[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 51 (Tuesday, April 30, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3515-S3522]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will now resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R.
3009, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to the bill (H.R. 3009) to extend the
Andean Trade Preference Act, to grant additional trade
benefits under that act, and for other purposes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time
until 12 noon shall be equally divided and controlled between the
proponents and opponents of the motion.
RECOGNITION OF THE ACTING MAJORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada is
recognized.
Schedule
Mr. REID. As the Chair has announced, we are now on the Andean trade
bill. Until noon there will be remarks of those who favor it and those
who are opposed to it. At noon we will vote on Michael Baylson and
Cynthia Rufe to be United States District Judges for the State of
Pennsylvania. There will be a half hour of debate on those two matters.
Then we will vote this afternoon at 2:15, following our normal weekly
party conferences.
Following disposition of these nominations, we will again go back to
the Andean trade bill. A rollcall vote on adoption of the motion to
proceed is expected today, sometime this evening. We hope those who
wish to speak on this matter will do so. In the meantime, I ask
unanimous consent that time under the quorum call I will initiate be
equally charged against the proponents and opponents of this
legislation.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
College Education Costs
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, last year, the Senate made significant
strides in easing the burdens of American families facing the mounting
costs of a college education. In an initiative that I have sponsored,
and in which I take enormous pride--the tax reduction legislation of
last year--there is a provision allowing partial tuition, for the first
time in American history, to become tax deductible.
Another measure that I successfully authored raised a cap on interest
on student loans so that they could become deductible. In many ways,
for middle-income families--indeed, for all American families--this was
enormously helpful in easing the burden of an expensive college
education.
[[Page S3516]]
You can imagine how distressed I was to discover in recent days that
the administration has a new initiative that would now increase the
burden of financing a college education--just as we were making all of
this progress. The proposal, of course, is to prohibit the
consolidation of student loans at low, fixed interest rates. This will
compound the problems of millions of American families who rely upon
student loans to finance a college education.
Under their current program, a family can take their various student
loans, consolidate them in a single loan, and fix them at a determined
interest rate, which is predictable and will not alter for the life of
the loan. The savings, obviously, will allow students to consider going
beyond college to graduate education. It allows young people who have
these debts to begin families, buy homes, and start their lives.
Under the alternative proposal by the administration, students
graduating from college will have variable interest loans. That would
make it impossible to plan young lives. The debts begin at high
interest rates and they are then subject to the market.
Young families having children, buying homes, in 5 years could find
interest rates at significantly higher levels. They can go from college
to graduate school and in the middle of graduate school discover their
interest rates are going up and they cannot remain in school. This will
affect an incredible 700,000 students per year who will have their
finances radically changed by this inability to consolidate loans.
The administration argues that most of this consolidation is being
done by medical students or law students who are going to have very
high incomes so they can face this burden.
First, that is inaccurate. The average consolidated loan is $15,000.
There are hundreds of thousands of students with these loans. Most of
them are college students. They are getting bachelor's degrees. They
may be going into teaching or social work or business; they may be
young entrepreneurs; they could be of any walk of life; but they are at
a stage of life when they cannot afford what amounts to a tax.
Make no mistake, this is a tax proposed by the Bush administration on
middle-income families and college students. There is scarcely a
segment of American society that can less afford a tax increase. This
Senate recognized that fact last year. That is why my amendments to
make college tuition tax deductible and to raise the cap on the
deduction of student loans were accepted. We wanted to reduce the costs
of college education, not increase them.
Even if the administration were right and many of these loans were
going for medical students or law students or business students, does
that make it the right priority for the country? Do we really want to
make it even more expensive for people to go into medicine when doctors
are already leaving the profession? Do we really want to make it harder
for people to go to graduate school when we need engineers and
businesspeople with real talents? This cannot be the right priority for
the country.
I hope the administration will reconsider this proposal. The
administration needs revenue. This cannot be the right way to approach
it. Strangely, in this same Congress, while raising taxes on middle-
income families and college students, the administration is proposing
to revisit the estate tax, which we have already lowered, and increase
the threshold so that only less than half of a percentage point of
Americans are even subjected to the tax. And the rates on those people
have been lowered. We are going to revisit that tax while taxing
college students and middle-income families.
I cannot be the only person in this institution who thinks this does
not make any sense for the country or the Congress. I hope we do not
have a confrontation with the Bush administration on this point. I hope
they reconsider it. I hope they withdraw it. It is just the wrong thing
to do.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum and the time be charged equally
against both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I also ask unanimous consent that I be
recognized as in morning business and that the time I use come off the
postcloture time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Spending Valuable Time With Constituents
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, first of all, I have been a little
disturbed recently--I am not mad at anybody--about all of this
discussion about what we are doing here and why it is necessary to be
here on Mondays and on Fridays when on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and
Thursdays we are spending most of our time in quorum calls.
I think there is this Washington, DC, mentality that floats around
that somehow if we are not here in Washington, DC, we, as Senators, are
not doing our work.
Let me tell you, for those of us who go back to the district and are
with our people--in my case, the people of Oklahoma, who make much more
sense than anybody makes around this place--that time is more valuable,
and it is harder. Our hours are longer. We work long hours when we are
back there. Yet we see the bed check votes such as the one that brought
us back last night. We come back, and we vote on something we could
have been voting on anytime--on Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday.
Then you see the press corps around Washington. They all think
everything that is worthwhile is happening in Washington. You read the
Hill and you read Roll Call and they say it is perfectly reasonable for
the majority leader to say everyone ought to be in Washington all the
time.
I can tell you one of the problems we have is people who are in
Washington all the time lose sight of who real people are. It is so
hard to explain to people around here, but people in my State of
Oklahoma understand it very well. There aren't any real, normal people
in Washington. Everyone is either a Member or they are a staffer or
they are a lobbyist or somebody else. To be able to get what is needed
for America, you need to get back into real America. Oklahoma is real
America. I can cite some examples.
I will be talking to the Duma this afternoon, the Russian Duma, about
our new relationship with Russia. When I go back to Oklahoma, they will
say: Wait a minute; why do we still have an ABM Treaty that was set up
in 1972?
Fortunately, we are going to get rid of that thing. But why did it
take this long? It took this long because people around this town don't
understand pure logic. The logic is that at one time there were two
superpowers, the U.S.S.R. and the United States. And I have to admit,
as a Republican, this was done in a Republican administration. Henry
Kissinger, back in the Nixon administration, put together something
that said: I will make you a deal, U.S.S.R. We won't defend ourselves
against you, if you don't defend yourselves against us. And if you
shoot us, we will shoot you, and everybody dies and everybody is happy.
It is called mutual assured destruction.
That might have made sense to some people back in 1972. It didn't to
me, but it might have to some other people. Now we have a totally
different world out there in Russia, which is a friend and ally of
ours; yet we do have Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Libya, other countries
harboring terrorists, developing weapons that will reach the United
States, missiles that will reach us. Already China, North Korea, and
Russia have such missiles. So how does it make sense in today's world
that we don't defend ourselves?
I don't get the answers, but I get the questions when I go back to
Oklahoma. Then I have to try to explain to them. I was criticized the
other day by some of my conservative friends as to why I voted on some
of the amendments in the farm bill. I voted on those because I went
back. I have town meetings, as I am sure the Chair is aware. I get
around and have as many as five, six in a day.
Oklahoma, particularly in the western part of the State, is
agricultural.
[[Page S3517]]
In Oklahoma, our farmers have three sources of income: Grain,
livestock, and oil. They have this so-called marginal production. For a
sustained period of time, all three of these were down, and they were
really hurting. I sat down in places such as Shattuck, OK, and Gage,
OK. I had farmers coming in and saying: For the first time in five
generations, we will have to sell our farm. We can no longer stay in
business.
For that reason, I realized that we have to do something that is
different than what we have done before in transitioning into a new
farm policy. So we did. And some of the amendments I voted for were
pretty expensive. Nonetheless, that came from going back to the State,
being there and listening to them instead of staying around Washington
on the weekends.
On energy and ANWR, I can't believe we took all the time we did in
trying to open ANWR for exploration. Here we are in a threatened
position. Everyone is aware of it. After September 11, all of a sudden
we find ourselves dependent upon other countries for 57 percent of our
energy. We don't even pass something that will allow us to open up the
Alaska Wildlife Refuge for exploration. I have yet to find one person
to go up there to the ANWR on the North Slope of Alaska and come back
here shaking their head, wondering why in the world we call that a
pristine wilderness. It is nothing but a mud flat. It is a tiny area up
there that would give us a great capacity of domestic crude.
In my State of Oklahoma, if we had all of our marginal wells--a
marginal well is one that produces 15 barrels or less a day--if we had
them all opened, if we had those wells flowing that we have had closed
over the last 10 years, that would have produced the same amount of oil
as we are currently importing from Saudi Arabia.
When you go back, you talk to real people. Last week, when we were
having a town meeting, they were talking about this community planning
bill that was going to come out, and now it has come out of the
Environment and Public Works Committee. It will be considered on this
floor. Do you know what that is all about? What that is about is a
recognition that no good decisions are made unless they are made in
Washington, DC.
Many years ago when I was mayor of Tulsa, there was a guy named Dr.
Robert Fryley. He had gone into San Diego. Pete Wilson was mayor at
that time. I was mayor of Tulsa. He had drawn these concentric circles
that said: This is the way you should plan your community.
He came to Tulsa in the first 2 or 3 weeks that I was in office. He
started talking about Tulsa. I said: Wait a minute. This property is
owned by people. These people bought this property. You are going to
change the value of the property to these people.
They said: That is of no concern to us.
That is what we now will be considering on the floor of the Senate--a
bill that is going to allow us in Washington to decide what we in
Tulsa, OK, do with our property.
I see others seeking the floor. I was killing a little time.
The other day I was at Eisenhower School. It is a school that has
done some great things in the public school system that others are
emulating. I received some letters. I will just read a couple. This one
says:
Thank you for my class. Your speech about rights and
responsibilities was great and interesting. I really enjoyed
you coming. It was fun. I learned a lot. Sincerely, Maggie.
Here is another one:
Thank you so much for your presentation today. Our class
really enjoyed it. I liked it a lot. I liked the part where
you answered my question. Once again I enjoyed it a lot.
Sincerely, Lauren Smith.
I ask unanimous consent that the rest of these letters be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Dear Senator Inhofe: I want to thank you for coming to our
class. I really learned a lot like the pilgrims really wanted
to get to freedom so they traveled even though they knew a
lot of them wouldn't survive for a year. I also learned about
the government. I learned that there are 100 senators. Two
for each state. I felt proud that I got to meet you! It was a
pleasure to have you come to our class! You really made it an
interesting day!
Sincerely yours,
Susan Diaz.
P.S. I bet you have a big responsibility!
____
Dear Mr. Inhofe: I wanted to thank you for coming to our
class. I had a very good time. I learned new things too like
there are 100 senators and 435 representatives. I really like
to learn new stuff like that. Thanks again.
Sincerely,
Noah Zeigler.
____
Dear Senator Inhofe: I want to thank you for teaching me
stuff I have never known before. You taught me that the
English fought England. It was an interesting visitation. By
by.
Sincerely,
Kyia W.
____
Dear Senator: Thank you for coming to our school. It was
very very interesting. I learned that there are 435 State
representatives and 100 senators. I think it is amazing that
we won the revolutionary war.
I learned that people would strap dynamite on themselves.
They thought God would bring them into heaven no matter what.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Eva.
____
Dear Senator Inhofe: I want to thank you so much for coming
to our class. That was a big opportunity that most kids don't
get to have.
What I learned over your visit that I thought was really
interesting was that people think that God would send them
straight to Heaven if they killed themselfs.
Sincerely,
Danielle P.
____
Dear Senator Inhofe: Thank you for coming to our school I
enjoyed your presentation. I learned a lot of stuff like how
the pilgrims won the Revolutionary War and about our freedoms
and laws. I also think it's great that Afganistan got a new
government. Thanks again.
Sincerely,
Colin Ferguson.
____
Dear Senator Inhofe: I want to thank you for coming to our
classroom. I really enjoyed your presentation. I learned that
in Afghanistan they have mountains that are about 12,000 feet
tall. I also learned that there are 100 senators. Two come
from each state.
Sincerely yours,
Bryce S.
____
Dear Senator Inhofe: We really enjoyed you coming to our
school. It was one big pleasure that I will never forget. Now
I know what is going on in Afghanistan. It is really
terrible. I hope you can come back and talk more. I didn't
know there were 100 senators.
Sincerely yours,
Latoya.
____
Dear Senator Inhofe: It was a pleasure to hear you talk
about lots of interesting facts on the Bill of Rights, our
religion, our responsibilities, and the revolutionary war. It
was a lot of fun having you come. You have taught us a lot of
interesting things like, different cultures, and the
constitution.
Sincerely yours,
Ben Rickman.
____
Dear Senator Inhofe: I want to thank you for coming to our
class. I enjoyed you talking to us. I learned a lot about the
government. I learned that there are one hundred senators in
the United States. It was a pleasure having you here.
Sincerely,
Matthew Breulo.
____
Dear Senator Inhofe: I want to thank you for coming today.
I think Maggie was glad you came today. It was our pleasure
to listen to you. Your subject was very interesting. I hope
you're right about war. I never knew that there were military
grounds in Lawton. I enjoyed listening to you.
Sincerely yours,
Abby Jones.
____
Dear Senator Inhofe: I want to thank you for coming and
talking about the Bill of Rights and lots of very interesting
stuff. I think the most interesting part was when you talked
about the Constitution. I enjoyed it very much. It was a
pleasure having you here. So thank you.
Sincerely,
Avery Boyd.
____
Dear Senator Inhofe: I want to thank you for coming to our
class. When you were here I learned that there were 435 state
representatives and 100 senators in the United States of
America. In each state there are two senators. I also learned
that the war with Afghanistan should last about four more
years. I hope you have a good day.
Sincerely yours,
Haley Holtzscher.
____
Dear Senator Inhofe: I want to thank you for coming. I
learned that there is a military base in Lawton. I enjoyed it
when we talked about the Bill of Rights.
Sincerely yours,
Jackson.
____
Senator Inhofe: Thank you for coming to our class. I
learned a lot from you. I learned that the pilgrims fought
the toughest army
[[Page S3518]]
on the face of the earth and won. I also learned that we've
had peace since 1776.
Sincerely,
____
John Yuan.
Dear Senator Inhofe: I want to thank you for telling us
about some Bill of Rights. The things that you told us was so
interesting. I learned a lot about the pilgrims. How they
fought for our freedom. And thanks again for teaching things
that I didn't know.
Sincerely yours,
Aubri Settle.
____
Dear Senator Inhofe: Thank you for coming to our classroom.
I learned there are 2 senators from each state. There are so
many things I learned they won't fit on this paper. I wish
you had more time in our classroom. I hope you have a good
spring.
Sincerely,
Ethan Gehring
____
Dear Senator Inhofe: Thank you for coming to 3rd grade. I
enjoyed you talking to us about the bill of rights. I learned
that there are 100 senators. There are 2 in each state.
Sincerely,
Lauren Russell.
____
Dear Senator Inhofe: I want to thank you for coming to our
class. Thank you for telling us about the Constitution. Thank
you for coming again. Thank you for telling us how you work.
Now we know it's a big job.
Sincerely yours,
John Philips Hughes.
Mr. INHOFE. I wanted to stand in the Chamber and say if we ran this
place the way it should be run, we could very easily handle all of the
votes we need to handle on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, and allow
those of us who care about going back to our States, spending time with
our people and sharing the wisdom we get from the States, as opposed to
from Washington, I think we would be a lot better off.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, the Senator from South Carolina is
going to speak for 30 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that I follow
the Senator from South Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, with respect to the Andean trade
compact and its re-enactment, and particularly with respect to the
intent to put fast track on the particular Andean trade agreement, the
contention is that without this fast track, we are missing out on all
of these wonderful deals.
I wish I had time to give the litany of the wonderful deals on how
the United States of America--from the Tokyo Round, Uruguay Round,
right on down to the present scheduled rounds with the WTO and
otherwise--has been going out of business. Literally, intentionally, we
are going out of business, I would say. What we were trying to do was
win the cold war. We wanted to defeat communism with capitalism. We
sent over the Marshall Plan, with technology and expertise, and it
worked. Everyone is happy with that.
Now, after 50 years, hometowns have been totally depleted of any
industrial manufacturing.
Let me get right to the point and bring out the actual facts, using
not just the record made here by the U.S. Trade Representative, but by
the morning news. Let's look and find out what we are talking about
with respect to trade agreements that we have been missing.
Well, if you look at the recent edition of the 2001 Trade Policy
Agenda of the President of the United States on the trade agreements
program, you will find in the glossary in the back that there are some
200 trade agreements made without fast track.
Do I need to remind the Senate that we just voted on--without fast
track--a free trade agreement with Vietnam? Do I need to remind the
body that we just voted on a free trade agreement with Jordan? I
supported both of those. Do I need to remind them that we passed the
Sub-Saharan Africa trade agreement, the Caribbean Basin Initiative
Agreement, and the 1997 WTO telecommunications agreement? You can go
down the list--and they are all listed in here.
We have made some 200 agreements in the last 10 years--all without
fast track. We didn't give total fast track authority to President
Clinton because we wanted to deliberate and make sure the economy of
the United States was protected. And it has been working. But look not
only at the red book here, but with respect to the national news, in
the Washington Post, it said this last Thursday:
United States signs trade agreement with eight African
nations.
There are eight more trade agreements. We aren't missing out on all
these so-called trade agreements. I wish the chairman of the Finance
Committee could read the morning paper. He could find out that we did
it without fast track. According to the financial news--let me read
this to you. This is in the morning Financial Times:
John O'Leary, former U.S. Ambassador to Chile and
campaigner on a bilateral accord, said yesterday he expected
a deal to be signed this year whether or not Mr. Bush won
trade negotiating authority.
. . . ``It's not a matter of consequence who is first past the
finishing line,'' he said. ``But the deal with the EU is helpful for
Chile because it gives fresh momentum to their negotiations with the
United States.''
We read it. If they brought a Chilean trade agreement--I would have
to look at it obviously, but why would I vote for it? They have
relatively the same standard of living. They have a respected
judiciary, they have property rights, they have labor rights, and they
are strong on the environment. I voted for NAFTA with Canada because we
have relatively the same standard of living. But this total farce that
we are missing out on agreements all over the countryside is just
wrong, wrong, wrong.
The problem is the loss of jobs. You only have to go to the morning's
paper. I hope the chairman, who just left the floor, will listen to
this one. Of course, right now the best bet for the next few quarters
is probably a jobless recovery in which the gross domestic product
rises but unemployment stays high. After all, the economy needs to grow
at about 3.5 percent just to prevent the unemployment rate from rising,
and the odds are at least even that the growth will fall short of that
mark. The funny thing is that a slow jobless and profitless recovery is
exactly what level-headed people, such as economists at the Federal
Reserve, have been predicting for a long time. So how did a far more
bullish view become not just prevalent but more or less mandatory on
Wall Street? How, with the business landscape still strewn with the
rubble from the bubble, did that manic optimism so quickly become
popular again? It seems that hype springs eternal.
That is the morning news, and that is why the Senator from South
Carolina only asks for just a closer look.
Let me fulfill my obligation under the Constitution. Article I,
section 8, says that--not the President of the United States, not the
Supreme Court--but this branch of Government, the Congress of the
United States, shall regulate foreign commerce. Now, these pollster
politicians who come to Washington and crowd around take the easy
course. They say: Free trade, free trade, fast track, fast track--and
they don't have to take any responsibility. So when you lose all the
jobs in St. Louis and in Charleston, SC, and you look around, you have
to sort of take it or leave it. I didn't want to be against free trade,
and that is what I had to vote for.
Madam President, it is just terrible when you read in that same New
York Times this morning:
Auto Parts Makers Grinding to a Halt
I have another article on a poster board, and I will get into the
board debate when some of the others come with their particular boards.
But the automobile industry is moving out of the United States. We have
foreign locations here. Mercedes is in Alabama, BMW is in South
Carolina, and some others are trying to get into the market.
As far as the American manufacturer making that profit is concerned
and as far as the American manufacturer keeping on the cutting edge of
technology--why did they move to China? General Motors was told by the
Chinese they didn't know how to trade. They don't run around saying, be
fair, be fair, level the playing field, be fair. That is outrageous
child's talk. That doesn't happen in commerce. You trade for the
benefit and economic strength and the profit of your company. So the
Chinese told General Motors: Not only do you manufacture that GM
automobile over here, but the most modern automobile design plant in
the world is
[[Page S3519]]
in China. And that is as a result of that particular trade agreement
that, of course, General Motors made with the People's Republic of
China.
The auto parts suppliers are grinding to a halt. They are moving
those now. They used to send those down to Mexico, and we would get the
finished product--the automobile--back. But you have here a quote from
Paul Craig Roberts. Paul Craig Roberts served in the Reagan
administration. This was an article in the Washington Times just the
other day:
The result is a decline in higher paying jobs in the United
States as companies move higher value-added operations abroad
to take advantage of cheaper labor.
A recent Cornell University study:
``The Impact of U.S.-China Trade Relations on Workers,
Wages and Employment,'' concludes that U.S. companies shift
their production to China in order to produce for the U.S.
market with cheap Chinese labor. The study estimates that a
minimum of 760,000 U.S. jobs have been lost to China since
1992.
``An increasing percentage of the jobs leaving the U.S. are
in higher-paying industries producing goods such as bicycles,
furniture, motors, compressors, generators, fiber optics,
clocks, injection molding and computer components.'' The
shift in production is so extensive that the U.S. has run a
trade deficit with China in advanced technology goods since
1995.
That is the old wag I was given when as Governor of South Carolina I
testified 42 years ago before the old International Tariff Commission.
We were about to lose so much of our textile industry that 10 percent
of the consumption of clothing textiles in the United States would be
represented in imports. In looking around the Chamber right this
minute, two-thirds of the clothing I am looking at is imported, 86
percent of the shoes.
Then Tom Dewey, who represented the Japanese at the hearing and ran
me around the hearing room, he said: ``But, Governor, let them make the
shoes and the clothing. We will make the airplanes and the computers.''
Fast forward to the reality of today. They make the shoes, they make
the clothing, they make the airplanes, they make the computers. We have
a deficit in the balance of trade in computers and semiconductors.
High-tech, globalization, you have to understand it. Come on. Do not
tell this Senator what globalization is. I do not want to sound like
Vice President Gore, that I invented it, but I did travel 40 years ago
to South America and Europe as a Governor, soliciting their investment.
I was looking for jobs. I have been in this game for over 40-some
years. Today, we have 117 German plants in little South Carolina.
I will never forget calling on Michelin in June of 1960, down in
Paris, France, and I have now four beautiful plants of the French
company. I also have the North American wonderful plant of Bowater. I
see that rather than me trying to move corporations from overseas to
the United States, which I am still trying to do--or more particularly
carpetbagging New York in the Northeast--they are overjumping me into
Mexico, into China, into Malaysia, into India.
Hewlett-Packard, Motorola, and all the rest of these big-name
companies, the high-tech companies, are not saving us. We have to
retrain.
I have another page of the Washington Post, ``Dupont Plans to Cut
2,000 Jobs.'' Some of them, of course, are in South Carolina.
Everywhere we turn, we hear about cutting jobs, and it is not textiles
or low wage jobs. It is high-tech jobs.
I hope the Finance Committee will give me a hearing sometime. I would
be delighted to educate that crowd because this is a fix. They have a
bunch of oil people and a bunch of farmers and they could care less, as
long as they get their depletion allowance and their subsidies, and
then they come around hollering, ``Protectionism, protectionism.''
Well, that is the fundamental of government. We have the Army to
protect us from the enemies without, and the FBI to protect us from
enemies within. We have laws to protect clean air, clean water, the
environment. We have Medicare to protect us from ill health. We have
antitrust laws to protect us from monopolization and predatory
practices. We have safety laws to protect us, safe machinery, safe
working places and everything else.
I was in the Rotunda on a cold January day when President Reagan was
sworn in for his second term. He raised his hand to preserve, protect,
and defend, and everybody clapped. We were all overjoyed, and then we
came down into the Senate Chamber and had to listen to a bunch of
children running around hollering, ``Protectionism.'' That is the
function of government, and the security of this Nation.
It is like a three-legged stool. There is the one leg of the values
as a nation, unquestioned. We are admired the world around for
America's stand for individual rights, freedom, and democracy.
The second leg is the military. We are the superpower, unquestioned.
The third leg, economics, that is my point. It has been fractured,
fractured intentionally, with this so-called free trade. We knew we had
to sort of spread the wealth, spread the capitalism in order to defeat
communism. It has worked, now to a counterproductive point. We will not
be in a position to produce foreign aid, we will not be able to defend
freedom the world around unless we have a strong economy.
I will never forget Akio Morita of Sony. We were in Chicago. We had a
seminar, and he was talking about Third World nations. He turned and he
said: In the Third World, the emerging nations, they have to develop a
strong manufacturing capacity in order to become a nation state. Then
talking along, he pointed over, and he said: Senator, that world power
that loses its manufacturing capacity will cease to be a world power.
And we wonder why we do not have the influence?
They try to transfer it to hate. It is not hate. I have traveled. We
have all traveled around. They admire and they like Americans in the
Arab countries and everywhere else. You can go into downtown Baghdad,
you can go into downtown Tehran in Iran right now, and they will come
up to you and talk to you and say glad to see you. Do not give me all
that hate stuff.
What is happening is we are losing our economic clout and our
economic strength because we are exporting the jobs faster than we can
create them.
In the Los Angeles Times, April 2, ``High-Paid Jobs Latest U.S.
Export,'' the No. 1 story on the front page of the Los Angeles Times.
I do not believe they read over in the Finance Committee. They give
you all of this: We are missing out on agreements; we have to retrain.
They sound like Mao Tse Tung: You have to go out and re-educate.
Let us try it on for size. I had a plant close not long ago, Oneida.
They made T-shirts. At the time of their closing, they had more than
400 employees. The average age was 47 years old, and tomorrow morning
we have done it Washington's way. We have retrained. We have more than
400 people who are now skilled computer operators. Is a company going
to hire the 47-year-old computer operator or the 21-year-old computer
operator? You are not taking on the health costs for the 47-year-old
and above. You are not taking on those retirement costs. You are going
for the youngster who is just as expert. There you go, like we do not
understand what is going on.
``Levi Strauss Closing Most U.S. Plants,'' another article, again in
April. Every time I look around, they are closing, and what we have, so
it is understood, is we have an affirmative action plan to get rid of
the jobs. Mind you me, that is what I say, an affirmative action plan
to get rid of the jobs.
Why? Well, let me refer to this article from Business Week. Business
Week, in 1999, reported on, of all people, Mr. Industrial Success, Mr.
Industrialist of All Times, John F. Welch--Jack Welch.
I ask unanimous consent to have the article printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record as follows:
(From Business Week, Dec. 6, 1999)
Welch's March to the South
By Aaron Bernstein
Washington, Dec. 6.--One of General Electric Co. CEO John
F. Welch's favorite phrases is ``squeeze the lemon,'' or
wring out costs to maintain the company's stellar profits. In
the past year, the lemon-squeezing at GE has been as never
before. In a new, superagressive round of cost-cutting, the
company is now demanding deep price cuts from its suppliers.
To help them meet the stiff goals, several of GE's business
units--including aircraft engines, power systems,
[[Page S3520]]
and industrial systems--have been prodding suppliers to move
to low-cost Mexico, where the industrial giant already
employs 30,000 people. GE even puts on ``supplier migration''
conferences to help them make the leap.
GE's hard-nosed new push could spark other companies to
emulate its tactics. The supplier crackdown is reminiscent of
a similar attempt by former General Motors Corp. parts czar
Jose Ignacio Lopez de Arriortua. His efforts largely failed
in the face of stiff supplier resistance. But if GE succeeds,
other companies could be inclined to try again. GE officials
at headquarters in Fairfield, Conn., say the business units
are simply carrying out Welch's larger campaign to globalize
all aspects of the company. Says Rick Kennedy, a spokesman at
GE Aircraft Engines (GEAE): ``We're aggressively asking for
double-digit price reductions from our suppliers. We have to
do this if we're going to be part of GE.''
GE's efforts to get suppliers to move abroad come just as
World Trade Organization ministers start gathering in Seattle
on Nov. 30. That timing could help make the GE moves an issue
at the talks, where critics will be pointing to just such
strategies--and the resulting loss of U.S. jobs to low-wage
countries--as the inevitable fruit of unregulated trade. GE's
14 unions hope to make an example in Seattle of the company's
supplier policy, arguing that it's paving the way for a new
wave of job shifts. They plan to send dozens of members to
march with a float attacking Welch. PALTRY WAR CHEST. The
campaign by GE's unions, which bargain jointly through the
Coordinated Bargaining Committee (CBC), is also the opening
salvo of bargaining talks over new labor contracts to replace
those expiring next June. Because GE's unions are weak--fully
half of their 47,000 members at the company belong to the
nearly bankrupt International Union of Electronic workers
(IUE)--they'll have a hard time mounting a credible strike
threat. Instead, the CBC is planning a public campaign to tar
Welch's image. They plan to focus on likely job losses at GE
suppliers. The unions also suspect that GE may move even more
unionized GE jobs to Mexico and other countries once it has
viable supplier bases in place. ``GE hasn't moved our jobs to
Mexico yet because our skilled jobs are higher up the food
chain,'' says Jeff Crosby, president of IUE Local 201 at GE's
Lynn (Mass.) jet-engine plant. ``But once they have suppliers
there, GE can set up shop, too.'' His members from parts
supplier Ametek Inc. picketed the plant on Nov. 19 to protest
GE's pressure on Ametek to move to Monterrey, Mexico.
Although it has never openly criticized Welch before, the
AFL-CIO is jumping into the fray this time. Federation
officials have decided that Welch's widely admired status in
Corporate America has lent legitimacy to a model of business
success that they insist is built on job and wage cuts.
``Welch is keeping his profit margins high by redistributing
value from workers to shareholders, which isn't what U.S.
companies should be doing,'' charges Ron Blackwell, the AFL-
CIO's director of corporate affairs. Last year, the AFL-CIO
proposed a bold plan to spend some $25 million on a massive
new-member recruitment drive at GE, but the IUE wasn't
willing to take the risk. So the federation is backing the
new, less ambitious campaign that focuses on traditional
tactics like rallies and protests. STRONG TIDE. GE's U.S.
workforce has been shrinking for more than a decade as Welch
has cut costs by shifting production and investment to lower-
wage countries. Since 1986, the domestic workforce has
plunged by nearly 50%, to 163,000, while foreign employment
has nearly doubled, to 130,000. Some of this came from
businesses GE sold, but also from rapid expansion in Mexico,
India, and other Asian countries. Meanwhile, GE's union
workforce has shriveled by almost two-thirds since the early
1980s, as work was relocated to cheaper, nonunion plants in
the U.S. and abroad.
Welch's supplier squeeze may accelerate the trend. In his
annual pep talk to GE's top managers in Boca Raton, Fla.,
last January, he again stressed the need to globalize
production to remain cost-competitive, as he had done in
prior years. But this time, he also insisted that GE prod
suppliers to follow suit. Several business units moved
quickly to do so, with GEAE among the most aggressive. This
year, GEAE has held what it calls ``supplier migration''
conferences in Cincinnati, near the unit's Evendale (Ohio)
headquarters, and in Monterey, where an aerospace industrial
park is going up.
At the meetings, GEAE officials told dozens of suppliers
that it wants to cut costs up to 14%, according to documents
about the Monterey meeting at Paoli (Pa.)-based Ametek, whose
aerospace unit makes aircraft instruments. The internal
report, a copy of which BUSINESSES WEEK obtained, says: ``GE
set the tone early and succinctly: `Migrate or be out of
business; not a matter of if, just when. This is not a
seminar just to provide information. We expect you to move
and move quickly.''' Says William Burke, Ametek's vice-
president for investor relations: ``GE has made clear its
desire that its suppliers move to Mexico, and we are
evaluating that option. We have a long relationship with GE,
and we want to preserve it.''
GEAE officials argue that heightened competition leaves
them no choice. Jet engines sell for less than they did four
years ago, says Kennedy, the unit's spokesman. Almost all
GEAE's profits have come from contracts to maintain engines
already sold. And that business is getting tougher, with
rivals such as United Technologies Corp.'s Pratt & Whitney
laying off thousands of workers to slash costs. ``This
company is going to make its net income targets, and to do
it, we will have to take difficult measures,'' says Kennedy.
Still, even some suppliers don't see the Mexico push as
justified. They point out that GEAE's operating profit has
soared by 80% since 1994, to $1.7 billion on sales of $10.3
billion. GE, they argue, is leading the cost cuts. ``It's
hard to give away 5% or 10% to a company making so much money
when most of the suppliers are marginally profitable,'' says
Barry Bucher, the CEO and founder of Aerospace International
Materials, a $30 million distributor of specialty metals in
Cincinnati. Nonetheless, Bucher says he's looking into a
joint venture in Mexico in response to the demands from GE,
his top customer.
The unions, for their part, worry that GEAE will follow in
the footsteps of GE's appliance unit. To remain competitive
in that low-skilled, low-margin industry, GE Appliances has
slashed its workforce nearly in half at its Appliance Park
facility in Louisville, to some 7,500 today. Much of the work
has been relocated to a joint venture in Mexico. Union
leaders have tried to stave off further job shifts by
offering concessions. In early November, the company agreed
to a $200 million investment in Louisville in exchange for
productivity improvements and lump-sum payments instead of
wage hikes for its members. ``We hope GE will see this as a
solution they can adopt in jet engines and elsewhere,'' says
IUE President Edward L. Fire.
Labor's new campaign may embarrass Welsh and even prompt GE
to tone down its demands on suppliers. But it won't rebuilt
the union's clout at the bargaining table the way a serious
organizing drive might have done. Until that happens, Welch
probably has little to fear from his restive unions.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I read:
One of General Electric Co. CEO John F. Welch's favorite
phrases is ``squeeze the lemon,'' or wring out costs to
maintain the company's stellar profits.
How did you squeeze that lemon? I am thinking now that he is
squeezing something else. Squeezing that lemon in Mexico, he said to
all of his suppliers two years ago. You have to go down to Mexico and
cut the cost of your particular supplies, or you will not be a supplier
of General Electric.
When the best of the best blue-chip corporations of America has an
affirmative action plan to get rid of the jobs and the industrial
security of the United States of America, we are really in trouble. How
does it occur? It is a natural thing.
In manufacturing, 30 percent of volume is in the labor costs. As much
as 20 percent of sales can be saved by moving offshore to a low-wage
country or down to Mexico, India, or China. If you retain your
executive office, of course your sales force, but move your
manufacturing offshore, if you have $500 million in sales, you can reap
a profit of $100 million before taxes. Or you can stay in America,
continue to work your own folks, and go broke. That is how they look at
it.
So with the policies we have, they are not only moving their
manufacturing, they are moving the executive office to Bermuda. They
want the protection of the United States of America, but they don't
want to participate in building up that protection. They want a free
ride. That is why I say, in the Senate, we are in the hands of the
Philistines. When my friend Bobby Kennedy really came in to national
recognition he had published a book ``The Enemy Within.'' He was
talking about organized labor. Now I can write the book ``The Enemy
Within,'' and I can talk about management.
Who is opposing us in the Senate, trying to create jobs, trying to
hold together the strength of our economy, trying to maintain our
industrial backbone? Who opposes this? The Business Roundtable, the
Conference Board, the National Association of Manufacturers, the
Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business,
the retailers that make a bigger profit, newspapers that take the
handouts from the retail associations. They make the most of their
profits in newspapers from retail advertising. So they put out those
things, free trade, free trade, fast track, fast track, and here comes
the whole K Street crowd.
I came here 35 years ago on the Commerce Committee. The very first
person in the office on trade was a Japanese representative. No longer
now. I haven't seen anyone from Japan in Lord knows when. I am trying
to get there to see our Ambassador over there, Howard Baker. I respect
their productivity and I have watched as we cry babied along. We never
did open up their market. It was always a one-way street.
[[Page S3521]]
In fact, the Japanese got to the position of saying, wait a minute,
we are not going to buy your bonds if that is what you want to do in
trade. We found out long since that the Secretary of the Treasury
really is trying to sell, as in the morning headlines, which says we
have a deficit, so he is trying to issue $1 billion in bonds, borrowing
$1 billion. We have had the Japanese juggle our trade policy.
But more than anything else, we have the arrogance now of the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce. I speak advisedly of that body. Ten years ago I
was their man. I was the Man of the Year of the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, if I quote correctly, Robert Thompson, who was the national
president. He had me going around making talks and everything else
because I had a standoff with my good friend Russell Long of Louisiana.
We had labor law reform. On eight votes, up and down for cloture, I won
and prevailed.
I don't come here as an enemy of business. I know way more in
experience, I should say, about getting jobs and creating jobs,
instituting technical training, imparting the tools, high tech, and
globalization than most because I have been in the game. I am a friend
of business, but I am a greater friend of the United States. I hate to
see my country go to pot with this childish nonsense of free trade. We
are missing out on agreements. Since NAFTA, I have lost 53,900 textile
jobs alone. My friend, the Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Helms, lost
124,000; 27,000 have been lost by the Senator from Mississippi. I don't
know whether he is with us or not.
This is what the Chamber of Commerce, Tom Donohue, says, and he knows
nothing about trade. In yesterday's National Journal's Congress Daily,
I quote Tom Donohue, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He
said the Chamber would not accept a bill weighted down by amendments
that exceed the average man or woman's sense of what is appropriate for
the bill. We will kill it and the people who loaded it up will pay a
political price. Donohue also said that the business community has been
patient and supportive through the political process to get the trade
authority bill before the Senate, but there will be dire consequences
if the bill collapsed under partisan politics.
I know of many manufacturing companies that will move their
operations offshore. I brought that message home to specific
legislators about firms and their States and districts.
That is a threat from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Tell him to wake up. He headed the Trucking Association when Jack
Welch was putting in his affirmative action plan to get rid of the jobs
and move to Mexico. Donohue now will warn you they will move. Everybody
knows this has been going on for 10 years. We are going out of
business.
I wanted to bring that story home in this debate, not asking to vote
pro or con with respect to a particular trade measure. As I say, I
voted for Vietnam; I voted for Jordan; I voted for NAFTA with Canada.
It is protecting not only your economy and your industrial strength but
your standard of living.
Incidentally, on the one hand, you can certainly bar child
employment, children and youth production. But you are not going to get
Mexico to pass environmental laws we have. Or the labor laws. They have
that advantage. In China, in India, in Malaysia, the competition can
keep on whistling ``Dixie,'' keep talking. It will not happen. It is
not going to happen, and you can't blame them. If you were running the
country of China, you would do the same thing. You wouldn't run around
and say we have to get with the Americans and level the playing field,
and put in these labor reforms, and put in these environmental
requirements because we want to be seen as being fair. It is just
absolute nonsense.
Madam President, what happens is Republican and Democrat Senators
unanimously support these requirements before you open up Carnahan
Manufacturing. Think about it. Before you open your manufacturing
plant, you are going to have to have minimum wage, clean air, clean
water, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, plant closing notice,
parental leave, safe working place, safe machinery, antitrust
provisions. And everything else of that kind.
You can go down to Mexico and pay 90 cents an hour and have none of
those requirements.
In order to compete, is it the case we are going to go back and
retrench on this high standard of living? No; not at all. That will
never happen. But we will have to maintain a balance with respect to
the economic strength. We have to maintain our steel production.
I will never forget, in 1961, before we got President Kennedy to
enunciate his seven-point textile program, under the law--and,
incidentally it is the law today--that before the President can take
executive action unilaterally on a trade measure, he must prove that
product is important to the national security of the United States. At
that time we corralled five Cabinet members--one sub-Cabinet of the
five, George Ball, because Dean Rusk was too busy, from the Department
of State; Luther Hodges, Secretary of Commerce; Orville Freeman, the
Secretary of Agriculture; Douglas Dillon, the Secretary of the
Treasury, was there; and the Secretary of Labor, Arthur Goldberg.
They had hearings and we brought the witnesses. They made a finding,
and the record is still there, that second to steel, textiles was the
most important to our national security. The wag at the time was you
cannot send them to war in a Japanese uniform--because they were
bringing in all those textiles. The Japanese don't fool with textiles
anymore. They have gone high-tech. Now you would say you wouldn't send
them to war in a Chinese uniform and Gucci shoes. You have to have the
clothing. You have to have the uniforms. So you have to have that
measure because it is important to our national security.
We have to maintain a modicum of textile manufacturing. We certainly
have to maintain the ability to produce steel. We have to retain these
other industries--electronics, with respect to watch-making, and fine
tooling, and hand tools, and computers. We have to retain some
production of semiconductors and the like.
In doing that, let's correlate, if you please, our 28 agencies and
departments into one department of trade and commerce. We are all over
the lot. It is our fault. We have to begin to enforce our trade laws
against dumping. We can't let Wal-Mart sell below cost. They would be
in trouble. We would get them for antitrust, Robinson-Patman
violations, and we would send them to the hoosegow. In international
trade that happened in steel. Bob McNamara went running the world
around saying to the Third World countries that in order to be a nation
state, you have to have steel for the tools of agriculture and the
weapons of war. So they had 2-percent steel plants built all over Latin
America and the Middle East.
I have been into that game. Yes, the President was correct in moving
on steel because they are dumping steel. I see it. My office is in
Charleston, SC. I can look on the dock and see all of this Brazilian
steel coming in at less than cost, putting out of business, 25 miles
away, Nucor, the most productive of all steel plants in the world.
Please, spare me from the idea of productivity. If you go to the
international section of the United Nations, if you go to the Labor
Department, Department of Vital Statistics or otherwise, you will find
they will agree the world around, the most productive industrial worker
is the U.S. industrial worker. We keep nagging: We have to get
productivity up. My steel plant is the most productive in the world,
and they are dumping steel at less than cost and criticize the
President for moving on this particular score. He was right. He is
right. We have to maintain that.
We have to get a value-added tax to pay for this war on terrorism
that is costing the country and offset the 17-percent value added tax
advantage. For example, in Europe where it is rebated, it is costing us
a 17-percent differential in trade right there.
Enforce our dumping laws, but please do not say you have to get more
productive. What is not producing is not the industrial worker in the
United States, it is the U.S. Congress. We haven't produced. We have
been running around like lemmings: Free trade, free trade, fast track,
fast track--having no idea in the Lord's world what we are doing;
whereas we are exporting jobs faster than we can create them.
My time is up. I yield the floor.
[[Page S3522]]
Mr. REID. Madam President, we are, in a minute or 2, going to turn to
two judicial nominations. We have had a number of Senators wishing to
speak on the motion now before the Senate, so I ask unanimous consent
that when the votes are completed this afternoon on the two judges, the
Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, be recognized for up to 15 minutes;
following her remarks, Senator Wellstone be recognized for up to 1
hour; following that hour, someone designated by the Republican leader
would speak for 1 hour; and following that, Senator Baucus, chairman of
the Finance Committee, would be recognized for 1 hour.
The majority leader wanted to have a vote on this tonight with the
consent of Senator Hollings and others, but it appears now there are a
significant number of people who want to speak so that will probably
necessitate carrying the vote over until tomorrow. I have not checked
with the leader on that for sure.
I propound the request for the speakers who have been lined up. I
have checked this out with the minority.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Madam President, what is now the business before the
Senate?
____________________