this occasion, but I think--I am not trying to create any problems for the majority leader.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, but there is some phraseology in the majority leader's request that I wish to inquire about. And I have noted the same phraseology in the requests from time to time lately, but at this moment, since we are both on the floor, I will ask the question. What does the majority leader mean when, in his request, he uses these words, ``the routine requests through the morning hour be granted''? What does that mean?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on July 16, 1997, President Clinton directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review its nitrogen oxide (NOX) transport standards under the Clean Air Act. Subsequently, on November 7, 1997, the EPA announced a proposed ozone transport rule to reduce the regional transport of ground-level ozone across a 22-state region of the eastern United States, and the agency is now poised to announce its final ruling on NOX emissions and ozone transport. The 22 states that have been targeted by this rule are some of the nation's most heavily populated, and include a large concentration of major industries, utilities, and automobiles. Based on past experience, it is not surprising that the Environmental Protection Agency has, once again, decided to pursue a heavy-handed and arbitrary approach toward its regulation of NOX emissions. While the EPA argues that its recommendations reflect the cooperative work of 37 states through the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) process, OTAG actually recommended a range of options to be considered on a state-by-state basis. The EPA, in its proposed rule, has chosen the most extreme of those recommendations--an 85% reduction in NOX emissions within the 22-state region. Far from being a flexible, tailored reduction for individual states based on their own contributions to the problem of ozone and air quality, this is a draconian, one-size-fits-all, command-and-control approach and does not take into account regional differences. I am concerned that this plan, which is apparently based on insufficient scientific information, poses potentially substantial harm to the economies of the affected states without delivering on the substantial environmental benefits it claims. A key concern with the EPA's recommendation is that it is based on modeling results that are inconsistent with modeling conducted by OTAG. The EPA has made a finding that Midwest and Appalachian states significantly contribute to nonattainment in the downwind states. The OTAG modeling actually concluded that the air-borne transport of ozone is only a major concern within a radius of 150 miles of the emission source. Using the OTAG results, emissions of nitrogen oxide from the Midwest and Ohio Valley simply do not affect ozone levels in the Northeast at a significant level, and the suggestion that emissions from the Mississippi area affect the eastern seaboard is even more unjustified by the empirical evidence. The OTAG modeling indicates that the greatest contributions to the ozone problem in the Northeast are emissions from sources in the Northeast and, particularly, from the growing numbers of automobiles congesting the roads and filling the air with their fumes. As my colleague, the senior Senator from Rhode Island and Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said in an April 16, 1997, letter to EPA Administrator Carol Browner, ``Contrary to a public belief too readily accepted without any evidentiary foundation, our problem does not come primarily from distant smokestacks in the Ohio River Valley.'' Recommendations based on OTAG's modeling ranged from targeted reductions only in specified non-attainment locations to the EPA's extreme choice of an 85% reduction across the board in all states. If the EPA forces the so-called ``upwind'' states like West Virginia, Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Virginia to reduce their emissions by the recommended 85%, the effect will be economically harmful, yet will do little in the long run to reduce the Northeast's ozone problem or improve its overall air quality. This recommendation is neither equitable nor cost-effective. The consequences of the EPA's decision for the Midwest and Appalachian states will be severe. For example, my own state of West Virginia is currently in compliance for ozone. West Virginians are proud of this record and are working hard to maintain a clean environment. Unfortunately, however, despite this commendable record of compliance, the EPA is proposing that West Virginia reduce its NOX emissions by a whopping 44%. This is a huge overnight shift in policy--from compliance to gross under-compliance in the twinkle of an eye--which would force significant, costly changes to industries and utilities in my state, but for what purpose? For what purpose? Mr. President, studies conducted by industry officials estimate that it will cost $500 billion for every 10% decrease in NOX emissions, costs that will be passed onto consumers. If the EPA's proposal is implemented, electricity rates will climb precipitously in States like West Virginia, but this sacrifice reportedly will do little to improve air quality in the Northeast. According to a recent study by the Alliance for Clean Air Policy (ACAP), the EPA's 85% reduction will require an initial investment of $6 billion and an annual compliance cost of $1.2 billion by utilities in the 22-State region. Other industry cost estimates are even larger. Businesses and consumers in the Midwestern, Appalachian, and Southeastern States will bear the bulk of these costs. Electric power utilities will be forced to install selective catalytic reduction equipment on a large number of existing plants, but there is little experience in the United States with the use of this type of technology. What we do know is that selective catalytic reduction, SCR, technology is extremely costly and will require difficult retrofitting for many powerplants over a period of several years in order to meet the EPA's recommended reductions. By all appearances, the emissions reductions mandated by the EPA in the Midwestern and Appalachian region are unjustified and they are unfair. We sometimes forget that, too often, bureaucratic rules have major impacts on a personal level. Electricity rates in West Virginia and the Midwest are considerably lower than those of the Northeast. If the EPA issues its rule forcing States to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by 85%, Midwest and Appalachian utility rates will rise significantly. Meanwhile, as much of the United States is enjoying the benefits of a strong economy, the Appalachian region is still struggling to pull itself, in some areas, out of poverty. In recent years, West Virginia has aggressively sought out and won new business opportunities. Toyota is making a very important announcement even today, within the next hour, of additional plans that it has for its plant in Putnam County, WV. West Virginians who previously had to leave the State for career opportunities are now able to come back home to well-paying jobs that can comfortably support their families. If this stiff new rule goes into effect, families in West Virginia will find it harder to pay their electric bills; retirees on small pensions will face choices that could threaten their health and well-being; and companies, facing narrower profit margins, may consider moving their operations elsewhere because they would no longer receive the benefits of low-cost electricity. Further, communities that have invested in new infrastructure and have strained to help grow new and existing businesses could see their economic base dwindle. I am weary of regulations that lead to unnecessary economic dislocation. I want to be sure that the citizens of Appalachia can afford to heat and light their homes, and that they can receive reliable, consistent service from their utilities. I also want to be sure that each State recognizes and takes responsibility for its own air quality standards. But, I do not believe that a few States should have to shoulder the economic burdens for the EPA's hypothetical air quality improvements. Certainly, there are better, more scientifically and economically sound alternatives to the severe rule proposed by the EPA. A number of alternative proposals have been submitted that are projected to reduce NOX emissions and at the same time meet the attainment of the new 8-hour ozone standard in many states earlier than currently scheduled. In fact, 13 Governors have submitted alternative strategies for addressing this important issue. These alternative proposals include one by a group of six Governors, led by West Virginia Governor Cecil Underwood, who have submitted a very comprehensive proposal. Other similar alternative proposals have been submitted individually by the Governors of Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Wisconsin. These alternative plans share the same core elements and represent aggressive steps to achieve a significant reduction in NOX emissions. The alternative recommendation put forth by the aforementioned coalition of six Governors representing West Virginia, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, Alabama, and Virginia is a very comprehensive proposal. The first phase recommends a 55 percent reduction of NOX emissions by April 2002, followed by a 65 percent reduction in NOX emissions by April 2004. This alternative would also require significant reductions from other large non-utility sources by April 2003. By contrast, the EPA proposed an overall 85 percent reduction from major utility sources, 70 percent from major industries, and 50 percent from small industries by May 2003--a target few companies anticipate meeting without substantial costs. The EPA's compliance schedule also may threaten the reliability of electrical supplies in these and adjacent States. In the second phase, the coalition plan calls for assessing the reductions that will be necessary to meet the new EPA-mandated 8-hour ozone standard by 2009--3 years ahead of the EPA's schedule of 2010- 2012. As proposed, the assessment will be completed by 2001, the control requirements established by 2003, and additional controls in place in a reasonable period by 2007. I support initiatives like those put forth by the 13 Governors. They demonstrate a spirit of cooperation and have numerous advantages. A phased approach would avoid disruption in the reliability of electricity services and would achieve substantial cost savings for businesses and consumers. In recognition of the limited impact of long- distance ozone transport, NOX controls for achieving the 8- hour emission standard should be tailored at the local, State, and regional levels. The phased approach builds upon the OTAG recommendations for addressing regional transport concerns and would encourage allowance trading as a compliance tool. Finally, a phased approach would be consistent with the Clean Air Act requirements and would allow States to take the lead in developing technically sound strategies for attaining the 8-hour ozone standard. Clearly, alternative proposals exist that are achievable and that would provide cleaner air for millions of Americans sooner than would be provided in the Clean Air Act, without the adverse economic consequences that appear inevitable as a result of the EPA's proposal. Moreover, these types of alternative approaches are consistent with the July 1997 Presidential Directive calling for a flexible, common-sense approach to address this important and complex issue. The Governors have worked to craft reasonable, science-based, balanced, and cost-effective proposals. I hope that the White House will recognize the spirit of cooperation and commitment that these Governors have made to air quality standards that address both the environmental and the economic interests of their States and surrounding States. I also hope that these alternative proposals are given serious consideration before any final action is taken to issue a new rule. Let us not get in too big a hurry here. If a compromise is not reached regarding this very important matter, I am concerned that it will be tied up in the courts and thus prevent the States from taking the actions to which they have committed themselves, while also delaying a real, beneficial reduction of nitrogen oxide. Mr. President, I urge the administration to work with the Governors to reach an environmentally and economically sound and common-sense solution that is in the interest of our Nation as a whole. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I do.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I always appreciate the problems that the distinguished majority leader has, and I have a feeling of sympathy for him. It is never my desire to throw up any roadblocks or attempt to create any problems for him unless I have very good reasons to do so. I think there is a fine relationship between us, and I want that to continue. I hope the leader has a great weekend. Mr. President, I know that Senator Dorgan is waiting to get the floor. I believe I will need just a few more minutes. I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for an additional 15 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank all Senators and, again, I thank the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, let me say at this point that if the distinguished majority leader wishes to interrupt me at any point to offer a unanimous consent request, I will certainly be happy to accommodate him. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the distinguished majority leader for whatever time he may desire, and that I may then be recognized with my present rights to the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, is the Senate in a period for morning business at this time?

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

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be permitted to speak out of order no longer than 15 minutes.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this Sunday is Grandparent's Day. Like Mother's Day, this holiday has its origins in the great State of West Virginia. The Presiding Officer at the moment is from Ohio, a distinguished Senator from Ohio. He is a neighbor. His State is a neighbor of ours. This holiday began in West Virginia. In 1956, a lifelong mountaineer and the wife of a coal miner, Mrs. Marian McQuade, was asked to assist in organizing a ``Past 80 Party.'' I would qualify for that party if it were held today. Well, this group continues today to annually honor and celebrate octogenarians and other seniors in West Virginia. Mrs. McQuade began gathering participants to join in these festivities by contacting nursing homes. She learned of the chronic loneliness that many of the seniors in these homes experienced, and she was deeply saddened. Her heartfelt concern engendered the idea of a special day, a specific day to celebrate grandparents. In May 1973, West Virginia became the first State with a specially designated Grandparent's Day. Five years later, Mrs. McQuade received a phone call from the White House. This call informed her that President Carter had signed a law that designated the first Sunday after Labor Day as National Grandparent's Day. The holiday was shifted to the fall for symbolic reasons, as Grandparent's Day celebrates those in the autumn--ah, the autumn--of their lives. The first official national observance of this holiday occurred in September 1979--autumn, when the leaves are turning from green to gold to red and to brown. The statute creating Grandparent's Day states that the purpose of Grandparent's Day is ``to honor grandparents, to give grandparents an opportunity to show love for their children's children, and to help children become aware of [the] strength, information, and guidance [that] older people can offer.'' This is a day to celebrate sharing between the generations. It is a day for the older and younger generations to commune with one another. It is, above all, a day to celebrate the family. All too often in our increasingly fast-paced world, we fail to reflect. Perhaps on this Grandparent's Day we can enjoy the leisure of reminiscing on earlier days and, in so doing, opening a dialog between the generations. Such a confabulation benefits all who participate. Sharing time with grandchildren provides the grandparent not only with longed-for companionship, but also may inspire great personal joy and a renewed liveliness. The young are like a rejuvenating elixir, restoring a youthful spring in one's step. The young possess a certain charm, reminding us of what it feels like to be young again, and through them the spirit is enlivened. The aged may even see in the younger generation certain reminders of their own early ambitions, and foresee the potential that these sprouts have to take root and grow. And when these seedlings begin to bloom, finding their own success, there is no greater pride than that of the grandparent who encouraged, who listened, and who applauded along the way. And the majority leader will see this one day, as he recently had a grandchild come into his family. While grandparents' steps are enlivened by spending time with their grandchildren, the children learn upon which path these steps ought to be taken. Children, although they may, at times, view their elders as antediluvian and inveterate, will sit enraptured as they listen to stories recounted by their parents' parents. I remember how they used to sit around me when I played the fiddle. Oh, to live those days over again! The young will often, perhaps strangely, volunteer to assist with otherwise tedious chores to be by the side of grandparents. From the tales told and the time spent tending to tasks together, youngsters learn family history, and they ought to listen to it and they ought to be interested in that family history. They learn family history, traditions, and glimpse a wiser perspective of their world. Also, that is what many of us older persons need today--a wiser perspective of our world. Narratives and demonstrations of the maxim ``hard work works'' have the power to convey and ingrain the principles of success that are eternal verities. It is hard to imagine or recall, with our cars, microwaves, cell phones, and laptops, just how hard our parents and grandparents labored to do things that seem so simple today. We turn up a thermostat instead of chopping wood. But if one wants to warm himself twice, he only needs to chop his own wood. We hit ``spellcheck'' rather than retyping term papers. When faced with future adversity, growing children may look back on such nostalgia to carry them through their own trying times. I am lucky to share in my grandchildren's lives, I feel the pride of being a grandparent, and I recall Mrs. McQuade's story. I remember how she found that some seniors were neglected and forlorn, living lives of lonely destitution. Who knows, that may come to any one of us in time. Sadly, for some, this is still the case. Although many of their loved ones may have passed on, other seniors, thanks to advances in medicine and to Federal programs that provide a safety net of social services, continue to carry on. Many find ways to remain active in their communities, organizing events or sharing their time with others. Some have even taken on the burden of raising their children's children or acting as surrogate grandparents to those children who have lost their natural grandparents or who never knew them. Our older Americans have sweated and labored to defend and fight for our Nation, educate our young, mine the fuel to keep our homes warm, and shelter the values which we treasure the most. A greater obligation to our venerable matriarchs and patriarchs who have served as such wonderful role models to not one, but two, generations is our duty. This is why I am proud to add my name as a cosponsor of a bill to reauthorize the Older Americans Act. This Act helps to assess the needs of seniors and provide services to fill these needs. Funding through this Act provides nutrition, disease prevention, and in-home health service programs for the elderly. The Older Americans Act will also provide for community service employment for senior citizens with low income, so that they may continue to demonstrate the strength of their work ethic. Furthermore, the Act will allow state and local aging agencies to operate as advocates to promote the rights of older persons. As more and more Americans enter the older generation, it is critical that the mechanisms which have provided assistance continue to be able to lend support. We must not forget the lessons which these men and women have passed on to us and to our children. To do so would be to debase their contribution to the prosperity of our own posterity. The generous contributions our seniors have made will continue to propagate long after the grandchildren of today leave this world. Remembering our older Americans, and the importance of their influence on many young, fresh lives, is perhaps the most apt offering we can bestow as we celebrate Grandparents' Day. Mr. President, I yield the floor. In doing so, may I thank my friend from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, for his patience, and all others on whose time I have transgressed. I thank him also for his contributions to the work of the Nation, for his knowledge, for his clearheadedness, for his evenhandedness, and for the inspiration that he gives to me and all of my colleagues. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I see no other Senators seeking recognition at the moment.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have some remarks concerning Grandparent's Day. I ask unanimous consent I may proceed for an additional 10 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Nation is awaiting the public release of the Starr report. The rhetoric concerning the President's future has become superheated, and is nearing the point of spontaneous combustion--and no one has even had a chance to read, let alone reflect upon, all 445 pages of that report. It will be all too easy for individual pages and charges to be pulled out and waved around to fan these flames, but that does an injustice to the dignity and stature of this Nation. So I would like to pour a little cold water on these flames, and to urge everyone--all of us--to cool it. The world was not created in a day. And we cannot rush that clock on the wall, as much as some of us might like to do. The clock will take its time. And time will move no faster, no slower than it moved in the days of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. With the receipt of this report, a very grave constitutional process has begun. I want to emphasize that. Let me say it again. With the receipt of this report, a very grave constitutional process has begun. And we need to respect that process and all that it may mean for the Nation now and into the future. I would like to outline that process, which is covered in its entirety in just a few brief passages of the Constitution. And they are to be found on page 59 of my book on the Senate. Of course, they can be found in the Constitution itself. Article I, section 2, clause 5: The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. Article I, section 3, clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath of Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present. Article I, section 3, clause 7: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law. Article II, section 2, clause 1: The President shall. . .have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. Article II, section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. Article III, section 2, clause 3: The trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury. . . . Now, Mr. President, my colleagues are all well aware of the very difficult path we may be starting down now that the Starr report has been received. The House will take the first hard steps, and the Senate may--I say, may--have to follow. If we hope to restore the confidence of the Nation in their Government, and in the Congress in particular, Members must be allowed to carry out their task free from the kind of hype and speculation and inflammatory commentary that is swirling all around us. I say this as much to the public, perhaps even more so, and the media, as I do to my colleagues. Give us the time and the elbowroom to live up to our solemn constitutional obligation to the Nation. We, in the Senate, of course, do not know at this point whether there will be any impeachment of the President by the House of Representatives. That remains in the hands of the other body. That is not in our hands. Only if and when the House were to formulate and approve articles of impeachment would any articles then come to the Senate. The Senate would then, and only then, under the Constitution, be called upon to make its judgment, up or down, without amendment, on each article. This is a very solemn matter and this Senator will not be influenced by the hype. I shall do my very best if that time comes--and it may never come, it may never come--but if it were to, I would do my very best to render a fair judgment, not only to the person impeached but also to the Nation, to the people, always keeping in mind the solemnity of the occasion and the kinds of precedents and standards that we, ourselves, would be setting for all of the generations to come. It is not going to be a matter to be decided tomorrow or next week or the next 2 weeks or the next 3 weeks in this Chamber. The other House will act as it sees fit, based upon the evidence in the report. We would be sitting as jurors if and when articles of impeachment were ever sent to us by the other body. It is a constitutional process. Let's keep that in mind. We must be true to the Constitution, and true to the Nation. We must be fair, and we must be seen as having been fair. Let me, in closing, read the oath which each Senator would be required to take in the event--and I emphasize, in the event--that the Senate were ever faced with an impeachment trial. The public should know that this is the oath to which each Senator must subscribe. Here is the oath. It is on page 61 of the document titled, ``Procedure and Guidelines for Impeachment Trials in the United States Senate,'' revised edition, prepared pursuant to Senate Resolution 439, 99th Congress, 2d Session, submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd and Senator Robert Dole, by Floyd M. Riddick, Parliamentarian Emeritus of the U.S. Senate and Robert B. Dove, Parliamentarian of the United States Senate, August 15, 1986. The form of oath administered to each Senator, as set forth under Rule XXV, is as follows: I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of [blank], now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God. How much time remains?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I hope that other Senators would permit me to proceed.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield so I might reply?

Mr. BYRD. If the Senator from Kentucky will yield, I make the request I be recognized, upon the conclusion of the remarks by the Senator from Kentucky, for not to exceed 1 hour.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield?