Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my very distinguished colelague, the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, for yielding to me and for allowing me to be a cosponsor of the legislation which he has just been discussing before the Senate. I am proud to be one of his colleagues. I have great admiration for Senator Specter and admiration for his knowledge of the law. He has had long and varied experiences. I admire him for that experience. Senator Specter is a good lawyer. If I wanted a lawyer to plead my case to the Supreme Court, I think I would like Arlen Specter. If I were President of the United States--of course, I guess that will never become a reality--I would consider him for Attorney General, even though he is on the other side of the aisle. He calls the shots like they are. I am pleased to join with my distinguished colleague in introducing the legislation. Our proposal is aimed at helping the Senate to fulfill its constitutional duty by directing the Judiciary Committee to establish a pool of the best and the brightest Supreme Court candidates for the President's consideration whenever there is a vacancy on the Court--the best and the brightest. I personally do not promote the idea that we must make diversity a criterion. I have no problem with diversity, as long as the chosen ones are chosen because of their merit--their merit. That is what we seek to do here. We want the best and the brightest--not because they are Republicans, or not because they are Democrats, necessarily, but because they are the best and the brightest. As anyone who has ever read the Constitution knows, one of the most important differences between the Senate and the House of Representatives is the Senate's constitutional duty to advise and consent on Presidential nominations. Specifically, that power which is contained in article II, section 2, stipulates that the President, ``by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.'' While it may be true that the Senate has traditionally given a President great leeway in choosing his executive branch subordinates, especially those in Cabinet and sub-Cabinet positions, such deference on the part of the Senate has generally not applied to judicial nominations, particularly Supreme Court nominations. On the contrary, the Senate has historically exercised great caution to ensure that it carries out its responsibility, a responsibility that is a fundamental element of the separation of powers established in the Constitution. While we have been very diligent in granting our consent, I believe, as does Senator Specter, that the Senate has been less than energized with respect to the offering of its advice. The Constitution refers to the ``Advice and Consent.'' It doesn't just refer to the word ``consent,'' nor does it put the word ``consent'' in front of the word ``advise.'' It uses the phrase ``advise and consent of the Senate.'' Too often, as the American people are acutely aware, nominations to the High Court have become embroiled in special interest battles. All too often, the qualifications of a nominee have been aside as outside forces--interest groups and so on-- have sought to use a nomination as a means of furthering their particular ideological agenda. That is not what the Supreme Court is for. Too often, the eventual loser in the process is not just the individual who has been nominated, but also the Court and its integrity, and also, more than that even, the people of the United States--the whole people, not just some particular interest group, but all of the people. Mr. President, in an era when the nine life-tenured Justices who sit on our highest Court routinely decide questions that go to the very heart of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we cannot afford to have anything less than the most highly qualified individuals serving on that Court. While I do not mean to disparage any of the current Justices, the fact remains that, more and more, nominees are being selected for reasons that go beyond their qualifications, that go beyond their abilities, that go beyond their dedication, their reverence for and dedication to the Constitution. Accordingly, Senator Specter has come to the conclusion--and he has allowed me to join him--that the best way to resolve this problem and the best way for the Senate to undertake its advice responsibility is to direct the Judiciary Committee, after consultation with the finest legal minds in our country, to establish a panel of potential nominees that would be made available to the President--this President, or any other President. In so doing, it is our hope that we can begin to depoliticize the nomination process and, in turn, help restore to the High Court the esteem, much of which has been lost over the past few years. In closing, I again want to thank Senator Specter for his thoughtfulness, for his vision, as we have worked on the resolution. I know that he shares my concern that the Senate has not only this responsibility, but it has a duty, a constitutional duty, to ensure that the highest Court in the land is comprised of the best and the brightest talent that our Nation has to offer. I hope that others will join us in this effort. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished chairman, Mr. Thurmond, for his kind words.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for 10 minutes without that time being charged to either side.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank Mr. Levin for his dedication to duty, for his high sense of purpose, and for the example he gives to all of us. I hope we can emulate that.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I join with others in complimenting the distinguished chairman, Mr. Thurmond, and ranking member, Mr. Levin, as well as Mr. Kempthorne, and Mr. Cleland. Of the many duties that a United States Senator or a Member of the House of Representatives is called upon to perform, one of the most important involves expressing our views on whether U.S. armed forces should be put in harm's way in defense of our country's national interests. We must weigh whether the issue at hand merits risking the lives of our soldiers, sailors, and aviators. Members of our armed forces cannot individually decide whether they should place their lives at risk, for they are duty bound to follow the orders of their commanders, and ultimately, of the President. Every individual in our armed forces knows that he or she may be called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice for the nation. Every individual who takes the oath to join the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines, whether in the active forces, Reserves, or National Guard, does so knowing that they carry a special burden, and a unique responsibility, to defend our nation's interests, wherever and whenever they may be called upon to do so. As Senators, we must help to ensure that our armed forces are ready to perform this role. This includes raising and considering difficult questions, which are included in the conference report before us, related to force readiness and the procurement of weapons systems. These decisions involve billions of dollars and involve the employment of thousands of military and contractor personnel. The decisions made here affect all military personnel and a large segment of our economy, and I, for one, do not take them lightly. But of equal importance are questions concerning the morale of our troops. Weapons alone do not win wars. It is our troops on the ground, our sailors at sea, our aviators in the air, and all the personnel who support them behind the lines who must combine to triumph over our nation's enemies. And these forces can only fight together as a cohesive force if they are united by common goals, morale, and strategy. The morale of our forces is of particular importance, for troops who suffer from weakened morale must defeat not only the external enemy, but also deal with the internal divisions and problems of their own ranks, even while they fight the enemy. Our armed forces require strong leadership to deal with such problems, while providing a victorious strategy on the battlefield. Sadly, such leadership has been lacking in recent years, as is evidenced by the low morale particularly among the women in our armed forces. The women in our armed forces must endure a demoralizing and hostile environment while they attempt to carry out their duties. From the shocking behavior of Naval aviators at the ``Tail Hook'' conventions, to the alleged rape of recruits at Aberdeen, it has become clear that the women in our armed forces face sexual discrimination, harassment, assaults, and even rape, as they carry out their duties in defense of our nation. The recent report by the Secretary of the Army exposes the seriousness of the problem. The report states that ``sexual harassment exists throughout the Army, crossing gender, rank, and racial lines . . .'' Almost one quarter of the women reported that they had been sexually harassed in the last twelve months, based upon a random statistical survey conducted by the Army. A shocking 74 percent reported that they have endured crude or offensive behavior, 47 percent reported that they received unwanted sexual attention, 18 percent suffered from sexual coercion, and 8 percent said they had been sexually assaulted. While these statistics are appalling, the footnotes only add to the outrage. ``Unwanted sexual attention''--which almost half of the women reported--is defined as ``unwanted touching or fondling and asking for dates even when rebuffed.'' And sexual coercion--which almost one quarter of the women endured--``includes classic quid pro quo instances of job benefits or losses conditioned on sexual cooperation.'' The Army's report found that ``this issue is one of which the Army has been long aware, and that to date, Army policies and processes implemented to combat and eradicate sexual harassment have had little, if any, impact. As one soldier noted, `Women have been reporting sexual harassment for five years, and the Army's just now looking into it.' Many soldiers believe that their complaints and concerns have been ignored and that only recent media attention has forced Army leaders to focus on this issue.'' I would note that this in fact understates the intentional neglect on the part of the Army. It is not just that Army leaders ignored complaints of sexual harassment for a number of years. More shockingly, it is that it took the media and national public attention focused on the rape of female recruits to finally force the Army to seriously address the treatment of women in the ranks. There is an old adage that ``the fish rots from the head down.'' The report states that ``leaders set the values compass for the Army; it is from them that respect and dignity flow. Many leaders are currently seen as practicing a zero defects mentality, caring only about themselves and their careers. Soldiers do not uniformly have trust and confidence in their leaders. Unfair treatment, double standards, and a lack of discipline were raised to Panel representatives time and again . . .'' Within the Army, the policy has been to ``talk the talk,'' but not ``walk the walk''. Even while the Army brass told the troops that the policy was one of ``zero tolerance'' for sexual discrimination, the officers and drill sergeants knew that this was rarely enforced in practice. The report notes that a policy of ``zero tolerance'' is enforced for racial discrimination, but not for sexual discrimination. The question for the Army is what can be done to correct the problems identified in the report. I must commend the Secretary of the Army for issuing a candid and brutally honest summary of the problem. The report also identifies a number of policies that must be changed or enforced in order to ensure that women receive equal and fair treatment in the Army. I must note, however, that the report is silent on the question of the desirability of gender integrated training. I offered an amendment during the Committee markup of this bill, which is included in this conference report, calling for the establishment of an independent outside review commission to examine the question of the appropriateness of gender integrated recruit training in the armed forces. My amendment also calls upon the Commission to review the rules of fraternization with the goal of recommending a single consistent standard for conduct among enlisted people, and between enlisted people and officers, which spans all the services. What is appropriate for a soldier in the Army should also be appropriate for a sailor or airman or marine. On the question of training, the Army report notes that ``a key to addressing human relations issues, including sexual harassment, is assigning enough female role models to set the example for all trainees. Twenty percent of Army accessions are women, but the training base is composed of only ten percent female drill sergeants.'' The report also states that ``new recruits form and hold their most lasting impressions of the Army from the cadre they encounter during initial entry training.'' These observations suggest that female recruits might benefit from gender segregated training, in which they would be guaranteed to receive training from women drill instructors and role models. The report of the Secretary of the Army is a good first step, in terms of identifying the scope of the problem, and offering possible solutions. The commission that will be created as a consequence of the enactment into law of this conference report will add yet another dimension to our understanding of the problem and possible solutions. ``People are not in the Army, people are the Army,'' stated General Creighton W. Abrams, former Army Chief of Staff. ``By people, I do not mean personnel . . . I mean living, breathing, serving, human beings. They have needs and interests and desires. They have spirit and will, and strength and abilities. They have weaknesses and faults; and they have means. They are at the heart of our preparedness . . . and this preparedness . . .--as a nation and as an Army--depends upon the spirit of our soldiers. It is the spirit that gives the Army . . . life. Without it we cannot succeed.'' The report of the Secretary of the Army concludes that ``if there is one overarching theme to this report, it is this: we must rededicate ourselves to the fundamental truths so eloquently stated by General Abrams . . . Personnel readiness relies on a positive human relations environment. It is the vital base upon which we build the Army, and the combat effectiveness of the Army's most important weapon system--the soldier.'' Let us hope that the Army follows the recommendations included in this report, and for that matter, that its philosophy permeates the entire Pentagon and military establishment. We cannot relent in our examination of this problem; we must ensure that the leadership of our armed forces creates an environment of fairness for the women in the services. And we must not shirk from examining objectively every aspect of this issue, including some aspects that might be labeled ``politically incorrect,'' such as gender segregated training and coherent across-the-board fraternization policies. I am glad that the conferees had the courage to establish the commission, and I look forward to the report. I again compliment my chairman, Mr. Thurmond, and the ranking member, Mr. Levin. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be permitted to speak for not to exceed 10 minutes.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, South Dakota is a quiet state. Its cities are neither heralded in poetry like Carl Sandberg's ``big shouldered'' Chicago nor celebrated in song like New York and San Francisco. It is, nonetheless, a state of stunningly varied beauty, showcased in the wildflower-sprinkled long grass prairie. It still boasts free-ranging herds of bison; and in the wind- and water-carved Badlands that glow with sunset colors under the azure skies. It can be a lonely state, with long ribbons of tarmac linking small towns for years haunted by the brooding presence of nuclear-tipped intercontinental range missiles and blanketed by driving snowstorms in winter. Strong-willed and resilient personalities are required to flourish in South Dakota, and she is blessed with such citizens. One of those strong-willed, resilient South Dakotans ably serves both the State of South Dakota and the United States Senate, where he will soon celebrate both the fourth anniversary of his election as Democratic Leader and the 50th anniversary of his birth in Aberdeen, South Dakota. Ah, Mr. President--oh, just to be 50 again. I would be calling back almost 30 years in that event. I am sure that everyone here would agree that Senator Tom Daschle is strong-willed and resilient. Indeed, Senator Daschle's virtues are common to those who claim the Mount Rushmore State as their home. Like the many ranchers and farmers who live in South Dakota, Senator Daschle is a patient, hard-working man who knows that one must toil today so that one may reap the fruits of one's labors tomorrow. And, as befits a man who hails from one of the country's most sparsely populated states, in which a majority of the inhabitants are rurally located, Senator Daschle is quiet, self-contained, independent and plain-spoken. Despite his quiet reserve, however, Senator Daschle is a warm and friendly man; these qualities well suit the resident of a state whose name derives from the Sioux word for ``friends'' or ``allies.'' I hope that Senator Daschle will permit me to indulge in a flight of fantasy by pointing out that he shares many of the geographic and meteorological characteristics of his state. Like a South Dakota blizzard, he is capable of driving the Senate with authority, but like the tall grass prairie, he is also capable of bending with the winds of change, adapting and modifying issues in order to reach a common consensus. Like the famed Black Hills of South Dakota, Senator Daschle possesses an implacable reserve; and, as befits the representative of a state which stands geographically at the center of our Union, he has claimed for himself the ideological middle-ground of this body and this country. As I list these many and varied characteristics, it occurs to me that here is truly a fitting embodiment of the state whose changeable climate and diverse geography have resulted in the appellation ``the Land of Infinite Variety.'' From the many and varied characteristics that I have enumerated, I wish to pluck one that best captures the essence of Senator Daschle. I refer to his quietness. Quietness is an underrated and sadly uncommon trait, in this chamber and in this nation. Underrated, perhaps, because it is often mistaken for timidity or lack of conviction; we Americans at times place too much faith in the hearty optimism and aggressive self-confidence of the extrovert. But the true optimist, the truly confident person, has no need for bluster or vituperation. Thus the Bible instructs us in Thessalonians 4:11, ``Study to be quiet, and to do your own business.'' And Shakespeare, whose poetry and prose remain a bounteous font of wisdom, also said ``truth hath a quiet breast.'' Indeed, truth does have a quiet breast, and the heart that beats within that breast is no more steady, dependable, diligent, or uncomplaining than is the senior Senator from South Dakota. For many persons, turning 50--as my friend from South Dakota will do on December 9th--marks an important milestone along the road of life, prompting thoughts about where one is heading and what one has accomplished. I know that Senator Daschle will not have to concern himself on the latter score, for his accomplishments are both numerous and widely acknowledged. A champion of veterans, a dedicated friend to farmers, an ally of Indians, and a powerful advocate of providing affordable health care to all Americans, Senator Daschle has proved time and time again his willingness to fight for those who are unable to fight for themselves. His courage and persistence in these endeavors may, perhaps, be traced to his service in the U.S. Air Force, which provides further evidence--as if more were needed!--of Senator Daschle's dedication to his country. Clearly, Senator Daschle has no reason to concern himself on his upcoming birthday with fears that he has achieved too little. But what of that other concern I alluded to a few minutes ago, the sudden realization common to many fledgling quinquagenarians that they are leaving the comfortable environs of middle age and entering a new, unfamiliar, untested territory? I do not know whether Senator Daschle is experiencing such intimations of mortality--if he were, he would doubtless be loath to admit it--but I feel that on this account I may set his mind to rest. Allow me to offer a little of the perspective on aging that is the prerogative of those, like myself, who are more advanced in years. For when I entered my 50th year, the Senate was a far different place than it is today. Senators were then paid $30,000 a year. Senators Mike Mansfield of Montana and Everett Dirksen of Illinois presided masterfully over their respective parties in the Senate. It was a turbulent time nationally, and that turbulence was mirrored in the Senate. Senator Eugene McCarthy stormed out of one particularly contentious meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, angered over the President's Vietnam policy. That same year, spectators dropped a flood of anti-Vietnam War literature from the galleries to protest a conflict that had already killed over 10,000 American soldiers; the Senate responded by, for the first time, banning demonstrations within the Capitol, and I joined in that protest against demonstrations in the galleries, as I think Senators who know me would understand that I would. On a more positive note, that year also saw several important milestones in the history of the Senate. Maine's Margaret Chase Smith became the first woman elected to a leadership position in the Senate when she won a unanimous vote to be Chairman of the Republican Conference. That same year, the first black Senator in years, Edward W. Brooke of Massachusetts, was sworn in. Senator Brooke was not only the first black Senator since Reconstruction; he was also the first from a northern state and the first to be popularly elected to the Senate. I hope, in suggesting how the Senate has changed since my 50th year, that I have both reminded Senator Daschle of his youth and suggested the breadth of change that he will inevitably see in this chamber over the next few decades. For if South Dakotans in their wisdom deem it, Senator Daschle may continue to toil in this chamber for many years to come, and I look forward to working with him as he builds upon his achievements. So today, before the Senate adjourns this session, allow me to look ahead to the ninth of December and wish my friend Tom Daschle a very happy 50th birthday. To Tom personally, may I say: The hours are like a string of pearls, The days like diamonds rare, The moments are the threads of gold, That bind them for our wear, So may the years that come to you Such wealth and good contain That every moment, hour and day Be like a golden chain. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. It is really difficult to comprehend how much a trillion dollars is. And the distinguished Senator has pointed to the trade deficit that our country has been running. And he said that up until the early part of the 1980's our country was a creditor Nation, the foremost creditor Nation on Earth. And that during the 1980's it became a debtor Nation, to the tune of $1 trillion.

Mr. BYRD. I haven't been invited down. I am not looking for an invitation. I do not expect any invitation to change my mind. I have had the master of arm twisters ahold of my arm, Lyndon B. Johnson. He was the master arm twister. But I said no to him. When my first grandchild was born I gave to my daughter, the mother of that grandchild, a Bible. In that Bible I wrote these words: ``Teach him to say no.'' That's all I wrote, ``Teach him to say no.'' Mr. President, it doesn't make any difference if you have a vocabulary of 60,000 or 600,000 words. If you can't say no, then all these other words at some point or another in your lifetime are going to find you sadly lacking--if you can't say no. I am telling this story in my autobiography, of how I said no to Lyndon B. Johnson on more than one occasion. It was hard to do, because he put me on the Appropriations Committee when I first came here. And I felt as though I had been put through a wringer after going through a 30-minute skirmish with Lyndon Johnson but still saying, ``No. No, Mr. President.'' So, I haven't been invited down to the White House. But I can still say no and would be glad to. So, if the President wants to hear me say no, all he has to do is call me on this. He doesn't have to invite me down to the White House. I'll bet the Senator from South Carolina won't get any invitation either.

Mr. BYRD. I compliment the Senator on the presentation that he is making and on his charts. It is amazing, when one contemplates that, if one were to count a trillion dollars at the rate of $1 per second, it would require 32,000 years to count a trillion dollars. It is pretty amazing. The Senator and his charts point to the road that we are traveling. I thank the Senator for his fine statement. He has been a student of this matter for many years and on his committee, the Joint Economic Committee, I believe it is, he has accumulated a tremendous amount of knowledge in this respect. I thank him for his presentation. I hope that Senators who are not here will take the time to read it in tomorrow's Record. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have enjoyed listening to my friend, the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, who knows this subject up and down, back and forward, around and around. I thank him for the contribution he has made to the debate. I wish he had another hour. Mr. President, there has been a great deal of discussion during the past several months about fast track. Sadly, little of that discussion has been enlightening or informative. The administration, which submitted the Export Expansion and Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1997 in September, has apparently decided that misleading, exaggerated, and vacuous rhetoric is necessary if it is to win fast track renewal. Thus, the U.S. Trade Representative--for whom I have great respect--has described the President's fast track proposal to the Senate in the following terms: What is at stake in your consideration of this proposal is nothing less than whether the United States will continue to be at the forefront of nations seeking the reduction of trade barriers and the expansion of more open, equitable and reciprocal trading practices throughout the world. Let me say that again: What is at stake in your consideration [meaning the consideration by the Congress] of this proposal is nothing less than whether the United States will continue to be at the forefront of nations seeking the reduction of trade barriers and the expansion of more open, equitable and reciprocal trading practices throughout the world . . . . This is not the time to shrink from the future, but to seize the opportunities it holds. Let me assure you, Mr. President, that I am fully in favor of ``seizing the future.'' I, too, seek the reduction of trade barriers, and I long for ``more open, equitable and reciprocal trading practices.'' That is why I am firmly and implacably opposed to fast track. Mr. President, I did not come here today to add to the miasma of confusion that fast track supporters have created with their murky logic and overheated rhetoric. My purpose is to shed a little light, if I may, into the murk by exploring the institutional and practical problems that fast track presents. I believe that it is my duty toward my colleagues and my constituents to lay out in clear, simple and direct language the reasons for my opposition to fast track. I haven't been invited down to the White House. I presume that my good friend from South Carolina has not had an invitation down there.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. The record speaks for itself: Over 200 trade agreements entered into without fast track--and I am talking about the record which speaks for itself. The administration's actual trade record, over 200 trade agreements entered into without fast track versus 2 trade agreements entered into with fast track--200 without fast track, 2 with fast track. I might add that the latter 2 agreements have probably generated more controversy than the other 200 combined. I suspect that many of my colleagues rue the day that they allowed the administration to speed GATT and NAFTA through Congress. The other great myth of fast track is that the possibility of Congress' amending trade agreements will seriously hamper future negotiations. Lest I be accused of distorting the administration's position, let me quote the President's words on trade negotiations verbatim. . . . I cannot fully succeed without the Congress at my side. We must work in partnership, together with the American people, in securing our country's future. The United States must be united when we sit down at the negotiating table. Mr. President, I fully agree with the notion of a partnership between the executive and legislative branches, and I assure you that I will work with this President and with future Presidents to ensure our mutual trade objectives. But I will not accept the argument that America's trade interests are best served by Congress taking a walk, abdicating its responsibility to consider, abdicating its responsibility to debate, abdicating its responsibility to amend, if necessary, trade proposals. Now, the Constitution gives this Senate the right to amend and we ought not give away that right. We ought not to agree to anything less than that. This Constitution says that when it comes to raising money, those measures shall originate in the other body but that the Senate may amend as on all other bills. So there you are. The Constitution recognizes the right of the Senate to amend. The Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills. There it is. That is the Constitution. So Congress ought not take a walk. Congress ought not abdicate its responsibility to consider, debate, and, if necessary, to amend trade proposals. The President asked that we trust him alone to make trade decisions. Now, I like the President and I respect the President, but our political system was not built on trust. The Constitution did not say ``trust in the President of the United States with all thy heart, with all thy mind, and with all thy soul.'' Our political system was built on checks and balances, on separation of powers, on each branch of Government looking carefully and meticulously over the other branch's shoulder. That is how much trust the system has built into it. Our Constitution's Framers realized that the surest way of preventing tyranny and achieving enlightened rule was to divide power among distinct coordinate branches of Government. As Madison famously observed, men are not angels. Accordingly, the Framers devised a ``policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives'' in which ``the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices of Government in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other.'' Mr. President, that was a good reply that Diogenes made to a man who asked him for letters of recommendation. ``That you are a man, he will know when he sees you. Whether you are a good man or a bad one he will know, if he has any skill in discerning the good and the bad. But if he has no such skill, he will never know though I write to him 1,000 times.'' ``It is as though a piece of silver money desired someone to recommend it to be tested. If the man be a good judge of silver, he will know. The coin,'' said Diogenes, ``will tell its own tale.'' And so will the Constitution, Mr. President. It needs no letters of recommendation. The President asks for a ``partnership'' with Congress. He asks the country to be united at the negotiating table. But I'm afraid that what he really wants is an unequal partnership in which the administration sits at the negotiating table and Congress sits quietly and subserviently at his feet while he negotiates. Congress sits subserviently. Mr. President, I have a different view of the partnership between the President, any President, and Congress, a view that is rooted in the Congress and in the institutional traditions of this country. I see a partnership in which the executive fulfills its role at the negotiating table and Congress makes sure that the product of such negotiations serves the national interest, not just the interests of a party but the national interest. I don't believe that either branch has a monopoly on wisdom or a monopoly on patriotism or a monopoly on savvy. That is why I believe that each can improve the other's actions. I have no doubt that Congress, after careful scrutiny, will continue to approve agreements that truly improve trade and open markets. Now, I'm not interested in looking at the duties on every little fiddle string or corkscrew that is brought into this country, but they are overweighing policy matters that Congress ought to be interested in and acted about, and it may be that Congress should offer an amendment in one way or another. Congress must be free to correct possible mistakes or sloppiness or oversight in the negotiating process that would harm this country's interests and impede truly free trade. Congress knows full well that any amendments it may offer could unravel a freshly negotiated agreement. It knows that amendments should not be freely offered and adopted promiscuously, haphazardly, but should rather be seen as a last resort to remedy serious deficiencies in an agreement. I see no reason, however, why a legislative procedure that is considered essential in all other policy debates should not be used in debating trade agreements. We amend bills, we amend resolutions on various and sundry subjects, we amend legislation that raises revenues, we amend bills that make appropriations and public moneys. Why, then, if that legislative procedure is essential in all other debates, why should it not be used in debating trade agreements? Mr. President, I recognize the importance of opening markets and removing trade barriers. I also appreciate the tremendous difficulty, the tremendous difficulty of negotiating trade agreements that benefit all sectors of our society. Mr. President, I cannot support fast track. I cannot support surrendering the rights and prerogatives and duties and responsibilities of this body under the Constitution to any President. I cannot support fast track. To do so would prevent me from subjecting future trade agreements to the close scrutiny that they deserve on behalf of the people of this Nation. I can and will strive to exercise my limited powers in pursuit of freer, more open trade which serves the interests of everyone in this Nation. But I cannot, in good conscience, allow fast track to strip me and my constituents of our constitutional prerogatives and strip this branch of its rightful role in regulating foreign commerce. I can't do that for any President. Mr. President, on December 5, 63 B.C. the Roman Senate sat to debate and to decide the fate of five accomplices of Catiline. Silaneus proposed the death penalty. Julius Caesar, when he was called upon, proposed that the death penalty not be applied, but that the five accomplices of Catiline be scattered in various towns, that their properties be confiscated, and that their trials await another day. Cato the Younger was then called upon and asked for his opinion. He said to his fellow Senators, ``Do not believe that it was by force of arms alone that your ancestors lifted the state from its small beginnings and made it a great Republic. It was something quite different that made them great, something that we are entirely lacking. They were hard workers at home. They were just rulers abroad. And they brought to the Senate untrammeled minds, not enslaved by passions.'' And I say to my colleagues, on this question, we should come to the Senate with untrammeled minds, not enslaved by passions--partisan, political, or otherwise, keeping uppermost in our minds our duties and responsibilities under the Constitution of the United States. That is the mast to which we should tie ourselves--the Constitution. I close with these final words by Cato: ``We have lost those virtues,'' he said--speaking of the virtues of their ancestors--``we pile up riches for ourselves while the state is bankrupt. We sing the praises of prosperity and idle away our lives, good men or bad; it is all one. All the prizes that merit ought to win are carried off by ambitious intriguers, and no wonder each one of you schemes only for himself, when in your private lives you are slaves to pleasure. And here in the Senate the tools of money or influence.'' Those are Cato's words, and his words are just as fitting today and on this question. Cato said, ``The result is that when an assault is made upon the republic, there is no one here to defend it.'' Mr. President, how true are Cato's words today! I urge my colleagues to vote no on the motion to proceed. I yield the floor. Mr. REED addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, it was our first and, in my opinion, greatest President, George Washington, who analogized the Senate to a saucer, we are told, into which we pour legislation so as to cool it. Washington foresaw that a country as young, as aggressive and at times as impatient as ours needed some institutional curb to prevent it from rashly throwing itself into action without sufficient reflection. Indeed, Mr. President, the Senate has more than once lived up to this role by providing a forum where cool minds and level intellects prevailed. Alas, the Senate did not fulfill this role when NAFTA and GATT came along. And the fault lies with the adoption of the artificial and unwise procedure now known as fast track--fast track. That is what the administration is telling Members of Congress we have to have. Instead of scrutinizing these proposals closely, instead of engaging in prolonged and incisive debate, we were forced to play our parts in ill- considered haste. Rather than patiently and thoughtfully evaluating the pros and cons--what did we do?--we buckled--buckled--in the face of administration pressure. And that is what we will do again. That is what we will do again. We are not going to think about the Constitution. How many of us cared a whit about what the Constitution said? Rather than pouring over the trade agreements, we peered at them from afar like tourists gawking at a distant and rapid train thundering down a very fast and very slick track indeed. The GATT and NAFTA experiences suggest that fast track--like the fast lane--can be risky business for U.S. trade policy. Fast track was Congress' response to a time when trade agreements were just that-- trade agreements, agreements on trade and trade alone. Now that time has passed--it is gone--as huge, sprawling agreements like GATT and NAFTA propose changes in trade policy whose ramifications spill outwards into all aspects of domestic law and policy. Now what is our duty? What is our duty? Where does our duty lie? It is time that we in Congress wake up and resume a more traditional role of treating trade agreements with the care and the attention that they deserve and the care and attention that the Constitution requires that we give them. Now, Mr. President, I have tried to shine a few rays of truth through the murky rhetoric that surrounds this contentious issue. I have patiently laid out the history of foreign trade regulations in order to emphasize the important role that tradition and the Constitution assigned to Congress and to show how fast track has impeded our recent efforts to fulfill that role. But I would be remiss in my duties if I did not take the time to address some of the supposedly compelling justifications that fast track supporters have advanced. So let me start with the first myth--the first myth--of fast track, which posits that no country will negotiate with the United States unless the administration has fast track in place. How laughable, how preposterous. In the President's words: Our trading partners will only negotiate with one America-- not first with an American President and next with an American Congress. Well, what did the framers say about that? What did the framers say about that? They said that Congress shall regulate, have the power to regulate foreign commerce. The Constitution placed the duty upon us 100 Senators and upon the other 1,743 Members of this body who have walked across this stage in the more than 200 years. So we 100 need to remember that this document--this document--places the responsibility on us. Do not be blinded by the glittering gewgaws in the form of words that come from the White House. Do not let a call from the President of the United States, his ``Eminence,'' as John Adams wanted to refer to the President, do not let a call or a handshake or a look in the eye from the chief executive, awe one--he puts his britches on just like I do, one leg at a time. And when he nicks himself with a razor, he bleeds just like I do. So the President said: Our trading partners will only negotiate with one American--not first with an American President and next with an American Congress. What does the Constitution say? As I suggested earlier, the absence of fast track in the years before 1974 did not seem to discourage nations from negotiating trade agreements with the United States. Moreover, even since 1974, fast track has been used so infrequently that it can scarcely be said to have affected prospective trade partners. Listening to the administration might lead one to conclude that every trade agreement since 1974 could not have been concluded--just could not have been concluded--without fast track. To hear them tell it down on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, the western end, where the Sun rises--but not according to this, not according to this Constitution. The Sun does not rise in the west. But listening to the administration might lead one to conclude that every trade agreement since 1974 simply could not have been concluded without fast track. Well, nothing could be further from the truth. Of the hundreds and hundreds of trade agreements that we have entered into over the past 23 years, only--only--the five that I mentioned earlier have used fast track. ``What? Are you out of your head?'' Only the five that I mentioned earlier have used fast track? That is right. Fast track has been used on a grand total of five occasions. Indeed, the current administration alone has entered into some 200 trade agreements without the benefit of fast track. Mr. President, the divine Circe was an enchantress. And Homer tells us that Odysseus was urged by Circe to stay away from the sirens' isle. ``Don't go near it,'' the sirens' isle, with their melodious voices that came from lips as sweet as honey. ``Odysseus alone must hear them. Don't let your companions hear them.'' So plugging his companions' ears with wax, Odysseus ordered his companions to bind him to the mast of the ship with ropes, and that if he should ask them to untie him and let him go, to bind him even tighter. And so they bound him, hand and foot, with ropes to the mast of the ship. And he instructed them to disregard his order. ``Don't follow my orders,'' he said. ``Tie them tighter than ever,'' until they were a long way past the sirens' isle. That is what we have been hearing--these voices, the sirens. They come out of the west, down where the Sun rises at the western end of Pennsylvania Avenue. That is where the Sun rises, believe it or not, in the west. I say to my colleagues, plug your ears with wax if you are invited down to the White House. Plug your ears with wax or, better still, find somewhere else to go. Just do not go. Do not go down there. Tie yourselves with ropes to the columns of the Capitol. Do not go down there in the land of the rising sun, the western end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Do not go. But if you do go, plug your ears with wax, lest you fall victim to the blandishments of the sirens. Mr. President, I sincerely doubt that any country will hesitate to negotiate trade agreements with the dominant economic and political power of our time out of concern that that country's legislative procedures will impede a proper agreement. So do not listen to that argument. Do not listen to the argument of the administration when they say, if they do not have a fast-track agreement other countries simply will not negotiate with us. No country--no country--in my judgment, will hesitate to negotiate trade agreements with this country, the dominant economic and political power of the age out of concern that this country's legislative procedures will impede a proper agreement. If any country does entertain such concerns, then I suspect that the fault lies with the administration, whose alarmist statements and doom-laden prophecies have doubtless misled many foreign and domestic observers into thinking that fast track is the only key to open trade. The administration's Chicken Little impersonation has succeeded in whipping up false fears and phony worries that never existed before. One has only to ignore this rhetoric and look at the administration's actual trade record to see that the sky, far from falling, is still solidly secured to the heavens. Mr. President, how much time have I consumed?

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

Mr. BYRD. I don't blame those who accept the invitation. I assume some of them will say no likewise. I don't expect to convince my colleagues, all of them or maybe any of them. But I do hope to lay the groundwork for the healthy, open and honest debate about fast track that this Chamber and this country sorely need. So let me start by making clear that Congress has and must continue to have a central role in regulating trade with foreign countries. The Constitution--here it is, right out of my shirt pocket. Here is the anchor of my liberties, the Constitution. Let's see what it says. Article I, section 8 assigns to the Congress the power ``to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes,'' assigns the power ``to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,'' and to ``lay and collect * * * Duties, Imposts, and Excises.'' Pursuant to this authority, Congress may, for example, impose tariffs, authorize reciprocal trade agreements, grant or deny most-favored-nation status, and regulate international communication. All this Congress can and must do according to the Constitution of the United States. Nor is this the extent of Congress' involvement in matters of foreign trade. It scarcely needs to be pointed out that Congress' central function--Congress' central function as laid out in the first section of the first article of the Constitution, the very first sentence-- its central function is to make the laws of the land. This means that any trade agreements that are not self-executing, meaning that they require changes in domestic law, can only take effect if and when Congress passes implementing legislation codifying those changes. So it should be clear from the Constitution that the framers assigned Congress broad authority over foreign trade agreements. Even Alexander Hamilton, who so often championed the President's supremacy in foreign affairs, acknowledged in the Federalist Papers that Congress' authority to regulate foreign commerce was essential to prevent the President from becoming as powerful as the King of Great Britain. Given the President's responsibilities in conducting relations with foreign powers, Hamilton argued that Congress' regulation of foreign trade was a vital check upon Executive power. But look what we are doing, look what we are about to do. We are, through fast track, just as we did with the line-item veto, handing off the few powers that we have to check the Executive. Let me say that again. We are, through fast track, just as we did with the line-item veto, handing off the few powers that we have to check the Executive. We are making a king. He already has his castle with his concrete moat. I can see it out there. The Senator from Delaware can see it. Here he has this concrete moat out there, and with the king's guard standing watch in dark glasses--you know how they wear those dark glasses--with ears glued to wrist radios, and little implements on their lapels, he has his own private coach, his own chef and royal tasters, his retinue of fancy-titled king's men. You read ``All the King's Men''? So what are we waiting for? What are we waiting for? Just call in the jeweler, contact the goldsmith, let's make the crown; let's make the crown. Crown him king. That is the road on which we are traveling. We gave away the line-item veto. The Roman Senate did the same. It gave away the power of the purse, and when the Roman Senate gave away the power of the purse, it gave away its check against the executive. So Sulla became dictator in 82 B.C. He was dictator from 82 to 80 B.C., and then a little later, the Senate--it wasn't under pressure to do it--voluntarily ceded the power over the purse to Caesar and made him dictator for a year. That was in 49 B.C. Then in 48 B.C., it made him dictator again. And in 46 B.C., it made him dictator for 10 years, just as we are going to do with fast track now for 5 years. We don't do it a year at a time. The Roman Senate made Caesar dictator for 10 years. That was in 46 B.C. But the very next year, in 425 B.C., it made him dictator for life. I don't know when we will reach that point, but we have already ceded to this President great power over the purse. It has never before been done in the more than 200 years of American history. It was never given to any President, the power over the purse. Now we are going to give the President fast track. So we are just waiting, just waiting for the jeweler! We are on the point of contacting the goldsmith! Let's now make the crown! From 1789 to 1974, Congress faithfully fulfilled Hamilton's dictate, and the dictate of the Constitution that it regulate foreign trade. During those years, Congress showed that it was willing and able to supervise commerce with other countries. Congress also proved that it understood when changing circumstances required it to delegate or refine portions of its regulatory power over trade. For example, starting with the 1934 Reciprocal Trade Act, as trade negotiations became increasingly frequent, Congress authorized the President to modify tariffs and duties during his negotiations with foreign powers. Such proclamation authority has been renewed at regular intervals, most recently in the 1994 GATT Reciprocal Trade Act, which I voted against. I mentioned that Congress fulfilled its obligation to regulate foreign trade from 1789 to 1974. Well, what, you may wonder, happened in 1974? Mr. President, it was in 1974 that Congress first approved a fast- track mechanism to allow for expedited consideration in Congress of trade agreements negotiated by the President. Fast track set out limits on how Congress would consider trade agreements by banning amendments, limiting debate and all but eliminating committee involvement. So we relegated ourselves to a thumbs-up or thumbs-down role. Thumbs up, thumbs down. Under fast track, Congress agreed to tie its hands and to gag itself when the President sends up a trade agreement for our consideration. Why on Earth, you might ask, would Congress agree to such a thing? What would convince Members of Congress to willingly relinquish a portion of Congress' constitutional power over foreign commerce? What were Members thinking when they agreed to limits on the democratic processes by which laws are made? And why, if extensive debate and the freedom to offer amendments are essential to all of the areas of lawmaking, would Congress decide that when it comes to foreign trade, we can do without such fundamental legislative procedures? Mr. President, the answers to these questions are straightforward. When Congress established fast track in 1974, it did so at a time when international commercial agreements were narrowly--narrowly--limited to trade. Consider the first two instances in which fast track was employed. The first was for the 1979 GATT Tokyo Round Agreement. The implementing bill that resulted dealt almost exclusively with tariff issues and required few changes in U.S. law. The second use of fast track was for the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement of 1985. The implementing language for that agreement was all of 4 pages--all of 4 pages--and it dealt only with tariffs and rules on Government procurement. If its first two uses were relatively innocuous, starting with its third use, fast track began to change and to develop an evil twin. I refer to the 1988 U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement which, despite its title, extended well beyond trade issues to address farming, banking, food inspection and other domestic matters. One has only to see the size of the agreement's implementing bill, covering over 100 pages now, to see how different this was from the first two agreements approved under the fast-track mechanism. By the time of the NAFTA agreement in 1993 and the GATT Uruguay Round of 1994, the insidious nature of fast track was becoming apparent for all to see. NAFTA required substantial changes in U.S. law, addressing everything from local banking rules to telecommunications law to regulations regarding the weight and length of American trucks. And these changes were bundled aboard a hefty bill numbering over 1,000 pages and propelled down the fast track before many Members of Congress knew what was going on. I doubt that many of my colleagues realized the extent to which, first, NAFTA and then GATT would alter purely domestic law. Most of us thought of GATT as related to trade and foreign relations, but through the magic mechanism of the fast-track wand--presto--trade legislation became a vehicle for sweeping changes in domestic law. So what had happened? What had happened? Mr. President, Socrates, in his Apology to the judges said ``Petrifaction is of two sorts. There is a petrifaction of the understanding, and there is also a petrifaction of the sense of shame.'' I fear that with respect to the Constitution, there is not only a petrifaction of our understanding of that document, but there is also a petrifaction of reverence for the document, and a petrifaction of our sense of duty toward that organic law. So petrifaction has set in. Mention the Constitution to Members: ``When did you last read it? What did you mean when you swore that you would support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic? What did you have in mind? Did you have in mind some foreign invader that was about to set foot on American soil? Was that it? Or did you think about emasculating the Constitution by passing line-item veto legislation or by passing fast track?" Has a petrifaction of our sense of duty to the Constitution set in? Has a petrifaction of our understanding of the Constitution set in? Has a petrifaction of our caring about the Constitution taken over? Well, fast track served to bind and gag the Senate, preventing much needed debate and precluding the possibility of correcting amendments. Think about that. We give up our right to amend. And the result, as many observers today would agree, is hardly a triumph for free trade or American workers. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. President?

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I may take just a few minutes longer than 10. I ask unanimous consent that I may be recognized for such time as I may require.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish to speak this morning on the subject: the ``fairy tales of fast track: the myth of trade negotiations paralysis.'' It has been said that if one wants a lie to stick, just keep repeating it, keep shouting it, until it just seems to become a reality. On the matter of fast-track procedures for congressional handling of trade agreements, we have a whopper being shouted from the housetops in congressional testimony and on the op-ed pages of our leading newspapers by people who surely ought to know better. An example of what I am talking about appears in the Washington Post today, authored by our esteemed former colleague and former Senate Republican leader, Mr. Bob Dole, who engages in vacuous, vapid vaporings in insisting that other nations will not play ball with us on trade if they think Congress is going to take a close look at what is negotiated, and, Heaven forbid, even have an opportunity to consider amendments to trade agreements negotiated by the administration. Here is what Mr. Dole says, in part: The fate of fast-track legislation this fall may determine whether the President ever will negotiate another trade agreement. Let us take a look again at that profound statement by Mr. Dole: The fate of fast-track legislation this fall may determine whether the President ever will negotiate another trade agreement. Now, there is an assertion. One might get the idea that fast-track consideration of trade agreements is normal practice, and that it is the normal practice in considering trade agreements, Mr. President. But, fast-track consideration of trade agreements is as rare as hen's teeth. It has been done all of only five times since the first very limited fast-track authority was granted by the Congress in 1974. So, in nearly a quarter of a century, we have used fast-track consideration all of five times on this floor. Can anyone guess how many trade agreements have been negotiated in that quarter of a century? The answer is, of course, hundreds-- hundreds. We have had fast track on this Senate floor five times in a little over 23 years, but in the meantime, hundreds of trade agreements have been negotiated. And the Clinton administration, as a matter of fact, is quite fond of boasting of its record of entering into some 200 trade agreements, none of them subject to fast track except the GATT and NAFTA trade pacts. The other clarion call that we hear repeatedly from the administration, repeated by Mr. Dole again this morning, is the issue of American leadership. The United States must lead in the global economy and if Congress wants to review and possibly amend trade agreements, that's the end of that. Here is what Mr. Dole says: Global trade is inevitable, and Presidential fast-track authority is indispensable if America is to lead the community of nations into the next century. Another quite profound statement; and mind-boggling, indeed. I would suspect that we are going to be talking about American leadership a lot this week, as the Senate reviews the need for fast-track authority that has been requested by the administration. If a trade agreement is soundly negotiated and if it would be clearly beneficial to America, I think it is a pretty fair guess that the Senate will approve it without any amendment; without even the threat of an amendment. But the threat of amendments should prove valuable as additional leverage for administration negotiators on trade matters. Some of these negotiations are pretty tough, and I should think that the Senate's careful role in reviewing the product can be used to advantage. I do not think it hurts American leadership for our trading partners--some of whom are trading adversaries when they do not implement in good faith the agreements they sign with us and continue to restrict access to their markets for American goods--to know that the U.S. Senate is looking over their shoulders. It could be useful bargaining leverage, and if I were negotiating an agreement I certainly think it would be advantageous to have the weight of future Senate scrutiny to dangle over the head of a tough bargainer on the other side of the table. The third point that our good friend Mr. Dole makes is that somehow our trade negotiators are cooling their heels and waiting for the Senate to give assured protection to their products before beginning their negotiations. Mr. Dole says: Some may ask why it matters whether other countries beat us in securing trade pacts with developing nations. What are we waiting for? Now, there is a profound question: What are we waiting for? Mr. Dole suggests that the Senate is holding up negotiations. And nothing could be further from the truth. The administration already has authority given to it in law to negotiate trade pacts. This negotiating authority was most recently provided by the Congress in the 1994 GATT agreement, or Uruguay round, and it is good into the next century. I do not notice any crippling of the administration's negotiating authority or of its ability to successfully conclude trade agreements without the use of fast track. At the moment, the United States has been negotiating a so-called multilateral agreement on investment, MAI, for 2 years, which is now 90 percent or more complete, with strong American leadership and without the assurance of fast-track legislation. It is unclear whether the administration intends to try to get this agreement approved by the Congress under new fast-track approval legislation. Nevertheless, this immensely complicated and very important multilateral agreement has been negotiated without the benefit--without the benefit of a promise of the Senate's pulling a black bag of no amendment guarantees over its head. I think we need an analysis of all the trade agreements concluded by the administration. Let's take a look at the scorecard. Let's see if Mr. Dole is right that without the Senate's passing the new Export Expansion and Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1997, all is lost--all is lost. Let's try to determine if the Founding Fathers were completely off the mark when they gave to the Congress authority over the regulation of commerce with foreign nations in article I, section 8-- article I, section 8, of the Constitution, dealing with the powers of the Congress. The Founding Fathers did not want the President to have this authority, because our Founding Fathers' memories were not short indeed and the Founding Fathers were not at all enamored with the idea of a President of the United States gathering authority unto himself like they had experienced with King George III of England. So this exclusive power was not centered on the legislative branch by whim or by fancy. There were weighty considerations of a system founded on carefully balanced powers. Therefore, let's not get stampeded by all the alarm bells, all of the Roman candles, all of the fire crackers of lost American leadership, of preposterous assertions about the behavior of our trading partners if we don't steer our constitutional system further in the direction of executive power. The scaremongers say that the Sun rises in the west. I don't believe it. I don't believe the Sun rises at the western end of Constitution Avenue. If it does, that's a very recent phenomenon. If our trading partners truly want to make market arrangements for new flows of goods and services with the United States, we certainly have learned that they will do so, even in the reality of scrutiny of the Congress over those deals. That has not stopped any country or group of countries from negotiating with us to date. So why should it happen now? Let us not shortchange ourselves. Don't belittle ourselves. Let's not lose confidence in ourselves. This is America, the engine of world growth; the largest market, the most coveted market in the world! It is embarrassing and it is wrong to say that the role of the Congress is standing in the way of success, damaging to our world leadership, or an obstacle to getting good agreements. And it is absolutely preposterous to maintain that other nations will not negotiate with us if we follow our constitutional system. If trade agreements are in the national interests of other nations, they will be at the table. They will be at the table, in my judgment, Congress or no Congress. Now, when was the last time that Congress rejected a trade agreement or emasculated it beyond further international consideration? These arguments put forth by the administration, and dutifully repeated--dutifully repeated by our distinguished former Republican leader, are just a pretext for not going through the rigors of defending such agreements, and all parts thereof, before the elected representatives of the people who are going to be subjected to them, certainly affected by them, and who will perhaps pay for them. I hope that the Senate will have an informed, lengthy, robust debate on trade this week. It is high time that the Senate talked about such agreements; high time that the Senate talked about the trade deficits that we are experiencing. My distinguished and informed and most learned colleague, Byron Dorgan, has been talking about this from time to time over the long weeks and months. I have seen him bring charts into the Chamber. I have heard him discuss the shortsightedness of our negotiators and how we continually let ourselves be taken to the cleaners in trade negotiations. So I hope that we will have a good debate on trade this week because, as I say, it's high time that the Senate talked about the trade deficits we are experiencing, about the barriers that exist for access to foreign markets and about the real advantages and disadvantages of trade for our economy. Mr. President, so much for the vacuous, vapid vaporings of those who would have us steer away from the constitutional authority of the Congress and go down that road that we have been traveling on for so long--of taking a beating in trade negotiations. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article by former Senator Bob Dole be printed in the Record.

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, at the request of the distinguished majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until the hour of 2:30 p.m. this afternoon.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the name of Mr. Levin, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Leahy be added as cosponsors to S. 1319, a bill to repeal the Line-Item Veto Act.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the name of Mr. Daschle be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 1397, the Byrd-Gramm- Baucus-Warner amendment to S. 1173, the ISTEA reauthorization bill.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. So the fast track has to do with the operations here within the Senate and the House.