George Allen

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. I have no objection.

Mr. ALLEN. A further inquiry of our leader. The point is, as I understand it, at some point tomorrow morning the earliest vote would be a vote on the Santorum amendment. Let us assume the vote on the Santorum amendment is at 9 or 9:30. Thereafter, say 10 minutes later, there would be a vote on my amendment tomorrow morning?

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Kathy Shortt, a teacher at Lebanon High School in Lebanon, VA, who is one of eight finalists for the Richard T. Farrell Teacher of Merit Award for outstanding success in teaching history. The Richard T. Farrell Award is presented each year to a teacher who employs innovative teaching methods in and out of the classroom. The teacher must participate in the National History Day program, develop and use creative teaching methods that interest students in history and help them make exciting discoveries about the past, and show exemplary commitment to helping students develop their interests in history and recognizing their achievements. Ms. Shortt is being recognized for her dedication to the National History Day program and her success at improving history education. She has been involved in helping students participate in National History Day for 21 years and has presented at numerous workshops and acted as a mentor for other teachers for much of her career. She continues to have an impact on students even after they have left her classroom. During my term as Governor of Virginia, we recognized that there are fundamental academic basics that our children must learn if they are to be capable, responsible, and contributing citizens, and able to compete and succeed in the future. To ensure the success of our school children, we implemented high standards and accountability including history standards. We believed that Virginia's students should have the fundamental knowledge and understanding of their cultural and historical heritage that serves as a foundation for preserving a free, prosperous and decent society. I commend Kathy on her selection for this award and applaud her dedication to her students and the improvement of the educational process. With dedicated teachers like Kathy Shortt, I know the students in Virginia and indeed, across America have a bright future.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, today I recognize Kelly Campbell, a student at Lebanon High School in Lebanon, VA, who has been chosen to make a presentation at the White House Visitors Center during the National History Day Celebration. Kelly is one of 16 young history scholars from across the country who will present their work reflecting this year's National History Day theme: Revolution, Reaction, Reform in History. The students' projects presented at the White House are part of a larger group of 2,000 finalists participating in the National History Day national contest at the University of Maryland. The National History Day Program engages more than one-half million participants annually in grades 6 through 12 in 49 states and the District of Columbia. The program provides students the analytical and research skills that are useful in any area of their lives. Students research history topics of their choice related to an annual theme and create exhibits, performances, documentaries and papers, which they may enter in competitions at the district, State and national levels. Kelly will present an exhibit entitled ``The 3 R's: Revolution, Reform, Reaction and the Schools of the Freedman's Bureau.'' During my term as Governor of Virginia, we recognized that there are fundamental academic basics that our children must learn if they are to be capable, responsible, and contributing citizens, and able to compete and succeed in the future. To ensure the success of our school children, we implemented high standards and accountability including history standards. We believed that Virginia's students should have the fundamental knowledge and understanding of their cultural and historical heritage that serves as a foundation for preserving a free, prosperous and decent society. I congratulate Kelly and her fellow historians on their success and wish them the best as they compete against students from across the country.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment that my good friend, Senator Warner of Virginia, has offered. I am a cosponsor of this act and a cosponsor of this amendment, along with my friend, Senator Miller of Georgia. I continue to believe that the International Criminal Court poses a threat to the sovereignty of the United States and the individual freedoms of America. Americans do care about the rest of the world. The rest of the world, though, can make their own decisions. The Europeans, if they want to merge their currencies, can do so. It does not mean we have to put our dollar in with their currency. We have a right to control our own destiny and the sovereignty and fair justice administered in our country. This International Criminal Court would have the jurisdiction to punish individual American officials for foreign policy and military actions of the U.S. Government. The laws and the rules of this treaty do not offer fair and equal justice, nor do they offer the due process rights guaranteed and protected under our Bill of Rights. The mechanism used to introduce and try cases in this Court is an independent prosecutor, who would be one who is not really accountable but would be given the autonomy to enforce justice as that prosecutor sees fit. Placing such power in the hands of one individual is not only ill advised, it runs contrary to the very foundation of justice upon which our country was built upon. For example, if the international prosecutor believes a U.S. court's decision was inadequate or incorrect, then this prosecutor is authorized to indict the alleged human rights abuser and demand a new trial in the International Criminal Court. This is all contrary to the laws of the constitutions of our States and the Constitution of our country for the last 225 years. Elected officials ought to protect and uphold our rights. In reality, this ICC, or Rome Treaty, would erect an institution superior to our courts in this country and in our States. In considering whether to enact an amendment that would protect Americans from this international treaty, we need to consider the values and goals of the international prosecutors and the international judges. It is unlikely persons given such authority will hold the same values as the United States. Consider the fact that the Rome Treaty was signed by Iran, Iraq, Sudan, and Syria, among others. All of these nations have extremely questionable records when it comes to justice, due process, and equality. I believe we should consider the parties involved when considering any international treaty. Senator Dodd mentioned Elie Wiesel and Israel. Israel mostly has its troops focused in its homeland. The United States has its spread across the world. The amendment of Senator Warner, the American Servicemembers' Protection Act, is supported by the following organizations: The National Guard Association of the United States, the Air Force Sergeants Association, the Army Aviation Association of America, the Association of the U.S. Army, the National Military Family Association, Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, Fleet Reserve Association, the Gold Star Wives of America, Jewish War Veterans of the USA, the Marine Corps League, the Marine Corps Reserve Officers Association, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, the Navy League of the United States, the Retired Officers Association, the United Armed Forces Association, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, and others. I believe the former President, Mr. Clinton, made a serious mistake when he signed the Rome Treaty in the last days of his administration. President Bush wisely rejected the Rome Treaty and notified the United Nations that the United States would not be ratifying or participating in the accord. Unfortunately, the number of ratifying nations is rising and the ICC will come into existence on July 1 of this year. It is why we must pass this amendment. We are all working in unity to fight corruption, hatred, and dictatorships around the world. With the amendment that has been added, our position is clear and we will fight war criminals. In closing, I will quote Mr. Jefferson when he stated: It is the right of every nation to prohibit acts of sovereignty from being exercised by any other within its limits . . . I urge my colleagues to exercise that right, protect our sovereignty and our men and women in the military in supporting this amendment. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Madam President, I rise in support of the amendment. The amendment, introduced by Senators Byrd and Stevens, is a logical one relating to the aviation loan guarantee language in the emergency supplemental appropriations bill. As my colleagues might recollect, last year we voted unanimously to extend an immediate cash infusion and loan guarantees to airlines struggling as a result of the September 11, 2001 attacks and the resulting closure of the nationwide aviation network. I wish to associate myself with the remarks of Senator Hutchison of Texas and Senator Bond of Missouri in their views and statements on the history. Access to these funds is necessary for many airlines to continue operation and vital to the future of our nationwide aviation network. My colleagues might recollect that all of our airports were shut down for several days, but one in particular, Reagan National Airport, stayed closed for an extended period of time. Even today, commercial aviation is still getting up to full capacity and general aviation is still shut down. I hope that soon will change with some reasonable regulations for private or general aviation. With the phased reopening over many months of Reagan National Airport, there was one airline, US Airways, which was particularly adversely affected. US Airways intends to work through all of the requirements they have with labor and management and put forward an application for the loan guarantee program in an effort to avoid bankruptcy. The proposed language, in limiting the total funds available and eliminating any more loans for 2002, would be truly detrimental to the survival of this airline and very possibly other major carriers. The language in the bill, in this present form, represents a broken promise. There was a time frame for which airlines, if they wanted to avail themselves of this assistance, would be able to make that effort. It is not easy to go through the whole loan guarantee process. To change the deadline at this point would clearly be a breach of trust and very unwise. When we passed the stabilization bill, the airlines were given until June 28, 2002 to apply for these loans. The funds were to be available through the end of the year. I applaud the work of my colleagues in addressing this proposed injustice and appreciate the amendment offered by the chairman, Senator Byrd, and Senator Stevens. I urge all Senators to vote for the amendment. The amendment will not only correct an error, but will also provide the opportunity for our nation's air carriers, as they try to address the aviation security quandary in a much better way than is currently being done, to protect the jobs of tens of thousands of hard-working Americans. We are also trying to keep competition in aviation and trying to get Americans and America's airways flying again. I thank my colleagues and urge their support for this very important amendment for jobs, for the commercial aviation industry, and for the traveling public. This amendment also puts the Senate on record as keeping our word to this very important part of our economy. Thank you and I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes on the pending amendment.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. I will agree to that.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment that Senator Kerry has offered. The Kerry amendment unfortunately seeks to impose highly detailed negotiating mandates on the President, and would give those mandates the force of law in the United States. The bipartisan bill that is currently before us provides balanced guidance to U.S. negotiators both to protect U.S. investors abroad and to address the legitimate concerns that have been raised about investment rules. The purpose of our investment agreements, and the dispute resolution provisions in them, is to level the playing field; to ensure that Americans operating abroad obtain the same benefits and protections provided to Americans and foreign investors operating in the United States. NAFTA's rules on investment--the so-called chapter 11--are not novel or unusual; they are modeled on longstanding international and U.S. practice. Arbitral dispute-resolution panels were not invented by NAFTA; they have been in use for more than 40 years. Chapter 11 is only one of over 1,600 bilateral investment treaties worldwide, the vast majority negotiated by the European Union's member- states, Japan, and Canada. These investment agreements ensure that investors are treated fairly when operating abroad. These treaties contain an arbitral dispute-resolution process similar to that found in chapter 11. The arbitrators selected on these panels frequently are distinguished lawyers, jurists and statesmen including Warren Christopher, Benjamin Civiletti, Attorney General for President Carter, and Abner Mikva former Member of Congress and White House Counsel for President Clinton. The United States has thus far entered into 43 bilateral investment treaties of this nature. If not for these treaties, U.S. investors operating in these countries could be disadvantaged, especially in comparison to their competitors from the European Union, Japan, and Canada. Many U.S. companies and major trade associations tell us that these provisions are extremely important to protecting Americans against abuses in other countries. U.S. investors invest $3 trillion abroad and these investments account for more than a quarter of all U.S. exports. In short, foreign investment by U.S. firms keeps us competitive and builds jobs for Americans. Several domestic constituencies, including environmental groups, have expressed great concern about the potential for use of these provisions to undermine important U.S. laws and regulations especially those protecting health, safety and the environment. The U.S. Government is vigorously defending U.S. environmental laws against any such charges. The current administration is working with all interested parties in an effort to address these concerns for NAFTA and future investment agreements while continuing to protect American companies against abuse in other countries. Steps have already been taken. For example, in July, 2001, the United States, Canada, and Mexico, through the NAFTA Trade Commission, issued an interpretation on two matters relating to chapter 11. Some have concerns regarding the confidentiality of the panels. It has been agreed that the parties would make publicly available all documents issued by or submitted to a NAFTA arbitration panel. Others have complained that one type of investment protection called ``general treatment'' provides rights to foreign investors beyond U.S. law. It was clarified that this provision affords no more than the minimum standard of treatment under customary international law and that provisions of other agreements (WTO) do not form part of the minimum standard, as some claimants were arguing in chapter 11 cases. The United States, Canada, and Mexico have and will continue to utilize of our right under NAFTA to provide guidance to arbitral panels. Chapter 11 does not provide novel rules on what constitutes an expropriation beyond that covered by traditional investment agreements or by U.S. courts. The truth of the matter is that overall trade helps the American family. The lower tariffs and higher incomes that followed the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) resulted in benefits of $1,300 to $2,000 a year for the average American family of four. According to a recent University of Michigan study, a new trade round could deliver an annual benefit of $2,450 for this same family. Trade does not discriminate against the rich or the poor; it seeks to elevate all economic levels. Contrary to popular belief, trade on balance, provides American workers with more opportunities to obtain higher-paying jobs than are lost due to international competition. It gives more people the chance to make a better life for themselves and their family. The U.S. Department of Commerce reports that, on average, jobs tied to exports earn 13 percent to 18 percent more than earned in other jobs. In other words, trade brings prosperity and opportunity to more workers than are lost. The effect of the North American Free Trade Agreement are as follows. U.S. exports to our NAFTA partners increased 104 percent between 1993 and 2000, while U.S. trade with the rest of the world grew only half as fast. In the 8 years since NAFTA's implementation, U.S. exports to Mexico and Canada have grown to support nearly 3 million American jobs today-- one-third more than in 1993. We trade about $2 billion a day with our NAFTA partners--that's almost $1.4 million a minute. As U.S. government data indicate, without NAFTA, the United States would have lower-paying jobs and would export less, and Mexico and the United States would have lower environmental standards. In the Commonwealth of Virginia, export sales of merchandise in 2000 totaled $10.5 billion, up nearly 30 percent from the 1993 export total of $8.1 billion. Virginia businesses recorded export sales of $1,490 for every person in the State. And, unlike what some of my colleagues may have you believe, trade is also beneficial for the environment. Studies have shown that countries that open their markets actually spend more money in efforts to preserve and protect the environment as a result of gains through trade. Attempts to impose environmental regulations have often been self-defeating because they have stifled the trade necessary for economic growth, which would enable countries to afford to adopt environmental protection policies. The overall track record of the United States in promoting initiatives to protect the environment provides evidence that environmental freedom and the economic development it engenders are correlated with sound environmental policies. Fair and free trade agreements must not and will not compromise American sovereignty. In response to concerns that trade deals may be unconstitutional and could undermine U.S. sovereignty. It should be stressed that the United States will always determine our own domestic laws. Even if future trade agreements allowed some disputes to be submitted to an international tribunal for initial determination, no trade agreement could grant an international organization the power to change U.S. laws. Proper trade agreements foster adherence to the rule of law and protect private property and intellectual property rights. Free trade forces participating countries to play fair. For example, because of its membership in the World Trade Organization, China will now have to crack down on software piracy, which has been a growing problem for sometime to many U.S. manufacturers. China has long been the world's largest source of pirated compact disks and software. In China last year, software firms lost over $1 billion in profits to piracy. Furthermore, while many criticized China's WTO membership, American industry will benefit because, to comply with agreements of the organization, China now has to lower tariffs and non-tariff barriers. The bottom line is that the United States needs to negotiate more free trade agreements. Of the more than 130 trade and investment agreements that exist throughout the world, the United States is party to only three: specifically, with Jordan, Israel, and the NAFTA countries of Canada and Mexico. Free and fair trade and the chapter 11 issues are immensely important to the high-tech sector as well. The U.S. high-tech sector invests more abroad than any other industry. Leading, innovative U.S. companies have benefited from a set of stable and predictable rules governing investment in overseas markets. Investments in foreign markets by high-tech companies, which support manufacturing and rapidly growing information technology services, are an integral part of a virtuous cycle that keeps this sector growing and strong. The fact that large and small companies alike can reach customers in other countries with goods and services means that they can continue to provide great opportunities here at home for our engineers, researchers and other highly-paid and highly-skilled workers. The bipartisan trade package includes a number of needed reforms that have arisen out of cases of foreign investors bringing actions in the U.S. These reforms include provisions for increased transparency, consistency in the rights afforded to foreign and domestic investors in the U.S., and improvements to dispute settlement procedures. And, it includes clarification of the definition of expropriation, although, Mr. President, Senator Kerry's amendment is not one of them. The Kerry amendment would go far beyond these important and necessary changes and would impose new negotiating mandates in the area of investor protections. These rigid requirements would tie U.S. negotiators' hands while giving our trading partners greatly increased leverage to make demands on their own. The bipartisan trade package includes needed changes in the area of investment provisions and these should be passed by the Senate and implemented in trade agreements. The Kerry amendment, in its attempt to address these concerns, goes too far and will create uncertainty and undermine the investment protections for U.S. companies as they do business in overseas markets. These are only a few of the many reasons that my colleagues should join me in opposing this amendment and press forward to pass this trade legislation in order to benefit America.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I wish to call up amendment No. 3406, which is at the desk.

Mr. ALLEN. With the permission of the Chair, I would like to address the amendment.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, this amendment, which is entitled the Homestead Preservation Act, is an amendment to the trade promotion authority/trade adjustment assistance substitute which is currently being considered. First and foremost, I thank my good colleagues, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, Senator John Warner of Virginia, and Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, for their important cosponsorship of this amendment. Their leadership and understanding of the desirability for this amendment is very important. I say to my colleagues in the Senate that this is an amendment which is designed to help displaced workers get access to short-term, low- interest loans to help cover monthly home mortgage payments while they are looking for a new job. This is a commonsense, compassionate legislative idea designed to help working families who, through no fault of their own, are adversely affected by international competition. During the past several months, all Americans have been deluged with news of recessions, plummeting consumer confidence, and rising unemployment. While these are uneasy times for everyone, in States such as North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Southside and Southwest Virginia, and every State with heavy concentrations of manufacturing, especially in the textile and apparel industries, they have been especially hard hit. Nationwide, employment in apparel manufacturing has been just devastating. Factory employment has plummeted just in the last year and a half. One out of every three layoffs in Virginia is from the manufacturing industry, although only one in six jobs in Virginia is in this sector. Virginia's Southside region and Southwest Virginia region are already suffering from the effects of international competition. Nationwide, an average of 37,500 Americans lose their jobs because of NAFTA-related competition each year. During the 1990s, Virginians saw the loss of 15,400 apparel jobs, a decline of 54 percent, and 15,300 textile jobs, a decline of 36 percent. That is bad news. However, please understand, Mr. President, I strongly believe that fair and free trade is necessary and desirable if American businesses are to have the opportunity to promote their goods, services, and continue to expand their growth abroad. NAFTA, despite those negative stories I just went through in Virginia--and it is similar in other States, I suspect--has actually created a net increase in employment. So while on balance it is a net increase, we still do need to recognize there are good, hard-working people who end up losing their jobs. When NAFTA came into effect, I was Governor of Virginia, and we led trade missions to Quebec, Ontario, and to various places in Mexico, from Veracruz to Mexico City. We were able to bring back an agreement from Mexico and Canada that initially meant a half a billion dollars in new investments and sales for Virginia. These investments were made possible only by fair and free trade. While trade is helping our economy as a whole, there still are good, hard-working families who have been adversely affected by international competition, especially in the textile and apparel industries. Anytime a factory closes, it is a devastating blow to all the families in the community and region. Usually to these textile facilities which are not in big urban or suburban areas. They are usually in smaller, more rural communities. I was especially proud of how the close-knit Southside communities in Virginia came together when people lost their jobs, when companies such as Pluma or Tultex closed their doors. These individuals should not have to go through these hard times alone. After the Tultex plant closed in Martinsville, right before Christmas in December 1999, people donated toys to the Salvation Army to make sure Christmas came to the homes of thousands of laid-off workers. I am proposing that the Federal Government do its part to help these people through these tough times. There are already thoughtful programs in place, such as the NAFTA Transitional Adjustment Assistance Program that helps workers obtain additional job skills, training, and employment assistance. That program provides extended unemployment benefits during job training. These programs are the result of a commonsense, logical understanding and the conclusion that people can lose their jobs because of trade agreements. They are not losing their jobs because of anything they did wrong or because they do not want to work. For the most part, these are folks who have worked in these companies for a great number of years. In some cases there are entire families working at these companies. Their parents and their children may all work together in some of these mills. We ought to find a way to ease the stress and turmoil for people whose lives are unexpectedly thrown into transition after years of steady employment with a company that just suddenly disappears. While these hard-working families are trying to find appropriate new employment, they should not have to fear losing their homes as well. For most people and their families, the biggest financial investment they make in their lives is their home. Many have considerable equity built up in their homes. Many Government agencies already have low-interest loan programs that are in place to help families who have met unexpected economic disasters, such as natural disasters--which include floods, tornadoes, and hurricanes. When I look at the factory closings and literally thousands of jobs being lost, it is an economic disaster to these families and communities, and its effects are just as far-reaching and certainly as economically devastating as floods, tornadoes, and hurricanes. Like in a natural disaster, families displaced by international competition are not responsible for events leading to the factory closings. The Federal Government, in my view, ought to make similar disaster loan assistance programs available to our temporarily displaced workers. This is the rationale for introducing the Homestead Preservation Act. This legislation will provide temporary mortgage assistance to displaced workers, helping them make ends meet during their search for a new job. Specifically, the Homestead Preservation Act authorizes the Department of Labor to administer a low-interest loan program, say 4 percent, for workers displaced due to international competition. An individual, who qualifies for the program will be eligible for up to 12 monthly home mortgage payments. The program is authorized at a maximum of only $10 million a year for 5 years. The loans will be distributed through an account providing monthly allocations to cover the amount of the worker's home mortgage payment. The loans could be paid off once the person finds another job or repaid over a period of up to 5 years. No payments would be required until 6 months after the borrower has returned to work full time. Again, if someone is laid off and they want to apply for these loans, they can only get a loan for 12 months for monthly mortgage payments, and then 6 months after they get back on their feet, they will have to pay it off over a 5-year period. This program will only be available for workers displaced due to international competition and who also qualify for benefits under the NAFTA Trade Adjustment Assistance Program. Furthermore, they actually have to be participating in such programs. Like the NAFTA-TAAP and the TAA benefits program, the Homestead Preservation Act recognizes that some temporary assistance is needed as workers take time to become retrained, reeducated, expand upon their skills, and search for new employment. As Governor, I enjoyed nothing more than being able to recruit and bring new investment, new jobs, and enterprises into Virginia. By recruiting new businesses, we brought in more jobs and better jobs for the hard-working, caring people of Virginia. For example, in the Martinsville, Henry County area, we were able to get Drake Extrusion in Great Britain to open a new facility in Virginia. They chose Martinsville Industrial Park for its new carpet and bedding fiber manufacturing plant. This was announced as a $12 million investment which doubled since its opening in 1995. It brought in additional small businesses, and they now employ about 225 people. Unfortunately, it can take time to bring new companies and new industries into a region, just as it takes time to learn a new skill or earn a degree. The displaced families, unfortunately, in many cases, do not have the time because they have monthly bills that must be paid in full with no excuses. The Homestead Preservation Act provides financial assistance necessary to bridge the time it takes to find employment. Without this bridge, many working families would not be able to take advantage of the opportunities that are out there for them. They would be denied the necessary tools to help them succeed in the changing economy. The current economic situation for our country has made it even more vital that the Federal Government do what is right by our workers in the textile and apparel industries and indeed in all industries suffering high rates of job losses due to international competition. Because of international competition, textile and apparel workers are even more vulnerable to the current economic situation, making them ill-equipped to weather an economic downturn. The reason I say this is because in the year 2000, the average wage rates in Virginia for a textile or apparel worker were 77 percent and 57 percent, respectively, compared to the overall wage rate for Virginians. What that means is that their wages are providing them less money for their family's rainy day savings account, and right now it is storming for many of these families. When these workers are displaced, in many cases meager savings and temporary unemployment benefits are frequently not enough to cover expenses that have previously fit in within the family's budget. Without immediate help, many of these families, at a minimum, risk losing their credit ratings. And in the worst case scenario, they could lose their home or their car, or both. The biggest financial investment many people make in life is in their home, and when they lose their home, they have lost a great deal. Their credit ratings are obviously damaged. Many have a great deal of equity built up in that home, and much is lost, including their dignity. It is important that we enable and try to assist people in keeping their homes and protect their credit ratings. We should do so as these people work toward strengthening and updating their skills as they continue a search for a new job. The Homestead Preservation Act provides the temporary financial tools necessary for displaced workers to get back on their feet. And when they get back on their feet, they not only still have a home, but they also have the ability to succeed. In my view, it is a caring, logical, and responsible response. I hope my colleagues will vote on this matter, possibly as early as next Tuesday. I hope they support this commonsense, compassionate idea that will help those individuals who have lost jobs due to international competition, while we still go forward with trade promotion authority, the Andean measure, and trade adjustment assistance. All of these measures are very important, but let's make sure we are helping everyone that is negatively impacted. We need to also understand the balance that is necessary as this country opens up new markets, tears down barriers, which allows our goods, our products and services, and our technology to enter into other areas. We need to recognize there are some who will need help in transition to get back on their feet. Let's make sure they do not lose their homes because they have been displaced by international competition. They are good families, they are hard- working families, they are diligent, and this is the least I think we can do as we enter into these trade agreements. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Madam President, I rise today to voice support for Freedom Consolidation Act of 2002 of which I am an original cosponsor. Over 5 years ago, as Governor of Virginia I visited Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary. I supported the admission of these Central European countries into NATO. And, wisely about 4 years ago the U.S. Congress enacted legislation that would ensure that Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic were not the last emerging or reborn democracies to join the NATO. That was the right decision then and it is the right decision now. We should bring such aspiring democracies into our fold. And include them in the important decisions and responsibilities that affect the world as a whole. The nations seeking admittance have worked hard to meet the strict requirements. Many of these nations have undergone monumental changes from the days of communist occupation that have positively transformed them into freely elected, legitimate governments. Expanding the alliance to include nations that have made great changes in establishing human freedoms in their laws and practices is consistent with the 1949 NATO Treaty preamble which reads: [The Parties] are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law . . . It is in the best interest of the United States to nurture young democracies around the world. Coach them on the great values and principles stated in the NATO preamble. Working toward fulfilling the requirements of NATO's Membership Action Plan, shows the commitment aspirant nations have made to NATO's basic principles: collective defense; common values; and the promotion of democracy. NATO membership is a catalyst for Western values, principles and actions. It is to the benefit of the United States and NATO to ensure the security of nations that desire a place among the community of democracies. The Freedom Consolidation Act of 2002 does not predict which nations will be chosen, nor should it. Instead it sends a clear message to nations aspiring to freedom. That message is: Your efforts have been recognized and future progress will be rewarded with admittance to the most effective treaty organization in history. It is very difficult to consider any issue related to international relations without viewing it in the context of the September 11th terrorist attacks. We must remember the nations that arose to stand with the United States mere hours after the horrifying attacks. When the United States needed support, it did not have to make calls, NATO was there--ready and poised to act along side of our nation. Passing the Freedom Consolidation Act is but one step we can take to ensure continued support through NATO. During this war on terrorism the United States has recognized that we cannot live alone in this world, especially in intercepting terrorist finances, gathering information, as well assisting with personal, equipment, and military operation support. Countries all over the globe have been instrumental in our success and their assistance continues to expose the people that planned and carried out those vile acts. The varied contributions of NATO allies and aspirants include: reconnaissance, refueling, Special Forces missions and many other significant duties that have aided our troops. This cooperative effort is a great example of the useful necessity of NATO. As we expand this just war into new regions, we need to develop new relationships and allies to ensure the safety of the world's democracies. I know there are many of my colleagues questioning the value of bringing new members into the alliance. There is sentiment that these nations are receiving a great benefit while adding little. I would dispute that argument; NATO is not a free ticket. All who aspire to join NATO work hard to make the kind of military, economic, and democratic reforms necessary to gain membership. This makes them a stable ally, and during these chaotic times we need committed partners. Many of those being considered for membership have proven their mettle. They have seen the cost of war, the value of freedom, and have stood strong with America. As we consider new members we must also revisit the responsibilities of the existing nations. We must continue to urge our partners to prepare and improve their military capabilities. My colleague and good friend Senator John Warner said it best, ``NATO is first and foremost a military alliance.'' NATO must address the growing imbalance between the United States and our European partners. It is not in the best interest of the alliance or European nations to have the United States shoulder such a large part of the military burden. Senator Warner's insight is important and should be a top priority for the young democracies we hope to bring into the strongest alliance on Earth.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. On behalf of our leader, I object.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. On behalf of our leader, I object.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, many of us have anticipated the trip of former President Carter to Cuba with a mixed sense of hope and concern. We had hoped that he would use this unique opportunity to help bring ideas of freedom and democracy to the repressed people of Cuba, just 90 miles off our shores. However, it was amazing and disappointing for many of us to learn of Mr. Carter's visit to a Cuban biotechnology facility and his acceptance, at face value, of the assurances of communist Cuban officials there that the facility is engaged solely in medical and humanitarian pursuits. More distressing is that former President Jimmy Carter was accorded the same privilege and courtesy extended to former Presidents who have requested top-secret intelligence briefings and situation reports on global areas of interest of the United States. In the post-9/11 world, it is important that we as a united country protect the safety and security of our people. Instead, what we have in Mr. Carter's visit to this biotech facility is a former President--who himself was once responsible for our foreign policy and the safety of the American people--dismissing the concerns of his own government, revealing information to which he was privy in top-secret briefings, and buying wholesale the assertions of the dictator Fidel Castro and his minions. The words and actions of Mr. Carter at this facility are a breach of trust, and it is made even worse, in that the individual involved in that breach is one in whom the American people once placed the ultimate trust and responsibility of the Presidency. Rather than spending his time with Fidel Castro and his henceman, I would suggest the name of at least one person Mr. Carter would be better advised to get to know. Just a few short days ago I joined the Congressional Cuba Political Prisoner Initiative. As part of this initiative, I have decided to sponsor or ``adopt,'' if you will, a Cuban political prisoner named Francisco Chaviano Gonzales, and to advocate on his behalf, and on behalf of the thousands of others being held in Cuba in clear abuses of their basic human rights. Francisco Chaviano is president of the National Council for Civil Rights, an organization dedicated to promoting democratic practices, racial equality and human rights. He was arrested after government agents broke into his home and confiscated documents revealing human rights abuses in Cuba--specifically, information about the Castro government's sinking of a tugboat that claimed the lives of 41 men, women, and children who were attempting to escape to freedom. Chaviano was arrested and detained in prison for 1 year, and although a civilian, he was tried by military tribunal and sentenced to 15 years in prison. He has been confined in isolation and deprived of basic medical care for long periods of time. After being allowed to visit him for the first time in eight years, his wife reported that he is in very poor health. Other members of the civil rights organization have followed in Chaviano's footsteps and continued to press the Cuban government for democratic reforms, at great peril to themselves. Jimmy Carter is a man who is often praised in the media as a ``model ex-President'' or a ``statesman'' for his work with Habitat for Humanity. I do believe there is still time for him to make a more positive contribution to the plight of the Cuban people and to American foreign policy regarding Fidel Castro. Mr. Carter is scheduled to deliver a speech to the Cuban people tonight. His remarks have the potential to do enormous good or to cause further harm. Rather than legitimizing a tyrant and a man who doesn't care for the well-being of his own people; he could advocate positive change for the beleaguered Cuban people. If Mr. Carter in his speech tonight is looking for a road map to freedom and prosperity for the Cuban people, he need look no further than the words and principles of freedom written by George Mason in the Virginia Declaration of Rights. This document, adopted on June 12, 1776, helped form the basis of our Declaration of Independence and 15 years later in our Bill of Rights as the first amendments to our Constitution. I would read a few excerpts from George Mason's historic words from various articles of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which I think are instructive. Article 1: That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. Article 2: That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants and at all times amenable to them. Article 3: That government is, our ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration. And that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community has an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conductive to the public weal. Article 12: That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwalks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments. Article 16: That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience . . . Those are the words of freedom, and of the inherent rights to which all people are entitled, even if only temporarily subjugated. Therefore, I call on former President Carter to embrace these truths and to use this unique opportunity to advance these enduring principles of liberty in Cuba. I urge him to support the Varela Project, which is a petition drive that has collected the 10,000 signatures needed under Castro's so- called ``constitution'' to force a referendum on whether his government should be allowed to continue. I call on Fidel Castro to heed the concepts first enunciated by George Mason 226 years ago in the Western Hemisphere, and I also call upon him to schedule free and fair democratic elections on the island of Cuba within the next year. Mr. President, I will close with more words from George Mason, who said: There is a passion to the mind of man, especially a free man, which renders him impatient of a restraint.'' Mr. Carter has the power to either to fan the flames of those passions and aspirations of the Cuban people, or to throw cold water on them. The choice he needs to make is clear. Do not flinch. Stand strong for freedom! Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. All of those different approaches are good. And there are competitive grants. I am going to work with the Senator. We did have that $70 million for that nutrient reduction pilot program. While all that is good--and I am going to work hard, and I am glad you were able to provide that--it is still not as good as the other version. If the House would have only listened to you more. But, again, I thank you for at least keeping that. And we will work together to reduce nutrient runoff, whether it is filter strips, grass strips, riparian buffers, to reduce the nutrient and sedimentary runoff into the tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay. I thank the Senator.

Mr. ALLEN. If the Senator will yield?

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

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my concerns about the conference report on the farm bill. I understand the desire--and share the desire--to make improvements in existing farm legislation. I know the conferees worked very hard to address all of the concerns of Senators and Representatives from all over this country. A strong farm bill is a high priority, and I certainly agree with others who share those views. In my home State, the Commonwealth of Virginia, agriculture accounts for a significant part of our diverse economy, creating nearly 10 percent of the total jobs statewide. I worked with members of our Senate Agriculture Committee to address the concerns of Virginia growers and the agricultural communities. Several of these concerns were primarily addressed in the Senate version of this bill. However, sadly and regrettably, I cannot vote for this bill. My concerns are quite simple and represent not only the interests of farmers in Virginia but also every American, whether or not he or she is engaged in agriculture. There are several points I want to make. Number one has to do with Virginia peanuts. I thank Senator Harkin. While I may not be joining with him at this time, earlier I thanked him because if this conference report was like the Senate version, I would be up here saying this is a good bill. However, with regard to Virginia peanuts, this conference report is not a good bill. Back in December I objected to the consideration of this bill, not just for peanut farmers but for others, as the current farm bill doesn't even expire until the end of this year. I thought, and continue to believe, it is unfair to our farmers and ranchers to hold hostage their way of life, to debate and implement changes that may harm their income in the middle of the year--indeed, during the plowing, planting, and now the growing season. I do not think it is right to move the goalposts on someone after the ball has already been kicked. In 1996, when the Senate last debated the farm bill, the target price for peanuts was lowered from $670 a ton to the current level of $610 per ton. This level was not due to expire until the end of fiscal year 2002, which is September 30 of this year. Today, a farm bill will pass, and the conference report on it takes that level from $610 a ton to $495 per ton, a decline of almost 20 percent. I worked hard to make some positive changes in the Senate bill. We increased on the Senate side the target price of peanuts from $480 in the House version to $520 in the Senate bill. We increased the marketing loan rate from $350 to $400 and we increased the quota transition payments from 50 cents to 55 cents. Unfortunately, the conference cut most of these gains. Virginia has about 76,000 acres of peanuts and 4,000 peanut farmers. While these numbers may not look large to some Senators who have big corporate farms in their States, these peanut farms are the basis of local communities throughout Southeastern Virginia. The fact is, they are going to be devastated by this bill. And that means it is going to affect the implement and equipment dealers, those who sell the fertilizer, seed, and herbicides. Obviously, it will affect the whole community. Despite the hefty expense of this bill-- which for taxpayers is an expense of $4 billion--it will ensure the demise of many Virginia peanut farmers. Last week I brought a tin of Virginia peanuts to the Senate floor. I also did so today because I want to share with my colleagues this great product which will continue to disappear, sadly, from the landscape of American commerce. The bottom line is that it is simply not fair for our hard-working farmers to be dealing with a moving target--at the expense of the American taxpayer. The peanut section of this bill alone will cost every American man, woman, and child almost $15 during the lifetime of this bill. Compare this to the current peanut program which operates at no net cost to the taxpayers. The way I see it, it is a losing proposition. The taxpayer loses, as do Virginia peanut farmers. The second point of concern is regarding the budget. The bill not only is expensive on the peanut front, but it also busts the budget. The Budget Act allocated $73.5 billion for the farm bill. The Congressional Budget Office now says the legislation will increase agricultural spending by $82.8 billion over the next 10 years--nearly 80 percent over the cost of existing programs. The 10-year cost of this bill, estimated at no less than $170 to $180 million, equates to a subsidy of agriculture of more than $640 by every man, woman, and child in America. In a time where budget surpluses have turned into budget deficits--we are fighting a war and fighting through a recession with the highest unemployment rate in over 8 years--we should not be diverting money from Social Security surpluses. This is a policy that stimulates supply, drives down prices, and it hurts the farmers who it is meant to help. Simple economics says that an unchecked increase in production will lead to slumping prices, and, as Senator Hutchison of Texas said, it will ultimately result in increased interest rates. The decline in prices will shrink the profits of farmers, driving them to borrow more money to stay in their business. And the inevitable increase in interest rates will only compound their problems. The result will be a continuing downward pressure on prices and continuing calls for emergency farm rescue legislation. The third issue of concern I would like to mention is trade. While this bill is not officially a violation of WTO, it is inevitable that there may be trade violations and claims made by foreign governments. This bill has already come under attack from U.S. trading partners and could set back our current efforts to strike free trade agreements. The Uruguay Round agreement on agriculture limits U.S. spending to no more than approximately $19 billion a year on domestic farm supports. The reason for that was to not distort production and trade. It is very likely that these limits will be exceeded in the future. Furthermore, the new country of origin labeling requirement, besides being fundamentally impracticable and unworkable, will trigger retaliation from some of our most important trading partners--Canada and Mexico. I also have other concerns about cuts in some specific programs that were at least in the Senate version going in the right direction which were beneficial to the people of Virginia. The conference report drastically cuts rural utility service funding that would deploy rural broadband programs and loans to rural electric cooperatives for service upgrades. Also, the conference report deletes the Senate provision for $70 million for a nutrient reduction pilot program in the Chesapeake Bay. I know the Presiding Officer has a few tributaries that flow into the bay, as, of course, does Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, the Senate provisions were knocked out. As Governor, we worked very hard--and I know the Presiding Officer did as well when he served as Governor--to reduce nutrients going into the bay so that grasses, fish, crabs, oysters, and mollusks could return. Unfortunately, that valuable nutrient reduction program was knocked out of the conference report. In summary, ultimately, I would like to see us pass a solid farm bill that provides a quality safety net to our hard-working farm families, which also keep prices affordable and low for consumers, which doesn't raid Social Security, and which does not grow the size of Government at the expense of every hard-working American. Indeed, I voted for the Senate version of the farm bill. While there are many salutary improvements in this bill, there are too many harmful results for Virginians and Americans. Today, this conference report takes a step backward on this philosophy. It goes against the market-based principles instilled in the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act, and it does so at a cost that is too high to pay. Today, regrettably and sadly, I will have to vote against this bill, and in doing so represent the interests of Virginia peanut farming communities and also the long-term interests of all farmers who deserve both adequate support and adequate predictability. I vote for fiscal responsibility and to protect the Social Security trust fund. I vote to keep the word of the U.S. to our trading partners that is vital to expanding markets for American farm products. And I vote on behalf of the taxpayers of Virginia and nationwide who understand the great importance of agriculture but simply cannot afford excessive, wasteful government spending. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLEN. I ask I be granted up to 10 minutes from the time allocated to Senator Lugar.

Mr. ALLEN. I thank the Senator. I hope the Senator heard my remarks and how complimentary and grateful I am for the work the Senator did on the Senate version.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Madam President, I rise today to address the House version of the Andean Trade Act (H.R. 3009). First, I strongly support fair and free trade. Second, I favor granting the President trade promotion authority. Third, I believe that certain improvements can be made to help workers who lose jobs due to international competition. And fourth, I do believe the current Andean Trade Act should be extended. However, as currently drafted, this is an Act that could have an adverse impact on the people of Virginia. In particular, Southside Virginia has been especially hard hit the past few years by the loss of textile and apparel jobs. Textile manufacturers in the United States are finding it more difficult, if not impossible, to compete with the low cost of overseas labor and limited environmental protection laws. We must fully consider the potential impact of this Andean Trade proposal rather than rush into a convoluted procedure for voting on unrelated, albeit important, issue. The men and women involved in the manufacturing and production of textile and apparel products are suffering. We need to find ways to help these individuals, not bring additional heartache. The House version of this bill unnecessarily increases the amount of non-U.S. yarn and fabric coming into our country. The existing law has been sufficiently beneficial. The U.S. textile and apparel industry, which employs 1.4 million people and accounts for 8 percent of all workers in our country, has fallen on hard times. Over the past five years, the textile industry has lost about 180,000 jobs, nearly one-third of the industry's workers. During this same time, there have been at least 220 textile plants that have closed their doors and ceased operations. Last year alone, 116 mills closed in the United States. The workers at these locations lost their jobs as domestic producers struggled to compete with cheaply priced imports. As a matter of fact, almost 140,000 textile and apparel employees have lot their jobs in the last 15 months. Just yesterday, DuPont Textiles and Interiors announced that it will be reducing its workforce by more than 2,000 employees worldwide. Unfortunately, 200 of those workers will be from Virginia. Also in Virginia, we've lost Tultex, VF Imagewear, and Pluma. And, Burlington Industries in Pittsylvania County, which makes synthetic and wool products, has been forced to eliminate thousands of jobs. As you know, the Andean nations are well known for their production of these products as well. Burlington and others will no doubt be impacted by the increase of products into our nation from these Andean countries. My vote to oppose cloture is to take a stand for the right of Senators to fully consider the House version of this bill and offer amendments. As I have stated, I am a firm believer in free and fair trade agreements that will, on balance, benefit millions of Americans. But what has been happening in the textile and apparel industry is not desirable for the people of Virginia. One aspect of trade is that some workers will almost inevitably have to move to other jobs. When workers are displaced, we must reasonably help ease the impacts of international competition. A bill I introduced last year, the Homestead Preservation Act (S. 1848) can assist these workers who have lost jobs due to international competition. This proposal would provide workers who have been displaced from their jobs because of international competition to become eligible for a secured loan so that they my continue making their mortgage payments on their home for up to one year while they find new employment. In summation, I strongly support trade promotion authority to tear down tariffs and barriers to American products, goods and services. But trade promotion authority ought to be considered separately from the extension of the Andean Trade Act. I, nevertheless, look forward in the next few weeks to working with my colleagues to fully examine the House passed version of the Andean Trade Act and am hopeful that the Senate will pass a version that is not so harmful to U.S. textile jobs. My vote on procedure is to allow Senators the opportunity and right to calmly review, debate and revise the House passed version of the Andean trade bill without the confluence and distraction of other issues that should be addressed separately. In the end, we need to pass three separate bills dealing with trade promotion authority, trade adjustment assistance, and the Andean Trade Act. Each of these measures should be accorded individual scrutiny, amendment and ultimate passage. Indeed, the tactic of merging these issues together can result in the House rejecting the most important of all three--trade promotion authority. This ploy to join all these items together can culminate in the unfortunate failure to pass any of these measures this year. I suggest the absence of a quorum.