Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I loved it. I loved it then.

Mr. BYRD. I wanted to offer my amendment, but the amendment tree was filled.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act reauthorization, ISTEA--in other words, the highway bill--sets the authorization levels for the current fiscal year and the next 5 years for our Federal highway construction, bridge, highway safety, and transit programs. When the Senate found itself unable to complete action on S. 1173 at the end of the last session, it was necessary to pass a short-term extension bill to tide these programs over from October of last year until May 1, 1998. I supported that short-term extension measure, but I did so with the understanding from the distinguished Senate majority leader, and others in the leadership, that ``immediately following the President's State of the Union Address,'' the Senate would return to the highway reauthorization bill. It now appears that things have changed and that the distinguished majority leader is being urged by a handful of Senators to delay action on it and not bring up ISTEA until after Congress completes action on the fiscal year 1999 budget resolution. Mr. President, as one who has been majority leader, I can understand the pressures that are upon our own distinguished majority leader at this time with reference to the highway bill. I have had discussions with the able majority leader, and prior to the reconvening of the Senate, I had the pleasure of talking with the majority leader in my office. He showed me the courtesy of coming to my office, and we sat for 30 minutes and discussed this measure and other matters. I can understand the pressures that are on him from other Senators in this body. Having been majority leader, I know that one cannot please all Senators on his own side, much less Senators on the other side of the aisle. I am fully aware of that. And what I say with respect to the bill certainly is not in denigration of our majority leader. I have an excellent relationship with him, as I do with my own leader on this side of the aisle, and I would not want to do anything to impair that relationship. But, Mr. President, having said that, this would be a very shortsighted approach to handling one of the most important matters to come before this Congress--the highway bill. I understand that the very able chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Domenici, has expressed his hope and intention to proceed quickly with his hearings and the markup of the budget resolution. As Senators are aware, Section 300 of the Congressional Budget Act sets a date of April 1 as the deadline for the Senate Budget Committee to report the budget resolution each year. The Congressional Budget Act requires Congress to complete action on budget resolutions every year by April 15. I was here, Mr. President, when we enacted the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and I spoke for it, supported it, and had a considerable bit to do with the formulation of it. But in all of the years since the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, Congress has met the deadline for completing action on budget resolutions only 3 times. Those 3 years were fiscal years 1976, 1977 and 1994. I say to all Senators, but particularly to the leadership, that this is not a very good record upon which to base our hopes for early completion of the fiscal year 1999 budget resolution. Yet, that's what the plan appears to be, as it relates to the highway bill. As I say, I implored, I importuned, I beseeched, I pleaded with the distinguished majority leader before this session was convened and urged that we be allowed to bring up the highway bill. That was the commitment that was made. It was made to the Senate, it was made to the American people. As I say, I know the majority leader has a lot of pressures on him, and I can understand those, having been majority leader. So I am not going to be one to criticize the majority leader in this respect. Heavy and uneasy is the head that wears the crown. We are being told we should just be patient and our State highways and transit authorities should not worry. We'll get around to enacting the ISTEA bill after the budget resolution is finished. Mr. President, that places our State highway departments in an extremely precarious and uncertain position as they struggle to continue, without interruption, the Nation's critically important highway construction, bridge construction and repair, highway safety and transit programs. Now, every highway department is being put into that position. How can we be sure that the budget resolution will be completed at all, much less by the April 15 statutory deadline? Eventually, it will be completed, but how can we be sure that it will be finished in time to meet that deadline? In the past 25 years, Congress has only met that deadline three times, as I have already indicated. On all other occasions, the deadline was missed, sometimes by months, as it was in fiscal year 1985 when the budget resolution was not completed until October 1, 1984; and for fiscal year 1991, when the budget resolution was not completed until October 9, 1990. But even if it is passed, how can we afford to wait until that deadline? How can we afford to wait until April? How can we afford to wait until April 15 to bring up the highway bill? Construction seasons are upon us. Construction seasons in the northern States, in particular, are going to be constricted. If the leadership continues to hold up the ISTEA bill, I am concerned that Congress will not be able to act on a new highway bill prior to the statutory deadline now in existence for the obligation of highway and transit funds. How many more days do we have, Mr. President until May 1? May 1 is the drop-dead date with respect to highway obligations--new obligations by the highway departments throughout this country. May 1. How many more days remain? We don't count Saturdays and Sundays, naturally. But only 41 session days remain. Only 41 session days when the Senate will be in session. The States will hit the spending walls for highway transfer funding on May 1. I assure all Senators that we will hear from the American people if we continue to ignore the basic transportation needs of this Nation in such a cavalier fashion. The disruption of these transportation projects will be massive, massive in the Northeast, in the Northwest, in the Southwest, and in the Southeast--all over this country. The disruption of these projects will be massive across the Nation as States will be required to stop obligating funds on May 1 for the highway and transit programs. Congress needs to get its act together! This is an irresponsible and unnecessary course that threatens the very lives of people as well as the economic well-being of the people throughout the country. Does it take a crisis, Mr. President, to force us to act here in Congress? Do we have to have a bridge collapse and possibly have people killed before we wake up? I have not forgotten the collapse of the Silver Bridge at Point Pleasant, WV, in 1967. It killed 46 people. Let us look out of the windows and observe the rains that are pounding our area. Listen to the radio, or watch the television set--I don't do much of that; but I do watch the weather--and watch what they are saying about the weather all over this country, about the storm, about what is happening in States back to the west and to the north. The snow, the ice, the ravages of winter will further pock-mark and erode our highways and bridges. We can't afford delays in stepping up to our responsibilities for public safety very much longer. Mr. President, I have asked the journal clerk how much time the Senate wasted yesterday in quorum calls and in recesses. On yesterday-- one day alone--we spent 59 minutes, almost an hour, in quorum calls, and 2 hours and 18 minutes in recesses. That is 3 hours 17 minutes-- with a quick calculation--3 hours 17 minutes spent in quorum calls and recesses here in the Senate yesterday. We could have been working on the highway bill. Strategy games in Washington may be fine for those who do not depend on safe, modern highways to protect their livelihoods and their lives. But, hand-sitting will not serve us well when the public realizes what is going on. I implore the leadership to move this bill as soon as possible. The clock is ticking, Mr. President, and time is running out. I thank the Chair. I thank all Senators. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I would like today to pay tribute to one of my most esteemed colleagues on the occasion of his birthday. For, sixty-five years ago, in Salisbury, Maryland, two Greek immigrants named Spyros and Matina Sarbanes gave birth to a child, whom they named Paul. I, for one, have no doubt--although history does not provide confirmation of my conjecture--that within a few days, or perhaps weeks, of this event, young Paul had begun the earnest and impassioned learning that would distinguish him throughout his life. This learning has paid dividends throughout the life and career of Paul Sarbanes. It won him a scholarship to Princeton--from where he graduated Phi Beta Kappa--and earned him a Rhodes Scholarship. Thence, he proceeded to Harvard Law School and a prestigious clerkship with a federal appellate court judge. After conquering such mountains early on, he might have been forgiven for resting on his laurels, but these early triumphs proved to be simply prologue to further achievements. Senator Sarbanes' drive and his intelligence propelled him from a law firm to the Maryland House of Delegates, then on to the U.S. House, and, in 1976, to the U.S. Senate. How wonderfully appropriate that the year in which this country celebrated its bicentennial it should also witness, in the election of Senator Sarbanes, confirmation of the basic American tenet that any man--even the child of immigrants--can rise to the highest levels in this country! And who better than Senator Sarbanes to prove that the American meritocracy, which rewards extraordinary wisdom and diligence, endures? For over two decades, I have been privileged to work alongside Senator Sarbanes. I have learned in that time to put down whatever business I have before me and pay careful attention when this man speaks on the floor. For I know that whatever words issue forth from his mouth will be the result of careful consideration, intelligent analysis, and a nuanced balancing of the facts. These qualities distinguish Senator Sarbanes' remarks, and they are the reason why this man epitomizes for me the best that the legal profession has to offer. If every lawyer would only emulate the reasonableness and wisdom of Senator Sarbanes, the country's legal profession would be held in much higher esteem than it is today! Mr. President, I am sure I speak for all my colleagues when I wish my esteemed colleague Senator Sarbanes the happiest of birthdays. The words of Senator Sarbanes' classical forebear, Aristophanes, seem particularly appropriate today: ``Blest the man who possesses a keen intelligent mind.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the very distinguished Senator from Illinois. He is an extremely able Senator and he is focused on the betterment of the country and always with the interests of the people of his State uppermost in mind. I am glad to serve with him.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, there is an urgent necessity for the Senate to turn immediately to the consideration of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1997, ISTEA. That is the highway bill. That bill was reported unanimously by the Environmental and Public Works Committee on October 1, 1997. However, due to our inability to enact a comprehensive 6-year ISTEA reauthorization bill at the close of the last session, our State highway departments and transit providers are currently operating under a short-term extension bill that provides roughly one-half year of funding which is needed for our Federal highway construction, our highway safety, and our transit programs. That short-term extension bill, Public Law 105-130, signed by the President on December 1, 1997, includes the following text, and I hope that Senators will listen carefully: A State shall not obligate any funds for any Federal aid highway program project after May 1, 1998. Let me repeat this provision that was in the law enacted and signed by the President on December 1 of 1997. Listen to these words: ``A State,'' that is my State, the State of the distinguished Senator who presides so efficiently over this Senate, that is the State of each of 99 other Members, ``A State shall not obligate any funds for any Federal aid highway program project after May 1, 1998.'' That is just 42 legislative working days away--42 days. I want to take a moment to explore the practical impact of that sentence. That sentence means that on May 1 of this year, just 87 days from today, with just 42 legislative calendar days--session days, we might say--away, our State highway departments and our transit providers across the Nation will be prohibited, by law, from spending any Federal highway or transit trust fund dollars. This provision does not apply just to the funding that was part of the short-term extension bill; it applies, equally, to any other unobligated funds that States may have left in their accounts for highway or transit projects currently in progress. Mr. President, this provision, prohibiting the obligation of highway or transit funds after May 1, is a doomsday provision. It is a provision that says, beginning 3 months from this past Sunday, all 50 States in the union will begin to hit the same brick wall and feel the same pain--the pain of a Federal highway program coming to a halt, the pain of workers being put on the unemployment line, the pain of urban mass transit projects stopping in midstream, the pain of gravel quarries shutting down, the pain of construction equipment manufacturers closing their doors, the pain of our citizens sitting in ever-worsening traffic jams due to the inability to progress on desperately needed projects, the pain of unnecessary accidents and deaths on our highways--all of these because those roads cannot be brought up to modern safe standards. Make no mistake about it, May Day, May the 1st, May Day, will certainly elicit a cry for help from our States and our people. You will hear the Governors, you will hear the mayors then, you will hear the highway agencies then, from all over this country. Mr. President, when the Congress put that doomsday provision into law, we did so at a time when the Senate majority leader was telling the Senate that we would turn to a comprehensive 6-year ISTEA reauthorization bill as our first order of business early in the second session of the 105th Congress. Back in November we knew that, if we took up the ISTEA bill at the end of January, we would have sufficient time between then and May 1 to move an ISTEA bill and go to conference with the House and present a completed bill to the President for his signature. It was an ambitious schedule, but it was achievable. Mr. President, today, that picture appears to have radically changed, and it does not appear that we will be taking up the highway bill any time soon. I say this from the inferences that I draw from newspaper reports and the reports that I receive by word of mouth and various other communications, electronic and so on. There are exceedingly few legislative days available to us prior to May 1, as I have already indicated, about 42 session days. I am not counting Saturdays and Sundays. These are session days. Although the priorities of the Senate leadership may have changed regarding debating ISTEA, the doomsday date of May 1 remains in the law. While it may be the desire of the Senate leadership to debate a budget resolution prior to the consideration of ISTEA, let's realistically face what that means. While the law requires that the Senate pass a budget resolution by April 15, the fact is that we miss that deadline far more often than we meet it. And if we just listen to the statements that have been made in the last few days regarding the President's budget, it is apparent that the debate over the substance and the direction of the budget resolution promises to be a long and contentious one. So what is the real possibility of our enacting a comprehensive 6- year ISTEA reauthorization bill prior to May 1, if we do not turn to it immediately? Not good, at best. Mr. President, some observers have looked at the calendar and concluded that the Senate, along with the House, will just have to pass another short-term ISTEA authorization bill. Well, Mr. President, I am not a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. But, I am told by both the chairman and ranking member of that committee's Surface Transportation Subcommittee that the chances are very slight, indeed, that we will be successful in, again, passing a short-term ISTEA extension bill. Over 200 amendments were filed to S. 1173, when it was brought before the Senate last fall. Several Members are anxious to offer their amendments. Punxsutawney Phil, the groundhog, has seen his shadow, but we here in the Congress cannot seem to see the handwriting on the wall. I again urge the leadership to bring forward and take up the ISTEA bill now and let the Senate get on with debating and voting on the many amendments that have been filed in connection with this bill. There is simply no other way that we can hope to complete action on this critical legislation prior to the May 1 drop dead date that presently is hanging over the heads of all of us like Damocles' sword. All of us are responsible for ensuring that the Nation's highway programs continue without undue interruption and uncertainty. The time for dithering and delaying is over. We need to keep our commitment to the States and to our people and act now to avoid this doomsday scenario. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the provisions of ISTEA, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, expired on September 30, 1997. The Senate took up the ISTEA reauthorization bill on October 8, 1997, but between that date and October 29, the Senate was unable to adopt even one substantive amendment due to the impasse over Senate consideration of campaign finance reform legislation. As a consequence, the six-year ISTEA Bill was taken down and returned to the calendar. Finally, on November 10, the Senate passed a short-term extension of our existing highway and transit programs, thus delaying the completion of Senate action on our nation's surface transportation policy until the second session of the 105th Congress, the first week of which has now passed into history. Despite the stated intentions last November of the distinguished Majority Leader to take up the ISTEA reauthorization bill, S. 1173, at the beginning of this session, the bill has not been taken up, it is not before the Senate, and we are still operating on the short-term extension. With each passing day, I am increasingly concerned that the Senate may not return to the ISTEA reauthorization bill until after action is completed on the fiscal year 1999 budget resolution, which may not occur until late spring. I supported the enactment of the short-term extension bill back in November, but, as I said then, it was only a stopgap measure, and it provided only for one-half year of funding for our existing highway program, the highway safety programs, and the transit programs. Meanwhile, the various highway departments in the 50 states cannot establish a budget for the current fiscal year because they do not know the final level of federal resources they will receive even for this fiscal year which ends on September 30. The short-term extension bill will expire at the end of March, when the advent of spring will have made its appearance. Whether a new short-term extension of our highway programs will occur by the end of March is highly questionable. Meantime, how can the Governors and the highway departments of 50 states plan for the construction season that will soon be opening throughout the country? It is a classic case of dawdling and indecision in Washington which is throwing our states into highway planning and budget limbo! Dante, the author of ``The Divine Comedy'', in Canto IV, described Limbo, as the ``first circle of Hell.'' This, it seems to me, is a very apt description of the situation in which the Governors and heads of highway departments throughout the states now find themselves as they attempt to budget and plan for the upcoming construction season, and their situation may very well become worse than hell as, more and more, they find themselves unable to do any long-term budgeting and planning in respect to highway construction. They cannot develop and implement any long-term financing plan because they do not know the level of federal resources that will be available to them over the five years following the current fiscal year. This is an impossible situation for our state highway departments. Given the costs and the duration of major highway projects, and the complexities associated with short construction seasons in our cold weather states, planning and predictability are essential to the logical functioning of our Federal-Aid Highway program. That kind of rational planning is precisely what our states cannot do at this time because of the inaction of Congress regarding the highway bill. This is not how our state and local transportation agencies should have to do business. It is, nonetheless, the precise circumstance in which our transportation agencies are being placed due to the failure of Congress to enact a multiyear ISTEA reauthorization bill in a timely manner. It is not only unreasonable, it is also very unfair, for Congress-- because of inaction--to place this burden upon the Governors, the Mayors, and the highway agencies throughout the country. Plainly speaking, Congress is shirking its responsibility! Meantime, while Congress sits on its hands, Americans who buy gasoline are continuing to pay a 4.3 cents-per-gallon gas tax every time they drive up to the pump. That gas tax previously went to deficit reduction, but it is now being deposited in the highway trust fund, and Congress should pass legislation to authorize that it be spent on our nation's considerable highway needs. The money from these gas taxes is accumulating in the highway trust fund, but Congress has passed no legislation authorizing it to be spent for surface transportation needs. The American people have been told by the Congress that monies in the highway trust fund would be spent for highways and other surface transportation needs. And as long as Congress fails to live up to its commitment the American people are being misled. As long as Congress fails to live up to its commitment, the American people are being duped into believing that the gas taxes in the highway trust fund will be spent on highway construction and other transportation needs, but Congress, meanwhile, dillydallies, sits on its hands, and lets these tax revenues build up in the highway trust fund. It amounts to an abuse of the trust which the American people have placed in us. Meanwhile, the potholes deepen, the asphalt chasms open wider, and danger stalks our nation's highways. By the end of this fiscal year, more than seven billion dollars in additional new revenues will have been deposited into the highway trust fund, not one penny of which is, as of this moment, authorized to be spent on highway construction and other surface transportation needs under the committee reported ISTEA bill. Instead, these funds will continue to sit in the highway trust fund, earning interest, and being used as an offset to the federal deficits-- if, indeed, they are not siphoned off, in the meantime, and used for purposes other than highway and other surface transportation needs. The time to act on the highway bill is now! The first week of the second session has gone with the wind. We are now into the second week. The clock is ticking and the calendar is running. The highway construction seasons will soon be upon us, and yet, as of this moment, there is no indication that Congress will return to the highway bill. I hope that the Governors, who will soon be meeting in the Nation's Capital, will contact the leadership in both Houses and request that the highway bill be taken up immediately. I hope that the Mayors and the state highway departments will do the same. The first day of spring is only seven weeks away, and Congress must begin promptly to debate the highway bill in both houses if we are even to hope that the bill can be enacted by the time that ``the lark's on the wing'' and ``the snail's on the thorn.'' It should be done. But it can be done only if the leadership will bring up the bill. I respectfully urge the Senate leadership to do that promptly. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have an order at this time, is that correct?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on January 25, 1998, this past Sunday, the President of Georgia, Eduard Shevardnadze, celebrated his 70th birthday. President Shevardnadze is one of the central international political figures of our age, and has been pivotal in the transformation of the communist Soviet empire into a group of nation states which have now embraced the goals of individual freedom, democratic processes, and free market economics. It is noteworthy that this transformation, the dismantling of an empire with large intelligence and military forces, and with a history of inbred hostility toward the West, occurred absent any violent confrontation with the United States, or our European allies. Much of the credit for this peaceful transformation, the ending of the Berlin Wall and the cooperation between the Soviet leadership and the United States on major arms control and reduction agreements, rightfully belongs to the enlightened and forceful personality of Mr. Shevardnadze. His role emphasizes the crucial part played by personalities in the shaping of the major events of human history. He serves as an example that history is shaped to a large extent by individual men, rather than by social movements or economic imperatives. For instance, Russian cooperation with the United States in working to condemn, and then oust, Saddam Hussein's forces from their occupation of Kuwait was to a large extent due to the courageous support of Mr. Shevardnadze in the face of opposition from forces in Russia which wanted to preserve a historic Russian-Iraqi alliance. His help in establishing a cooperative relationship with the United States regarding the invasion of Iraq actually forced Gorbachev's hand and trumped the Soviet security bureaucracies. It has been well documented that Shevardnadze quickly shed the negative approach to East-West relations that was the hallmark of former Russian Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko when Shevardnadze took over the Foreign Ministry of the Soviet Union in 1985. Both former Secretaries of States George Shultz and James Baker have written extensively about Shevardnadze and praised his many contributions to the ending of the cold war. As a former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union, Jack Matlock, has written in the September 25, 1997, issue of the ``New York Review of Books,'' ``If Gorbachev had been served by a less imaginative and courageous foreign minister it is doubtful that the cold war could have been ended as rapidly and definitively as it was.'' Shevardnadze served as Soviet Foreign Minister from 1985-1991, and presided over the rapid transformation of East-West relations and the end of the cold war. It was, as I have said, an extraordinary era in which we have all been fortunate to participate in and to witness. In 1991, Eduard Shevardnadze resigned as Soviet Foreign Minister in protest over what he perceived as the coming of a military dictatorship in Russia, and he returned to his native Georgia. Georgia was in an advanced state of shambles, with the economy devastated following the breakup of the Soviet Union. The country was in a state of ruinous civil war. Shevardnadze entered political life there, and was elected president of Georgia in November 1995, with over 70 percent of the vote. Currently, he also serves as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces of Georgia, and has brought new hope, stability, and economic development to that nation. A new constitution has been adopted, and Shevardnadze has secured the transportation of Caspian oil through Georgia and negotiated a number of agreements with both Russia and the neighboring Caucasus states. As the current ambassador of Georgia to the U.S., the Honorable Tedo Japaridze, has written to me regarding President Shevardnadze's goals, ``he is committed to build democracy in Georgia, brick by brick.'' Eduard Shevardnadze is a man who has made a difference in our age, and he will continue to make a difference. He has many admirers in the United States, including myself, and I wish him well on the event of his 70th birthday. I yield the floor. Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on yesterday, Wednesday, January 28, the Governor of the State of West Virginia, Cecil H. Underwood, appeared before the Interior Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee to testify about the significance of energy and research development. I ask unanimous consent that the text of Governor Underwood's remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I could deliver a very appropriate encomium. I could say many appropriate things with respect to the ability of the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania. He is a great friend of mine. I have tremendous respect for his knowledge in the field of law, and I always listen when he speaks. I thank him for his very kind and overly charitable remarks.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the United States completed a major round of international global climate change negotiations at Kyoto, Japan, on December 11, 1997. Senators and staff members from the Senate Monitoring Group, created by the Senate leadership in accord with the recommendation in Senate Resolution 98, adopted last July 25, 1997, were included on the U.S. delegation. The Senate was well represented at the talks. The chairman of the Monitoring Group, Senator Chuck Hagel, as well as Senators John Kerry, John Chafee, Joe Lieberman, Max Baucus, and Mike Enzi, dedicated considerable time and effort there to understand the issues being debated and to engage our negotiators on those issues. They have reported mixed results at the negotiations. The U.S., together with the other 39 industrialized nations, agreed to specific, legally binding targets for emissions of six greenhouse gases. The United States agreed to a numerical target of reducing greenhouse gases by 7 percent below 1990 during a budget period between 2008 and 2012. According to the administration, this commitment is actually about a 3 percent reduction below the 1990 emissions level after other technical provisions of the protocol are included in the calculations. It should be noted, however, that the administration has not yet provided the economic analysis to demonstrate how their calculations result in a 3 percent reduction, rather than 7 percent. The rules of this U.N.-sponsored conference allow decisionmaking by consensus. Therefore, only those provisions not subject to major dispute were included in the final protocol, and one can say that the United States and all the other countries which approved the protocol arrived at in Kyoto did so without dissent and without taking actual votes on its provisions. Under these circumstances, it is understandable that in some cases only broad concepts could be included, with the devilish details deferred for later. There were a number of areas of achievement for the United States, and I commend the skill and persistence of our American negotiating team, led by Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat, for those successes. There were, however, some disappointing results, or even lack of results, and a number of important uncertainties that need to be resolved. My colleagues should understand that the negotiations at Kyoto are not perceived by the parties to be the end of the story--far from it. The next major meeting of the parties, so-called COP-4, will convene in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in November of this year, after the elections. In the interim, there will be one or two preliminary meetings, now scheduled to take place in Bonn, at which time, hopefully, further progress on the details of the general concepts agreed to at Kyoto, and on matters not yet resolved, might be made. I am far from satisfied with the results of the negotiations thus far, the goal of which is exceedingly ambitious for it is no less than to positively control man's impact on the Earth's climate. The dynamics of climate, the impact of man's influence on it, its timeframes and thresholds and danger points are still far from perfectly understood. It is still far from being perfectly understood. It is certainly understandable, then, that every goal sought was not totally achieved at Kyoto, and that further study and work are needed. Having said that, I believe that the consensus of most scientists who have examined the global warming issue, and certainly the large majority who have participated in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, have concluded that the balance of evidence suggests that human activities are indeed having a discernible and unfavorable impact on global climate systems. I accept the proposition that the potential for serious climate disruption is real and that the global community must respond at an appropriate pace in accordance with scientific evidence as it its developing. Now, Mr. President, I am not a scientist, of course, and I am not a physicist. But as Benjamin Franklin said at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, ``I have lived a long time.'' I am seeing some changes in the weather system, in the climatic system. It seems to me, very clearly, that the summers are hotter and the winters, at some points, certainly are warmer, and that floods more often occur, that storms ravage parts of our country more often. There seem to be more droughts, more disasters that strike our land. And so I just sense that something is going on out there. I don't need any scientific evidence to impress that feeling upon me. But what the scientific evidence suggests is that, should global warming occur, by the time we have absolute confirmation that our planet is warming, it might well be too late to take preventative action. For this reason, I have been concerned about the threat of global warming, and I believe that it might be prudent to undertake cost-effective measures to deal with the risk of climate change as a form of a global insurance policy. However, it will do no good for the United States to take such steps alone. The Byrd-Hagel resolution was adopted by the Senate by a vote of 95- 0. It was adopted unanimously by the Senators who voted, and there were 95 present. The results of the Kyoto talks did not satisfy--with reference to the Byrd-Hagel resolution--the two goals that were agreed upon, in the context of what I like to say was a unanimous Senate adoption of the Byrd-Hagel resolution. What were those two goals agreed upon in that resolution? I quote from the resolution: That it is the sense of the Senate that--(1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December, 1997, or thereafter, which would--(A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specified scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing country Parties within the same compliance Period, or (B) Would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States. Let's read that again. This is what the Byrd-Hagel resolution said, and it was agreed to by a vote of 95-0 here in the Senate. This is what it said insofar as the operative words are concerned: That it is the sense of the Senate that--(1) the United States should not be a signatory---- Should not add its name. to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December, 1997, or thereafter, which would--(A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specified scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing country Parties within the same compliance Period, or (B) Would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States. Mr. President, the Kyoto protocol did not meet either of these two Senate standards. Regarding Developing Country commitments, part A, the developing countries, the so-called Group of 77 plus China, steadfastly and adamantly refused to accept binding commitments such as were entered into by the developed countries, the industrialized countries, or Annex I countries, in the Kyoto protocol. China made her position clear, and it was an unambiguous ``no''! That was China's answer. ``No.'' The standard response from the developing world to our concerns is to argue that the industrialized nations should make all of the reductions, because of the developed world's historically high levels of greenhouse gas emissions. The developing world also points to our relative wealth, and to their relative poverty, in arguing that we should shoulder the entire financial and economic burden of all reductions. But this argument is environmentally, and economically unsound. First, as I have previously noted, the emissions of the developing world will surpass those of the industrialized world in about 2015. After that point, the growth in developing world emissions is projected to overtake any emissions reductions that the industrialized world might make. China, herself--and China said ``no'' at Kyoto--will become the largest emitter of CO2, carbon dioxide, in the world during the first half of the next century, surpassing the United States. Second, I am concerned about the emissions from the most advanced of the developing nations, countries like China, India, Brazil, Argentina and Mexico, who are experiencing explosive growth, and who are on their way to joining the club of industrialized countries. Even a marginal and even an incremental increase in the standard of living for every resident of China will result in a huge increase in greenhouse emissions. While no one wants to deny the benefits of economic growth and higher standards of living to anyone around the world, it is imperative that China's economic growth be coupled with the responsibility for its impact on the global environment. Cleaner economic expansion is possible and must be expected. And it is easier to begin development with an eye toward the environmental situation than it is to take corrective action later. If progress is to be made this year in reaching a truly global agreement, it will occur only when the developing world realizes that it is at risk from the adverse consequences of climate change at least as much as we are. Most studies indicate that these nations are, in fact, at greater risk--at greater risk--than the advanced countries. Since atmospheric warming is a global problem, without the responsible action by key developing countries, we will not have a global solution, and we will not solve the global problem. It makes little sense for the developed countries to penalize themselves for an outcome which will be unsuccessful. As I wrote to the President on December 15, 1997, binding commitments for developing nations should be paced according to the ability of each country to achieve greenhouse gas emission limitations appropriate to its national circumstances and economic growth. These limitations could be gradually implemented. Whether such commitments are in fact appropriate and represent best effort by each nation, will not be difficult to discern. As the saying goes, we will know it when we see it. For the moment, there is nothing to be seen from the developing nation quarter. So, it will be the task of the Administration to bring those key greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting nations into legally binding commitments during the same compliance period that has been agreed upon by the advanced nations, that is, the period 2008-2012. Mr. President, I also remain concerned about whether the agreement reached in Kyoto meets the second standard set by the Byrd-Hagel resolutions, S. Res. 98, namely, that its implementation would not result in serious harm to our economy. Since the impact of the agreement on the U.S. economy is not now clearly understood, we cannot rule out the likelihood of such damage. It is critical that our nation, and the Senate, understand the probable costs of these specific actions proposed to address global climate change, as well as the possible consequence of taking no action. What is the cost? What is the cost, if no action is taken? What is the cost if certain actions are taken? The administration has not yet presented a comprehensive economic analysis, sector by sector, regarding the impact of the Kyoto decision on our economy. Without such an assessment, understood in detail, the Kyoto agreement's impact on autos, on the coal industry, on steel, on aluminum, on cement, on the oil industry, on consumers, on builders, on people of varying income levels, there would be little sense in the Senate's even debating the protocol. The lack of satisfaction on either count of the S. Res. 98 standards--as I say, there are two of them--means the Kyoto protocol fall short, and there would be virtually no chance of securing the approval of two-thirds of the Senate were the President to decide to submit it for such approval. The President has already indicated his agreement with this assessment, and I believe that he agrees that the decisions of the conference are just the first part of an ongoing work in progress which will continue over 1998 and perhaps beyond, until a comprehensive, effective, and understandable agreement is reached that would be worthy of Senate consideration. On the positive side, the U.S. negotiating team deserves our commendation for sticking to certain central principles, which were incorporated into the protocol as agreed to in Kyoto. The negotiations were tough, grueling and long. Nonetheless, it was the United States, led by Under Secretary Eizenstat, that obtained agreement on many of our most important priorities, in direct contrast to the Europeans, who witnessed the rejection of almost all of their more draconian and economically harmful ideas. The U.S. won some victories. What were they? First, free market mechanisms, called Emissions Trading and Joint Implementation, pushed strongly by the United States, were agreed to after difficult debate. This was a substantial American victory. The purpose of these mechanisms is to allow advanced nations and their industries to satisfy their requirement for emissions limitations by sharing, buying and selling credits internationally, and to fulfill part of their obligations by assisting developing nations in developing cleaner technologies and conservation. These mechanisms are based on the environmental reality that cutting greenhouse gases anywhere on earth reduces the global concentration of greenhouse gases virtually everywhere on our planet. It therefore makes economic sense to reduce those emissions wherever it is most cost effective to do so. Emissions trading will allow the industrialized nations to buy and sell credits that will be created by the most cost effective reductions of greenhouse gases. Through emissions trading, industrialized nations may transfer to, or acquire from, another country party emission reduction credits resulting from projects aimed at reducing greenhouse gases for the purpose of meeting its commitments under the treaty. A further mechanism, called joint implementation, or the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), was included, at the urging of the U.S. negotiating team, by which industrialized countries can earn credits by contributing financially to projects in developing countries. These projects would involve industries and utilities in the developing world that are far less efficient than ours, and that create more pollution. By helping to bring polluting plants up to U.S. standards, industries can earn credits while sharing our pollution-reduction technologies and production processes. We can maximize our ``bang for the buck,'' by reducing greenhouse gases to a far greater degree than it would be possible in the U.S. alone, and earn credits for doing so, which would partially offset the cost of our reductions at home. While we can applaud the inclusion of these market mechanisms in the Kyoto protocol, we do not yet know how they will work, to what extent they will be overlaid by bureaucracies with their own agendas. We should want the maximum freedom of action for American companies to make arrangements with foreign partners without an overbearing presence and pressure by international bureaucrats or bodies, because the role and rules of the game for private companies are central to the viability of any trading scheme. The robust development of market mechanisms that are flexible and give maximum freedom of choice and action by American industry is important. They will be needed if the United States can even hope to meet the emissions reductions targets it has agreed to at Kyoto. Based on projections of the growth of emissions using current technologies and processes, the United States, in order to meet these goals, would have to reduce our overall GHG emissions more than 30 percent below where they would otherwise be in the 2008- 2012 commitment period. Reducing projected emissions by a national figure of one-third does not seem plausible without a robust emissions trading and joint implementation framework. The rules as to how these mechanisms will work will be the subject of negotiation, and American industry, the environmental community, and the Senate will be intensely interested in how they are developed. Because these market mechanisms could lower the cost of compliance with a treaty, I encourage the Administration to solicit the opinions and support of the business and environmental communities in this regard. Our business community is uniquely qualified to comment on this subject, and it is in the economic self interest of U.S. industry to assist in the creation of strong, robust, and flexible rules for emissions trading and joint implementation in order to lower the cost of implementing any climate change treaty which might be submitted to the Senate. Indeed, I hope that the Administration will provide its own concept of how these mechanisms should be implemented as soon as possible, so that support for this crucial set of procedures and rules can be developed. There is also some controversy as to whether forest conservation projects will be allowed under the rules on these mechanisms. That is, for example, if an American company helps to preserve endangered forests or other natural carbon sinks in a developing country, it could earn credit for that activity. And I support that concept, but it was controversial in Kyoto. Senators need to hear from the Administration regarding whether such conservation projects will be included, or whether further negotiations are needed to include them. A second major achievement by the American negotiating team in Kyoto was the inclusion of a provision allowing the purchase of emissions allowances from Russia, which will assist in lowering the cost of U.S. compliance to a protocol. This allowance is partly the result of the substantial downturn of the Russian economy in recent years. While this provision has been criticized as a kind of windfall, it is no different from a similar mechanism that has been insisted upon by the European Union, that is, the creation of a so-called European bubble, which allows all of Europe to reap the benefits of emissions reductions as the East German economy is modernized, and, in the United Kingdom, as the north sea gas fields came on line to supplant coal fired utilities. The first budget period in the Kyoto agreement covers the years 2008- 2012. This was strongly opposed by the European Union and the developing world as being too weak, despite the fact that anything less would severely harm not only the U.S. economy, but also that of the Europeans. The 2008- 2012 decision allows more time for smoother transitions by U.S. industry to the requirements included in the Kyoto protocol. Decisions of the parties to the conference about protections for emissions originating from national security activities--such as U.S. bases abroad or U.S. forces on deployment, and U.S. forces in joint and multilateral task forces--were included in the discussion. As this is a matter of concern to many Senators, I shall ask later that an article from the January 1, 1998, Washington Post which elaborates on this point be included in the Record. I point out that no other negotiating team, from any other country, even included representatives from its defense ministries to Kyoto. Only the United States did this. Thus, our national security operations appear to have been protected in the accord. The U.S. negotiating team was able to have included all six greenhouse gases, including three synthetic substitutes for ozone- depleting CFC's, which, while small in total volume, nonetheless have a significantly higher capability to trap heat, and over time will become more significant. There was strong resistance on the part of some nations to the inclusion of these three gases because of their utility in high technology, but the U.S. position prevailed in this matter as well, with the assent of significantly affected U.S. industries. Despite these successes, there were, as I have indicated, some shortfalls. First, despite the best efforts of Ambassador Eizenstat and his very competent team, the United States was not able to get agreement on the Administration's goal of reducing U.S. emissions to the 1990 level. This was the overall target announced by President Clinton when he unveiled his policy toward the talks last October. The Europeans insisted upon a reduction of 15 percent below 1990 levels, and the developing world wanted an eventual reduction of 30 percent below 1990. The final agreement includes a reduction target of 7 percent below 1990 for three greenhouse gases, and 7 percent below 1995 for the other three gases. In addition, a more generous definition of carbon sinks was included. The Administration calculates that the change to a 1995 baseline for three synthetic greenhouse gases, coupled with the inclusion of additional potential carbon sinks, results in an actual reduction target for the United States of approximately 3 percent below 1990 levels. This agreement, I note, should be viewed in the context of the broader negotiations. While the U.S. did not achieve its original goal of a flat reduction to 1990 levels, the final agreement of approximately 3 percent is a far cry from the 15 percent reduction demanded by the Europeans. However, I have not yet seen any firm analysis as to how the Administration computed its estimate of a 3 percent reduction once the 1995 baseline for 3 gases is included, and the more generous definitions of sinks. I still have not seen any hard numbers on how this estimate was calculated, or what the estimated impact of this reduction target would be on the U.S. economy. So, the target cannot be evaluated as good, bad, or otherwise. The Senate will just have to withhold judgment. I hope that the economic case will be presented in detail at hearings that I know the committees of jurisdiction will be holding over the next few months. Good, sound answers are needed. The American people deserve to know what changes, if any, in their life styles will be required to meet the Kyoto commitments; what sacrifices, if any, will have to be made; what new technologies will need to be developed and put into place; what shifts in our national fuel mix would be contemplated; and many other questions dealing with national implementation of such commitments. The details on the market mechanisms have not been worked out, and so we need to create the details of a regime for trading, technology transfer, and mutually-agreed-upon projects across the globe. How will such schemes evolve? Third, the protocol leaves to the future such vital issues as compliance, monitoring, and enforcement measures. For a binding international system to be effective, it is elementary that it be fair and enforceable. Americans take their commitments seriously, and abide by their promises, but the same cannot always be said for all other parties. Therefore, a system of effective procedures that monitors the compliance of all parties with their obligations; and effective enforcement, presumably with some form of penalty system for compliance, are clearly required. The emissions trading credit system will be denominated in dollars, and the potential for fraud must be reduced to minimal levels for the system to work. Fourth, the scientific community needs to conduct even more research into climate change. There are many unanswered questions as to the rate and effects of climate change. We do not yet know, for instance, the role of clouds, which seems to me to be rather fundamental. We do not know whether climate changes will be gradual or abrupt. It is now up to the Administration to roll up its sleeves and map the road from here. First, the details of the concepts agreed to at Kyoto must be developed in close cooperation with the industrial and environmental and consumer groups that are affected. Second, a program is needed to demonstrate how the implementation of commitments we agreed to in Kyoto would be achieved, and what the effects throughout our economy may be. As part of that program, the Administration is expected to propose a range of tax incentives and research and development projects. I note that some of this R & D has already been completed, namely in the area of clean coal technology. Fifty percent of the power generated in this country comes from coal-fired boilers, and coal will continue as a significant factor in our energy mix for years to come. As a result of programs that I have actively supported for the last decade, a wide range of clean coal technologies has been developed that result in the more efficient burning of coal--which directly reduces carbon dioxide emissions. I note that these R & D projects were fifty percent cost- shared by industry. While this technology has been tested in some pilot projects, it continues to be expensive to install on a small scale. Only its widespread implementation will lower the per-unit cost of manufacturing and installing such clean coal units. I have had many conversations with representatives of the coal and utility industry about various approaches that could be used to encourage the construction of clean coal units, as well as the need to continue research and development. I urge the Administration to also discuss these issues with coal-fired utilities, and to support a variety of such initiatives. We should also be concerned about the huge number of coal-fired power plants that China is projected to build during the next two decades, and we should consider initiatives to encourage China and the other big emitters to use only the most efficient and effective clean coal technology. Mr. President, the canvas that was created at Kyoto is only partly painted in. It is a work in progress, and there is ample time to do the job right. I hope that the President will not sign his name to the protocol at this point. There is plenty of time to do that over the next year. Let us wait and see what the next November meeting will produce and what can be accomplished in the meantime. I am concerned that if the President signs this protocol at this point, it will compromise his flexibility in dealing with the developing countries over the next year. There is plenty of time to sign. The developing countries might misinterpret the signature of the President on the protocol at this time. They may think: ``Oh, you see, he has talked tough, but he is signing his name.'' And they may be induced thereby to hold out and to more stubbornly resist, more stubbornly resist taking actions and committing themselves to join with developed countries in a specific regime to provide a global solution. I have outlined what I think are the commendable series of achievements by our negotiators in the face of rather hostile negotiating partners from both the developing world and the European Union. Much remains to be done. The goal of the negotiations is the most challenging ever conceived and undertaken in the international environmental area. The glass may not be even half full, but the forum for filling it with the most palatable liquid we can fashion is available throughout this year and beyond that, if we have but the tenacity and the imagination and the will to persevere. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Washington Post article and my December 16, 1997 letter to President Clinton be printed in the Record.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from North Dakota. And I thank the Chair. Mr. President, on several occasions during the last session of Congress, I took to the Senate floor to discuss the importance of reauthorizing the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, or ISTEA. I shared my observation that this effort to renew our Nation's highway, highway safety and transit programs would be one of the most important, if not the most important, legislative accomplishment of the first session of the 105th Congress. As all Senators are aware, the provisions of ISTEA expired on September 30 of last year 1997. This meant that, absent enactment of new authorization legislation, many important highway, bridge, and transit projects would grind to a halt. Unfortunately, the Senate did not turn to the critically important ISTEA reauthorization bill until October 8 of last year. Between that date and October 29, 1997, the Senate was unable to adopt even one substantive amendment due to the impasse over Senate consideration of campaign finance reform legislation. The parliamentary amendment tree was filled. And it was impossible to get an amendment in which I and other cosponsors of the amendment wanted to have brought before the Senate. The Senate failed to invoke cloture four times on the ISTEA bill. In the end, notwithstanding the fact that a unanimous consent agreement was reached on the campaign finance issue, the 6-year ISTEA bill was pulled from the floor. Finally, on November 10, the Senate debated and passed a short-term extension of our existing highway and transit programs, effectively putting off completion of Senate action on our Nation's surface transportation policy for the next 6 years until the second session of the 105th Congress. Now, despite the stated intentions of the Senate leadership to take up the ISTEA reauthorization bill, S. 1173, during the first week of the second session of this Congress, I am very concerned that the Senate may not return to the ISTEA reauthorization bill until after completion of the fiscal year 1999 budget resolution in late spring. Mr. President, the onus is now upon us to return to the full 6-year transportation authorization bill and complete our work as soon as possible. While I supported the enactment of the short-term extension bill back in November, I remind my colleagues that it was only a stopgap measure providing only about one-half year of funding for our existing highway, highway safety, and transit programs. As of this date, our State highway departments and our mass transit systems cannot establish a budget for the current fiscal year because they do not know the final level of Federal resources that they will receive for this year. Morever, they cannot develop or implement any long-term financing plans because they do not know the level of Federal resources that will be available to them over the next 5 years. This is an impossible situation for our State highway departments. Given the cost and duration of major highway projects and the complexities associated with short construction seasons in our cold weather States, planning and predictability are essential to the logical functioning of our Federal- Aid Highway program. But that kind of rational planning is precisely what our States cannot do at this time because of our inaction. This is not how our State and local transportation agencies should have to do business. Certainly, no corporation could long survive doing business in this fashion. It is, nonetheless, the circumstances that we have placed upon our transportation agencies, due to our failure to enact a multi-year ISTEA reauthorization bill in a timely manner. Members will recall that, prior to S. 1173, the ISTEA bill's being pulled from the floor, I, along with Senator Gramm of Texas, and the chairman and ranking member of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee, Senators Warner and Baucus, filed an amendment numbered 1397. Our amendment embodies the simple premise that the 4.3 cents-per-gallon gas tax, which previously went to deficit reduction, but which is now being deposited in the Highway Trust Fund, should be authorized to better address our Nation's considerable highway needs. The amendment has two principal objectives. First, to put an authorization in place that allows for a substantial increase in highway spending in order to stem the continuing deterioration of our National Highway System. And second, to fulfill the trust of the American people, the people out there who pay these gas taxes every time they drive up to the gas pump believing that these funds will be used to maintain and improve our national transportation system. That was the position of Senators Gramm, Baucus, Warner, and myself back in October when we brought forth our amendment, and that is our position today. Our amendment, which now has 49 co-sponsors, provides for the authorization of highway spending levels over the next 5 years consistent with the revenues derived from this 4.3 cents gas tax-- roughly $31 billion over the 5 years 1999-2003. By the way, we have 49 cosponsors on that amendment. But several other Senators have assured us that they will vote for the amendment even though they were not interested in cosponsoring it for one reason or another. They will vote for it. They will be supportive of it if it will be brought up for a vote. Nothing has changed since October regarding the resolve of Senators Gramm, Warner, Baucus, and myself to see this amendment adopted. However, other things have changed since the amendment was introduced. We are now well into fiscal year 1998 and the 4.3-cents gas tax is being deposited--where?--into the highway trust fund. By the end of this fiscal year, more than $7 billion--with a big ``B''--$7 billion in additional new revenue will be deposited into the Highway Trust Fund, not one penny--not one penny--of which is authorized to be spent under the committee-reported ISTEA bill. Instead, these funds will be allowed to sit in the highway trust fund, earning interest, and being used as an offset to the Federal deficit for the next 6 years. In other words, if we adopt the levels authorized in the committee-reported bill, as Senators Domenici and Chafee--both of whom I have the greatest respect for--would have us do, we will have accomplished nothing--nothing at all--toward improving our National Highway System. Instead, we will have just enacted legislation to actually prevent using this 4.3 cents gas tax for highways. What the committee-reported bill does, then, without the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment, is ignore the availability of this new trust fund revenue for the entire upcoming 6 years. Not one red cent will be authorized for expenditure if we accept the committee bill, as reported. This means that by the end of 2003, the highway trust fund balances will have grown to roughly $72 billion! In other words, some $72 billion will be sitting there in the highway trust fund as government IOUs collecting interest and being used to lower the Federal deficit instead of for highways as we, the Members of Congress, have told the American people it would be. I cannot imagine a more perverse scam on the American people. Well, one may say, we need to balance the Federal budget and we cannot do it if we let these highway monies be spent. Not true. Not true, Senators. The resources were available back in October to finance the levels of highway spending embodied in the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner amendment. And today, it appears that there are even more resources available to provide for a healthy increase in infrastructure spending, without busting the budget. When one reviews the conditions of our Nation's highways and bridges and the current inadequate levels of investment-- which would continue for the next 6 years under the committee-reported bill--one must come, as I do, to the conclusion that it would be irresponsible to do any less. Mr. President, our national highway system is America's lifeline, not just for rural areas, but for all of our Nation's cities--even those that make extensive use of mass transit and rail systems. Our major highways carry nearly 80 percent of U.S. interstate commercial traffic, and nearly 80 percent of intercity passenger and tourist traffic. Even though our Nation has among the most extensive and efficient rail and aviation systems in the world, eight out of every ten tons of interstate cargo still travel over our highways. And eight out of every ten of our constituents travel between States over highways. In regard to intrastate traffic, Americans take 91 percent of all work trips and 87 percent of all trips in a car or truck. Like it or not, we are a Nation on wheels. Yet, despite the indispensable role our highway system plays in modern American life, we have, as a Nation, been negligent--let us confess it--we have been negligent in its upkeep. We have allowed the system to fall into a woeful state of disrepair while the unspent balances of the Highway Trust Fund have continued to climb. According to the most recent report by the U.S. Department of Transportation regarding the conditions and performance of our National Highway System, only 39 percent of our National Highway System is rated in good condition. Fully 61 percent of our Nation's highways are rated in either fair or poor condition. For our interstate system, which is the crown jewel of our National Highway System, fully 50 percent of the mileage is rated in fair or poor condition. And these figures only worsen when we look at our other major Federal and State highways. In our urban areas, fully 65 percent of our non-interstate highway mileage is rated as being in fair or poor condition. There are literally over a quarter-of-a-billion miles of pavement in the United States that are in poor or mediocre condition, and there are almost 95,000 bridges in our country that have been deemed to be deficient. Within that total, roughly 44,000 bridges have been deemed to be structurally deficient, meaning that they need significant maintenance, rehabilitation or replacement. Many of these bridges require load posting, requiring heavier trucks to take longer, alternate routes. And an additional 51,000 bridges have been deemed to be functionally deficient, meaning that they do not have the lane widths, shoulder widths, or vertical clearances sufficient to serve the traffic demand. Paradoxically, as our roads continue to deteriorate, our Nation's dependence on those roads continues to grow. Highway use is on the rise. The number of vehicle miles traveled grew by roughly 40 percent over the last decade to an astronomical rate of 2.3 trillion. Within that total, the rate of traffic growth on our rural interstates grew by an even higher rate. And these levels of growth show no sign of abating. Since 1969, the number of trips per person taken over our roadways increased by more than 72 percent and the number of miles traveled increased by more than 65 percent. This combination of traffic growth and deteriorating conditions has led to an unprecedented level of congestion, not just in our urban centers but also in our suburbs and rural areas. Congestion is literally choking our roadways as our constituents seek to travel to work, to the shopping center, to the child care center, to their houses of worship. Mr. President, the traveling public is waiting for us--for us--to take up and pass a comprehensive ISTEA bill that truly addresses the needs of our surface transportation system. We should take up that legislation at the earliest possible time. And when we do, I hope all of my colleagues will join Senator Gramm, Senator Baucus, Senator Warner and me, in supporting our amendment to re-invest in America's lifeline--our amendment to restore the trust of the American people in the Highway Trust Fund--our amendment to authorize the spending of our Highway Trust Fund resources where they are so desperately needed: On our Nation's highways.

Mr. BYRD. Let me thank my friend for his courtesy and kindness in yielding this time to me, but more than that for his leadership that he is demonstrating on this floor. This is quite characteristic of him. Let me also say that my colleague, Senator Rockefeller, likewise, is ready to speak. I shall wait, I shall sit, and I shall listen.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I fully support the efforts of the chairman, and I congratulate him for the proposal that he has just described which, if adopted, makes it possible to greatly shorten the process of completion of the remaining appropriation bills. The pending amendment contains the committee's recommendations for the remaining three Fiscal Year 1998 appropriation bills, namely, the Commerce/Justice/State, District of Columbia, and Foreign Operations Appropriation Bills. As Members are aware, the Commerce/Justice/State and Foreign Operations Appropriation Bills were passed by the Senate in July of this year and have been in conference with the House. For those two bills, the committee's recommendations include, to a large extent, the agreements reached by the House and Senate conferees. There are, however, certain issues upon which the conferees were unable to reach agreement. For those particular issues, the committee has recommended proposals which we hope will be acceptable to the Senate and, if so, which the House can then accept. The chairman and ranking member of the Commerce/Justice/State Subcommittee, Senators Gregg and Hollings, and the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, Senators McConnell and Leahy, will make statements regarding their portions of the pending amendment. These very capable chairmen and ranking members have worked tirelessly for months on their respective bills, and they are to be commended by the Senate for their efforts. For the District of Columbia, as Senators are aware, the Senate has not yet passed the Fiscal Year 1998 appropriation bill. Here again, there are a number of issues which, up to this point, have been unresolved. I am certain that the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Faircloth, and the equally able ranking member, Senator Boxer, will explain in some detail the D.C. portion of the pending amendment and will be prepared to answer any inquiries which Senators may have. Mr. President, hopefully we are nearing the conclusion of the Fiscal Year 1998 appropriations process. As I have stated, the pending substitute, if enacted, will complete action on the remaining three appropriation bills. Like last year, this has been a very difficult year for the Appropriation Committees. These difficulties, however, like in other recent years, are due largely to attempts to attach controversial legislative riders to appropriation bills. The delays in enacting the remaining appropriation bills are in no way attributable to the chairman or other members of the Appropriations Committee. In his first year as chairman of the committee, Senator Stevens has carried out his responsibilities in an outstanding manner. At every step of the process, from the first meeting of the committee this year and throughout all of the hearings and markup sessions that he has chaired, he has shown not only great expertise and skill as it relates to all appropriation matters, but, just as importantly and, perhaps more so, my distinguished friend and colleague from Alaska, Senator Stevens, has unerringly displayed great patience and bipartisanship on every occasion throughout this, his first year as chairman of the committee. I know that he would have preferred, as I would, to have the thirteen appropriation bills separately adopted and signed into law. But at this late date, I support the chairman's decision and commend him for bringing this proposal to the Senate that, if agreed to, will enable us to complete action on the remaining bills expeditiously. It may well be that the House will be unable to agree with every recommendation made in the pending substitute. If that is the case, the House may wish to ask for a conference with the Senate on the matter; or, the House could simply amend the Senate amendment and send the bill back to the Senate without the need for a conference. My point is, that even with the adoption of this proposal, we are not out of the woods. Further action may be required by the Senate. But, I am convinced that if we proceed in the regular manner and continued separate conferences on the Commerce/Justice/State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Bills, and separately complete action in the Senate on the District of Columbia Appropriation Bills, and then conference with the House on it, we may be in for several more weeks of controversy on these outstanding issues on the remaining appropriation bills. Furthermore, there is no assurance that these separate conferences would ever be able to overcome the impasses which have developed and mired them down. Mr. President, I want the Record to show that if given the opportunity to vote on these three appropriation bills separately, I would have voted against passage of the conference report on the Fiscal Year 1998 Foreign Operations Appropriation Bill. At a time when we are under continuing severe budgetary constraints on discretionary spending for our nation's infrastructure--its highways and bridges, water and sewage treatment projects, education and other national priorities--I am opposed to providing appropriations for foreign countries at the same or increasing levels year after year. For example, in my view, the $3 billion payment to Israel and $2 billion payment to Egypt should be reduced under the circumstances facing the nation. Even though we are achieving reductions in the Federal budget deficit, we nevertheless still have a Federal debt exceeding $5.43 trillion and the interest on that debt each year amounting to $251 billion. I strongly urge all members to support the chairman of the committee, as well as the chairmen and ranking members of the relevant subcommittees, in the proposal that is before the Senate, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. What is the order of business?

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I express my gratitude to my friend, Jesse Helms, for his characteristic courtesy and his gracious request to allow me to proceed at this point. I will try not to be overly long.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, William Manchester, writing in the book, ``The Glory and the Dream,'' would call the year 1932 ``the cruelest year.'' I was in the 10th grade at Mark Twain High School at Stotesbury in Raleigh County, southern West Virginia. Living in a coal miner's home, I saw and felt the Great Depression firsthand. Schoolteachers often had to reduce their monthly paychecks by several percentage points in order to get the checks cashed. The newspapers frequently carried stories of men who had jumped out of windows or pressed a cocked pistol to their temples, taking their lives because they had lost their lifetime savings, and their economic world had come crashing down around them. Very few men in and around the coal fields had ever owned an automobile, and those who were fortunate enough to possess an automobile jacked it up off the ground and mounted the axles on railroad crossties to keep the tires from rotting while enough money could be saved to pay for a new license plate. Many children went to bed hungry at night, their families destitute. The country had hit rock bottom, and West Virginia was one of the ``rock bottomest'' of the States. It is hard to imagine that things could have gotten much worse in southern West Virginia. There was little left but hope, and there was not much of that, hardly enough to go around. President Hoover, against whom I would still be campaigning 20 years later, professed to ignore the crisis as a ``depression,'' he being convinced that a ``balanced budget'' was the most essential factor leading to an economic recovery. He still wore a black tie at dinner in the White House, even when the only other person dining with him was his wife, Lou. Creature comforts were rare. Air conditioning was unknown, as were automatic dishwashers, electric toothbrushes, cassette recorders, garbage disposal units, electric can openers, vacuum cleaners, power mowers and record players. Phonographs were wound with a crank by hand. The family wash was done by hand on a washboard. Wet clothes were hung on a clothesline with clothespins to dry in the wind, and a refrigerator was simply an icebox kept filled by a man who knew how many pounds of ice a housewife wanted because she notified him by placing on the kitchen screen door a card with the number ``100,'' ``75,'' ``50'' or ``25'' turned up. Heavy irons for pressing clothes were heated on the coal-burning kitchen stove. Houseflies were always a summer problem, and the only preventives were spray guns and flypaper. We were not used to much, and if we had never had much to begin with, we did not miss it. Most of the coal miners by the year 1932 had a radio in their homes. It was a Majestic, an Atwater Kent or a Philco. At my house, a small Philco radio sat on a wall shelf, and it was there that we gathered on Saturday nights to listen to the Grand Ole Opry that was broadcast from Nashville, TN. I heard the ``Solemn Old Judge,'' the ``Fruit Jar Drinkers,'' DeFord Bailey on his harmonica, the Delmore Brothers, Roy Acuff, Minnie Pearl from ``Grinders Switch,'' Sam and Kirk McGree and Uncle Dave Macon picking the banjo ``clawhammer style.'' On some Saturday nights, I would play the fiddle at a small but lively square dance held somewhere in a coal camp where I lived or in a neighboring community. Times were bad, but life had to go on, and a Saturday night frolic helped to keep the spirits up. Madam President, in that year 1932, a writer for the Saturday Evening Post asked John Maynard Keynes, the great British economist, whether there had ever been anything like the Depression before. ``Yes,'' he replied. ``It was called the Dark Ages and it lasted four hundred years.'' This was calamity howling on a cosmic scale, but on at least one point the resemblance seemed valid. In each case the people were victims of forces that they could not understand. Mr. President, in that same year of 1932, there was born a child in Massachusetts, and his name was Edward Kennedy. In 1932, of course, I knew nothing about Edward Kennedy or Edward Kennedy's birth. But today I rise on this Senate floor to salute one of the outstanding Senators in the history of this great body. He is a man whose expertise, hard work, and courage have set a lofty example to which every fledgling Senator should aspire. On November 6, 1962, Edward Kennedy was elected to the Senate, and so he is celebrating his 35th anniversary and we are celebrating the 35th anniversary of his arrival in the Senate. I well remember the arrival of young Edward Kennedy in this Chamber. Having been elected in 1962 at the age of 30, he was one of the youngest Members in Senate history. While Senator Kennedy may not have been the youngest Senator ever, he was certainly one of the youngest. Despite his youth, however, much was expected of this young man and I suspect that some may have wondered whether he was really up to the challenge. After all, Senator Kennedy was representing a State that had provided the Senate with some its most memorable figures, among them Daniel Webster, Rufus Choate, and Charles Sumner. In addition, Senator Kennedy was elected to finish the term of the then current President, who was none other than his brother. When one remembers that another Kennedy brother was then Attorney General of the United States, one realizes why Senator Kennedy was accorded rather more attention than the average freshman Senator. I am gratified to report that, far from falling short of these grand expectations, Senator Kennedy has exceeded them. He became an innovative and productive legislator. He also embarked on a path from which he has never varied: championing the interests of the working people, the poor, and the disadvantaged. His tenure as chairman of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources during the 100th Congress was remarkable, both in the sheer volume of legislation that he sponsored and in the dedication that he displayed to improving the education and health of all Americans. I was the majority leader of the Senate during that 100th Congress. I worked closely with Senator Kennedy and he worked closely with me. In just 2 years, Senator Kennedy pushed through more beneficial social legislation than many Senators produce in a lifetime. Mr. President, this country has seen remarkable changes over the past 35 years. Not the least of those changes has been a shift in political attitudes from the optimism and compassion that characterized the 1960's to the more hardened and occasionally cynical climate of today. But, throughout those changes, Senator Ted Kennedy has remained faithful to his vision of an America in which the rights of those without money, jobs, health insurance, or education are protected. Others may bow to the vagaries of public opinion but not Senator Kennedy. Instead, relying on a political and legislative acumen than may owe something to his well-known expertise as a sailor, Senator Kennedy uses the winds of popular sentiment to achieve his goals. Many times where others meekly follow the course of these powerful winds, Senator Kennedy calmly lifts a dampened finger aloft to test their force and direction, then he very expertly and patiently tacks back and forth until he reaches, his chosen destination. Even the strongest headwind is not enough to dissuade him, for he knows that hard work and dedication can conquer the most imposing obstacles. Despite his passionate and unswerving convictions, Senator Kennedy is also one of the most accommodating Members of the Senate. Throughout his career, he has sought out partnerships with Members regardless of their ideology or party in the interests of passing wise and necessary legislation. Even in these partisan days in which we live, Senator Kennedy consistently seeks to find common ground with those at all points along the political spectrum. Senator Kennedy has repeatedly put the national interest ahead of petty partisan squabbles. Not that he is above partisanship at all. We are all capable of being partisan at times; some of us more than others, perhaps. But this open- minded approach to lawmaking, this brave refusal to succumb to the partisan animosity that permeates Congress today, may well be one of the Senator's greatest legacies. I said at the beginning of my remarks that I believe Senator Kennedy to be one of the most outstanding Senators this Chamber has seen. Lest I be accused of hyperbole and exaggeration, or of excessive kindness toward a friend, let me make clear that my words are not motivated by simple kindness. Senator Kennedy's legislative dexterity and bipartisan approach, are a rare combination indeed. I fear that many of today's politicians will be judged harshly by the historians of tomorrow for their fickleness, their shallow rhetoric, their willingness to pander to popular opinion. But not so my good friend and esteemed colleague from Massachusetts. I have remarked before, and I remark today, that had Ted Kennedy been living in 1789 at the time the first Congress met, he would have been a powerful factor in pressing forward with the legislation that was enacted in that first Congress. A formidable opponent, a knowledgeable and dedicated legislator, Ted Kennedy would have been in the forefront of those who were advocating the Judiciary Act, and I have no doubt that he would have left his imprint upon that legislation. Had he been living at the time of the Civil War, serving in the U.S. Senate, again, he would have been recognized as a forceful leader. In the days of reconstruction, again, Senator Kennedy would have made his mark in the U.S. Senate. Had he been a Senator during the years of the New Deal, he would have allied himself with Franklin D. Roosevelt and would have been a strong supporter of the landmark legislation that was enacted in those difficult years. I think that if Ted Kennedy had been living prior to the Revolution, he would have joined men like Samuel Adams and John Adams and John Hancock, from his State of Massachusetts, in resisting the edicts of George III, the King of England. So, in summation, I say that Ted Kennedy would have been a leader, an outstanding Senator, at any period of the Nation's history. Ted Kennedy and I have not always been the best of friends. There was a time when we were not. That time has long been relegated to the ashes of the past. When I was majority leader of the Senate, and also when I was minority leader of the Senate, and when I was majority leader again, as I have already indicated, in the 100th Congress, I leaned much on Ted Kennedy's knowledge, his expertise, his support. He was one of my strongest supporters in the Senate. In caucuses or on the Senate floor, I could always count on Ted Kennedy to be there when I needed him. So, Ted Kennedy and I formed a friendship in the finest sense of that word. We share a liking for history, a fondness for poetry, and a love for the U.S. Senate. Ted Kennedy does his work well in the committee. When he comes to the floor, he comes with a batch of papers in his hands and with a head full of knowledge in respect to the legislation which he is promoting. I count him as one of the most effective Members of the Senate. I admire Ted's steadfast purpose, his tireless work, his easy humor, and his kind nature. But, most of all, I admire his courage. He has experienced more personal tragedy and deep sorrow than most of us could bear and still retain our sanity. Yet, he goes on. He contributes. He endures. He laughs. He leads. He inspires. He triumphs. I have watched him weather and work and grow in wisdom for 35 years. He has an excellent staff. One would have to have an excellent staff to be able to turn out the massive amount of work and to provide the leadership that he has so many times provided in enacting landmark legislation. He is ever on an upward track. Herman Melville put it this way: . . . and there is a Catskill eagle in some souls that can alike dive down into the blackest gorges, and soar out of them again and become invisible in the sunny spaces. And even if he forever flies within the gorge, that gorge is in the mountains; so that even in his lowest swoop the mountain eagle is still higher than other birds upon the plain, even though they soar. So here is to my friend and colleague as he celebrates his 35th anniversary. May he ever soar. I close with a verse by one of my favorite poets, Edwin Markham, a verse that I think typifies Senator Kennedy: Give thanks, O heart, for the high souls That point us to the deathless goals-- For all the courage of their cry That echoes down from sky to sky; Thanksgiving for the armed seers And heroes called to mortal years-- Souls that have built our faith in man, And lit the ages as they ran. I again thank my true friend, and he is my friend, has been for all the years that he has been in the Senate, Jesse Helms, for his kindness in arranging for me to proceed at this moment. I thank him very much. Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may have as much time as I require.

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have followed the fast-track debate closely, and it is with some disappointment that I note the absence of any discussion of the constitutional and institutional framework that governs our country's approach to foreign trade. A proper understanding of that framework is essential if we are to have a productive, enlightened debate about fast track. I am also convinced that some of fast track's most ardent admirers might find their ardor dimmed a little if they recognize the sordid truth about fast track. Accordingly, I wish to speak, not overly long, about the illegitimate birth and disreputable pedigree of fast track. And I will attempt to unfold a decidedly unflattering but undeniably truthful account of how Presidential machinations and arrogance combined with congressional spinelessness to produce the monstrosity of fast track. They will learn that fast track is not about saving jobs or opening markets or building a bridge to the next century. Fast track, in a very considerable measure, is about power--raw, unfettered, Presidential power. And Mr. President, let me point out to any colleagues who doubt my reliability and objectivity in this regard that much of what I have to say is drawn from a recent article in the George Washington Journal of International Law and Economics, whose author appears favorably disposed to fast track. I start by noting that the Constitution assigns Congress a major role in the regulation of foreign affairs. Contrary to popular opinion--and contrary to the beliefs of most Presidents--the executive branch does not possess sole authority over foreign affairs. Indeed, beyond the general statement in article II, section 1 that ``[t]he executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America,'' the Constitution contains only four provisions that grant the executive clear foreign relations authority. Now, I carry in my shirt pocket a copy of the Constitution of the United States. Alexander the Great greatly admired the Iliad. And he carried with him a copy of the Iliad, a copy that Aristotle had carefully examined and refined somewhat. And it was called the ``casket copy.'' Aristotle slept with this casket copy of the Iliad under his pillow. And along with the Iliad, there was a sword. Now, Mr. President, I do not have a copy of the Constitution at night under my pillow, but I try to carry it at all times whether I am in West Virginia or whether I am here. I try to carry a copy of the Constitution in my shirt pocket. It is a copy of the Constitution that I have had for several years. It only cost 15 cents at the time I procured it from the Government Printing Office. Although the price has advanced now to probably about $1.50, $1.75, it is still the same Constitution. We may have added one or two or three amendments to the Constitution since I first procured this copy. I have not stopped to check on that. But the Constitution itself has not changed in that time other than, as I say, some amendments have been added. Would it surprise Senators to know that the Constitution contains only four provisions that grant the executive clear foreign relations authority? As one scholar has dryly observed, ``the support these clauses offer the President is less than overwhelming.'' The clauses, all in article II, are these: the power to appoint ambassadors and to negotiate treaties, (section 2, clause 2), and both of these require the Senate's ``Advice and Consent''; also the responsibility to receive ambassadors from foreign governments, (section 3); and the authority to command the Armed Forces in case Congress, through its responsibilities and powers under the Constitution, provides Armed Forces for the President to command, (section 2, clause 1). These narrow provisions provide a rather shaky foundation on which to build a case for the executive's predominance over foreign affairs. Congress, by contrast, is explicitly given substantial authority under the Constitution and in the Constitution over foreign affairs. While the Constitutional Convention saw a lot of debate about which branch was better qualified to make foreign policy, the document that was signed on September 17, 1787 gives us a clue as to which side won. Fully eleven of the powers granted to Congress in article I, section 8 involve foreign affairs. They include the powers: (1) ``To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations'' (clause 3); (2) ``To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises'' (clause 1); (3) ``To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations'' (clause 9); (4) ``To declare War . . . and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water'' (clause 11); (5) ``To raise and support Armies'' (clause 12); (6) ``To provide and maintain a Navy'' (clause 13); and (7) ``To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia.'' (clause 16). When one throws into the mix Congress' power to make the law--section 1, article 1--and its control over spending and appropriations in section 9, one conclusion is inescapable, namely: Congress' authority over foreign affairs is formidable. Despite the Constitution's clear language, however, the history of this country has seen the executive branch assume control over increasingly large swathes of foreign affairs power, while Congress has occasionally taken back a scrap or two or a crumb or so for itself. It is now almost axiomatic that the President is sole representative of the United States before foreign nations. This is the culmination of a process that began in the earliest days of the Republic, when Congress met infrequently, giving the President effective day-to-day power over foreign affairs; the process has since accelerated with the advent of modern media--particularly television--which provide the President with a singularly powerful forum in which to make his case on matters of foreign policy. While the executive branch has assumed general authority over foreign affairs, for a long time Congress made sure that its power over foreign trade remained on the eastern end--on the eastern end--of Pennsylvania Avenue. After all, the Constitution is clear on this point: Congress has sole authority over trade. Two of the article I clauses as I just cited deals squarely with that issue, and they are conclusive, namely: Congress must ``regulate Commerce,'' it has the power to ``regulate Commerce with foreign Nations'' and has the power to ``lay and collect . . . Duties, Imposts and Excises.'' For much of this Nation's history, there was little tension between the legislative and executive branches over trade regulation, unlike other areas of foreign policy, such as the use of military force. As I have said on earlier occasions, for the first 150 years or so of its existence, Congress exercised broad control over foreign trade and tariffs. Starting in 1934, however, Congress decided that it no longer wished to unilaterally exercise its power to set tariffs. Accordingly, Congress delegated to the President in the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 the authority to negotiate tariff agreements and to proclaim changes in tariff rates, within certain boundaries set by Congress. This so-called ``Proclamation Authority'' was periodically renewed, typically for brief periods of around three years. It did not take Congress long to decide that it had given away--that it had delegated--too much trade negotiating authority. The result was the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 which, among other things, created the Office of the Special Representative for Trade Negotiations; required that multilateral trade negotiations include designated members of the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee; and prevented the President from negotiating certain tariff reductions designated by the Tariff Commission. Congress soon discovered that the Trade Expansion Act was not enough to rein in a newly emboldened executive branch, which set about seizing as much control over foreign trade as it could get away with--and then some! The first shoe to fall was the U.S.-Canada Automotive Products Agreement of 1965, which the administration secretly negotiated for over a year without so much as notifying Congress. When President Johnson sent the Agreement to Congress for approval, presenting it as a fait accompli which needed only a legislative rubber stamp, a number of my colleagues were disconcerted at what they viewed as his high- handedness. Many resented the President's usurpation of Congress' rightful role in trade matters. And I suspect that many others wish that they had then stood up for congressional prerogatives rather than permitting the executive to accumulate still broader powers over trade. Instead, members adopted a course of conciliation and appeasement; they should have known, as history so often reminds us, that nothing, nothing, whets the appetite for power so much as a tender morsel of the substance. The other shoe dangled briefly before falling to the floor with a resounding crash a few years later. This time, the issue was the 1964- 67 Kennedy Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or GATT. At the time, tariffs were relatively low, which meant that more attention was focused on non-tariff barriers. This posed a problem for congressional oversight. After all, while tariff changes could be restricted within a designated range of percentage rates, it was much more difficult to provide precise limits on the negotiation of non- tariff barriers. During the second session of the 89th Congress the Senate therefore adopted a concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 100, ``urging the President to instruct U.S. negotiators in Geneva to bargain only on provisions authorized in the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.'' Now, what was the President's response to this clear, explicit instruction from the Senate? As best I can determine, the President simply cast those directions aside, for he promptly entered into two non-tariff barrier agreements that the 1962 Act had not authorized. One of these agreements was an antidumping code, for which President Johnson claimed ``sole executive agreement authority.'' I was a member of the Senate back then, and let me assure you that we did not look kindly on the President's blatant refusal to follow our instructions or those of the Constitution. Our response was to state unequivocally that the President's agreement did not supersede domestic law or limit the Tariff Commission's statutory discretion to implement the antidumping laws. Congress made clear that the President's antidumping agreement would be followed only in cases where it did not conflict with standing law; and Congress reiterated that no President--not even that master arm-twister, Lyndon Baines Johnson!--could encroach upon Congress' power to make the laws. The second non-tariff agreement that President Johnson entered into without congressional authorization was the repeal of the American Selling Price method of customs valuation. Once again, the President asserted his authority to make--or, in this case, to repeal--the laws. It is just what we are seeing happen in the case of line-item veto. Congress has given the President the authority to repeal laws. Shame, shame on Congress. Once again, and to its everlasting credit, Congress stood firm. We condemned President Johnson's refusal to heed the Senate's instructions and we rejected his outrageous belief that ``executive authority'' allowed him to make trade agreements that changed U.S. domestic law! Few scholars, today, of course, would agree with the President's position, but the matter was less clearly defined then. And, Mr. President, I for one am relieved that Congress stood fast in defense of its constitutional powers. I wish it would wake up one day and read history and read the Constitution again. The battle was not over, however. President Nixon continued his predecessor's attempts to usurp Congress' trade authority, though this time by persuasion rather than by intimidation. The different tactics of Presidents Johnson and Nixon towards the same goal may say a lot about their respective personalities and presidencies. President Johnson had launched a frontal attack upon Congress, relying on brute force and his own, ample powers of persuasion to intimidate the legislature into granting him greater trade power. Nixon, however, took a different tack; rather than storming the barricades of Congress, he tried to convince us to open the gates to him. The President made a powerful pitch for Congress granting him the ability to unilaterally change domestic law. He declared, with a fervor that subsequent fast track supporters have echoed, that the ability of the country to enter into trade agreements hung in the balance. The future of the United States itself was in jeopardy unless Congress would delegate to him--you will be hearing the same thing today; the United States was in jeopardy unless Congress would delegate to him-- the authority to proclaim all changes to U.S. law necessitated by a trade agreement. Now, how prosperous. I will not dwell on the obvious constitutional infirmities of Nixon's proposal; suffice it to say that giving the President the power to proclaim changes to U.S. law might have raised a few eyebrows at the Constitutional Convention! Don't you think so? It might have raised a few eyebrows up there with that illustrious group of men that included James Madison, Hamilton, Elbridge Gerry, and others. You would have seen some eyebrows going up and down. Our Constitution's framers knew full well that lawmaking by Executive fiat is the very definition of tyranny. I wish that this story of the executive branch's attempt to seize the powers of the legislative had a happier ending; one of the sad truths known to all historians is that, in real life, the endings are so often confused or disappointing. President Nixon did not, of course, win the authority to proclaim changes to domestic law. However, he did succeed in pressuring Congress to grant him the authority to negotiate certain trade agreements which Congress might neither amend nor debate extensively: what we now simply call ``fast track.'' The President's invocation of the national interest, and the fears he raised that, without fast track--and we are hearing the same siren call today--he would be unable to implement an effective trade policy for the United States, and it won the day. In a moment of weakness--and Congress has had its moments of weakness, as in this instance--Congress allowed itself to be seduced by the President's rhetoric and his appeal to patriotic duty; and a short time later, lo and behold, fast track was born. Well, today, Mr. President, history appears to be repeating itself. Once again, the air is filled with the dire, somber predictions about what will happen if fast track is not approved. I read that there are all kinds of trading, all kinds of promises being made, and we are seeing arms twisted out of shape--no bones broken, you understand, but just arms being twisted. Once again, we have a President who appeals to national interest and insists that he will be unable to negotiate trade agreements without fast track. Once again, Members have ears that cannot hear and eyes that cannot see. Once again, we have a Congress that appears overawed by Executive authority and unwilling to assert its rightful role in regulating trade--in fact, a Congress that is quite willing, perhaps happy, as was the Roman senate in that case, to hand off another of its duties to a dictator or to an emperor--in our case, happy to hand off another of its constitutional duties to the Executive. I am sure that most of the viewing public must wonder why any elected official would willingly give up some of the power of the people, the power that, under the Constitution, is to be exercised by elected representatives of the people. Power, after all, they must imagine, is what politicians crave most. Oh, that we could review again the story of Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, who in the year 458 B.C. was called upon by a delegation from the Roman senate. And upon inquiring why this delegation had come to him to interrupt his plowing of his small farm of three acres alongside the Tiber River, he was informed that the senate had decided to thrust upon him the power of a dictator so that he could rid Rome of the threat of certain tribes to the east, the Aequians. And being the loyal patriot that he was, Cincinnatus turned to his wife Racilia and said, ``We may not have enough food to live on this winter because we won't be able to sow our fields.'' Nevertheless, he wiped his perspiring forehead, took on the regalia of a dictator, and loyally assumed the responsibilities and duties that the Roman senate had placed upon him. He rid the city of Rome of the threats, and he relieved the Roman legions that were being surrounded by the armies of the tribes to the east. Within 16 days, he had accomplished this mission. And he turned back the powers of dictatorship. So there was the old-fashioned model of simplicity, the old-fashioned model of one who did not seek power, who did not want power. He did not want the power thrust upon him, but he willingly gave up this power. So, today, the people of the United States, I am sure, feel that power is what politicians most crave. Isn't it the thirst for power that causes politicians to chase campaign money like a hound on the scent of a fox? Isn't it power that opens doors, rolls out red carpets, and serves up free food and drink? Isn't it really power, more often than character, that invites the respect of others? So how can the public possibly accept the notion that Congress is actually giving up some of its power--its constitutional power--through fast track? Now, I am not claiming that the fast track legislation is unconstitutional; I am simply saying that the Congress is willingly giving up much of its power under the Constitution through fast track-- not only giving it up, but saying: here it is, take it, relieve me of it. Perhaps, in this age of television, in which the 30-second sound bite is preferable to a complete and meaningful discussion of issues, some politicians have come to the realization that it is easy, perhaps preferable, to retain the illusion of power, without actually having to be saddled with any of the burdensome responsibility that comes with true power. They would rather not have it because it carries with it responsibilities. Think about that. If we give up the power of Congress, we no longer have to take the heat for bad decisions, do we? We can just point the finger. We can take those letters from angry constituents and say, ``Sorry, not me. It is not my fault. Blame the President. That is his power now. He did that.'' How much nicer will our reelection campaigns be? Not having to run for 3 years, it would be much nicer for me, much easier for me, to say, ``That wasn't my responsibility.'' What will our opponents be able to complain about? How can they possibly run negative ads against us when we have given all of our responsibility to somebody else? I can see the campaign ads now. ``Vote for me. I didn't do anything, but I sure looked good not doing it.'' And our opponents could retort, ``Don't vote for him. I cannot attach any blame to him for anything, but he has big ears.'' So there we have it. If we hand over all of our powers, and thus all of our responsibilities, then we can't be blamed for anything. All we need to do is keep our hair well coiffed, buy fancy suits, have a nip here and a tuck there, keep a list of snappy sound bites in our pocket--that's all it will require to be an invincible political candidate. Is this what we really want? Is this what the American public out there deserves? Certainly not. We were elected to do a job--to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Actually, we took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. How many of us have read it lately? We certainly are doing a sad job of it when we agree to bind ourselves to fast track and to lie prostrate, waiting for the executive caboose to rumble over us. I said a few moments ago that history seemed to be repeating itself. And others have said that, and for good reason. Lord Byron said, ``History with all its volumes vast hath but one page.'' Cicero said, ``To be ignorant of that which occurred before you were born is to remain always a child.'' So history is repeating itself. I wonder why that is. God created water and other things in the beginning. He created water, H20--two parts of hydrogen and one part of oxygen. And it hasn't changed. It is still the same. It is still H20. It is still two parts of hydrogen and one part oxygen. Well, human nature hasn't changed either from the beginning. It changed through Abel. Abel's blood cried out from the ground. Human nature hasn't changed. We are still a slave of it. So history seems to be repeating itself because human nature hasn't changed. Today, I urge my colleagues to study history: Stand firm. Do not give up your constitutional responsibility. Do not rise to the bait offered by those who accuse you of protectionism; the cause of freer and fairer trade is not served by Congress abdicating its power. Do not be fooled into thinking that no country will negotiate with the world's foremost economic power because of concern about how that country's legislative branch conducts its debates; the foolishness of that argument should be self-evident. And don't allow the threats, cajolements, incentives, rewards, punishments or imprecations that the administration may cast your way; don't allow these to sway your decision. I hope that the House will stiffen--stiffen its opposition to fast track. It is time to resist the executive's encroachments on the prerogatives of Congress. It is time, Mr. President, for Congress to throw off its cloak of humility and deference and reverence for the executive and to assert its rightful constitutional role in the regulation of commerce with foreign nations. Mr. President, recent polls have illustrated how ill-informed most Americans are about their Constitution. Oh, they like it, all right, but few of them can accurately answer or debate the questions about it. Even fewer, I would posit, understand how well and how carefully the Constitution balances the powers given to the three branches of Government--a balance constructed by the Founding Fathers as a defense against the evils of one-man rule. Our Founding Fathers wanted to escape the tyranny that a king can impose over a subservient and subjugated people. And that is why our forefathers fought the American Revolution. That is why lives were risked, and that is why lives were lost. Our Founding Fathers knew that every President would be tempted to amass power to himself, and they hoped that the combined strength of the elected representatives in Congress could check those power grabs. Of course, there were those at the Convention who were concerned about the thirst of the legislative branch for power and how it might encroach on the powers of the President. But they could not foresee the day when we would have political parties. They could not foresee the day when the President of the United States would be the titular head of a political party; how he would command hundreds and thousands of patronage positions. They could not foresee the day when television would bring to the American people the news of the second--not the news of the minute, but the news of the second. Isaiah, a great prophet, was right when he said: Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain: And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together. And that is true. Isn't television exalting the valleys and making low the mountains and the hills? Isn't all flesh seeing the glory of the Lord together? There came a time when the clock struck and we had the underocean cable, the wireless telegraph, the telephone, the diesel motor train, the airplane--all of these things. And by all of these things, radio and television, the printing press--by all of these things, then, the glory of the Lord has been revealed in all of the globe. And Isaiah's prophecy has come true. So, our Founding Fathers could not possibly have foreseen the time when Americans would have these wonderful inventions. And when the President would have, at the snap of his finger, all of the media in that White House gather around his bully pulpit. They could not foresee these things. For the most part, this system has worked. And I hope and pray that it will continue to work. Thus, I say to my colleagues in the House and here: Stand firm. Hold fast, and together let us oppose this fast track to nowhere. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.