Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the order?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the floor, but before doing so, I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer, who has been so patient in doing his duty in the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that upon the disposition of the two rollcall votes this afternoon, I be recognized to introduce a bill and to speak thereon.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, there is an order that has been entered which would allow me to speak immediately upon the disposition of the two rollcall votes. I would ask unanimous consent that that order be moved to the conclusion of the reading of the resolution.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, will the distinguished Senator from Maryland yield me just 15 seconds so that I might make a request?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, not too long ago, the Senate returned to work from celebrating the Fourth of July, Independence Day. By now, the flags that flew so gaily in front of our houses have long since been furled or folded, tucked away in dark closets until next year. The banners and bunting that adorned main streets throughout the country have been taken down, and the high school band's uniforms are again hanging in orderly rows to await September's football games. Our military veterans, cheered at Fourth of July parades as the legacy of those proud men who wrested our freedom from the hands of Redcoats, have again been put out of most people's minds until somber Veterans Day rolls around in November. But it is with the memory of Independence Day still fresh in my mind that I consider how well we as a nation treat the veterans who have protected our freedoms so well. The Department of Veterans Affairs does a pretty good job of taking care of individual veterans, despite the fact that funding for veterans programs has been declining in real dollars for many years. But, like most bureaucracies, the VA does not always move nimbly and with great precision to identify big trends as quickly as one might like. In large part, that may be because the VA must depend on the even larger and more cumbersome Department of Defense to provide it with the background information on what happened to our veterans while they were on active duty that may require the ministrations of the VA after a conflict. In the case of the Persian Gulf War, the Department of Defense did not, by its own admission, do a very aggressive job early on in trying to get to the bottom of what happened in the Gulf. As a result, we have been engaged in a long and circular debate regarding the large numbers of sick Persian Gulf War veterans, and the trail that will lead us to the answers to what really happened in that theater of operations is growing colder by the day. Mr. President, I have been working with the Committee on Veterans' Affairs on this issue, and I am pleased that Senator Rockefeller, Senator Specter, and I have been able to draft a bill that will bring to a close a part of the debate that has been eroding the confidence of our soldiers in their government's support for them, and eroding the confidence of our veterans that their nation cares for them. I thank my colleague from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller, for his courtesy in working with me, and I thank Senator Specter also for his cooperation. The encouragement and support offered by the Chronic Illness Research Foundation and the veterans service organizations, particularly the American Legion, the National Gulf War Resources Center, Vietnam Veterans of America, and the National Vietnam and Gulf War Veterans Coalition, have also been critical to this joint effort. That debate is the now 7-year-old argument over what really happened to our soldiers, sailors, and airmen during the Operation Desert Storm to make so many of them sick. As of March 31, 1998, there were 112,123 active and former military personnel on the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs' Persian Gulf Registries. That is a lot of sick people, and I understand that new registrants continue to sign on at a rate of 80 to 90 each week. In the 7 years since the ``hot'' phase of that conflict ended, a fog of words has further obscured the fog of war that enveloped these military men and women in its fetid, inky grasp. Panel after panel has been convened, congressional committee after congressional committee has conducted hearings, report after report has been issued. Mountains of paper have been created. Yet, substantial, concrete action to end this debate has not been taken, though many recommendations have been issued. The President's own Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses warned in their October 1997 final report that the government's credibility was at stake and urged that a ``permanent, statutory'' program of benefits and health care for the sick Persian Gulf veterans be established. This bill that we have introduced today begins that important work. It ends the long argument about what happened in the Gulf and who might have been exposed to what, and focuses on the ``now what?'' phase. This bill establishes a mechanism for the National Academy of Sciences or some other comparable body to periodically review the scientific and medical literature to identify what specific illnesses or diseases might arise from exposure to all of those hazardous materials that were present in the Gulf or that can otherwise be associated with service in that theater of war. The experts provide the Secretary of Veterans Affairs with that list, and the Secretary reviews and establishes regulations to establish those illnesses and diseases as service connected for the purposes of providing medical care and other benefits to Gulf War veterans. The Secretary will also receive recommendations from the National Academy regarding further medical research needed to answer questions about illness and service in the Gulf. The Secretary, in conjunction with the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, is requested to outline a program of medical research based on those recommendations and other information that may warrant further research. In an effort to jump-start this review process, the bill contains a lengthy list of materials to which numerous government and expert scientific panels have suggested the Gulf veterans may have been exposed. This list was drawn from legislation, H.R. 4036, introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Christopher Shays and Representative Bernard Sanders of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight after 2 years of hearings and review. Their tireless efforts have been invaluable. This bill asks the National Academy to begin its review with that list, and to report within 6 months on its findings. Our concern is to expedite this process with as much speed as is prudent, given the long wait that these veterans have already faced. Remember the chiaroscuro images of that conflict--the bright sand inked over with grimy, oily debris, the road dust sprayed down with oil, chemical alarms blaring, pesticides and insecticides liberally sprayed to keep disease-carrying insects at bay, and of men and women pumped full of last minute vaccines and ordered to take nerve agent pretreatment pills whenever the chemical alarms sounded. Top it all off with the image of man-made thunderclouds forming over the vast ammunition pit at Khamisiyah when U.S. troops destroyed tons of captured Iraqi shells, some unknown quantity of which was loaded with chemical mustard and nerve agents. It was a dirty, dirty war, concentrated over a fairly compact area filled with almost 700,000 U.S. troops. We can be fairly confident on the basis of many previous studies that all of these listed hazards and potential hazards were present in that theater of war, even though we will never be able to say which hazards each individual soldier, sailor, and airman was exposed to and at what dosage. But wounds created by chemicals maim just as readily, if not as visibly, as bullets. This situation, and this legislation addressing it, are similar to the way that the terrible legacy of Agent Orange from the Vietnam War was finally, agonizingly, resolved. In that case, finally, Congress simply declared that we know that these herbicides were present in country in enormous quantities, but we do not know, and likely never will know, precisely who may have been exposed to them and in what dosage. Therefore, we will simply acknowledge that if you were there during the time that Agent Orange and the other similar herbicides were being used, you may well have been exposed, and if you come down with a disease or illness which can be plausibly linked to that exposure, we will assume that you may have gotten it as a result of that exposure and act accordingly. It took a long time to get to that point, but it was the right thing to do, and it helped to restore the crisis in confidence that had shaken our servicemen and our veterans. The situation in the Gulf is hauntingly similar, a refrain from the same song. Almost 700,000 men and women were in the Gulf when the shooting started and operated in a fluid battlefield that included many potential hazards. Collection of data was not done or could not be done in a way that allows us to reconstruct every nuance of that situation 7 years later. Even veterans medical records are not as complete as we would now like them to be. So we find ourselves in a chicken soup of possibilities, debating endlessly about whether this pea or this carrot or this piece of meat was here or there in the soup at any point in time, when really all we know is that all the ingredients for a soup were in the pot. So, let us stop analyzing that broth at the expense of taking any further action and get on with turning it into a restorative and nourishing balm for our ailing veterans. This legislation does not presume exposure of every veteran to every possible hazard. Rather, it looks at these hazards and to the illnesses already being seen in the veteran population and determines what diseases and illnesses can be associated with that service or those hazards. If the veteran has that disease or illness, then it is presumed to have been as a result of his exposure to that hazard or hazards or to that service. Vietnam veterans had to wait almost 20 years before their medical crisis was resolved, and is still being resolved. We must show that we as a Government can learn from that experience and push forward so that the veterans from the Persian Gulf War do not have to wait so long. I think it is possible to learn from history, and recent history provides the freshest lessons. If we do not act decisively now, these newest veterans will be one more year closer to reaching that sorry halfway hurdle. That is why I am proud to cosponsor this bill with Senator Rockefeller and Senator Specter, the Persian Gulf War Veterans Act of 1998, to be considered by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs as it meets to address pending legislation. I hope that the Committee will receive it favorably, and that the Senate can move to address the needs of our nations newest conflict veterans and stem the crisis of confidence that the slow and often stumbling Government response to this health care dilemma has created in our servicemen and women, and in our veterans. Mr. President, the men and women who go into combat for the rest of us deserve our lasting gratitude. They also deserve to have their wounded compatriots properly and aggressively taken care of and that is what President Lincoln meant when he said, ``To take care of him who has borne the battle, and his widow and children'' which the Department of Veterans Affairs has adopted as its motto. When we fail to do this, we undermine that covenant, and we put cold and daunting doubt in the hearts of those who might otherwise consider volunteering for that hard duty. To those who are concerned, as I am, about readiness in our military, I say that this is the final element of all the recruiting, advertising, and patriotic appeals to join the military and serve the nation in uniform. This is the element that seals the deal--the commitment to care for our soldiers who are wounded in service. It must be there, and our men and women in uniform must be confident in its compassion and in its endurance, or no signing bonus will keep volunteers in the military. We took too long to follow through with our veterans from Vietnam, and we are in danger of making the same mistake with our veterans from the Persian Gulf: A man who is good enough to shed his blood for his country is good enough to be given a square deal afterwards. More than that no man is entitled to, and less than that no man shall have. So said President Theodore Roosevelt on another Independence Day 95 years ago, on July 4, 1903, following the Spanish-American War. I believe that this Congress wants to, and will, live up to that sentiment.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I understand that Senator Hatch wishes to make the final motions and unanimous consent requests on behalf of the majority leader. I yield to him for that purpose. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I may need a little longer than 10 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that I may speak not to exceed 15 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have listened with great interest to the speech by Mr. Kennedy, and I look forward to hearing him speak on further decisions on this subject. And I wish to thank the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Grams, who has stated that his speech today might last 40 minutes, and he was very considerate to ask me how long I would be speaking. And he suggested that I proceed with my remarks ahead of him, because he would want to speak for about 40 minutes. I think it is most gracious and considerate of the Senator, and I thank him. And his good deeds will be repaid in kind at some future date.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Massachusetts. I am merely repaying a good deed that he did for me a week or so ago when he allowed me to go ahead of him. And by virtue of his doing so, when I completed my remarks and other Senators got recognition, Senator Kennedy had to wait still longer. Well, I thank all Senators. And this is one of the things that makes it a joy to serve in this body. Mr. President, what is the order?

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. I may not use that much time.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, one week ago today, a small ceremony took place in the Pentagon at which the three senior leaders of the United States Army unveiled a series of posters depicting each of the seven core values of the Army. They are noteworthy values--Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless-Service, Honor, Integrity, Personal Courage. They send a strong message to the world about the values that shape America's fighting forces. Three days later, Defense Department officials sent a very different message from the Pentagon regarding core values when they took the wraps off a proposal that would relax the military code of honor concerning adultery. According to the news accounts I have read, Secretary Cohen is expected to propose within the next few weeks a new approach to dealing with cases of adultery in the military that would limit prosecutions--limit prosecutions--and ease automatic penalties. Mr. President, I respectfully ask, what on earth has gotten into the leadership of the Defense Department? Each of our services is founded on a set of bedrock principles. I have just recited the Army's. For the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, the core values are honor, courage, and commitment. The core values of the Air Force are integrity, service, and excellence. These values form the moral guideposts for the men and women of America's armed forces. Whether we are talking about the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines, we are talking about a group of exceptional individuals in whom we as a nation place extraordinary trust and from whom we exact exceptional standards of courage, leadership, and moral conduct. These standards, demanding though they are, have served our nation well for more than two hundred years. They are the virtues that undergirded the American Revolution and helped General George Washington's Army endure the bitter winter at Valley Forge. They are the principles that elevated the American Civil War from a duel between states to a crusade that cemented the unity of a nation. They are the values that guided our troops to victory over the most evil power of the twentieth century--the forces of Adolph Hitler--during World War II. Honor, Duty, Respect, Integrity, Courage and Commitment make up a noble list. This roster of virtues is one that our men and women in uniform have, from this nation's founding, embraced with pride. I admire the dedication of our military forces. I admire their willingness to hold themselves to a higher standard. I believe that the core values they embody are as important as all the skills and training and equipment this nation can marshal in making America's armed forces mighty and powerful, the best in the world. That has always been the way with American military forces. We saw in World War II the most powerful, the mightiest armed force in the world, the best armies that ever walked the earth. And so I ask again, what on earth has gotten into the leadership of the Department of Defense? Mr. President, I am pleased to note that the Marine Corps has responded to the call to lower the bar on adultery with the equivalent of Brigadier General Anthony McAuliffe's response to the Germans' demand to surrender during the Battle of the Bulge. In a word, ``Nuts!'' And so I salute the Marine Corps for taking that stand. Let me just say that again. I think it needs to be said, and I hope that the Secretary of Defense will hear me. I am pleased to note that the Marine Corps has responded to the call to lower the bar on adultery with the equivalent of Brigadier General Anthony McAuliffe's response to the Germans' demand to surrender during the Battle of the Bulge. In a word, ``Nuts.'' God bless the Marines. God bless the Marine Corps. And God bless that word ``Nuts,'' because that is the response of the Marine Corps. For a service whose motto, Semper Fidelis, means ``Always Faithful,'' the Marine Corps' unwillingness to compromise its core values is commendable. I salute the Marine Corps. I hope that the leadership of the Army, Navy, and Air Force will follow suit. At a time when the reputation and the morale of the military have taken a serious battering as a result of the conduct of some of its leaders, I am frankly amazed that the Secretary of Defense would even entertain such an ill-conceived proposal. The recent and highly publicized instances of adultery, sexual harassment, and rape within America's military have wounded the prestige of our armed services and have ruined individual lives, families, and careers. The uneven handling of several high profile cases--ranging from swift and harsh punishment meted out to enlisted personnel and junior officers to an apparent blind eye turned to the misconduct of certain high-ranking officers--has only exacerbated the problem and led to the perception of a double standard in the military. I sympathize with the many problems facing our military leadership in today's volatile international environment. Resources are scarce, forces are stretched thin, and tensions are mounting in potential trouble spots around the world. But leadership requires the ability to set a good example and stand by one's principles, regardless of how difficult that may be. The solution to the moral and ethical turmoil threatening to engulf today's U.S. military forces is not to lower the standards to the level of the least common denominator. The solution is to restore and to apply the discipline and unique military code of conduct equally and across the board. In this country, we have always looked up to the military for leadership and role models. What kind of a message does this proposal send to our young people, who are struggling to define their values in a society that increasingly seems to hold core values in contempt? How are parents supposed to explain this sea change in the military's moral code to their children? What is the Defense Department thinking? Why on earth is the Pentagon sending such mixed messages to the men and women in uniform? Even that nonsensical term ``political correctness'' does not require this. If the Secretary of Defense is willing to entertain a proposal that would essentially treat adultery--conduct that inherently involves dishonor, lying, and cheating--with a wink and a nod, what comes next? Will it be okay to cheat on an exam at the military academies if the instructor is too tough? Will ``little white lies'' be acceptable to get out of unpleasant duties? Will the occasional dereliction of duty be overlooked as long as no one gets hurt? Will the Marines be asked to change their motto from ``Always Faithful'' to ``Usually Faithful'' or ``Sometimes Faithful''? If so asked, I have a feeling the Marines will say ``nuts.'' The core values of America's military services are not there for window dressing. Taken together, they form the basis of a sacred trust. It is a trust that must extend to placing one's life in the hands of one's comrades. It is a trust that goes up the chain of command and down the chain of command and across the chain of command. It is trust that is absolute--there can be no shades of gray on the battlefield. There can be no shades of gray at the helm of the ship in the storm. There can be no shades of gray in the cockpit. I hope that the Secretary of Defense will rethink this misguided proposal to weaken the rules governing adultery and fraternization in the military. The effect can only be to erode the time-honored military principles that have served our Nation throughout its history, in peacetime and in war. Our nation's military leadership, including the Secretary of Defense, who once served here as a very able Senator and respected colleague, must draw a line in the sand when it comes to the moral conduct of the armed services. The services must not be seduced into exchanging their code of conduct for a code of convenience. Again, I salute the Marines for their unwillingness to compromise their standards, and I call on Secretary Cohen to reject this and any other proposal that would compromise the integrity of this nation's military forces. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I again thank my friend from Minnesota, Senator Grams, for his kindness and courtesy.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my shock and utter amazement regarding the cover story in the June 15 issue of Time magazine. It is entitled ``Everything your kids already know about sex.'' Now, I know that any octogenarian like myself is going to be immediately viewed as a dinosaur and a prude on a subject such as this, but I tell you that this article should alarm every parent and shake up every community in America. The piece opens up with an account of a 14-year-old couple, who walk into a Teen Center in Salt Lake City, Utah (of all places) and inquire about steps which they might take to heighten their arousal during sex. This is a 14-year-old couple, I remind Senators. It continues with example after example of youngsters as young as 9 years of age who are experienced sexually, and who have had multiple sexual partners before ever reaching the legal age of consent. Here we are talking about youngsters as young as 9 years of age. Many of these sexually new-age babies (and that's what they are, babies) claim that they get all the information they need to be proficient in the sexual world through such prime time TV shows as ``Dawson Creek,'' which boasts of a character, Jen, who loses her virginity at 12, while drunk, or another favorite show, ``Buffy the Vampire Slayer'', in which Angel, a male vampire, ``turned bad'' after having sex with the 17-year-old Buffy. What, in the name of common sense, I ask, is going on in this Nation? Why are we letting our kids watch this morally degrading, thoroughly demeaning, junk on the airwaves? Why in heaven's name don't the purveyors of such trash feel any sense of responsibility toward the youth of our nation? Have the parents of these kids just given up trying to guide and protect them and teach them some sense of moral responsibility about their own bodies? I am afraid I have no answers, only legions of questions about what sort of a society is going to evolve from all of this unhealthy glorification of sex. I know this much. We have got to find a way to inject some measure of spirituality into our culture, some sort of reverence for something besides erotica, and we have got to find some kind of counterpoint to the cheap, amoral, directionless, thoroughly disgusting popular mores which are blasted daily at our kids over the airwaves. I believe one thing we could do in this Congress is to find an acceptable way to return prayer to our schools and to encourage religious values in the life of this nation. A lot of people who believe this have been driven into a closet. They won't say these things probably because they will be viewed as old fuddy-duddies and as being behind the times and old-fashioned and all that. I know of no other course which might provide a strong counterpoint to the hedonistic viewpoint which so dominates everyday American life. All of our poor children face the prospect of growing up, do they not, with no appreciation of anything but the seamy side of life and no understanding of the spiritual values that so enrich and refine human existence and have played such a vital and important and prominent part in the history of our country, history of our Nation since its beginning? Does no one worry about the steady diet of crass perversion we are feeding to our youngsters? Surely the American people expect us to address the moral bankruptcy that is eating away at common decency in this Nation. We have spent weeks publicly gnashing our teeth about our children's health. We hear these speeches all the time here about our children's health, and rightly so. Rightly so. And the evils of smoking, and again rightly so. We should. But what about their mental health? What about their spiritual health? I hear little said on these subjects. What about the sexually transmitted diseases which such casual sexual behavior fosters? I tell you, I am worried, and I believe we need to come to grips with the ugly reality of a society that is sliding further into decadence and decay right before our very eyes. On February 6, of last year, I introduced a constitutional amendment that could foster voluntary prayer in our schools and in public assemblies. I believe that it may do so without doing violence to the prerogatives of those who, as is their right, do not wish to pray. The amendment is simple, and I read it: ``Nothing in this Constitution, or amendments thereto, shall be construed to prohibit or require voluntary prayer in public schools, or to prohibit or require voluntary prayer at public school extracurricular activities.'' I hope that the Judiciary Committee of the Senate--and I urge the Judiciary Committee of the Senate--will at least hold hearings on this matter. I am sure they could find some time on the calendar to hold hearings on this important subject, if not this year, certainly next year. We have reached a point of crisis in our land, and to continue to ignore the mounting evidence is blatantly irresponsible on the part of those of us who claim to be leaders. I know that there are concerns about the first amendment, and I hesitate to offer an amendment that would, in effect, amend the first amendment in some respect, but I am worried a great deal more about the destruction of our Nation. As far as I am concerned, if something about the first amendment needed to be modified or changed to save this very Nation, then I am willing to at least discuss it and debate it and make a determination on whether we should. I do not view the first amendment as being absolutely sacrosanct. I am becoming very concerned about the trend that we see happening in this country and about the direction in which the Nation is going and in considerable measure because of some of the interpretations of the Constitution, some of the interpretations of the first amendment that we have seen emanating from our courts. I urge all Members of the Senate and all parents to read the Time magazine piece and wake up and smell the coffee. The alarm bells are ringing all over America, and we have got to come to grips with what is happening and try to answer the call. Now, I will not be around on this globe many more years perhaps, but I do have children and I have grandchildren. Incidentally, I have a grandson who acquired his Ph.D. in physics yesterday at the University of Virginia. And he has a brother just 3 years older than himself who secured his Ph.D. in physics from the University of Virginia 3 years ago. So these are outstanding examples of the fine young people we have in this country, wholesome young people. They are not all bad, by any means. Most of them are not. But we do not often enough hear about the good things our young people are doing. They are in the laboratories. They are in the libraries. They are studying, trying to get ahead, and we are not as aware of what they are doing as we are of those who make mistakes, and we all make mistakes, but of those who perhaps are not doing as well. I am concerned about the future of the Nation. I am concerned for my own posterity's sake, as I say. I do not have the answers. A blind man can see that something bad is happening to our society. One does not have to travel far to find out what is causing a large part of it. One has only to go to the living room and turn on that tube and watch for a day the junk that has been programmed. They will see from what source many of our problems are emanating. I ask unanimous consent that the article entitled ``Where'd You Learn That?'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. BYRD. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this amendment addresses the continued problem of trade-distorting subsidies given by the Korean Government to its domestic steel industry. Unfair trade practices by the Korean Government are causing the U.S. steel industry--including one of West Virginia's largest employers, Weirton Steel Corporation--to lose millions of dollars. These losses impact U.S. communities, which must carry the burden of Korea's unfair practices by contending with a lower tax and job base. I joined my colleagues in the Senate Steel Caucus in signing letters to U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Charlene Barshefsky and U.S. Department of Commerce Secretary William Daley regarding violations by the South Korean Government of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Subsidy Code. Regrettably, the responses to those letters were not satisfactory. My amendment would simply require the United States Trade Representative to report on Korean steel subsidies. Accurate information on unfair trade practices is vital to the future of the U.S. steel industry and its workers. This amendment would send the Korean Government a clear message that we expect our trading partners to adhere to fair trading practices, but, more importantly, it would send a message to American workers that this Congress is prepared to defend our own commercial interests and take action against the Korean Government's infringement upon U.S. rights under the WTO agreement. U.S. imports of steel from South Korea have increased by nearly forty-five percent during the first four months of 1998. These surging Korean steel imports are possible due to the Korean government's continued use of illegal subsidies--subsidies that unfairly disadvantage the U.S. steel industry. The negative impact of these Korean subsidies cannot be ignored. Illegal foreign steel sales are severely undermining the economic stability in regions throughout our country that rely upon steel for jobs--literally taking money out of the pockets of these workers as well as their neighbors, who depend upon this industry for their livelihood. For the U.S. steelworkers in the Upper Ohio Valley and throughout our nation, we must continue to pursue efforts to end the entry of foreign products into this country that unfairly place our domestic industries at risk. We must restore confidence in our trade laws. I appreciate Members' support of this initiative. amendment no. 3289 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for the enforcement in fiscal year 1999 of certain regulations regarding the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) with respects to United States fishing industry vessels) On page 135, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following: Sec. 620. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds appropriated or otherwise made available for fiscal year 1999 by this Act or any other Act may be obligated or expended for purposes of enforcing any rule or regulation requiring the installation or operation aboard United States fishing industry vessels of the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GDDSS). global maritime distress and safety system

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I want to applaud the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Senator Gregg of New Hampshire, and the subcommittee's Ranking Member, Senator Hollings of South Carolina, for their work on the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bill. They have crafted a good piece of legislation that will help to meet a variety of needs across the country. One of the important and pressing issues addressed in this legislation is school safety. During the past several months, we have seen several tragic incidents of school violence. These acts are not limited to specific geographic regions or family backgrounds, nor do they have a single catalyst. Those who have committed such cowardly acts have done so for different reasons, at different times, in different schools. But these acts of school violence have at least one thing in common--they have spurred all of us to take a closer look at what can be done to better protect our children at school. In this Commerce-Justice-State legislation, the Senate offers one new tool in that effort. We have earmarked $210 million in the bill for a new national safe schools initiative geared to assist community-level efforts. Parents should not have to worry, when they put their children on the bus to school in the morning, that those children will not return home safely in the afternoon. In an effort to provide local school districts with more resources to reduce the levels of violence in our classrooms, I supported this initiative to strengthen local violence prevention and technology efforts. Within the $210 million, $25 million will assist communities in developing and implementing local school safety approaches. Another $10 million is for the National Institute of Justice to develop new, more effective safety technologies and communications systems that can provide communities with quick access to the information they need to identify potentially violent youths. Perhaps most important is the $175 million for the Community Oriented Policing Services Program to increase community policing in and around schools. This would be an extension of the COPS program which has been widely hailed as a successful deterrent to crime. In West Virginia, some school districts already partner with the local police department to have what they call ``police resource officers'' in the schools. Officers and educators alike believe that having a familiar police presence in the hallways and a cruiser in the parking lot helps to reduce violence at school. Ensuring that our classrooms are safe demands that we do everything possible to find safe places for our children to learn and play and grow. While there is no single answer or solution to this pressing problem, the funding in this bill is an important step toward that common goal. Mr. President, also in this legislation is an amendment I added on behalf of the thousands of families in West Virginia's Upper Ohio Valley and throughout the country who rely on the steel industry for their livelihoods. These are the people who work in the shops and in the mills, and who pay the taxes, and whose sweat keeps America running. My amendment calls for a report by the United States Trade Representative on trade subsidies provided by the South Korean government to its domestic steel industry. Illegal foreign steel subsidies are severely undermining the economic stability in regions throughout our country--literally taking money out of the pockets of American families and putting it into the accounts of foreign governments. The American steel industry for too long has been forced to compete in an international marketplace that was unbalanced by foreign subsidies, especially those of the South Korean government. By offering this amendment, I want to send a clear message: the United States will not allow foreign governments to undercut fair trading practices. This Congress is prepared to defend our country's commercial interests and take action when those interests are threatened. West Virginia companies, like Weirton Steel, should not be expected to compete in a marketplace that places unfair obstacles in their paths. When foreign governments subsidize industries, they tip the playing field, change the rules, and make it unfair. Those overseas subsidies directly impact the jobs and livelihoods of working men and women and their families here at home, as we have seen in Weirton. funding for gun prosecution projects

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I would like to hear an additional minute----

Mr. BYRD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in my speech of July 16, 1998, titled ``Anniversary of the Great Compromise,'' on page S. 8295, in the first column thereof, the word ``unilateral'' in the second line of the second full paragraph should be ``unicameral.'' ``Unicameral,'' instead of ``unilateral.'' I ask unanimous consent the permanent Record show the correction.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator. The EPA should provide a more detailed plan for better evaluating its programs, but I believe this is a more appropriate date to require such a report. It would not be wise to arbitrarily cap funding for vital energy and environment programs that encourage domestic energy efficiency, decrease costs, and promote domestic energy security. These programs should be evaluated on their own merits. The Federal Government serves a vital catalytic role in supporting and developing cutting edge research programs that the private sector can then take into the marketplace. The true benefits of these technologies and programs may not be evident for a number of years. Through these efforts, the United States has a tremendous opportunity to profit from new technologies, both at home and abroad, while at the same time reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. BYRD. Is it the intent of the Senator to create additional legal requirements in this area beyond those required by the letter and spirit of the Government Performance and Results Act?

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, would the Senator from Missouri yield for a question on the appropriation of funding for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its energy and environment related programs? I note that on pages 74 and 75 of the Committee's Report that the Committee addresses the issue of the EPA's compliance with the Government Performance and Results Act and the EPA's submission of a report on activities related to these ongoing programs. Is it the Senator's understanding that the committee report reminds the EPA that it is to fully comply with the Government Performance and Results Act?