Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, today I add my name as an original cosponsor of a constitutional amendment to prohibit the physical desecration of the American flag. I know that there are many who believe that the desecration of our country's flag is the ultimate expression of their political freedoms, but I do not believe all speech is free. Our country pays a price when we see demonstrations which tear down our standard bearer of national integrity. Our flag represents the values upon which this nation was founded and our charter of government established in Philadelphia in 1787. When we no longer value the flag as a symbol of national unity and allegiance to this compact, our Republic is weakened. Burning our country's flag is not political free speech, it is political garbage. As a society, we have placed parameters on free speech. A person who shouts fire in a crowded theater does not enjoy the protection of freedom of speech. A person whose words incite violence does not enjoy the protection of the First Amendment. I firmly believe that no legitimate act of political protest should be suppressed. Nor should we ever discourage debate and discussion about the Federal government. However, to allow the physical desecration of our national symbol is to allow the ties that bind us as a country, the ties that bind one generation to the next in their love and respect for this country, to be weakened. When we no longer value our flag, we lose value for our country, our government, and each other. Over two hundred years after the ratification of our nation's Bill of Rights, the United States Supreme Court erroneously ruled that the desecration of our national symbol is protected speech in the case of Texas vs. Johnson. In response to this decision, the United States Senate overwhelmingly passed the Flag Protection Act, which was also declared unconstitutional by the high court. The Supreme Court's action has made it clear that a constitutional amendment is necessary for enactment of any binding protection of the flag. Up to this point, neither House of Congress has been able to garner the two-thirds super majority necessary for passage of a constitutional amendment. But because grassroots support for this amendment continues to grow, I have joined with members on both sides of the aisle to again try passing this amendment. I am hopeful that this time we will get the necessary votes. Let me close by recalling the words of a Union Soldier in his last letter to his wife dated July 14, 1861. He said, ``my courage does not halt or falter. I know how American civilization now bears upon the triumph of the government and how great a debt we owe to those who went before us through the blood and suffering of the Revolution, and I am willing, perfectly willing, to lay down all my joys in this life to help maintain this government and pay that debt.'' Today, our task here in the Senate seems trivial in comparison. But if we want the flag that hangs in school rooms, over courthouses, in sports stadiums and off front porches all across America, to continue symbolizing that same commitment to country, then it is a challenge we cannot fail to meet. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, today I add my name as an original cosponsor of a constitutional amendment to prohibit the physical desecration of the American flag. I know that there are many who believe that the desecration of our country's flag is the ultimate expression of their political freedoms, but I do not believe all speech is free. Our country pays a price when we see demonstrations which tear down our standard bearer of national integrity. Our flag represents the values upon which this nation was founded and our charter of government established in Philadelphia in 1787. When we no longer value the flag as a symbol of national unity and allegiance to this compact, our Republic is weakened. Burning our country's flag is not political free speech, it is political garbage. As a society, we have placed parameters on free speech. A person who shouts fire in a crowded theater does not enjoy the protection of freedom of speech. A person whose words incite violence does not enjoy the protection of the First Amendment. I firmly believe that no legitimate act of political protest should be suppressed. Nor should we ever discourage debate and discussion about the Federal government. However, to allow the physical desecration of our national symbol is to allow the ties that bind us as a country, the ties that bind one generation to the next in their love and respect for this country, to be weakened. When we no longer value our flag, we lose value for our country, our government, and each other. Over two hundred years after the ratification of our nation's Bill of Rights, the United States Supreme Court erroneously ruled that the desecration of our national symbol is protected speech in the case of Texas vs. Johnson. In response to this decision, the United States Senate overwhelmingly passed the Flag Protection Act, which was also declared unconstitutional by the high court. The Supreme Court's action has made it clear that a constitutional amendment is necessary for enactment of any binding protection of the flag. Up to this point, neither House of Congress has been able to garner the two-thirds super majority necessary for passage of a constitutional amendment. But because grassroots support for this amendment continues to grow, I have joined with members on both sides of the aisle to again try passing this amendment. I am hopeful that this time we will get the necessary votes. Let me close by recalling the words of a Union Soldier in his last letter to his wife dated July 14, 1861. He said, ``my courage does not halt or falter. I know how American civilization now bears upon the triumph of the government and how great a debt we owe to those who went before us through the blood and suffering of the Revolution, and I am willing, perfectly willing, to lay down all my joys in this life to help maintain this government and pay that debt.'' Today, our task here in the Senate seems trivial in comparison. But if we want the flag that hangs in school rooms, over courthouses, in sports stadiums and off front porches all across America, to continue symbolizing that same commitment to country, then it is a challenge we cannot fail to meet. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman), and the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) would vote ``aye''.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman), and the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) would vote aye.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I understand the statement of my colleague from Georgia as it relates to the pending legislation regarding the renaming of Washington National Airport. I expect our two leaders then to discuss that in the morning and, I suspect, as it would be in the case of the Senator from Georgia, that it would be after the policy committee meetings tomorrow and our discussions there before any final resolution from either side could be made. So under those circumstances, we will have the votes at noon tomorrow, and the recess until 2:15. At about that time we will kind of know where we are going. I thank the Chair, and yield the floor. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Madam President, we are developing a position here that I don't particularly like, as it relates to naming an airport after one of our great Presidents. One of the things that concerns me most is what Ronald Reagan did as President. When he wrote his federalist papers, the Executive Order, I believe, 12612, it related to States rights and local authority. I want to explain my views on this legislation to rename the Washington National Airport. This airport has been named the Washington National Airport since 1941. Franklin Roosevelt laid the cornerstone for the airport. The airport is on property that once belonged to the family of Martha Washington and the stepson of George Washington. What we are about to do is not an appropriate way to honor, in my opinion, one of our Presidents. In fact, in a sense, it dishonors our first President. Ronald Reagan will have his place in history, having served two terms as President. His name is already etched on the second-largest Government building in this community. And in April, his lovely wife Nancy will be here to celebrate and dedicate the opening of that building. President Reagan clearly believed that State and local governments should be given the power to act, wherever possible, rather than the Federal Government. In fact, he issued an Executive order so that all Federal agencies made sure that local decisions were respected. Each of our major airports named after a President was accomplished because of local decisions. In Houston, George Bush's name was added to the name of the airport because of a decision by the mayor and the city council. In New York, the mayor, city council, and port authority honored John F. Kennedy. Here, we have objections, not support, from local communities. We may all agree that it should be renamed, but should we run roughshod over the views of the local citizenry? That would be contrary to President Reagan's papers, the Executive Order 12612. One year prior to signing the executive order on federalism, Congress enacted legislation, championed by President Reagan's Secretary of Transportation, that created a multi-State airport authority to run and operate the two Washington-area airports. We turned over the keys to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which we refer to as MWAA. On March 1, 1987, Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole signed a 50-year lease with MWAA. Lock, stock and barrel, subject to certain limitations, we gave them the keys to the Washington National Airport. Section after section of the 1986 act recognizes the independence of MWAA from the Federal Government for the purposes of running the airport. The lease also has similar language. It is not clear to me that we can clearly usurp the local airport authority's power and merely rename the airport. Yet, this bill does just that. In 1990--just think back a few short years ago--Senator Dole appropriately introduced a resolution to rename the Dulles Airport after former President Eisenhower. Now, Eisenhower was a very good President. He was a very good military leader; World War II was won by his genius. The Dole bill, however, recognized the local operating authority, and rather than usurping that authority, it urged the airport authority to make the name change. That was done appropriately and by the law and by President Reagan's federalist papers, where he said local authority should be the uppermost. If we had worked this issue properly, Madam President, I suspect we would have come to a similar conclusion and found a way to recognize our former President. Instead, we will rename the airport by fiat and let the lawyers have their day in court. The legality may be challenged and, in my view, the lawyers may have an excellent chance of winning. We are running over local authority with this piece of legislation. They say that closer to the runway are those who are associated with this area, and those who operate the airport would prefer that the 56- year-old airport stay Washington National. And joining officials from Alexandria, who are opposed, and Arlington, who have previously said they oppose the change, the Greater Washington Board of Trade weighed in against this change last week. ``With all due respect to President Reagan, we believe that renaming the airport would be very confusing to air travelers, visitors, and local residents alike,'' the chairman of the Board's Transportation and Environment Committee said. Let me quote the first Republican Governor of Virginia this century-- and I served with him--A. Linwood Holton, Jr.: I also urge Congress not to impose the change on the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority, which oversees National and Dulles International Airport under this 50-year lease from the Federal Government. Linwood Holton says: I hate to see even something as politically popular as this begin to chip away at the independence of local authority. It's not easy to stand up here and be opposed to having the name of a famous and well-liked President on an airport. But someone, somehow has to understand that we are usurping local authority and the local people do not want it, and we would be giving them something they don't want, and that is typically Federal Government. My colleague from Georgia, Mr. Coverdell, read a letter from the former President announcing his problems with having Alzheimer's and his wife having a problem as it relates to breast cancer. And if the Gipper could tell us today what he would rather have, I believe he would rather have something named on behalf of his wife as it relates to the fight against breast cancer in this country today. That would be meaningful. That would be helpful. And it would be something that I think you would find 100-percent support for. So, Madam President, I regret that I must oppose this piece of legislation. You can go across the country. I named Houston for President George Bush, New York for President Kennedy, Denver--they decided to name the airport after a former mayor. And Las Vegas named it after a former Senator. So it is on and on, and all of the decisions were made by the people of those communities. President Reagan would not want us to violate his principles in the process of naming something in his honor. Let's think about that just a minute. President Reagan would not want us to violate his principles in the process of naming something in his honor. The law states that the airport assumes all rights and obligations as an airport. And it should be treated like all other airports. Can we mandate a renaming of any other airport? I don't think so. So, Madam President, I hope that something can be worked out rather than having the resolution amended to add other names; the resolution be amended to take care of the IRS, the resolution be amended to do a lot of other things. So let's look at the ownership of this property for a moment, if we may. Originally it was owned by the Alexandria family, for which the city of Alexandria is named. That is who owned this property. The property was later owned by the Custis family. John Parke Custis acquired the land from the Alexandria family. John Parke Custis was the son of Martha Washington, and the stepson of George Washington. George Washington was close to John Custis, and following John's death adopted his two children. The children then lived at Mount Vernon. And the airport was designed after Mount Vernon. The Abington Plantation was returned later to the Alexandria family. In the 1920's, the land was owned by Lewis Smoot, and later sold to the Richmond, Fredricksburg, and Potomac Railroad. Two airports were located near the Virginia side of the 14th Street Bridge; one the Hoover Field. That was after a President, which opened in 1926, and Washington Airport opened in 1927. The airports merged because of the Depression. The decision to build Washington National Airport did not occur until 1938 when Franklin Delano Roosevelt effectively bypassed this body and began construction. Following a series of disputes over who actually owned the land, the District of Columbia and Virginia claimed title. The Federal Government asserted jurisdiction in 1946. So not only has the George Washington family--the first--of these United States been involved in this property in this area for the lifetime of this country but I think that leaving the name as it is, or changing the name to whatever should be, as President Reagan insisted that we do back in the 1986 when he wrote his Federal Executive order, I think it would be much better to honor his wife since his name is already etched in the second-largest building in this area, second only to the Pentagon. I hope that a way can be found rather than to make it look partisan, and some will take my position because they think it is right. Others will take an opposite view because of the political arena. Some will take the same view I have because of politics. I have taken the view because of what President Reagan said in his papers, Executive Order 16612, that said that communities and the States and in their judgment should be respected. And I think we ought to do what the former President asked us to do. I see no one wanting the floor. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. On behalf of several Senators on my side, I must object.

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

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Illinois [Mrs. Durbin] and the Senator from Illinois [Ms. Moseley-Braun] are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar 204, S. 900.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I want to explain to my colleagues the need for H.R. 2626, a bill to make clarifications to the Pilot Records Improvement Act of 1996. Last year, we worked diligently with the airlines, ALPA and the Independent Pilots Association, to craft a bill that requires air carriers to share pilot records before a pilot could be employed. The change in law was necessitated by a safety recommendation by the National Transportation Safety Board. H.R. 2626 modifies the law to let the air carriers hire a pilot prior to final check of the records, but the pilot can not operate a commercial flight until the records are checked. Thus, the carriers can begin training new employees, and when the records are cleared, put the pilot to work. Because there have been problems in expeditiously providing records, the hiring process will not be impeded. For small aircraft that are not used in scheduled service, for example, an on-demand cargo charter aircraft with a maximum payload capacity of less than 7,500 pounds, a fully certified pilot can operate such aircraft for a limited period while the records are being reviewed. The requirement on the cargo operator is not changed--the records must be obtained and checked, but the pilot can fly for a 90- day period. Finally, the bill provides a narrow good faith exception for a carrier seeking the records of a pilot from another carrier that has ceased to exist. All other requirements for the pilot--licenses, medical tests, for example--are unchanged. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the legislation before us would authorize the Architect of the Capitol to accept a gift of approximately 41 acres of property and buildings in Culpeper, Virginia for use by the Library of Congress as a national audiovisual conservation center. The purchase price of this facility is $5.5 million. The private foundation which has offered to purchase this property and donate it for the Library's use has also agreed to provide the Library with an additional $4.5 million for the renovation of this property, making a total gift of $10 million. The renovations to the property will be made by the Architect of the Capitol, as approved by the appropriate oversight and appropriations committees. The Library's film collection is currently stored in several Library or government-leased sites. With this gift, the Library intends to consolidate the storage of its audio-visual collection, specifically its acetate film collection. However, the facility at Culpeper cannot currently house the nitrate-based film collection. While I will not object to passage of this legislation, I am concerned by both the manner in which the Library presented this issue to Congress and by a number of precedent-setting issues this gift raises which have not been fully aired. It is my understanding that the Library first identified the Culpeper property as a potential site for storage of a portion of its film collection several years ago. And yet, this legislation before us today was shared with my office only last week, and was introduced in the House and Senate over the week-end. While it is not unusual this time of year to see legislation flying past the Congress on its way to the White House for signature, this measure raises a number of concerns that should, and could, have been fully debated by those who ultimately will be responsible to the taxpayer for the cost of its maintenance and upkeep in the years to come. First, and most importantly, is the issue of whether the government, particularly the Library, should be in the business of acquiring real estate. It is rather ironic that this is being proposed at a time when the leadership in the Congress is calling for privatization of many legislative branch functions and the sale of certain legislative branch properties. It is particularly true of this property which includes about 41 acres, but insufficient buildings and improvements to house all of the Library's audiovisual collection. I don't want to assume what the Library plans to do with all this property, but I got a pretty good idea by reading the study the Library commissioned from Abacus Technology Corporation. The current buildings on the Culpeper property can house only the acetate film collection. In order to consolidate the nitrate film collection at the Culpeper site, the Abacus study recommends constructing new buildings to house the nitrate collection. And how much would such facilities cost? Over $16 million over the next 4 years. But a hefty building and expansion program is not all that is planned for these 41 acres. The Abacus study describes the Library's vision with regard to this audiovisual center as offering, subject to the approval of Congress, a cost-effective conservation service for other libraries and archives. Whether this will require additional buildings or is included in the Abacus cost estimates already is not disclosed. A second concern that this issue raises is the ultimate cost to the taxpayer of accepting this gift. According to the Abacus study, the total cost for renovating, maintaining and expanding the Culpeper property over the 25 year life cycle of the facility is $47 million. Other alternatives identified by Abacus and the Library range from about $54 million to $86 million. However, the Abacus study does not include cost estimates for the Architect of the Capitol for the on- going maintenance and repair of the 41 acres of grounds and buildings that would now be owned by the government. Thirdly, as currently structured, it is not clear how this property and facilities will be managed. By statute, the Architect of the Capitol is responsible for only the structural work on buildings and grounds of Library property, including the maintenance and care of the grounds and certain mechanical equipment. Since this site is over 70 miles away from Washington, it may require that the Architect physically locate maintenance personnel there. But the Architect will not manage these 41 acres and buildings--that will now be the responsibility of the Library--hardly a task they have much experience with. Moreover, as my colleagues know, the Library has its own security force. Presumably, this facility will also need to be secure. However, in recent years, there have been discussions about the possibility of transferring certain exterior security functions of the Library security force to the Capitol Police. I'm not sure I want our Capitol police responsible for taking care of the security of 41 acres in Culpeper. I appreciate the pressure the Librarian feels to raise private funds to provide core Library functions. However, any gift that the Librarian solicits ultimately becomes the responsibility of the American taxpayers. Before we saddle them with the maintenance, upkeep, and overhead of additional federal buildings and prime real estate, there should an opportunity to fully air these issues. Changes I sought in this legislation will do that, even if after the fact. Being from Kentucky, I know better than to look a gift horse in the mouth. But being from west Kentucky, which is hog country, I also know a pig-in-a-poke when I see it. The Library may not be asking the American taxpayers to accept a pig-in-a-poke, but with all the unanswered questions, this Culpeper property is pretty darn close to it. I'll be sticking close to the farm over the next year, and as provided by this legislation, will be looking for answers to these questions before approving improvements and expansions on this gift.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, on August 5, 1997, Korean Air flight 801 crashed into a hillside on Guam, killing 228. We worked with Chairman McCain and our House colleagues last year to enact legislation requiring U.S. air carriers to develop plans to address the needs of families following an aviation disaster. The 1996 Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] Reauthorization Act (P.L. 104-264), however, did not impose a similar requirement on foreign carriers serving the United States. Section 703 of the FAA Reauthorization Act specifically requires that the air carrier submit disaster plans to the Secretary of Transportation and the National Transportation Safety Board. The plans must include items such as a means to publicize toll-free telephone numbers for the families, a process for notifying families, an assurance that the families be consulted on the disposition of remains and personal effects, and a requirement that the carrier work with other organizations in dealing with the disaster. Congressman Underwood of Guam originally introduced H.R. 2834 on the House side, and a corresponding bill, S. 1196, was introduced in the Senate to subject foreign carriers serving the United States to the requirements mentioned above. The Senate bill was considered and reported by the Commerce Committee. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 2834 so the President can sign this bill.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, this will be next to my last end-of-session period, and at the end of next year and the 105th Congress I will be joining my family back in Kentucky. But let me say that in all of my 23 years so far here I have never enjoyed so much the friendship and watched the work of the Democratic leader to be any more outstanding or any more caring, developed with integrity and character. He is one individual who I think, when you look back at his theme of ``families first''--that was the view of all of the 100 Senators--that not only would this Chamber be covered with accolades for the job he has done, but we would see this country progress in a much better and finer fashion. So to the Democratic leader, I pay my respect, and my everlasting thanks for his courtesy in working with me during the year. Having said that, I want to say that he has developed one of the finest staffs not only on the floor but in his office that anyone could work with. All of us are anxious to do good. All of us are anxious to say the right things. But we have to have the right kind of support. So as we observe the Senate floor and see who is doing the work and putting the package together, we all understand that we have chosen well in the staff on both sides. So, Mr. President, I didn't want to leave here without saying to my friend from South Dakota when he reached out to help all families that he reached out to my family and to my family's family. And I see what good will come from his efforts and his desire and his hope and vision for the future. Also, I want to say that I think he has worked very well with the majority leader. The majority leader has had some tremendous stress and strain. But had it not been for the cooperation and effort of the Democratic leader, the first session of the 105th Congress would not be ending on the high note that I believe it is. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the Senate is in the process of considering fast-track legislation--a take-it-or-leave-it procedure for any trade agreements the administration sends to the Congress for approval. This procedure, created back in 1974, prevents Congress from taking any steps to improve trade agreements, even if there is unanimous agreement to do so. While it has only been used five times since its creation, Americans need to understand that it amounts to an abdication of Congress' power, granted under article I, section 8 of the Constitution: ``to regulate commerce with foreign nations.'' Fast track does not provide the President with negotiating authority. The President already has that authority. Agreements are then submitted to Congress for its approval. In fact, this President has concluded over 200 trade agreements since taking office, only 2 of which were approved by Congress under fast- track procedures. Mr. President, much is at stake in this debate. The issue today is how we can best ensure that all Americans--corporate chiefs, shareholders, and workers--can benefit from expanded trade. Supporters of fast-track legislation are misleading the American public when they claim our economic leadership is at stake. Last month's turmoil in the financial markets provided new evidence that the entire world takes its economic cues largely from what happens here in America. This is also not a battle that pits free traders versus protectionists. With exports a key part of the U.S. economy, no one is discounting our economy's global nature. But the fact remains that this Nation is already the most open market on the Earth. And no one opposing fast track today is seeking to raise a tariff wall against goods from other nations. The real issue is what America's trade policy should be for the 21st century. Do we continue doing things the way we have been doing them for the last 20 years? Or do we find the courage to develop a trade policy that benefits all Americans, from the corporate office to the assembly line to the storefront. And do we finally forge a true partnership between the executive and legislative branch to develop trade policy? Fast-track supporters maintain that, without the fast-track procedure, Congress will simply amend any trade agreement to death. They say trade agreements involve too many players, are too complicated, and are too delicate to risk bringing before a Congress where most Members didn't have direct involvement in the negotiations. This is nonsense. There are many, very complicated and delicate issues passed by Congress through the normal legislative process. This year's budget deal is a prime example, There were many players involved. The subject matter was broad and complex. Most Members did not play a direct role in the negotiations. And the final resolution involved a delicate compromise that could have easily fallen apart. But Congress took up the entire package and passed it. The President signed it and we are now on our way to a balanced budget. I believe the same model could be applied to trade talks. Mr. President, aside from the basic philosophical differences over how this Nation should approach trade policy, the fast-track bill reported by the Finance Committee forces the President to negotiate trade agreements in a vacuum. Under this legislation, the President is forced to ignore the lack of fair labor standards or adequate environmental standards in other countries. We should not simply accept the premise that labor and environmental standards have nothing to do with trade. Any business in America recognizes that labor and environmental policy is, in fact, competitiveness policy. If they didn't believe it, they wouldn't oppose even modest increases in the minimum wage. If they didn't believe it, they wouldn't be concerned about new EPA regulations on clean air. But the fact is, they do believe it. And so should Congress when it comes to the labor and environmental policies of our trading partners. They make a difference wherever goods are made, bought, or sold. My colleagues should also be aware that the committee bill requires the President to ignore environmental and labor policy, while at the same time requiring him to negotiate on several other nontrade areas. Patent and copyright law. Monetary policy. Food safety issues. Government procurement policies. All of these are included in the bill's principal negotiating objectives because the committee recognizes that these nontrade areas have an impact on trade. We do use trade agreements to promote more consistent and more equitable regulatory systems around the world. And we need to recognize, once and for all, that the nonenforcement--or nonexistence-- of labor and environmental standards jeopardizes American jobs and industry just as much as the nonenforcement and nonexistence of intellectual property laws. One of the first agreements that would come before the Senate under fast track would be the accession of Chile to the NAFTA. So, it's fair to ask how well this agreement, negotiated and adopted under fast-track procedures, has operated for our country. One year before the implementation of NAFTA, the United States had a trade surplus with Mexico of about $2 billion. Last year, the United States had a trade deficit with Mexico of nearly $17 billion--a $19 billion shift in trade over a 3-year period. The administration claims that 120,000 to 160,000 jobs have been created as a result of NAFTA. But the Labor Department's NAFTA Trade Adjustment Assistance Program has certified 136,000 workers as having lost their jobs as a result of NAFTA. Other estimates, including a recent one by the Economic Policy Institute, put the number at 400,000 jobs lost. By far, the hardest hit has been the apparel sector, which has lost 158,000 workers in the last 28 months as apparel imports from Mexico have doubled. NAFTA certainly has been a success--for Mexico. Unfortunately, America has fared much worse under the agreement. Fast-track supporters argue that if we don't act now to expand the NAFTA to include Chile, and, ultimately, other South American countries, we will cede our leadership and fall behind to other trading partners. But listen to what the pro-NAFTA 20th Century Fund has to say about the cost of not expanding NAFTA: What are the costs to the United States if NAFTA is not expanded? . . . Despite the growth of intraregional trade outside the NAFTA, the costs to the United States of failing to expand NAFTA are not high in strictly economic terms. Whatever occurs on the trade front, the United States will remain the region's dominant economy. NAFTA represents 75% of trade in the hemisphere. . .And NAFTA's exports and imports are more than ten times those of Mercosur, the next largest regional organization. And the facts bear out what the 20th Century Fund says. In the past year, without fast track and without new trade agreements, our trade surplus with South America has doubled, to $3.6 billion. As bad as the national numbers are, they are still worse for my own State of Kentucky. Exports to Mexico account for just 3 percent of all Kentucky's exports and support just 950 jobs, according to the pro- NAFTA Council of the Americas. NAFTA resulted in an increase of just 4 million dollars' worth of exports to Mexico from Kentucky. Unfortunately, the other side of the equation--imports from Mexico-- has had a much more immediate and devastating impact on Kentucky. In 1993, over 30,000 Kentuckians worked in the apparel industry. Today, there are just 25,000 Kentucky apparel workers. The layoffs began soon after NAFTA passed and continue to this day. Just this past August, a major apparel manufacturer in my State laid off 2,000 workers. When these jobs are lost and plants close, it is simply devastating to whole communities in Kentucky. I'd like to share with my colleagues an account of the plant closings we've suffered in Kentucky. An August 8 story in the Louisville Courier-Journal talked about the latest blow to Kentucky's garment industry. Layoffs by Fruit of the Loom of 2,000 workers represents the latest loss to what the paper described as the ``hemorrhaging garment-industry'' in Kentucky. ``At Fruit of the Loom alone, employment will have fallen from 11,000 2 years ago to 5,000 by the time the latest round of layoffs is completed * * *.'' The vice president of Fruit of the Loom was blunt in his assessment. ``We're being impacted by global competition resulting from international trade barriers. We can do the same work cheaper somewhere else.'' Bill Parsons, executive director of the Lake Cumberland Area Development District where Fruit of the Loom is located, agrees. Why would any good businessman want to stay in the U.S., where its going to cost $8.48 an hour to make a garment you can make for 48 cents somewhere else? It makes a lot of business sense when you're looking at the bottom line. David and NaDena Agee know first-hand about the bottom-line. Another Courier-Journal story tells how they ``have a mortgage on a house they bought two years ago when they were both making good salaries at the Fruit of the Loom Plant in Campbellsville. They also have a 19-month- old son who is growing up fast. But after October 8, neither David nor NaDena will have a job because of continuing layoffs at the plant. They are worried about how they will provide for their son.'' Instead of telling hardworking Americans like the Agees how fast track will assure them of a stable future, supporters of fast track are simply looking the other way. Mr. President, I understand that international trade is not just confined to NAFTA. But proponents of fast track won't find a convincing argument on the other side of the world either. Our trade deficit is enormous and growing. In 1995, our trade deficit rang in at $105 billion. Last year's deficit was still higher--$114 billion. And this year we are on our way to our fourth consecutive year of record high trade deficits. The monthly trade deficit has increased each month this year except June. Why do we have such enormous deficit? In the past, the experts have chalked it up to our persistent and large budget deficits. But now that we are in our fifth year of declining budget deficits and on our way to a balanced budget, that explanation has fallen out of favor. Now, the experts are prepared to tell us the reason is a low savings rate compared to other countries--even though many of those other countries with higher savings rates don't have a Social Security system, as we do. It seems any explanation of a trade deficit will do, so long as it has no connection to our trade policy. But that, in this Senator's mind, is where the problem is: our trade policy seems too often to be crafted for the benefit of other nations. Month after month, I receive letters from Kentucky businesses asking for an end to a trade barrier an international trade agreement was supposed to resolve. This year, for example, I have received letters that: called for an end to Canada's exploitation of a NAFTA loophole to inundate the U.S. with wool suits made of Chinese fabric; demanded the Philippines implement a WTO decision against that country's system of using import licenses to keep American pork out; decried China's de facto ban on pork and tobacco products; called for better enforcement of our flat glass agreement with Japan; and, opposed the EU's proposal to accelerate the phase out of CFC's in an effort to disadvantage U.S. exports. Mr. President, violations of existing agreements are particularly costly in the textile and apparel sector, where 4 to 10 billion dollars' worth of goods are illegally shipped to the United States. Countries like China and India routinely illegally label and ship their products through a third country in order to avoid an agreed upon quota. Let me share a specific example of the noncompliance I'm talking about. After the enactment of the Uruguay round, the United States brought a case against Japan. Japan maintained a tax system designed to discourage the sale of imported distilled spirits, including Kentucky bourbon. In November, 1996, the WTO found that the Japanese system violated the principal of national treatment--that a participating nation must accord imported and domestic products the same treatment. How did Japan respond? Japan agreed to make the necessary changes to its tax law--by the year 2001, five years after the WTO decision! So now, the Japanese and American Governments are in negotiations over how long it's going to take Japan to fix a law it should never have adopted in the first place. What's more, there is now talk that the United States may accept ``compensation'' for Japan's refusal to amend its law. This would mean that U.S. distilled spirits exporters won't get a thing out of an agreement that was supposed to win them market access. Mr. President, I want to close by reiterating what brings me and other fast-track opponents to the floor. It's not because we want to raise up new tariff walls. It's not because we are isolationists. It's not because we want to protect jobs from any competition whatsoever. It's simply because our trade policy has not been a good one for the people of my State, nor the vast majority of States. It's because there ought to be a way to negotiate trade agreements that make Congress a partner every step of the way. And it's because there are so many problems in the agreements we have today that demand to be fixed. So let's work together to forge a new trade policy that truly opens markets overseas, that benefits all Americans and that includes important issues, like labor laws and environmental regulation. Mr. President, let's put fast track on the right track.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, may I advise my good friend, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, that Senator Leahy has been on the floor. He has been detained just for a few minutes. He is on his way. I don't think he will take his entire 15 minutes, but I would have to hold those minutes for him, if I could.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, as the acting leader laid out at the beginning, at 10:30, following morning business, what do you expect to go to next? Would there be any time limitations on the fast-track? If it is here.

Mr. FORD. I understand.

Mr. FORD. I am sure this has been agreed to. This has all been cleared.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I'm honored today to salute one of Kentucky's and this nation's finest business leaders and statesmen, David A. Jones. David will soon be retiring as Chief Executive Officer of Humana Inc., the company he co-founded over 36 years ago. David is one of this country's all-time great business leaders. His career has been marked by a deep commitment to high principles and community service and he will leave behind a very distinguished history of service to Kentucky and the nation. Fortunately, Kentucky and the health care industry won't be losing his guidance entirely as David continues as chairman of the board of directors of Humana. A native of Louisville, David earned a bachelor's degree from the University of Louisville in 1954, where he won the outstanding senior award. He also became a Certified Public Accountant that same year. After three years of service in the U.S. Navy, he entered Yale University, earning a law degree (JD) in 1960, while also serving on the economics faculty from 1958 to 1960. David also holds honorary doctorates from the Chicago Medical School, the University of Louisville, Transylvania University and the Claremont Graduate School. In 1961, David and another young lawyer, Wendell Cherry, discussed ways to build and operate a new kind of nursing home--one that would treat its elderly patients not only with dignity and respect, but with a kind of personal attention rarely seen in nursing homes of that time. The nursing home was called Heritage House and was located in Louisville. The company began to grow and add additional facilities. Eventually, the company, then known as Extendicare, became the largest nursing home company in America with more than 40 facilities. As the company continued to grow, it eventually divested itself of all nursing homes to concentrate on the hospital business. To reflect the company's new direction, the corporate name was changed to Humana Inc. in January of 1974. During David's tenure as chief executive, Humana Inc. became one of the nation's leading health care companies. The company pioneered the measurement of hospital quality and productivity to achieve consistent care for every patient. In 1982, Humana established its Centers of Excellence program, designating hospitals that offered unsurpassed specialty care by combining research and education with state-of-the-art treatment. While the Humana Heart Institute International at Humana Hospital-Audubon became renowned for its pioneering research into the artificial heart, other Centers of Excellence were developed in the specialties of diabetes, neuroscience, orthopedics, and spinal injury care. David continued to lead Humana as dramatic changes occurred in the hospital industry in the 1980s. In 1984, Humana created a family of flexible health care plans. The health insurance side of the company grew and matured, and in 1993, Humana separated its hospital and health insurance divisions. Although no longer in the hospital business, Humana Inc. continues to be one of the leading health care companies in the nation. In addition to his outstanding business acumen, David is also a deeply committed humanitarian who created the Humana Foundation, a charitable organization committed to the arts, education and other causes around the world. In part because of that support, the Humana Foundation won the 1996 Business in the Arts Award given by the Business Committee for the Arts and Forbes Magazine. David has helped build affordable housing in marginal neighborhoods, put computers in schools, supported an international theater festival in Louisville, helped launch an African-American business venture fund, helped attract the Presbyterian Church USA headquarters to the river front, and for a brief time in the 1970s, brought professional basketball to Louisville. More recently, he helped raise nearly $750,000 in flood aid for Louisville residents and businesses by pledging to match contributions from local companies or business leaders. During his tenure as Chief Executive Officer of Humana, David worked hard for his employees, fought for his beliefs, and strived to make our nation an even better place. He has been a tireless promoter of business in Kentucky, and his efforts undoubtedly helped to make the state an important part of the burgeoning national economy. Nationally, his opinions and actions help set the direct for health care policy, not just in this country, but all over the world. He has been the architect of many initiatives in this country, but has also been a leader in improving and expanding health care delivery in Romania. In a joint venture with Baylor Medical Center in Texas, Humana is helping rebuild the health care system in Romania, which is struggling to survive as a new democracy. A compassionate heart has kept him humble and grounded, his path straight, his words true, and his conviction undiminished. The career of David Jones should be an model to all those who aspire to succeed in business. Indeed, David is a man of integrity, ability, and dedication, and we commend him for the great service he has rendered this Nation. Mr. President, I know that all the Members of the Kentucky delegation, and my colleagues in the Senate, wish David good health and great happiness in the years to come.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the Committee on Rules and Administration has the responsibility of ensuring that everything runs smoothly in the Senate. We have to stay current on the latest technology to be responsive to the needs of Senators and committees, and to make sure that we are using taxpayers' dollars wisely. There is a very delicate balance to strike between taking care of Members' individual needs and ensuring that the overall administration of the Senate functions in a coordinated and efficient manner. To help the Rules Committee meet our responsibilities under the Standing Rules, the Committee solicited the advice of the consulting firm of Booz-Allen & Hamilton. Booz-Allen came before the Committee and presented their recommendations for how the Committee, and the Senate as a whole, can ensure that information technology and infrastructure support are more effectively and efficiently delivered in the Senate. Their recommendations include applying concepts that have worked in the private sector to bring efficiencies to technology and infrastructure support delivery. Specifically, Booz-Allen recommends that the Senate implement a strategic planning process for the delivery of information technology and infrastructure support. This resolution provides for the creation of a strategic planning process in the Senate. I urge adoption of the resolution.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I wanted to take just a moment to commend David E. Larkin for his extraordinary leadership, motivation and direction in the development of the Dan Beard Council, Boy Scouts of America. Larkin has recruited, developed and motivated the Executive Board of the Dan Beard Council, BSA, representing one of the most prestigious philanthropic Youth Service Organizations in Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky. During his tenure on the council, he succeeded in improving the quality of life among the youth of that area by creating Challenge Camp, where more than 1,000 ``at risk'' youth were able to experience the cherished values of Scouting. His imagination and creativity brought into being ``The Scout Family Jamboree,'' an event attracting some 45,000 attendees, showcasing not only Scouting, but numerous community activities and events. Over the years, Larkin has served the greater community by enriching the relationships between the Scouts, the United Way and Community Chest, increasing both awareness and funding. He also created alliances between the Boy Scouts and the Greater Cincinnati, Northern Kentucky Schools and Educational Institutions, resulting in ``Learning for Life'' and Career Explorer programs. His exceptional leadership and vision provided to be the catalyst for approval of a comprehensive $14.5 million Camp Re-Development Capital Campaign to construct a 25 acre lake, Cub World and Boy Scout Camp. Larkin has provided the leadership, high standards, the means and the methods necessary to expand the Scouting program to where it now involves a record 65,000 youths and adults annually throughout Southwest Ohio and Northern Kentucky. He has dedicated his life to the concepts of duty, honor and country central to the mission of the Boy Scouts and I know that the entire community will miss his guiding force. Mr. President, let me close by thanking David Larkin for his commitment over the years to instilling the values of this country through the Boy Scout program. I know I speak for all Kentuckians when I say that his work will be felt by generations of Boy Scouts to come. We wish your much luck in all your future endeavors.