Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 34 (Thursday, March 21, 2002)

[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 34 (Thursday, March 21, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2230-S2231]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUESTS--H.R. 3009, S. 517 and H.R. 6

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 295, H.R. 3009, the Andean
trade legislation; further, I ask unanimous consent that the committee
amendment be agreed to, the bill be read a third time and passed, with
the motion to reconsider laid upon the table; finally, I ask unanimous
consent that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference
with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the
part of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. HOLLINGS. I object.
Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. LOTT. The majority leader is recognized under a reservation?
Mr. HOLLINGS. I object.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Carolina
withhold?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wish to point out that Senator Lott and
I have talked about this matter on a number of occasions. I share his
strong desire to complete our work on Andean trade. We will do so.

I have also indicated a desire, and I know it is a desire held on
both sides of the aisle, to finish the energy bill. It would be my hope
we could move to many of these other pressing legislative priorities as
soon as we finish energy.
We had agreed to take up and finish our energy responsibilities, and
that is what we are doing. We have been on the bill now for 13 days, as
my colleagues will note. There is one item that may keep us from
reaching some agreement in the near future, and that is the ANWR
amendment. We have been attempting to get some understanding about how
we might resolve the issue relating to ANWR. So I ask unanimous consent
that on Monday, April 8, at 2 p.m., the Senate resume consideration of
S. 517; that Senator Murkowski be immediately recognized to offer his
amendment relating to ANWR; that the amendment be debated Monday and
Tuesday; and that the Senate file cloture on his amendment Monday; that
if cloture is not invoked on the amendment, then the amendment would be
withdrawn and no further amendments relating to drilling in ANWR be in
order.
If the Republican leader could agree to this, then I think we would
be in a position to move very quickly, as soon as we finish our work on
ANWR and on energy, on this and other matters.
Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object to that additional request,
the request would not include the UC with regard to Andean trade; it
would be strictly with regard to ANWR?
Mr. DASCHLE. This would allow us to complete our work on ANWR and on
energy so we could move to not only Andean trade but TPA and border
security as well.
Mr. LOTT. Let me assure Senator Daschle, under my reservation, I
would like for us to get a vote on ANWR included in the energy bill and
move to completion of the energy bill as soon as possible thereafter,
too. Beyond that, I have urged the manager of this legislation, on our
side of the aisle, to move to the ANWR issue as early as possible when
we come back. I hope that would be, hopefully, even Tuesday, but of
course we will have to dispose of a couple of pending issues because we
do not want that to still be pending at the end of the week. We would
like to finish the energy bill the week we come back because I know we
need to go to the budget resolution and the trade bill.
My encouragement to the managers is we do ANWR earlier in the week so
we can then do the tax provision which, I presume, would be last, and
we would be prepared to go to the final passage of the bill.
At this time I object to that addition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Mr. LOTT. I objected to the request with regard to ANWR.
Now, did Senator Graham want to speak on the Andean trade issue, or
will he speak on it after the reservations?
Mr. HOLLINGS. After the objection.
Mr. LOTT. After the objection?
Mr. HOLLINGS. Right.
Mr. LOTT. That would be fine.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I object.
Mr. LOTT. The Senator from South Carolina objects?
Mr. HOLLINGS. I do.
Mr. LOTT. I want to make sure. There are others who might object as
did the Senator from South Carolina so the record is complete.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I appreciate the minority leader's efforts
to get unanimous consent to consider the Andean Trade Preference Act,
which I consider to be a matter of not only urgency but also a matter
of national moral responsibility for the United States.
For 10 years, we had a special relationship between this country and
four countries in Latin America: Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and, primarily
because of its size, Colombia. All of those countries now are in
various forms of threat to their sovereignty, to their democracy, and
to their economic well-being.
The United States, at this time of need, I believe, is morally
obligated to reach out to our good neighbors in the hemisphere through
the adoption of this legislation, which would essentially extend what
we have done for 10 years, a very successful relationship on both
sides, and modernize and bring it up to the same standards we have
already provided to the countries of the Caribbean Basin.
Since we are not going to be dealing with this issue tonight, I hope
we will make a commitment that early after we return on April 8 we will
give attention to this matter so we can send the strongest possible
signal to these beleaguered countries that we understand their need and
that we want to be a partner in their resolution.
I urge our leadership to give priority attention to this issue at the
earliest possible time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, right to the point on Andean trade, we
have supported it and we have indicated, of course, to the
administration we would go along with an extension. However, we have
given at the office, as the saying goes. I have lost 50,900 textile
jobs since NAFTA, and I am wondering about these people talking of
morality, if they would be glad to accept my amendment to include
Brazil and orange juice. Wouldn't that be immoral?
I have another moral for a motion on the Andean pact, and that is to
get a little beef and wheat to Argentina; they are in desperate
circumstances. Morally, under the good neighbor policy of Franklin D.
Roosevelt, we Democrats ought to be morally committed to beef and wheat
to Argentina.
We have all kinds of amendments we can present. My point is, this
country has lost its manufacturing capacity. That goes right to the
heart of the economy and the recovery from the recession. Under the
Marshall plan, yes, we sent over our technology and expertise. It
worked. Capitalism conquered communism. However, there comes a time to
face reality and that is that there is no such thing as free trade. We
have the enemy within--the Business Roundtable. Boy, I have gotten
awards from them. But what has happened over the years is they have
moved their production.
I would like to print in the Record about Jack Welch squeezing the
lemon. He said on December 6, 2000, the year before last, squeeze the
lemon. He said General Electric was not going to serve or contract with
any supplier that didn't move to Mexico.
So we have an affirmative action plan to get the jobs. Then comes
free trade, promotes jobs.
The gentleman Welch is squeezing something else. That is not a
problem. I don't think we are going to handle that tonight.
Let's now get on with what we are morally committed to on the idea of
trade. I am morally committed to the economic strength of this country.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I do not relish questioning legislation
that the President and the distinguished Republican leader are seeking
to move through the Senate, but I feel obliged to make sure that the
Record reflects that I am genuinely opposed to the request to move to
the Andean trade bill because I am committed to standing up for the men
and women from North Carolina who earn their living in the textile
industry.

[[Page S2231]]

Time and again, these good citizens have been asked to sacrifice
their livelihoods for the sake of textile trade liberalization. In
2001, the textile and apparel sector lost almost 141,000 domestic jobs.
In North Carolina alone, more than 20,000 jobs were lost last year. The
steady erosion of the manufacturing base in North Carolina is creating
a genuine crisis, both for the men and women who are out of work, and
the communities which depend on a healthy domestic textile industry.
The so-called Andean Trade Preferences Act proposes to unilaterally
allow duty-free imports of apparel products from the Andean region.
This legislation will exacerbate the problems facing our communities
rather than assisting our industries and workers.
Mr. President, with all respect, I do not believe the Senate should
proceed to the Andean trade bill, and I, therefore, feel obliged to
oppose the leader's request.
Mr. LOTT. One other issue. I really am bothered by the fact we are
going to be leaving town and have not extended the debt ceiling. The
Treasury Department has indicated they may or likely will have to take
action around April 1 to deal with the fact that the debt ceiling may
have been reached, and that they would do a number of things, as other
administrations have done, possibly even dip into the pension fund to
carry us over.
Senator Daschle and I talked about the need to move this before we
left, to move it clean and move it for a year, but we have not been
able to get that cleared. I think the Senate would look much better,
and it would have been a wise thing for us to do to move the debt
ceiling extension.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the
consideration of Calendar No. 168, H.R. 6, and that all after the
enacting clause be stricken; further I ask that the text of a Senate
bill which is at the desk, which is in the debt limit extension, be
inserted in lieu thereof; further I ask that the bill be read a third
time and passed, with a motion to reconsider laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. HOLLINGS. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, with regard to the last request and the
objection, I want to indicate that I, too, would have objected.
Congress has had a long tradition of linking the budget process reform
to increases in the statutory limit on Government debt. Obviously, no
one knows this better than the Senator from Texas when in 1985 Congress
enacted the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law as an amendment to the debt limit
bill, and in 1987, after the Supreme Court ruled the first Gramm-
Rudman-Hollings law unconstitutional, then Congress added the
reaffirmation of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law to the debt limit. Then
in 1990, Congress enacted the Budget Enforcement Act in the same
legislation with an increase in the debt limit.
There is a logical link between the debt limit issue and controlling
of deficits. I think the Senate should only vote to raise the debt
limit if it is linked with reforms to prevent the need for future debt
limit increases, and I hope that when we return to this issue there is
an opportunity for an amendment with a limited time agreement so we can
perhaps address this important matter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I hope everybody realizes this was an
exercise without any real value because the House went out last night.
Even if we had passed it tonight, there is no prospect for the House to
take this legislation up until after they come back in 2 weeks. We have
been waiting for the House to give us some indication as to the size of
the debt limit increase they support and some understanding of what
they will do. We have yet to hear what the House plans are with regard
to the debt limit.
The last I heard is they were having some difficulty in reaching
agreement, and because they have not reached an agreement, they do not
have the votes to increase the debt under any conditions at this point.
There is some indication now they are planning to offer the debt limit
increase as an amendment to the supplemental, but the supplemental has
yet to be presented to the Congress. So we do not have a supplemental.
We do not have any indication from the House as to what their
intentions are with regard to the size or the timeframe within which
the debt will be considered and extended. So even if we did take up the
debt limit tonight, as I wish we could do as well, unfortunately we are
still going to have to wait until after the House acts on the
legislation for us to be able to complete our work.
So I do hope when we come back we can work in a bipartisan manner and
send clean legislation either to the House or wait for the House to
send similar legislation to us.
I yield the floor.

____________________