Congressional Record: May 2, 2002 (Senate)
Page S3795-S3832
ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE EXPANSION ACT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of H.R. 3009, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
An act (H.R. 3009) to extend the Andean Trade Preference
Act, to grant additional trade benefits under that Act, and
for other purposes.
Pending:
Daschle amendment No. 3386, in the nature of a substitute.
Dorgan amendment No. 3387 (to amendment No. 3386), to
ensure transparency of investor protection dispute resolution
tribunals under the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate began debate on the
Trade Act of 2002. This legislation includes three bills reported by
the Senate Finance Committee last year: No. 1, an extension of fast
track negotiating authority--also known as trade promotion authority;
No. 2, an expansion and improvement of the Trade Adjustment Assistance
Program and No. 3, the Finance Committee's version of the Andean Trade
Preferences Act, or ATPA. As the debate moves forward, I suspect other
international trade matters may also appropriately be attached to this
bill.
The Trade Act of 2002 will be the first major rewrite of
international trade legislation in 14 years. If passed, it will be, as
the National Journal has said, "a historic breakthrough."
Why are we taking up a trade bill? What does this bill--and the
expanded trade that will follow--mean for this country? Trade means
jobs. Twelve million Americans--one out of every ten workers--depend on
exports for their jobs. These are jobs that pay more--thousands of
dollars more per year--than jobs unrelated to trade. Trade supports
jobs in all sectors. We often think of trade as helping big multi-
national companies. In fact, firms with fewer than 20 workers represent
two-thirds of American exporters; and U.S. agriculture exports support
more than 750,000 jobs. Trade also means choice. It means more
affordable products and more variety for American families. It means
that hard-earned paychecks go further.
In many ways, new trade agreements are like a tax cut for working
families. Studies have suggested that the average family of four sees
annual benefits of between $1,300 and $2,000 because of the agreements
we negotiated in the last decade. And according to a recent University
of Michigan study, if we complete the next round of negotiations under
the World Trade Organization, it could increase that benefit by as much
as $2,500--per family, per year.
But trade is about more than simple economics. When we trade with
countries, we do not just export corn and cars, we export our ideas, we
export our values. We export freedom, in a
[[Page S3796]]
sense. Trade between nations creates opportunities for both parties--it
can help lift countries out of poverty, while strengthening our
relationships around the world.
I think Adlai Stevenson probably said it best 50 years ago:
It is not possible for this nation to be at once
politically internationalist and economically isolationist.
Look at our agreement with Jordan as one example. It has a relatively
small effect on our economy--our trade with Jordan is only about $600
million per year. But it has an important impact on Jordan's economy--
and it has cemented our relationship with a key Middle East ally.
Similarly, part of this legislation provides trades benefits to
Andean countries. The main benefit of this legislation will be to help
move workers out of the illegal drug business, and into legitimate
lines of work. It is not going to solve the problem entirely, but it
will help. But to do that, they need more access to our market.
So that is what's at stake in this debate. Let me turn to the bill
itself.
The most talked-about provision of this legislation, of course, is
the extension of fast track trade negotiating authority to the
President. At its core, the fast track grant in this legislation is
very similar to the legislation that first granted fast track to
President Ford in 1974.
I am often asked why we need fast track--and why now? In essence,
fast track is a contract between Congress and the administration. It
allows the President to negotiate trade agreements with foreign trading
partners with a guarantee that Congress will consider agreement as a
single package--no amendments and a guarantee of an up-or-down vote by
a date certain.
In return, the president must pursue a number of negotiating
objectives that Congress has outlined in the legislation. And he must
make Congress a full partner in these negotiations, fully consulting
with Members as the talks proceed.
Now make no mistake, fast track is a significant grant of
congressional power to the President. But it is excruciatingly
difficult to negotiate the best possible multilateral trade agreements
unless our trading partners know that Congress will vote on the
agreement negotiated.
Indeed, it was our experience in the 1970s--when the Europeans
refused to negotiate with us after Congress failed to implement an
agreement--that led to the creation of fast track. Without fast track,
our trading partners learned that they could anticipate one round of
negotiations with the President and a second with Congress.
The reverse is not true. Other countries, because of their
parliamentary forms of government, have a single legislative body where
the majority of the legislative body is also the government, so we did
not have that problem with them.
Fast track also demonstrates that the President and Congress go into
negotiations with clearly defined and unified objectives. Again, that
is critical. If our trading partners are uncertain that the deal will
stick, they won't put their best deal on the table.
Is it possible to negotiate some agreements without fast track? It is
certainly possible with simple bilateral agreements, as was the case
with Jordan. But, while Jordan is a landmark agreement in many areas,
it has to be put in context when talking about fast track procedure.
The Jordan Agreement, as I noted earlier, was a relatively easy
agreement. It involved only two countries and affects a very small
amount of trade--roughly $600 million.
Major multilateral agreements can affect many more countries and
billions in trade. The FTAA is an agreement involving 34 countries; the
WTO involves nearly 150. For these agreements, fast track remains a
necessity.
Even bilateral agreements will go much more smoothly with fast track.
In the case of Chile, for example, we are still talking about a much
more complex agreement than Jordan. It will affect approximately $6
billion in trade, ten times more than the Jordan Agreement. And
improving the chances of agreements like Chile is vital to our economy.
Let me give you one example. Canada has already signed free trade
agreements with several countries, including Chile. That has an impact
on U.S. competitiveness. As a result of the Canada-Chile agreement,
Chile eliminated its tariffs on Canadian wheat. U.S. wheat exports to
Chile, on the other hand, still face tariffs as high as 30 percent,
making Canadian wheat much more attractive to Chilean buyers. We must
negotiate these agreements if we are going to compete, and fast track
will make it easier.
People often note that we don't have fast track for treaties, such as
nuclear arms treaties. That is true. And while these treaties are
important, they are often less complex in the sense that they don't
involve literally thousands of interrelating trade-offs and concessions
as trade agreements do.
I remember the last arms treaty that came before the Senate. There
were two or three annexes in it but not all of the host of other
complications involved in trade agreements.
But let me turn to the bill itself, and specifically to the
negotiating objectives on a number of topics.
With regard to agriculture, a topic near and dear to many in this
body, and certainly one of my highest priorities--the legislation
directs the President to seek new markets for American agricultural
products and to continue to work to lower the trade-distorting
subsidies of our trading partners. That is vitally important for
American agriculture.
On a more traditional topic, the legislation also directs the
President to continue to negotiate the reduction and elimination of
tariffs, while recognizing the sensitivity of tariffs in a few sectors.
The United States has already lowered its average tariff rate to about
3 percent. Generally, tariffs are similarly low in major developed
countries. In a few important cases, however, such as Japanese tariffs
on wood products, and Europe's tariffs on semiconductors, tariffs
remain a significant trade barrier. And in many developing countries,
tariffs remain at levels that stifle trade, in some cases 100 percent
or more.
The bill also directs the President to address some of the new
issues, such as e-commerce. By acting to negotiate agreements now,
before protectionism has taken root, hopefully trade in e-commerce can
remain relatively free.
Each of these objectives is critically important. However, most of
the debate in the other body and in the press has focused not on the
important issues I have listed, but on three trouble spots in trade
negotiations: No. 1, labor rights and environmental issues in trade
agreements; No. 2, protection of the right of the U.S. to promulgate
environmental and other regulations in connection with so-called
investor-state dispute settlement provisions, commonly know as
"Chapter 11" provisions; and, No. 3, the integrity of US trade laws.
Let me turn to those difficult issues now.
First, labor rights and environmental protection issues: These issues
have now firmly and irreversibly made their way on to the trade
negotiating agenda. They are here. The world has changed. Those who
continue to ignore that reality are simply burying their heads in the
sand.
The appropriate manner to address those issues, however, is not
obvious, and it has been the subject of heated debate for more than a
decade. The dispute over this issue has kept the Congress deadlocked on
fast track for nearly a decade.
Fortunately, U.S. trade negotiators have made some important
progress. In negotiating a free trade agreement with Jordan, the United
States brought labor rights and environmental protection into the core
of the trade agreement.
Two central approaches were taken on these issues. First, both
parties agreed to strive for the labor standards articulated by the
International Labor Organization, and for similar improvement in
environmental protection. Second, both countries agreed to faithfully
enforce their existing environmental and labor laws and not waive them
to gain a trade advantage. That is in the agreement.
In addition, both parties to the Jordan Agreement agreed to pursue a
number of cooperative efforts to improve labor rights and environmental
protection. In my opinion, these provisions of the Jordan Agreement
provide a concrete demonstration of the way to
[[Page S3797]]
break the deadlock on labor rights and the environment.
Last year, I encouraged some of my colleagues in the other body to
pursue Jordan-like provisions as the basic model for a fast track bill.
In drafting the fast track legislation, the House New Democrats and
Republicans wisely agreed to use those provisions as a model for the
language in the fast track legislation.
In the Senate bill, we accepted the legislation on this topic and
made clear in the report that the legislation fully adopts the Jordan
standard on labor and environment matters.
Unfortunately, some in the House opposed this language as not going
far enough and urged legislation to force compliance with ILO labor
standards. I support the ILO, and I believe the Jordan-based approach
moves the trading regime in the right direction; that is, looking to
the ILO for guidance on appropriate labor standards.
With due respect, however, I believe that those who advanced this
proposal and those who may later advance it in the Senate debate are
simply going too far. The ILO standards are a starting point, but they
were not meant to be used in this manner.
It may be that through experimentation we can strengthen the linkages
between trade agreements and the ILO. Indeed, that is the ultimate goal
of this legislation. But trying to accomplish this in one fell swoop
will only set back both agreements and the ILO.
Quite frankly, whatever the intentions of the authors, proposals like
this are likely to be fatal both to fast track and future trade
negotiations.
Another environment-related issue that has arisen in recent months
pertains to investor-state dispute settlement, also known as "Chapter
11," in reference to the provisions of this topic in NAFTA.
The genesis of Chapter 11 is the legitimate concern of some U.S.
investors that other countries often do not provide adequate
protections of their investments. Investors have had many experiences
of being poorly treated and having little recourse to air their
legitimate concerns.
NAFTA's Chapter 11, and similar provisions in other agreements, are
designed to address this problem. They define a basic set of investor
rights under international law. The concepts are comparable to basic
rights under U.S. law. They include the right to just compensation when
the government takes your property, and the right to be treated fairly
and equitably by the government.
Significantly, Chapter 11 provides an alternative to local courts for
the adjudication of complaints about a government's actions. Investors
are allowed to challenge such actions before special arbitration
panels. It is appropriate to pursue such provisions in trade
agreements. But investor rights are not the only concern.
Unfortunately, some of the complaints brought under chapter 11 have
clearly been aimed at stifling legitimate regulations. The challenge by
the Canadian company Methanex against a legitimate California
regulation on a gasoline additive is the most visible case in point.
Defenders of Chapter 11 note that most of these cases have not
resulted in panel rulings against regulatory authorities. This is
correct. But it is also part of the problem.
Chapter 11 panels have demonstrated no ability to rapidly dismiss
frivolous cases. This results in extended litigation on claims that
should simply be thrown out, such as the Methanex case.
These legitimate concerns must also be addressed. The bill before us
today attempts to balance the needs of U.S. investors with the
legitimate needs of regulatory agencies, and the concerns of
environmental and public interest groups.
The bill directs trade negotiators to seek provisions that keep
Chapter 11-type standards in line with the standards articulated by
U.S. courts on similar matters. It urges the creation of a mechanism to
rapidly dispose of and deter frivolous cases. And it urges the creation
of a unified appellate body to correct legal errors and ensure
consistent interpretation of key provisions.
I know some would like to go further in striking a new balance on
investor-state issues. As the debate proceeds, I look forward to
working with them on the issue. But I urge my colleagues to keep in
mind there are several legitimate interests that need to be balanced;
that if we go too far in one direction, it is going to upset the
balance in another. But I very much want to work with Senators who have
other amendments on this issue.
The second difficult issue within fast track is how we ensure fair
trade. After being involved in international trade policy for more than
two decades, I am struck by how often the issues that shape
congressional thinking on trade are not trade negotiations but rather
are the administration's effort to enforce trade laws.
Although the point is often lost, the United States is the most open
market in the world. That has to be remembered. Our tariffs are quite
low, and there are very few nontariff barriers to trade in the United
States. There are some, but they are few. We do not wear white hats. We
are not totally pure. Other countries do not wear dark hats. They are
not Darth Vaders. But it is true the shade of gray of our hat is a lot
lighter than the shade of gray of other countries; that is, we are more
open compared to other countries.
Despite complaints from some of our trading partners, the U.S. market
is clearly far more open than that of our major trading partners, such
as Japan and Europe--both of which cast stones at the United States
from behind titanic barriers of their own to agricultural trade.
To keep the playing field relatively equal and battle foreign
protectionism in the form of subsidies and dumping--selling at cut-
throat prices--the United States and most other developed countries
maintain antidumping and countervailing duty laws.
Another critical U.S. law is section 201. It aims to give industries
that are seriously injured by import surges time to adapt. Section 201
was recently employed to good effect to provide the steel industry with
that breathing room, but it has previously been used on a range of
other products, from lamb meat to motorcycles. Indeed, that is why
Harley-Davidson is doing well today. They were given a breather.
Although the exact percentages can vary from year to year, over the
last two decades, these laws collectively have applied duties to less
than 1 percent of total imports; that is, our trade laws, when
enforced, when in action, have applied duties to less than 1 percent of
total imports. And they are completely consistent with U.S. obligations
under the WTO--a point that must be remembered by all Americans who are
a little concerned about some of these actions our Government, I think
in most cases, legitimately takes to protect the United States of
America because other countries' trade laws and barriers are so heinous
by comparison and so unfair to Americans.
Yet somehow the United States has lost the public relations war on
this topic. Somehow our trading partners and importers have convinced
some editorial writers that these laws are protectionist. Nothing could
be further from the truth. They are not protectionist.
Antidumping and countervailing duty laws combat trading practices
that have been condemned for a century. Subsidies and dumping are too
frequently used by foreign countries and companies to devastate U.S.
industries. Consider the U.S. semiconductor industry in the mid-1980s
and the U.S. lumber industry today. Rather than being protectionist,
these laws are the remedy to protectionism. That dumping, those
subsidies, are trade barriers. They are trade barriers. They are
barriers to free trade. So our trade laws are meant to remedy that
protectionism, remedy those trade barriers, by knocking down those
trade barriers. That is what our trade laws do. It is a very important
point for all of us to remember.
On a political level, these laws also serve as a guarantee to U.S.
industries and U.S. citizens. They say that trade will be fair as well
as free, and that temporary relief is available if imports rise to
unexpected levels. Without those critical reassurances, I suspect the
already sagging public support for free trade would evaporate and new
trade agreements would simply become impossible.
Our trade laws help us, not hurt us, and help other countries, too.
It keeps them honest and keeps them on their toes.
To address this issue, the bill takes two important steps: First, it
identifies
[[Page S3798]]
several recent dispute settlement panels under the WTO that have ruled
against U.S. trade laws and limited their operation in unreasonable
ways. These decisions clearly go beyond the obligations agreed to in
the WTO and undermine the credibility of the world trading system. If
they are not addressed, I suspect public support for trade will erode
further. That is why our concerns regarding these cases are identified
at the very outset of the bill as findings and why the administration
is directed to develop a strategy to counter or reverse these decisions
or lose fast track.
This bill also directs negotiators not to negotiate new trade
agreements that undermine U.S. trade laws. We cannot do that. I am,
frankly, concerned that this administration has already put itself in a
position in which U.S. trading partners will push hard to weaken U.S.
trade laws in WTO negotiations.
We cannot put ourselves in that situation. This issue is serious
enough that I carefully weighed whether the benefits of new trade
agreements are worth that risk. I went forward only because I believe
there are strong majorities in both Houses of Congress to block efforts
to weaken U.S. trade laws.
I am concerned that additional steps on U.S. trade laws may go too
far, but I hope the administration's trade negotiators take careful
note of these directions; otherwise, they are headed for conflict with
the Congress.
Mr. President, that describes the fast-track portions of this bill.
They are not perfect. Were it not for the need to address the concerns
of Senators on the other side of the aisle, I would have gone further
in several areas. There are also provisions I think are unnecessary.
That, after all, is the nature of bipartisan compromise. In the end,
though, the Finance Committee reported the fast-track bill by a vote of
18 to 3, indicating to me that we are close to finding that balance.
One final point, especially for my friends on the left. This is the
most progressive fast-track bill that Congress has ever moved to pass,
by far. It is a vast improvement over past grants of fast track on many
of the issues I have just highlighted. It is not perfect, but it is a
good bill. I urge my colleagues not to allow the perfect to become the
enemy of the good.
When I began my remarks, I noted that many people have asked a simple
question: Why a trade bill? Why now? A big part of the reason is that
we now have the unique opportunity to expand and approve trade
adjustment assistance--not TPA, trade promotion authority, but trade
adjustment assistance. Quite frankly, this would be impossible absent
fast track. We can only do this in the context of a larger trade bill.
So let me turn now to what I view as the most important part of this
legislation--and certainly the part I am most proud of--trade
adjustment assistance.
Trade adjustment assistance, sometimes known as TAA, is a program
with a simple but admirable objective: to assist workers injured by
imports to adjust and find new jobs. It is that simple. This is an
objective I suspect almost all Americans support.
TAA was created back in 1962 as part of an effort to implement the
results of the so-called Kennedy round agreement to expand world trade.
That is its genesis, 1962.
President Kennedy and the Congress agreed there were significant
benefits to the country as a whole from expanded trade. They also
recognized, however, that workers and firms would inevitably lose out
to increased import competition.
TAA was then created as part of the new social compact that obliged
the Nation to attend to the legitimate needs of those who lose from
trade as part of the price for enjoying the benefits from increased
trade.
Unfortunately, we have not always upheld the bargain in pursuing new
trade agreements because, over the years, we have failed to provide
adequate funding for TAA. We have scaled back some benefits. We have
tightened eligibility requirements. We have neglected to recognize the
need for expanded training and health care assistance. We have not kept
up our part of the deal.
This legislation aims to fulfill the bargain struck in 1962. It does
not, as some voices have asserted, make TAA more attractive than having
a job. That is just not accurate. I think anybody would rather have a
job, that is clear. But in the end, TAA recipients must still get by on
about $250 per week while receiving retraining for a new job.
But it does make several important changes in the TAA program to make
it more effective. First, it extends the period for which TAA pays out
income support from 52 weeks to 74 weeks. It is extended. This allows
TAA recipients to stay in the program long enough to complete training
for new jobs. It also remedies a shortcoming in the current program
that many observers, including the General Accounting Office, have
pointed out.
Second, this legislation expands eligibility for TAA benefits to so-
called secondary workers. This has been a controversial provision, so I
will explain it. Secondary workers are secondary only in the minds of
some of the bureaucrats administering TAA. These are workers who have
lost their jobs due to imports just as surely as those receiving TAA
benefits now, but they have the misfortune of working for a company or
a plant that supplies input products to a plant that closed or reduced
production because of trade. They are so-called secondary workers.
The shortcomings of current law are demonstrated in this example: If
an auto plant must close down because of competition from Japanese
imports, the workers at that plant would be covered by TAA. That is
clear. The workers down the road, however--those who make windshield
wipers or tires for the now closed plant--would be secondary workers
and not covered. This is simply unjust, and it is why so many,
including the GAO and the Trade Deficit Review Commission, which
included two members of the Bush Cabinet, have advocated expanding TAA
to cover secondary workers.
When Congress passed the NAFTA in 1994, President Clinton agreed to
expand TAA to secondary workers for imports from NAFTA countries. We
also agreed to extend TAA when a U.S. manufacturing plant moves abroad
to one of the NAFTA countries. These limited applications demonstrate
that both provision on secondary workers and plant shifts are workable.
They have been the law and are working. It was the expectation at the
time that we passed NAFTA that these provisions would be expanded to
all trade. As Mickey Kantor, who was USTR at the time, has said:
At the time [that NAFTA was passed] it was everyone's
expectation that these programs would be extended to non-
NAFTA countries.
And that makes sense--workers who lose their jobs because
of imports from Europe, for example, are just as deserving of
assistance as workers who lose their jobs because of imports
from Canada. The legislation before the Senate harmonizes
these programs. This is long overdue.
Third, this legislation expands benefits for TAA workers. This
legislation authorizes $300 million for training workers receiving
TAA--nearly tripling the program. The legislation will also extend
assistance in obtaining healthcare insurance to TAA recipients. Now,
the call for extending healthcare insurance assistance has proven the
most controversial aspect of this legislation.
But it is important for all Senators to understand that this concept
was originally advanced by the bipartisan Trade Deficit Review
Commission--a group that had many prominent Republican members,
including Ambassador Robert Zoellick, Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld, and former USTR Carla Hills. They recommended health
insurance benefits for dislocated workers.
I would emphasize that the recommendation for transitional health
insurance was supported unanimously by the Commission. In our bill, we
have tried to find an appropriate middle ground.
For workers who are eligible for COBRA, this bill would provide a 73
percent tax credit for those payments. For workers not eligible for
COBRA, this bill would provide a 73 percent tax credit for the purchase
of certain State-based group coverage options. The tax credits for both
categories of workers would be fully advanceable and refundable. In
addition, in recognition of the fact that it may take States some time
to get these group-coverage
[[Page S3799]]
options up and running, we provide interim assistance through the NEG
program.
Fourth, this legislation also extends TAA programs specifically
targeted to family farmers, ranchers, and fishermen. The legislation
aims to correct some problems in the current legislation that have kept
farmers and fishermen--who are typically self-employed--from
benefitting from TAA. The provision on farmers is taken from
legislation introduced by Senator Conrad and the ranking member of the
Finance Committee, Senator Grassley. The provisions on fishermen were
prepared by Senator Snowe, who has contributed immensely to this
legislation.
Finally, this bill creates what amounts to a pilot program on wage
insurance. Wage insurance is essentially an alternative approach to
addressing worker adjustment. In essence, wage insurance provides a
Government payment to older workers who lose their jobs because of
trade and decide to take a lower paying job rather than go through
training. The Government payment would run for up to two years and
would make up half of the difference between the new wage and the old
wage. The concept is that workers may actually be able to adjust more
quickly if they move back into the workforce and learn new skills on
the job. Experience suggests that the workers that do take a lower
paying job are often able to make up much of the difference between the
new wage and the old wage as they gain experience.
There are those who would like to abandon traditional TAA entirely in
favor of wage insurance. If this experiment succeeds, that may be just
the course we decide to take in a few years. At this point, however,
there are just too many questions to be answered to turn TAA entirely
into a wage insurance program. That would not be right.
One final point on cost. I should note--we often talk about the vast
benefits of trade: more jobs, higher paying jobs, cheaper products. I
indicated earlier that the average family of four sees annual benefits
in the thousands of dollars. Yet I am sure that some of my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle will complain that TAA costs too much.
But the reality is, it would cost the average family of four about $12.
It is an inexpensive way to build support for trade.
All told, this bill amounts to a major expansion and a historic re-
tooling of TAA--a step that is long overdue. It attempts to adopt the
positive experiences we have had with expanding TAA to secondary
workers in the NAFTA, adopt the recommendations of the GAO and the
Trade Deficit Review Commission, adopt good ideas from the academic
world, and generally turn TAA into a program that truly works.
I suspect when we look back on this legislation in 20 years it will
be these provisions on TAA, which attempt to fulfill the promise made
by President Kennedy nearly 40 years ago, that are found to be truly
historically significant.
Finally, this legislation also extends and expands the trade
preferences given to the Andean countries--Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, and
Eduador. The United States had extended these preferences to our
friends in Andean America until they expired last year because we
wanted to provide the citizens of those countries with an alternative
to the illegal drug trade and to shore up our relationship with
important allies.
In the legislation we are considering today, the Finance Committee
chose to expand ATPA to new products, such as textiles and apparel and
canned tuna. I know these expansions are controversial, but they are
critical to the beneficiary countries.
Fighting the war on drugs is an uphill battle for these countries. It
is tough. They cannot fight that battle unless legitimate, value-added
sectors of their economies are encouraged and developed. This bill
expands ATPA in a responsible way.
The legislation also creates a petition process to give interested
parties a channel for bringing to the administration's attention issues
that may warrant limitation of a country's benefits. That could happen.
This will ensure that the United States pays adequate attention to
other issues in these relationships, such as labor rights and
enforcement or arbitral awards.
Finally, this legislation includes technical changes from the
committee mark, including an exclusion of certain footwear products.
Let me end by talking about the importance of trade in my home State
of Montana. As in most States, trade plays a critical role in Montana's
economy.
From 1993 to 2000, Montana's exports grew by 126 percent--nearly
double the 68 percent growth in total U.S. exports of goods. We have
expanded proportionately faster than has the Nation. According to the
U.S. Department of Commerce, nearly 6,000 Montana jobs depend on
exports of manufactured goods. And more than 730 companies, mostly
small- and medium-sized businesses, export from Montana. Farmers and
ranchers are also increasingly dependent on trade and continuing to
open foreign markets. One in every three U.S. acres is planted for
export--making U.S. farmers 2\1/2\ times more reliant on trade than the
rest of the economy.
Unfortunately, barriers to U.S. agriculture products remain extremely
high. Agriculture tariffs average more than 60 percent worldwide. By
comparison, average tariffs on industrial goods are less than 5
percent. Non-tariff trade barriers, like quotas, have all but vanished
from trade in manufacturing, but these barriers remain common in
agriculture. U.S. agriculture exports have suffered as a result of
these barriers. Indeed, because agriculture is the most distorted
sector of the global economy, it is also the sector most in need of
trade liberalization. Some existing agreements have provided
significant improvements. NAFTA--while far from perfect--has resulted
in increased agriculture exports to Mexico and Canada.
In 1993, the year that NAFTA was passed, Montana's agriculture
exports to Mexico totaled $1.2 million. In 2000, that number had
increased to nearly $4.7 million. Montana's agriculture exports to
Canada have increased even more dramatically--from roughly $12 million
in 1993 to $110 million in 2000.
The U.S. must make agriculture a priority in future negotiations, and
in fact, agriculture is the highest priority for new global trade
negotiations under the WTO. Countries have agreed to work toward
phasing out all export subsidies; make improvements in market access;
and eliminate disguised trade barriers such as in the beef hormones
dispute with the Europe Union. These negotiations can only help in
leveling the playing field for American farmers and ranchers and open
markets overseas since 60 percent of the tariffs are in agriculture and
5 percent are in manufacturing.
Trade is clearly important for Montana's farmers, ranchers, and
workers. Support for Montana ranchers and small businesses is important
for our people. Yet support for trade in Montana--as in the rest of the
Nation--I think has faded in recent years. Part of that is because
people are more aware of the downside of trade rather than the upside
of trade.
When workers are laid off as a result of imports, that is highly
publicized and widely noticed. Yet few people realize that trade
agreements have provided, by some accounts, benefits to families worth
thousands of dollars annually. We have not done enough in this country
to help those workers displaced because of trade. That is why a
comprehensive bill--one that includes both fast track and TAA is so
important.
This legislation is certainly controversial. As I have noted, fast
track alone has proven so divisive that it has been deadlocked in the
Congress for most of the decade. I know some of my distinguished
colleagues--Senators Byrd and Hollings, for example--have both
substantive and procedural concerns. I deeply respect their views, and
I value their insight. They are very good people. We disagree, however,
about trade. But their concerns are heard. I will address their
concerns more fully as this debate continues.
In the end, though, it can be said that everybody would like to see
changes in this bill, in one direction or the other. But I believe
strongly that this legislation represents a sound balance on all
fronts.
Forty years ago, President Kennedy asked Congress to grant him new
trade negotiating authority. It was a much simpler bill, at a time when
trade issues were more narrowly defined. But it was still quite
controversial, for
[[Page S3800]]
many of the same reasons that trade remains controversial today.
President Kennedy emphasized the importance of trade for our economy,
for our workers, and for American leadership. Yet he recognized even
then that trade also creates dislocation and that a new program, trade
adjustment assistance, was needed to aid workers adversely affected by
trade.
President John F. Kennedy, urging support for his proposal, said
this:
At rare moments in the life of this Nation, an opportunity
comes along to fashion out of the confusion of current events
a clear and bold action to show the world what we stand for.
Such an opportunity is before us now.
Congress seized that opportunity and passed the Trade Expansion Act
of 1962.
Today, we too can show the world--and America--what we stand for.
Building not only on the vision of President Kennedy, but on the
efforts of the Presidents who followed him, we can show the world that
America can lead the way in building a new consensus on international
trade. We, too, must seize this opportunity.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, we have attempted to really get the process
going on trade promotion authority for a week now, with little or no
success. I think today we moved completely in the wrong direction. I
am, for the first time, becoming concerned that we may not be
successful in our effort. I wanted to come to the floor today to talk
about it.
Had we brought the trade promotion authority bill to the floor of the
Senate on Tuesday, the bill that was reported on an overwhelmingly
bipartisan vote--I think 18 to 3 out of committee--and if we could have
had an up-or-down vote on it, my guess is that some 70 Members of the
Senate would have voted for trade promotion authority. And the vote
ought to be 100.
If there is anything I think we have learned in the history of
mankind, it is that trade works, that trade promotes economic growth,
it promotes better jobs, it expands freedom, it is something that all
enlightened opinion speaks in favor of; yet it is something that,
throughout history, has been under assault. It is hard to understand
trade, and it is so easy to argue against it.
Every special interest can cloak itself in the American flag and
argue against trade. It reminds me of the writing of a French
economist, who, as individual industries were getting protection from
foreign competition in France while England was blossoming economically
through free trade--a famous French economist wrote a petition to the
economic ministry that was granting all these exceptions for one
industry after another, basically arguing that they had to protect
dairy products because they had so many jobs tied to it--tending the
cattle, and all of the people who service the industry--and they had to
protect this industry to protect that. So this famous economist wrote a
petition on behalf of candlemakers, arguing that they were
disadvantaged in selling their products because of the Sun, which had
an unfair competitive advantage: It seemed to produce light for
nothing--in overwhelming quantities.
Anyway, to make a long story short, he goes into this elaborate
argument about how France could become rich from all the people who
would be employed in making candles if they would just pass a law
requiring people to pull their shutters closed during the day and to
pull down their shades so that they would have to buy more candles.
What was interesting about his petition was that it made exactly as
much sense as all the other petitions that had been granted.
The point is that trade doesn't help every individual producer under
every individual circumstance, but it helps the whole, it helps
society.
We live in a golden age today. We live in an age where consumer
goods, relative to our wages, are the cheapest they have ever been in
the history of mankind. The other day I put a shovel in a truck, and
someone had gone somewhere in the truck. I needed the shovel, but I had
a limited amount of time. So I went to the hardware store to buy
another shovel--complaining about how stupid I had been for leaving it
in the truck. I should have paid attention. I had only one day to do
what I was going to do. So I went there to buy a shovel, and I bought a
shovel for $4.52. I submit that never, since man first emerged from the
Garden of Eden, has any citizen anywhere bought a quality shovel for
less than I paid for it at the hardware store.
Today, we all benefit from world trade. I never will forget, as a
boy, as an economic student, when the professor explained comparative
advantage and the gains from trade. It didn't take me long to figure
out these were powerful ideas that people didn't understand. It is so
easy for a Member to stand up and say: We buy products from some
country, but they don't buy that product from us. But I could say that
I buy groceries from Safeway, but they don't buy anything from me. I
have a totally one-way trade with Safeway. I could claim that that was
unfair trade. I could stop buying groceries from grocery stores since
they don't buy anything from me. I could plant my little backyard in
vegetables. But the price I would pay would be poverty.
The point is, there is no issue we have debated in this Congress, or
any Congress, related to the material well-being of our people--which I
separate from things like our political freedom--there is no issue that
we have debated that is more important than trade. Trade won the cold
war. Trade and the wealth that it created, the wealth machine it
generated rebuilt Japan and Europe after World War II. Trade created
wealth in Taiwan and Korea where it had never existed. In the process,
it destroyed the Soviet Union. It gave more freedom to more people than
any victory in any war in the history of mankind. The first point I am
trying to make is, trade is very important and trade promotion
authority, giving our President the tools he needs to negotiate and
create more good jobs in America through trade, is something that every
Member of the Senate ought to be for, and thank goodness, a large
number of our Members are for it.
If that had been the issue before us, we could have finished our
business on Tuesday. But for some reason, the majority decided they
were unwilling to let the Senate vote on trade promotion authority
alone and that they were going to add other legislation to it, most
importantly, trade adjustment assistance. Whereas the trade promotion
authority bill came out of the Finance Committee on a strong bipartisan
vote, the trade adjustment assistance bill actually passed the
committee after the expiration of the two-hour rule. It was totally a
partisan procedure, and it is a very contentious bill.
I could go into great length about what is in it, but the point I
wish to make today is that we have been negotiating, I believe, in good
faith in trying to come up with an agreement that would let us move
forward and pass this most important legislation--trade promotion
authority.
In the midst of these negotiations, yesterday Senator Daschle offered
this amendment. The astounding thing is that a huge amount of this
amendment represents material that not only is not in the trade
promotion authority bill but is not in the trade adjustment assistance
bill. And there are totally new issues that have not been discussed in
the context of fast track before. These represent basically an
undercutting of the whole process of trying to negotiate a compromise.
I understand that to legislate, it requires a compromise. Nobody gets
everything they want. I do not think it is asking too much to have a
straight up-or-down vote on trade promotion authority, something as
important as that, but now we find hidden in this amendment a provision
whereby to get trade promotion authority, we are going to have to cover
legacy costs for the steel industry.
This provision was not part of trade adjustment assistance, but
suddenly out of nowhere, if you are part of the legacy cost to the
steel industry, you are going to get a brand new entitlement benefit
under this program. Never in our negotiations has there been talk about
wage insurance. Let me explain this concept and let me explain how
trade adjustment assistance works.
First, under the current law, if I lose my job because lightening
strikes the building I am in and destroys the Capitol or a terrorist
attack destroys the
[[Page S3801]]
business, I get unemployment insurance until I can find a new job. But
if foreign competition can be blamed for me losing my job, I get a
totally different set of benefits, far richer, far more valuable.
Quite frankly, I never understood why Americans ought to be treated
differently based on why they lose their jobs. If they are Americans
and they lose their jobs and Government provides programs, it seems to
me they ought to get the same benefits. I do not understand treating
people differently, but I long ago have concluded that my view is
hopelessly in the minority on that issue.
Now we are talking about adding new benefits to the differential, and
I want to talk about two issues in particular.
The first I mentioned is this whole steel legacy issue, and it really
boils down to the following thing: Sad as it is, painful as it is, the
American steel industry promised benefits that they never intended to
pay, that they never had the resources to pay, and now, having
negotiated all of these gold-plated benefits, principally to their
retirees, when the bill has come due, these companies, many of them
still in business, many of them that have equity values on the New York
Stock Exchange are saying: Look, we cannot pay these benefits; we
agreed to them, but we cannot pay them, so we want the taxpayers to pay
them.
Now we have a proposal out of the clear blue sky added to the ransom
that we are supposed to pay to get trade promotion authority passed. We
have this requirement that these steel legacy costs come under trade
adjustment assistance. I say to my colleagues, when you are in the
business we are in, you never say never; you never say that something
is not going to happen. But let me put it this way: We may adopt a bill
that funds steel legacy costs as tribute or bribery or ransom to get
trade promotion authority, but it is not going to happen soon and it is
not going to happen easily. Within every limit of every rule of the
Senate, I assure my colleagues, we are going to fight this. And if in
the end, God forbid, but if in the end it were a choice between trade
promotion authority, which we need, which is vitally important and
which I am 100 percent committed to, if I had to choose between trade
promotion authority and paying steel legacy costs to get it, the answer
is no, it is not worth it. It is absolutely not worth it.
If we were talking from now until Jesus came back, I do not know that
I would be so quick to make that statement. But we know we are going to
have a new Congress next year. We might actually have a Republican
majority in that Congress. To simply come in and ask the taxpayers to
pick up all these legacy costs for operating American businesses that
promised benefits they could not and they never intended to pay, in
many cases, is so outrageous it is piracy on such a scale that, in my
opinion, it is not worth paying, not even for trade promotion
authority.
Let me talk about wage insurance. I remind everybody that currently
in our trade promotion authority bill only about one out of every four
Americans who lose their jobs where it can in any way be related to
trade claim benefits under trade promotion authority. About three-
fourths of them simply go on about their business and get other jobs,
but about one out of every four take trade adjustment assistance
benefits.
Under this bill, we create a brand new benefit which will guarantee
that almost everyone will participate in the program. As a result, the
cost of the program will skyrocket. This is a brand new entitlement,
and what it says is, if you earn less than $40,000 a year when you lose
your job, when that can be in any way related to trade, the Government
is going to guarantee your wage, and so you will take a new job and the
Government will come along and pay a portion of the difference between
the wage you had in your old job and the wage you have in your new job.
This is a brand new entitlement program, potentially explosive in its
costs.
The idea we are suddenly going to start insuring people's wages
represents a step toward Government domination of the marketplace that
we have never seen before. This is a provision that cannot be in any
final compromise.
I will sum up because I know the distinguished ranking member of the
committee is present. I know he wants to speak.
I do not think we are moving in the right direction. I thought it was
a mistake, I believe it is a mistake, and I believe many of my
colleagues will not support tying trade adjustment assistance with all
of these new entitlement programs to trade promotion authority. Now we
are having all of these new benefits in the trade adjustment assistance
bill, benefits the cost of which no one knows.
I hear my colleagues say we are running a deficit, we are spending
the Social Security trust fund, what an outrage it is, but yet today we
have an amendment before us offered by the majority leader that would
create massive new entitlements that, clearly, would end up costing
billions, perhaps tens of billions of dollars, and no one seems the
least bit concerned. No one seems concerned that we are creating all
these new entitlements that will change worker behavior, that will
induce people not to move to new jobs, that will disrupt the economy
and in the process create this incredible situation where people who
are working have no guarantee of wages but people who are unemployed
do; people who are working do not have a guarantee of health insurance
but people who are unemployed have a Government guarantee.
How can we tax people who are working, who have no wage guarantee and
who have no health insurance, how can we justify taxing them to pay
benefits to people who are unemployed who are not working? I do not see
how such a guarantee can be made.
Ultimately, what we are talking about is a European-type system,
where we are going to guarantee health coverage ultimately to
everybody, where we are going back and bailing out the steel industry
to simply get the right to vote on trade promotion authority, and where
we are beginning to write guaranteed wages into the American economy.
The President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce today in the paper said
it well, I think, that we are reaching the point where the price we are
being asked to pay for trade promotion authority is simply too high; it
is unacceptable.
So I urge my colleagues to--and let me speak to my colleagues on my
side of the aisle. I am never going to support these provisions. I am
never going to support bailing out the steel industry as a price for
trade promotion authority. I am not going to support a wage insurance
program. Every country in the world that has such a program, that has
the least bit of economic development, is trying to get out of it.
Europe has not created a job in 30 years because of their wage
insurance program and the inflexibility that produces. So if you ever
get a job, you are protected, but in Europe people do not get new jobs
unless somebody dies or retires. That is not what we want in America.
So I think this has to be rejected. I do not think this represents any
kind of good-faith offer. I think this undercuts what we have been
trying to do, and I think we are moving in the wrong direction.
We are going to hear today from many of my colleagues who have been
involved in this debate. I am for trade promotion authority, and I
understand piracy. I understand that often in the legislative process
one has to do a lot of things they do not want to do to do some good,
but the price we are being asked to pay in the Daschle amendment is too
high. Not even trade, as great as it is, is worth the tribute we are
being asked to pay in this amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, does the assistant majority leader
have a statement he wishes to make?
Mr. REID. I appreciate the Senator asking. What we are going to do,
as soon as the Senator completes his statement, we are going to work
out a time agreement where Senator Dorgan's amendment will be voted on
at or around 12:30 today. So Members should be aware that is what we
are working toward. As soon as the Senator completes his statement, we
will propound a unanimous consent request. I have checked with the
Senator and I have
[[Page S3802]]
checked with the manager on our side and that seems to be OK with both
of them.
Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, will the Senator yield to me for a
moment?
Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.
Mr. GRAMM. I appreciate the Senator yielding.
There is not going to be a unanimous consent agreement on the Dorgan
amendment. We are not going to do a time limit on it. We are not going
to vote on it today.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend, there are other ways we can vote.
Mr. GRAMM. That is fine. I am saying we are not going to have a
unanimous consent agreement today on that amendment or any other
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. The majority leader yesterday finally brought to the
Senate legislation that contains trade promotion authority, a second
part called trade adjustment assistance, and a few other items, all
very important but not getting as much attention as those two.
I am pleased that the Finance Committee's bipartisan trade promotion
legislation is now before the Senate. I believe strongly this
legislation, more than any other, will promote America's constructive
leadership of the international trading system. Nevertheless, my
enthusiasm for the trade promotion authority component of the majority
leader's legislation is tempered by the dismay that I have about how
this process has been carried on.
Even though I believe strongly trade promotion authority is badly
needed, and surely it ought to be passed by the Congress and signed
into law, I regret we are being forced by the Democrat leadership's
unnecessary counterproductive, sort of take it or leave it approach--it
is kind of a partisan attitude in the taking up of trade promotion
authority and doing it in this fashion.
When we passed trade promotion authority from the committee 4 months
ago, the vote was 18 to 3. We did it in an open, cooperative,
bipartisan spirit. I was greatly heartened by the bill itself and by
the process in which we achieved a result that was good for America.
But this bill before us, the one laid down by the Senate majority
leader, is a much different story. I had hoped after bruising, partisan
fights on economic stimulus, the Jordan trade bill, judicial
nominations, and other issues, finally after those other issues that
are very partisan, because we had an overwhelming vote in committee
then in favor of trade promotion authority, that we would be able to
show America's farmers, ranchers, agricultural producers, our workers
in America's families and tens of millions of American consumers who
benefit from free trade that we were beyond partisanship, able to do in
a successful and short manner what the Senate has done on trade in the
past, to be able to give the President the authority in this bill that
Presidents since President Ford have had.
I hoped the Senate could put aside partisan differences and we could
move forward for the good of the country and this bipartisan spirit
would carry over into the consideration of trade promotion authority.
Unfortunately, because of the bill laid down last night, I am very
sad to say I was wrong. Even after the Finance Committee approved trade
promotion authority 18 to 3, it took 4 months before the Senate
Democrat leadership would agree to bring this critically important
bipartisan bill to the Senate floor. It took 4 months just to get a
bill which passed out of committee by 18 to 3, to the floor, even
though the President said time and again that the lack of trade
negotiating authority was hurting his ability to lead at the
negotiating table.
When we finally seemed to be making progress in getting trade
authority legislation to the floor, we were told the only way we could
have this debate--a debate that the American people deserve to have,
particularly the jobs created by trade--was if we agreed to partisan
trade adjustment assistance legislation with which many Members on our
side of the aisle disagree.
I support trade adjustment assistance. I support an enhanced,
updated, and fine-tuned trade adjustment assistance program. I have
said that many times. In fact, the trade adjustment assistance
legislation I support will more than double overall program spending
because what I support will vastly increase spending on training to
help the dislocated workers. My program adds health care coverage for
the first time ever. It will assist so-called secondary workers for the
first time ever.
What I find difficult to agree to, and many Members on my side of the
aisle will not agree, is the partisan, "my way or the highway"
approach taken in the bill laid down by the Democrat leadership. The
bipartisan way is the best way to get things done in Washington.
Somehow the Democrat leadership is not listening to either the people
on my side of the aisle or the people on his side of the aisle who I
know agree that we need a bipartisan approach. Others have been
ignored, even beyond this body, groups representing tens of thousands
of farmers, ranchers, and hard-working American families, those workers
who have jobs related to trade, those jobs that will be created because
we pass this bill and have enhanced trade.
I briefly quote from a letter to the majority leader printed as a
full-page advertisement on April 11 in the Roll Call newspaper. This
letter to the Senate majority leader was from the Agricultural
Coalition for the Trade Promotion Authority, representing 80 food and
agricultural groups dedicated to the passage of TPA.
In part, it says:
The strong bipartisanship that has historically prevailed
in the Senate on trade matters must be reestablished to allow
rapid action on trade promotion authority. We urge that this
bipartisanship extend to work on other trade-related
legislation that may need to move in tandem with trade
promotion authority so that the U.S. can regain its position
as world leader for free and fair trade, and in so doing open
a world of opportunity for U.S. agriculture.
That plea for bipartisanship on trade adjustment assistance is being
ignored. My pleas for bipartisanship are being ignored, and so were
those of many other Senators.
We have a divisive partisan product, laid down last night, a product
deliberately designed to emphasize differences, not to build bridges
between Republicans and Democrats, among people of different
viewpoints. It was meant not to seek common ground, not to restore the
traditional nonpartisan approach to international trade and foreign
policy that characterized so much of America's history but otherwise
put down to simply score partisan political points.
As disappointed as I am by the process that took place last night, I
am still hopeful and commit myself to work for a genuine compromise. I
happen to think it can still come together. I believe we can compromise
and come together because America's global leadership is at stake. In
other words, this is a very important bill.
I don't for 1 second believe any Senator would deliberately want to
diminish America's standing in the world community. Stakes are very
high. But that is what will happen if we don't restore the President's
credibility at the negotiating table. And this bill that came out of
the committee does that--not the bill before the Senate. The merits of
the Finance Committee bipartisan trade promotion authority bill are so
compelling that I believe we will ultimately be able to compromise on
trade adjustment assistance.
I summarize the need for the Finance Committee TPA bill simply by
saying the United States must be in a strong position to pursue our
Nation's interests at the bargaining table. Without trade promotion
authority, we are not in a strong position to accomplish that goal, it
is just that simple.
Already the United States has been pushed to the sidelines, pushed to
a point where a great deal of activity on the trade front has taken
place bilaterally, it has taken place regionally, and now globally in
new trade negotiations underway through the regime of the WTO.
There are many examples of how the United States is being left
behind. The Andean community and Mercosur, for example, have moved
closer to creating a South American free trade zone comprising 310
million people. Mercosur and the Andean community together have about
$128 billion in annual exports. If they have a free trade zone, it will
strengthen tremendously the economic power of Latin America and be
negative towards the United States. If
[[Page S3803]]
we fail to give our President trade promotion authority and progress on
negotiations of the free trade area of the Americas slows as a result,
or comes to a halt as a result--and this is now the case--then major
U.S. exporters will be at a major disadvantage in these important Latin
American markets compared to exporters in countries that do have such
trade agreements.
American suppliers seeking to sell in these Latin American countries
are going to have a heck of a time to have a market for their goods
that come from the United States. They will face other difficulties as
well. Just one example from my State of Iowa, the Bandag company, in
Muscatine, IA, makes and sells retreaded tires. That company is an
enormously successful company, also in the international market. At one
point in time, Bandag products went to Uruguay, Paraguay, and Argentina
from our country. American workers made those products.
However, when the Mercorsur agreement was put into effect between
Brazil and those other three countries, it became more viable for
Bandag to ship product from a plant that Bandag built in Brazil. Those
jobs and that investment as well did not stay in my State of Iowa or
somewhere else in the United States. In fact, out of economic
necessity, it went to Brazil. That is what happens if the United States
is not credible at the negotiating table. That is what happens when the
United States cannot lead in opening new markets and reducing tariffs
overseas.
Without trade promotion authority, it is a story that will be told
over and over again. This is our challenge, then. If we fail in this
challenge, if we do not seize this opportunity to grant the President
trade negotiating authority, I believe the process of opening global
markets through bilateral, regional, and especially global
negotiations--the process that has been the pattern for the last 50
years--will be set back for years.
If that happens, then the future prosperity of millions of Americans
and the future prosperity of many of this Nation's most competitive
businesses, and our farmers as well, will be put in doubt.
Even though this was a flawed process, and regrettably an
unnecessarily divisive process, laying this bill down last night, it is
never too late for us to do the right thing. Let us use the commitment
to good faith that I believe we all share to reach a genuine and fair
political compromise on trade adjustment assistance and to finally
resolve the few remaining trade adjustment assistance issues--and maybe
a few other issues--that are out there.
We can get this done. Senator Baucus and I have shown 98 other
Senators that working together we can accomplish a great deal of good.
He has been doing that with me. But I think the process last night
detracts from it. Maybe it was not meant to hurt what we are trying to
do, but I think it has done that.
I am glad that I will have the opportunity, regardless of this act,
to continue to sit down with my colleague and work out differences.
That is what I want all the other 98 Senators--or at least hopefully an
overwhelming number, 70 or so--to do, work with us in this process. I
think there are that many people in this body who know trade promotion
authority is the right thing to do.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I come to the floor this morning to speak
in behalf of an amendment laid down by my colleague from North Dakota,
Senator Dorgan, as it relates to a particularly growing concerning that
we have about a provision within the North American Free Trade
Agreement. Because we are now on the floor of the Senate with trade
issues that are so important to our country, we thought this the
appropriate place to offer this amendment.
Representing a State such as Idaho, I know the words "made in
Idaho" or "buy Idaho" have become a rather important but familiar
refrain across my State for the last good number of years. What is
unique about that is it has now become a refrain around the world, as
products built in my State, as in other States, are now trafficking in
world commerce and are a growing part of the Idaho economy. Whether it
is the potato chip, for which we are well known, or the computer chip,
with which we now dominate world markets because of quality and
efficiency, Idaho's trade has grown phenomenally in the last decade,
increasing and improving and diversifying our economy, and at the same
time supplying increasing numbers of jobs that are important to all
Idahoans.
So whether it is trade adjustment or whether it is trade promotion
authority, all of those become important items that we clearly need to
debate. I, like the ranking member of the Finance Committee, am
extremely frustrated by the process and the character of the process
that has been given to us by the majority leader. We cannot look at
these different trade issues separately and in a clean fashion and
debate them in a way that allows us to focus individually on these
issues from the importance of displaced worker health care, of course,
to the importance of our President having the authority to negotiate
trade agreements.
All of that said, what is most important in any trade agreement is
the transparency of the process so all of us can understand what our
negotiators are doing and why they are doing it and the advantages
those negotiations will bring to us as citizens, as workers, as
producers within this economy.
The Dorgan amendment does just that for an agreement that is already
in place, the North American Free Trade Agreement--that I happened to
oppose when it came to the floor some years ago.
I had been a supporter of the Canadian Free Trade Agreement
originally. But as the Bush administration and then the Clinton
administration put the final touches to the North American Free Trade
Agreement, there clearly were provisions within it that I thought would
not only be troublesome to enforce but this country more likely would
not enforce, and the Canadian Government, on the other side of the
border, would enforce, making it most difficult for commerce to flow
evenly in both directions, which would create disadvantages for our
producers and for our consumers, while creating advantages for the
producers of Canada.
Guess what. I was right in many instances. Many of my farmers and
ranchers in Idaho today do not agree that the Canadian Free Trade
Agreement was, in fact, a positive move for our country. This
administration, though, has shown its willingness to enforce trade
remedy law. With the steel agreement of a few months ago, and now a
soft wood Canadian timber agreement just penned by the Department of
Commerce, and being heard by the International Trade Commission as we
speak today, we see the willingness on the part of this President to
use law, current law, in a way that will not only force but stabilize
markets and create level playing fields for producers and create a fair
trade environment that some of my producers do not think exists.
While trade is so important to my State, tragically enough some of my
producers and workers are beginning to believe that free trade means
that it all comes here and is sold in America, displacing our workers
and changing our economy because we have had administrations in the
past that were not willing to enforce trade remedy situations and level
the playing field and create fair and equitable environments.
I know the positive nature of trade and the importance of it. At the
same time, chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement does
something that is increasingly important as it relates to what are
called Investor Protection Tribunals. That means when one government
takes an action that may cause a dislocation of a product within the
commerce of another country under the North American Free Trade
Agreement, there is a procedure, a process by which it can be
determined whether that was a fair and equitable process.
The tragedy of that is the tribunals have been closed and the public
has not been allowed to see them. I must tell you, this administration
recognizes it, understands its problems. It is important we try to deal
with those as rapidly as we can.
Last July, our U.S. Trade Representative, Bob Zoellick, together with
his Canadian and Mexican trade counterparts, discussed the secretive
nature of
[[Page S3804]]
these unique dispute tribunals. They recognized that these tribunals
needed to be more open and they announced they would take steps to open
up the deliberations of the tribunals.
On July 31, they issued an interpretation of chapter 11 stating that
tribunals should operate as transparently as possible. That very
wording, tragically enough, gave those who operate the tribunals an
opportunity to operate in a less than transparent environment.
As a result of that, Senator Dorgan and I have brought this amendment
to the floor--I am a cosponsor of it--simply saying that this is a
requirement, that the President needs to move in this direction, to
certify that these tribunals are open, and to respond as quickly as
possible in a time certain. We believe that is critically important.
If we are going to get the American producer, the American worker,
and the American consumer to understand the international character of
our commerce and the international character of our economy, they also
have to know that on the government side of the process--and there is a
government side to trade when you move across international borders and
when you move across political jurisdictions--that the government's
side of it will be aggressive, balanced, fair, and that the proceedings
of that government be transparent so that the public can understand why
a certain action is taken and why a certain remedy is produced. We
think that is all very critical and very necessary.
I suggest that the Dorgan amendment is in fact a perfecting amendment
to the North American Free Trade Agreement.
We believe it was the intent originally that these dispute tribunals
be allowed to be open, and appropriately so. Yet it has not occurred.
All of them have been secretive in the past.
We had a tribunal against MTBE because of the action of the State
that dramatically impacted the producing company in Canada. At the same
time, it was the right of the State of California to do what they did.
Regulatory activity that changes a market environment needs to be
understood, and the transparency of those tribunals simply allows that
to happen. That is, in my opinion, the importance of the Dorgan
amendment.
The Washington Times has recognized this problem, as have other
publications, as it relates to, again, the kind of transparency that we
think is important.
In the character of the tribunal, Bill Moyers--I don't always agree
with him and what he says on PBS, but I think in this instance we
agree--talked about the balance and the importance. Other publications
have recognized that this is a growing problem within the North
American free trade environment--that what we do is not as open and
transparent as it ought to be.
It is my understanding that we are going to have an opportunity to
vote on this issue sometime in the immediate future. I hope my
colleagues, recognizing that this is a perfecting amendment which
directs the President to move in a positive direction to certify the
openness and the transparency of these actions within the North
American Free Trade Agreement and within the tribunals of jurisdiction,
will do so under what we call the chapter 11 tribunal.
With those comments, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may
proceed for 7 minutes as if in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the introduction of S. 2446
are located in today's Record under "Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.")
Mr. SPECTER. I yield the floor
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I would like to say a few words about
the pending amendment offered by my good friend from North Dakota,
Senator Dorgan. It was offered yesterday evening.
His amendment calls for greater transparency in dispute settlement
under NAFTA chapter 11--that is the so-called investor-State dispute
settlement. I think that is a very important objective.
I agree that lack of transparency is one of the major flaws in how
chapter 11 has operated. It is clear that it makes no sense whatsoever
that when the United States is negotiating or companies are negotiating
or trying to resolve a dispute with a Canadian company, the proceedings
are, in effect, secret, that they are not open to the public. That
makes no sense.
I might say, too, that the issues in dispute before chapter 11
tribunals clearly implicate essential functions of Government,
including protection of the environment. They raise issues concerning
public health and safety. I think any body deliberating on such
important questions--it is axiomatic; it is a priority--should be open
to the public. That is just a given.
Moreover, interested parties must be able to convey their views in
such a body, as is the case in our judicial process, where an
interested party can file a brief, say, an amicus curiae brief, say,
with the Supreme Court.
Fortunately, this is a matter under which I think there is a growing
consensus. I note that last year the United States, Canada, and Mexico
adopted an interpretive note that provides for greater transparency in
chapter 11 proceedings. The parties agreed, "to make available to the
public in a timely manner all documents submitted to, or issued by, a
Chapter eleven tribunal," subject to redaction of confidential
material. The United States, Canada, and Mexico did agree, in an
interpretive note, to provide for greater transparency, at least with
respect to making public documents more available.
I think this interpretive note is a good start, but it is clear it is
only a start. We have far more to do in opening up proceedings.
I might say, I raised this issue with European negotiators at the
infamous Seattle administerial on trade not so long ago, and I was
surprised at the resistance I received, particularly from European
negotiators. They did not seem to be automatically agreeing that, yes,
that is good for the process. To me, it indicates we are going to have
to move further and work a little more aggressively to help accomplish
our objective, and that is transparency. For that reason, the Finance
Committee bill currently on the floor included in the TPA bill a
detailed negotiating objective precisely on this subject.
Let me read it. These are the primary negotiating objectives
contained in the bill: provide for ensuring that all requests for
dispute settlement, and all proceedings, submissions, findings, and
decisions in dispute settlement are promptly made public; ensuring that
all hearings are open to the public; and establishing a mechanism for
acceptance of amicus curiae briefs from businesses, unions, and
nongovernmental organizations.
It is a huge step, frankly. It is very clear that this is a primary
negotiating objective on the part of the U.S. Government.
I think we in America sometimes take it for granted that important
decisions--that is, judicial decisions, legislative, and executive
decisions--are made openly, made in public, with adequate opportunity
for all sides to be heard. I think we take that for granted; it is so
common in our country.
I think the same ought to be true when important Government
regulations are being considered in international dispute settlements.
I firmly believe the trade bill makes that objective clear.
Having said that, I must say I have some concerns about the amendment
of my friend from North Dakota. And that is because his amendment would
mandate that the President pursue negotiations with Canada and Mexico
and require that the Trade Representative certify that the negotiations
have been accomplished within 12 months.
There is no mandating language in this bill--for good reason. First,
it is unconstitutional. The courts will strike it because the
legislative branch cannot mandate the executive branch what to do in
negotiating agreements. It is unconstitutional. That is No. 1.
No. 2, even if it were constitutional, if we mandate in one area, we
necessarily give up significantly in other areas. One other area would
be the agricultural provisions. We are trying to get Canada, for
example, to dismantle
[[Page S3805]]
its trading commission, the Wheat Board. It is an unfair trade barrier
and hurts our American farmers. If you mandate transparency, what will
happen?
First, the Canadians will say, if you want us to do that, we will ask
you to give up someplace else or we will not be as amenable to your
suggestion that we give up on the Canadian Wheat Board. It does not
make good sense in trying to get good, solid trade agreements.
We have avoided using mandates in the bill. Rather, in the tradition
of these kinds of measures, we laid out negotiated objectives and
agreed to consider implementing legislation under special rules; that
is, if the President makes progress in achieving these objectives.
I think it should give all Senators some concern that this mandate
also requires the President to, in 1 year, certify that the USTR has
fulfilled the requirements set forth in this section. I don't know how
in the world the President of the United States in 1 year will be able
to certify that the mandate called for in this amendment is fully
implemented; that is, full transparency. It is just not going to
happen. It is unconstitutional anyway because the legislative branch,
under the Constitution, cannot mandate to the executive branch what to
do in negotiating agreements with other countries. That is an
unconstitutional provision.
I very much hope my friend from North Dakota will work to modify the
amendment. I strongly agree with the intent and the import of what he
is trying to do. This puts me in a very difficult position because I do
agree with what he is trying to do. But the goal here is to be
effective. The goal here is to get the job done.
Frankly, I would like to ask the Senator from North Dakota if he
would yield for a question; that is, if there is some way we can modify
this amendment to make it effective, because the current draft is
unconstitutional and also because of the flaws of the mandating
approach and the impracticality of getting this accomplished within 1
year. I ask my good friend from North Dakota if he is willing to modify
given those flaws?
Mr. DORGAN. In response to the Senator from Montana, I certainly
respect his view, but I don't share his view that this amendment would
in any way be unconstitutional. I believe the amendment, if I modify
it, would be less likely to achieve its purpose. If I don't modify it,
I think it is a stronger initiative that says to the administration,
this is what the Congress aspires to achieve with respect to changing
the secrecy by which dispute tribunals in NAFTA are now conducted. I
would prefer we not modify it in order that it be a stronger
initiative.
I do not see this as in any way being unconstitutional. It is in
perfect concert with our constitutional responsibilities.
Mr. BAUCUS. I thank my good friend, but it is just a matter of
judgment. It clearly is unconstitutional because Congress cannot
mandate to the President telling the President what he must do in
negotiating agreements with other countries. That is clearly an
unconstitutional mandate of authority. I must say, I doubt this
provision will survive in conference for those reasons.
I fully understand the Senator. The goal here is to be as effective
as we possibly can because the Senator and I agree with the same
objective. The objective is full transparency in these proceedings.
That is clearly going to be in the public interest. It is going to help
Americans and help people all around the world.
I thank my good friend and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, my colleague, Senator Craig from Idaho,
spoke in support of the amendment. It is an amendment we offered
jointly. I ask unanimous consent that others in the Senate who have
asked this morning be added as cosponsors: Senators Byrd, Dayton, and
Durbin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Let me describe again what it is we are attempting to
achieve. We have now, under NAFTA, dispute tribunals or tribunals that
are created for the purposes of resolving disputes. Regrettably, those
tribunals are conducted in secret. They are secret tribunals. The
American people are excluded from knowing what they have done, what
they are doing, what they are going to do, how they reached a decision.
We are not entitled to review any of the information they have or the
information they might have used to reach a decision. They lock the
door, and behind locked closed doors, they discuss this country's
future with respect to international trade disputes.
We ought not be a party to that. That is not what we signed up for.
That is not what the U.S. Government is about--secrecy, closed, locked
doors in some foreign land. That is not what we ought to be about. This
amendment says: Let's stop that. Let's not have the dispute tribunals
be secret.
Let me give an example of why this is important: what is happening
with respect to NAFTA and a fuel additive called MTBE. This is all
under something called chapter 11. You might think chapter 11 has to do
with bankruptcy. It does not. Chapter 11 was put in NAFTA at the
request of negotiators thinking that U.S. investors in Mexico might
have their assets seized by the Mexican Government or Mexican
regulators and the Mexican legal system probably wouldn't provide
sufficient protection. So U.S. negotiators actually asked to have
chapter 11 included in NAFTA. It was. It was designed to create
tribunals that would consider claims from foreign investors that they
had property taken by Government regulation.
By design, these tribunals were given leeway to operate in secrecy.
They were bound only by international arbitration rules. That allowed
the tribunals to act however they saw fit. If any of the parties to the
claim wanted to keep the proceedings secret, the briefs would not be
disclosed and the hearings would be closed. And that is exactly what
has happened.
Let me describe what has happened here with respect to chapter 11 and
the tribunals and what this Government, what the United States of
America, is part of. It involves Methanex, a Canadian company that
makes MTBE, a fuel additive. We have been talking about MTBE recently
in the debate over the energy bill so most Members are familiar with
this fuel additive.
In 1999, California decided to ban MTBE because they began to find it
in their ground water and drinking water. All of a sudden they began to
measure this fuel additive, which is harmful to human health in their
water system. They decided they better ban MTBE. And so California did
that. Fourteen other States are considering limitations to the use of
MTBE. It was 1990, in fact, when California first discovered traces of
MTBE in the drinking water.
In 1995, 71 percent of Santa Monica's drinking water was shut down.
Their supply was shut down due to the presence of MTBE. In 1996, MTBE
was discovered in Lake Tahoe. In 1998, an EPA blue-ribbon panel called
for substantial reduction in the usage of MTBE.
Then California decided, in 1999, they were going to ban MTBE
altogether. A Canadian corporation that makes it called Methanex heard
about the California decision, and they realized they stood to lose a
lot of money. If California bans MTBE, this corporation stands to lose
money. So Methanex filed a chapter 11 claim against the United States
for $970 million. Think of this. Methanex, a Canadian corporation,
files a $970 million claim against the United States of America because
California decided to ban MTBE because it was discovering it was
showing up in drinking water and ground water and that it is harmful to
human health. So a foreign corporation sues our country because we are
taking action to protect human health in this country.
This claim has had an incredibly chilling effect on environmental
regulatory activity. If a State wants to keep poisons out of its rivers
and streams, it now has to worry about a chapter 11 complaint being
filed. The producers of that poison will file a chapter 11 claim and
claim a billion dollars in injury against the United States. But, then,
that claim, when considered under a tribunal in chapter 11, will be
resolved in secret.
Let me restate this so people will understand it. A State finds a
poison in its drinking water and in its ground
[[Page S3806]]
water. It takes action to ban the use of that fuel additive that
creates it and which has allowed it to show up in the drinking water;
and a foreign company that produces it sues us for almost $1 billion
because that is the injury that will exist to that company. By the way,
they would sue us and go to chapter 11, and they will have an advantage
in a three-person tribunal under chapter 11 of having secret
proceedings. The American people are told it is none of your business.
It is none of our business when we take action to stop poisons from
finding their way to our drinking water? That is none of our business?
Well, I am using one example--MTBE. This amendment says it shall not
be secret any longer, that the dispute resolution under chapter 11--the
tribunals, their behavior, actions and their considerations--shall not
be secret. You cannot keep that information from the American people.
We will not allow it. Our amendment says the President shall negotiate
a change with Canada and Mexico to the conditions under which these
tribunals meet and shall report back to Congress within 1 year; that
these tribunals shall be held in the open; that the secrecy has ended,
and that transparency will exist. That is our amendment.
My colleague from Montana said the amendment is unconstitutional. If
I might, without providing a lecture on the Constitution, I will put up
a chart. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution says the Congress
shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. It
doesn't say Ambassador Zoellick shall have the power, or President
Clinton or President Bush shall have the power; it says the Congress
shall have the power.
We have a lot of people here who have forgotten that or have decided
to ignore it. But that is what the Constitution of the United States
says--Congress shall have the power. Fifty-five people wrote that over
200 years ago. This Congress, well over two centuries later, has
apparently decided that it wishes to consider giving the President the
authority on trade with something called fast track. So it is
apparently not unconstitutional in the minds of some to give the
President this authority, despite the fact that the Constitution says
it is the Congress's authority. They would say it is not
unconstitutional to give the President the authority to do this, but it
is unconstitutional to direct the President to end secrecy in the
tribunals. I don't understand that. That doesn't make any sense to me.
Of course, we have a right to direct our trade negotiators to direct
this administration to negotiate an end to the secrecy in
these tribunals. Of course, we have a right to do that. Are we kidding?
The Constitution says we have the right.
This isn't some idle piece of paper. It is the Constitution of the
United States. I don't want to hear that we don't have the authority to
do this. Of course we do.
The question for the Senate is this: In the future, both in this case
and the next one, when one of our States, or our Government, takes
action to protect our citizens against someone poisoning our water or
polluting our air, and somebody files a large claim against the United
States for protecting its citizens, saying, by the way, you have
violated our trade laws and injured us; do you want the consideration
of that dispute to be resolved in deep secrecy, behind closed doors,
perhaps in a foreign land, with three people who will not tell you what
they are doing, what they have done, or why they have done it? Is that
what you want for this country? I don't think so.
If you believe in open government, and in democracy, and in fair
trade, and in the Constitution, then you have to believe in this
amendment. This is not rocket science. This is common sense. Often,
common sense finds a difficult road here in the Congress because it
attracts comments by people who say, well, I know it sounds good, but
it is not as easy as it sounds. This is as easy as it sounds, believe
me. It is as easy as it sounds. All this country has to do, with
respect to Canada and Mexico, is to say with respect to our trade
agreement that we will not be involved in secret tribunals. That is not
the American way and not something Congress will any longer support.
Why do we have to do this in this legislation? Because we have had
our Trade Representative, Mr. Zoellick, already tell us that he would
like to end the secrecy.
Trade ministers from the U.S., Canada, and Mexico last year tried to
impose greater openness on a procedure under NAFTA that allows
companies to sue governments for millions in monetary damages, but the
effort has so far failed.
That is according to the Washington Times last month.
Charges of secrecy have dogged the chapter 11 process since its
inception. Many NAFTA supporters now concede that the closed tribunals
have contributed to public distrust of the agreement, and advocate
greater openness for the procedure.
Our Trade Representative, Mr. Zoellick, has spoken on this issue. He
wants more openness. But the fact is, these tribunals ignore it. The
openness doesn't now exist. There is still a veil of secrecy. That dis-
serves the interests of this country. That is why this amendment is
necessary, and that is why the amendment is necessary now. No, it is
not unconstitutional--not at all.
This Congress has every right to speak on this subject. In fact, this
Congress has a responsibility to speak on this subject. We know it is
wrong to have a foreign corporation suing our Government because our
Government is taking action to protect our consumers against poison in
the water. And then to throw that into a tribunal and tell the American
people, by the way, it is none of their business; they can't see it,
hear it, or be a part of it, we know that is wrong. Everybody in this
Chamber knows that is wrong.
So we are going to vote on this amendment. As I said when I started,
it is a bipartisan amendment. I have been joined by Senator Craig from
Idaho, from the other party. I appreciate his cosponsorship and his
work with me on it. I think he believes, as I do--in fact, he expressed
that a few minutes ago on this floor--that we must take action to end
this secrecy. This is the place to do it and this is the time to do it.
We are now considering international trade. We are considering fast-
track trade authority. This is the place and time to add this
amendment.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I move to table the Dorgan amendment and
ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays are ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Torricelli) is necessarily absent.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), and the Senator from
Utah (Mr. Bennett) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote "no" and the Senator from Kentucky
(Mr. Bunning) would vote "yea."
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 29, nays 67, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 101 Leg.]
YEAS--29
Allen
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Chafee
Cochran
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Nickles
Santorum
Stevens
Thompson
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--67
Akaka
Allard
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
[[Page S3807]]
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Thomas
Thurmond
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--4
Bennett
Bunning
Helms
Torricelli
Mr. REID. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I have been informed by staff--I hope I
have been informed wrongly--that we are now not going to be allowed to
vote on the underlying amendment, the Dorgan amendment.
Normally what happens here is that when a motion to table is defeated
and the amendment is there, and it is such an overwhelming vote, it is
just adopted by voice. But I have been told the minority will not allow
us to do this.
I am troubled for a number of reasons, not the least of which is what
happened when the majority leader had breakfast with the President
yesterday. I believe it was yesterday. It could have been the day
before, but I am almost certain it was yesterday. At that breakfast,
the President told the majority leader and those other people assembled
that his No. 1 priority was this trade bill.
On the first amendment we offered, there is a filibuster.
If there is something in this bill that someone doesn't like, let him
move to strike that portion of the bill. There are all kinds of things
that can be done. But for us to be told that we cannot vote on this
says there is a filibuster taking place. I suggest--certainly the
decision is not mine, but I think the majority leader would have to
strongly consider filing a motion to invoke cloture. Certainly, when
the motion is defeated by such an overwhelming margin and we are now
told we cannot adopt the measure, it seems it is totally unfair.
Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator from Nevada yield?
Mr. REID. I yield to the Senator from North Dakota, for a question,
without losing the floor.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I inquire whether the Senator has been
informed of the delay here being a delay because someone needs more
time to speak on this amendment. That is certainly reasonable.
I spoke on the amendment yesterday. I spoke on it this morning.
Others spoke on it this morning. Senator Craig, who is a cosponsor,
spoke on it.
Unless there are others who wish to speak on the amendment--certainly
that is reasonable. But if that is not the reason, we have had plenty
of time on this amendment. I thought we had. Then there was a tabling
motion. We should be ready to adopt the amendment. After all, 67 people
voted against tabling. One would expect there would be a pretty strong
expression here with respect to this amendment.
Was the Senator informed about the manner of the delay? Is it because
there needs to be more discussion on the underlying amendment or is
there some other reason?
Mr. REID. I say to my friend from North Dakota in answer to his
question, we have just been through 6 or 7 weeks on the energy bill. On
that bill, we had a series of amendments pending. I think we got up to
maybe 15 or 16 amendments pending where people would offer amendments
and then there would be no resolution of that amendment. It made it
very difficult to work through that bill.
I say to my friend from North Dakota, who had the wisdom and
foresight to offer this amendment, that it appears clear we have an
effort to stop the bill. I commented as the Senator from Texas was
giving his statement this morning, I have great respect for him. He
obviously was a great professor. We know he has a Ph.D. in economics.
His statement was one that gave me the desire to listen to what he had
to say.
As I was going through this, I said to myself: If I were on the other
side and I didn't like this, I would simply move to strike part of it.
But the Senator has made his decision, and I respect that. As a result
of that--I think it is too bad--I say to my friend from North Dakota, I
think the majority leader this afternoon should strongly consider
invoking cloture on this bill.
[...]
