[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 51 (Tuesday, April 30, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3530-S3555]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the trade 
promotion authority legislation that is before the Senate.
  America has the most productive, creative workforce in the world. Our 
industries are diverse. Our products are second to none. Now we must 
expand our reach to bring more of these goods and services to the 
global marketplace by passing trade promotion authority legislation.
  Trade promotion authority had been used since President Ford's 
administration to implement trade agreements until it lapsed in 1994. 
The President has not had this trade promotion authority since 1994. If 
America is going to increase trade opportunities around the world, 
Congress needs to pass this legislation so the President has the 
ability to negotiate trade agreements with the knowledge that, while 
Congress retains its right to approve or reject a treaty, it will not 
try to amend or delay it.
  Without this legislation, foreign governments may not be willing to 
sit at the negotiation table with the United States, knowing that they 
may put all of this time into a negotiation that would then be delayed 
or changed by Congress.
  Ninety-six percent of the world's consumers live outside of the 
United States, representing a vast potential market for American 
exports. Unfortunately, other countries are moving forward in promoting 
trade while we are standing on the sidelines. While we delay, other 
countries are entering into agreements that exclude us. Our competitors 
in Europe, Asia, and Latin America have sealed more than 130 free trade 
compacts. Yet we are party to only three--Jordan, Israel, and NAFTA 
with Mexico and Canada. Again, there are 130 free trade agreements in 
the world and the United States is a party to only 3 of those.
  A lack of free trade agreements puts American exporters at a 
significant disadvantage. For example, a $180,000 tractor made in 
America and shipped to Chile incurs about $15,000 in tariffs and duties 
upon arrival. That same tractor would face only $3,700 in tariffs if it 
were made in Brazil, and there would be none if it were made in Canada.
  American businesses, farmers, and ranchers are the best, but they 
should not have to compete with this kind of disparity. Our inability 
to negotiate agreements with foreign countries is hurting U.S. industry 
and limiting economic growth. The TPA offers the United States a chance 
to reclaim momentum in the global economy by adding foreign markets and 
expanding our opportunity for American producers and workers.
  For 60 years, Presidents and members of both parties in Congress have 
worked together to open markets around the world. Now, as we launch the 
next round of global trade negotiations, close cooperation is critical. 
In Texas, we have experienced the benefits of free trade as a result of 
NAFTA. Since the agreement was implemented in January 1994, Texas 
exports have grown much faster than the overall U.S. exports of goods. 
Texas merchandise exports in 2000 went to more than 200 foreign 
markets, totaling $69 billion--an increase of more than 22 percent 
since 1997.
  On the agricultural front, Texas ranks third among the 50 States in 
exports, with an estimated $3.3 billion in sales in foreign markets in 
2000. We are leading exporters of beef, poultry, feed grain, and wheat. 
NAFTA has helped us secure the No. 1 cotton exporting State status. 
Since the agreement took effect, we have increased cotton exports to 
Mexico from 558,000 bales to 1.5 million bales in 2000.
  Some people fear that trade will hurt the United States because they 
believe we will end up lowering barriers more than our trading 
partners. This is a legitimate question, but the fact is that the 
United States is already generally very low in barriers compared to our 
trading partners. For example, the average U.S. tariff on machinery 
imports is 1.2 percent, while foreign tariffs on U.S.-made machinery in 
countries such as Indonesia, India, Argentina, and Brazil are 30 times 
higher. By negotiating trade agreements, such as Free Trade Area of the 
Americas, the benefits we will receive by lowering those high barriers 
to our goods and services far outweigh the effect of lowering our very 
small tariffs.
  Another fear is the extent to which lowering barriers to the U.S. 
market will cause job losses as companies move manufacturing overseas. 
This could happen, but we do have superior quality and work ethic--that 
is undeniable. Beyond that, however, we must consider the extent to 
which we are already losing jobs to overseas plants because of the high 
barriers to our goods.

  Some countries try to attract manufacturing jobs by raising barriers 
to imports. This forces companies that would otherwise have production 
facilities in the United States and then export their products to build 
plants in

[[Page S3531]]

these foreign countries so they get around the tariffs. For example, 
Mars, Inc., the candy and pet food manufacturer, has their largest 
production facility in Waco, TX. They and other U.S. confectionary 
makers face an average of 25 percent in tariffs on confectionary candy 
exports and candy products to the European Union, and they have a 55-
percent tariff on these goods to India. But the United States has 
virtually no tariffs on confectionary products. The employees of 
domestic candy makers would be much more secure if the President were 
able to negotiate a trade agreement that lowered these barriers 
overseas so they were not penalized for having U.S.-based 
manufacturing.
  In addition to trade promotion authority, we will be debating related 
trade bills over the next few weeks. The Andean Trade Preference Act, 
which is the base bill we are debating today, seeks to help our 
counternarcotics efforts by providing people of the Andean region--
South America--with economic opportunity other than drug trade. This 
bill can help U.S. develop overseas markets. If the beneficiary 
countries are able to use their exports to the United States to develop 
a healthier economy, it will create market opportunities for U.S. 
exporters.
  The Andean Trade Preference Act has been successful in this respect. 
Since it went into effect in 1991, the four Andean countries have 
experienced $3 billion in new output and $1.7 billion in new exports. 
This has led to the creation of 140,000 legitimate jobs in this region, 
providing employment alternatives to people who might otherwise get 
involved in the drug trade.
  Similarly, by extending the General System of Preferences, which 
provides duty-free status to certain items from developing countries, 
we can help to develop healthier economies that will inevitably demand 
U.S. products.
  The other bill we are addressing during this debate is Trade 
Adjustment Assistance. This is a good program that would help those who 
lose their jobs because of trade. But we must also make sure this is 
not a program that is going to be so expensive and a program that 
discriminates among certain unemployed workers versus other unemployed 
workers versus employed workers. I think we might be taking a big 
chance with that part of the bill--not being as fully vetted and 
researched as the two parts that are trade promotion and Andean 
preference. These are two trade promotion acts that will have direct 
benefits to the workers and the people of America. It will also help 
the consumers of America get the lowest prices for goods that are 
imported without those artificial barriers.
  So in this time of increased tension in many parts of the world, 
American leadership on trade is more important than ever. Giving 
President Bush a strong hand to negotiate, helping other countries to 
use the benefits of trade to develop legitimate businesses and economic 
growth are what we are addressing in the Senate with this trade 
package. Passing this legislation will ensure the continued growth of 
our economy and make sure that we are exporting our greatest ideals to 
the world--freedom, free enterprise, and democracy.
  We must give the President this trade promotion authority so we will 
not be left behind. If America is only a party to 3 trade agreements 
out of 130, you know that other relationships are forming that keep 
America out.
  We made a very good start with NAFTA. We have seen the benefits of 
NAFTA, that free trade agreement. Now we must extend NAFTA to South 
America with the Andean nations with which we have had trade relations. 
We need to come back and put in place trade with those countries 
without those barriers that have been put forward in the last year. We 
need to have good relations all over the world.
  I think it is clear, from what is happening in the world and the lack 
of understanding in many parts of the world what freedom and free 
enterprise are, that we should be the leaders in opening free trade 
markets under an agreement that provides a level playing field for our 
workers and the workers of a foreign country. We should be the leaders, 
not the followers; not the people who are being dragged kicking and 
screaming into the new century.
  We need free and fair trade. We can only get it by negotiating trade 
agreements and making sure there is a level playing field. If we have 
no agreements, we can have small barriers, they can have big barriers, 
and that is not a level playing field. We want a level playing field. 
Trade promotion authority and the Andean Preference Act will give us 
that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER [Mr. Carper]. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that before 
speaking on the fast track bill, I be allowed to speak on the Middle 
East, and I will take about 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. For colleagues who are watching, because I know there 
are a lot of people who want to speak, I probably will not take a full 
hour on my statement on fast track. I will try to proceed 
expeditiously, but first of all I do want to speak on the Middle East 
because I do not think we can ignore what is happening in the world. It 
has such a critical and crucial impact on our lives and our children's 
lives and our grandchildren's lives.


                      search for middle east peace

  Mr. President, like many of my colleagues, I had enormous hopes for a 
permanent peace between Israel and the Palestinians before the collapse 
of the Oslo-Camp David peace process two years ago. Yet recently, as we 
all know, the situation in the Middle East has deteriorated 
dramatically, and what we have witnessed there is heart-breaking.
  As I speak today, Palestinian gunmen remain holed up in the Church of 
Nativity, Israeli tanks are present in the West Bank, and Israeli and 
Palestinian civilians, seized by anxiety, fear stepping into the street 
in order to go about their daily lives. Across the region and in this 
country too, people are grieving for innocent Israelis and Palestinians 
who have lost their lives.
  While there are new reports of clashes in Hebron, there is some 
positive news this morning. The month-long standoff at the Ramallah 
compound may be ending as U.S. and British security experts are 
expected to arrive today in the region to implement a U.S.-brokered 
plan. There are also signs of progress in Bethlehem, where there are 
news reports that many civilians not wanted by Israel will leave the 
church today.
  Even in this time of terrible violence, however, we cannot lose hope, 
for the sake of Israelis and Palestinians everywhere who yearn for 
peace--and especially for their children, and the generations to 
follow. For them, we must continue to seek a pathway to peace.
  To that end, Secretary Powell's mission to the region earlier this 
month was an important step. While a cease-fire was not achieved, the 
situation is less dangerous now than it might have been, without active 
U.S. engagement and Powell's vigorous diplomatic efforts. Events were 
spinning out of control earlier, especially on the border of Lebanon. 
But, the tense border situation seems to have cooled a bit, even if 
momentarily, due at least in part to Secretary Powell's work with the 
Syrians.
  The real test, however, is whether the administration will stay 
engaged. It has finally left the side-lines and is onto the playing 
field of Middle East diplomacy, and it must stay in the game. Israeli 
officials say that conditions might worsen in the days to come, that 
Israel may witness a rash of suicide bombings as it pulls its forces 
back. If the administration, facing such an escalation of violence in 
the region, withdraws, as it has before, history will judge us harshly. 
If it continues to devote its time, energy and prestige to achieving 
the goals Mr. Bush laid out earlier this month, then the violence might 
be contained, and we may see progress. Engagement remains the only 
intelligent option for our country now.
  We must pursue a courageous approach which seeks both to meet the 
critical need of the Israeli people to be free from terrorism and 
violence, and acknowledges the legitimate aspirations of the 
Palestinian people for their own state, a state which is economically 
and politically viable. Even in this horrific time, we must not lose 
sight of what should be our ultimate goal: Israel and a new Palestinian 
state living side-by-side, in peace, with secure borders.

[[Page S3532]]

  For many, the last two years have shattered confidence in any peace 
process. It has raised questions in some people's minds about whether 
Palestinians and Israelis can ever really live and work together, 
supporting each other's aspirations for peace, prosperity and security.
  We must do our best to work with the parties to restore calm, to end 
the bloodshed, and to get back to a political process that might 
address the underlying causes of this conflict.
  I believe many of the elements of the path back to peace are known:
  First, Palestinian leaders need to renew their severely damaged 
credibility as legitimate diplomatic partners by condemning 
terrorism and doing all in their power to combat it. Chairman Arafat 
has not consistently rejected or confronted terrorists; indeed if the 
evidence gather by the IDF is to be believed, he may have actually 
supported them. He cannot play both sides any longer, but must work to 
end terror and the sickening wave of suicide bombings Israel has 
suffered.

  There must also be an end to the culture of violence and the culture 
of incitement in Arab media, in schools and elsewhere, which Arab and 
Palestinian leadership have allowed to go unchecked too long. 
Throughout the region, anti-Israel incitement is widespread and 
insidious: government-controlled press, television programs and school 
textbooks regularly demonize Israelis with vile language and images. 
Arab states must help put an end to this, as it badly damages all the 
parties and powerfully undermines the cause of the Palestinian people 
and their national aspirations.
  President Bush and the international community have called on Israel 
to end its incursion into the West Bank, and Israel has begun a 
withdrawal, however partial and tentative. As President Bush stated, 
when Israel moves back, responsible Palestinian leaders and Israel's 
Arab neighbors must step forward, and demonstrate that they are working 
to establish peace: ``the choice and the burden will be theirs.'' To 
that end, the Palestinian leadership must commit to resuming security 
cooperation with Israel, and the United States and the international 
community must assist the Palestinians in reconstituting an effective 
security mechanism so they can do so.
  Second, Israel must show a respect for and concern about the human 
rights and dignity of the Palestinian people who are now and will 
continue to be their neighbors. It is critically important to 
distinguish between the terrorists and ordinary, innocent Palestinians 
who are trying to provide for their families and live an otherwise 
normal existence. Palestinians must no longer be subjected to the 
daily, often humiliating reminders that they lack basic freedom and 
control over their lives.
  Third, the United States and the international community must begin 
immediately the urgent task of rebuilding so that ordinary Palestinians 
can resume a normal existence. The Palestinian economy has been 
battered and the infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority badly 
damaged. Last week, the World Bank identified a $2 billion need, 
estimating that the direct physical destruction of the public 
infrastructure alone is $300 million, and that at least 75 percent of 
the Palestinian workforce is now idle. At the same time, Israel is 
facing major economic challenges, with a serious recession and currency 
dropping to a new low recently. The international community and 
Israel's Arab neighbors must contribute to serious rehabilitation and 
economic development efforts.
  Consistent with the UN Security Council resolutions, the United 
Nations fact-finding team must be allowed to visit the territories to 
examine what actually happened in the Jenin Refugee Camp. As Secretary 
Powell has declared, this is in the best interests of all concerned, 
especially in the best interests of the Israelis, to end speculation 
and have a full, accurate, public accounting of what actually occurred 
there. As soon as details on the composition of the team is resolved 
and the scope of its mission agreed upon, it must be allowed access to 
conduct its work.
  Fourth, I believe there is no military solution to this conflict. The 
only path to a just and durable resolution is through negotiation. And 
there will be no lasting peace or regional stability without a strong 
and secure Israel, which is why the United States must maintain its 
commitment to preserving Israel's strength, and providing Israel 
substantial assistance.
  I believe the United State must now push forward with specific and 
concrete ideas for rebuilding the shattered trust between the parties, 
bringing an end to the violence, and offering a new path back to the 
road of peace. The points of departure for such a plan are already in 
place--the UN Resolutions 242 and 338 and the earlier settlement 
negotiations conducted at Taba, Egypt in January 2001. The recent Arab 
League support of the Saudi proposal for normalization of relations 
between Israel and Arab nations is key. It acknowledges Israel's right 
to exist, and raises hope of a constructive Arab involvement in the 
search for peace. The United States should also consider supporting, 
with the consent of both parties, some kind of international observer 
force to enhance security for both sides. NATO might choose to take 
part in any such deployment, given Europe's continuing interest in 
containing the Middle East crisis. This could be followed, again with 
the agreement of all parties, with an international peace keeping 
force, if such a force could be helpful.
  We cannot afford to dither. The administration should move decisively 
to convene a broad international conference loosely based on the Madrid 
conference of 1991, at which the exchange of land for peace became the 
basis for negotiation. The goals of the conference should be spelled 
out clearly: putting the breaks on the violence and speeding 
negotiations for a two-state solution.
  Both sides will need to make painful choices if there is to be a just 
and stable peace. There must be a recognition of the tragic Palestinian 
refugee experience, and also an understanding that not all Palestinians 
refugees will be able to return to Israel. Many observers believe that 
the parties will eventually need to agree on a formula which would 
allow some refugees to return to Israel, and then provide for 
resettlement, and financial compensation for the remainder. And 
consistent with the Mitchell plan, Israeli settlement expansion in the 
occupied territories will have to be addressed and, as many observers 
have noted, some settlements may need to be dismantled. All of this 
should be negotiated by the parties themselves.
  Despite the rage and raw feelings in the region now, most Israelis 
and most Palestinians crave a peaceful resolution to this conflict. 
This hunger for peace, and a sustained and vigorous engagement by the 
United States, are our best hope for achieving it.


                              Andean Trade

  Mr. President, I debate this motion to proceed to fast track, the 
fast-track trade mechanism now known as the trade promotion authority. 
I oppose it on a lot of grounds.
  First, I oppose the bill because of a principled opposition to the 
fast-track mechanism. I am not sure that for me this principle would in 
all cases be absolute and decisive, but I do lean against any fast-
track mechanism for fundamental reasons. Second, I oppose the bill 
based on my judgement in advance of the unlikelihood of seeing 
negotiated trade agreements that I will be able to support on behalf of 
the people of Minnesota and of the nation. I base that judgement on the 
negative consequences of past trade agreements, the track-record of 
this administration so far, and on the text of the Trade Promotion 
Authority Act, which I believe is fundamentally flawed in its approach. 
Finally, I oppose moving to the fast-track bill because I believe it is 
irresponsible to discuss it before first addressing the urgent needs of 
workers in this nation.
  Let me begin with my first reason for opposing the fast-track bill. I 
am inclined to oppose fast-track on general principles of democracy and 
representative accountability alone. Fast track procedures shorten 
necessary congressional debate and eliminate the option of amendments 
by elected and accountable representatives of the public. Under Article 
I, Section 8 of the Constitution, it is not the President but Congress 
that shall ``regulate commerce with foreign nations'' and I am not 
willing to shirk my responsibility to make fair trade policy by giving 
the President authority to determine trade

[[Page S3533]]

policies without meaningful checks from Congress.
  It is worth observing at the outset that when we say we are 
considering trade agreements under fast track procedures, the measures 
we are talking about generally entail the substantial changing of 
domestic laws. We are talking about packages of legislative changes 
that are the implementing bills for what the President and his 
representatives have negotiated with trading partners. We are not only 
discussing tariff schedules, important as those can be. We are talking 
about the alteration of domestic law. It is difficult to imagine good 
enough reasons to surrender our rights as Senators to unlimited debate 
on amendment of those measures before we have even seen them.
  This bill, HR 3005, which the motion to proceed could bring before us 
by the end of the week if it is successful, would lock in fast-track 
rules now for debates and votes we will have later. By later, I mean at 
whatever point we consider implementing legislation for several of the 
trade agreements which the Administration is now negotiating such as an 
agreement entered into under the auspices of the World Trade 
Organization, agreements with Chile and Singapore, and an agreement 
establishing a Free Trade of the Americas or which it might negotiate 
under this authority between now and 2005. That is the duration of the 
bill's provisions if it is enacted. In other words, we are deciding now 
whether to establish special and highly restrictive rules which will 
govern our debate and votes later on implementing bills for agreements 
whose contents we will not know until that time.
  That is the meaning of fast-track legislation. I wonder how many 
Americans are aware that the Senate might be willing to give away that 
much authority in the making of trade policy. If we pass this fast-
track legislation, whatever agreement is negotiated and the changes in 
U.S. law that would be required in order for the United States to 
comply with it, will be considered automatically here in the Senate 
once that agreement is reached. This will take place on an expedited 
schedule, with no amendments, and with a limited number of hours of 
debate. Just one up-or-down vote on a giant bill changing numerous U.S. 
laws, with no amendments and limited debate. I am sorry to say that 
based on my experience, many of us in this body will probably be only 
partially aware of what is actually contained in such implementing 
bills. But in any case, even if we know every provision, we will not 
have the opportunity to change a single one.
  During my time here in the U.S. Senate, I have consistently opposed 
the granting of fast-track authority for trade agreements. I opposed it 
for NAFTA. I opposed it for creation of the WTO. I have yet to be 
convinced of the need for any fast-track authority to achieve 
beneficial trade agreements. The record of the previous Administration 
appears to reinforce this conviction. During the 1990s we entered into 
nearly 200 international commercial agreements without fast-track, 
including the Caribbean Basin Initiative and agreements with sub-
Saharan Africa, Jordan and Vietnam. I should repeat that nearly 200 
trade agreements, and only two of those utilized fast track procedures. 
Last November, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick said that 
fast-track was a tool the administration could not live without. He 
said: ``If I'm pressing my counterpart to go to his or bottom line, he 
or she is going to balk if they feel that Congress has the ability to 
re-open the deal. My counterparts fear negotiating once with the 
administration and then a second time with Congress.''
  Mr. President, if the previous Administration could so readily reach 
trade agreements without the benefit of fast-track, then I question the 
need to impose such procedures, which are inherently undemocratic. I 
also question what Mr. Zoellick is getting at. I would hope he 
understands that our system of government has three branches. That our 
system is based on checks and balances. And I would hope that in the 
nations with which we are negotiating trade agreements, that we are 
also promoting an agenda committed to democratic principles. Because 
when we talk about the fast-track mechanism, that is not the case. They 
shorten necessary debate. They eliminate the chance for amendment by 
elected and accountable representatives. They exclude meaningful 
participation in the legislative process by numerous groups which 
normally have at least some access to it.

  For example, free trade is supposed to be good for the consumers. But 
how often do representatives of consumer organizations help to decide 
our negotiating goals? How many consumers are on the panels which 
advise negotiators? Corporations in various sectors help decide what 
our goals are, which is appropriate. But why not consumers? Consumers 
might argue that open trade is good; it can help bring higher quality 
goods and services at lower prices. But consumers might also point out 
that there need to be rules in an open trading system enforceable rules 
against downward harmonization of environmental and food-safety 
standards, enforceable rules against child labor, enforceable rules 
against the systematic violation of labor and human rights. These are 
not enforceable objectives of negotiators under this fast track bill. 
In fact, as negotiating objectives, they need not even be achieved for 
a trade agreement to come before the Senate and receive fast-track 
consideration. But they probably would be enforceable if we had a more 
democratic process for negotiating and considering trade agreements. 
And if the objectives were not achieved in the agreements, consumer 
advocates could find a member of the Senate willing to offer an 
amendment to change the proposal. But not under fast track.
  I favor open trade. Open trade can contribute significantly to the 
expansion of wealth an opportunity. It can encourage innovation and 
improve productivity. It can deliver high quality goods and services to 
many consumers at better prices. Negotiated properly, trade agreements 
can help bring these benefits to all trading partners in fair way. 
However, I remain unconvinced of the need for a fast-track procedure in 
order for a president to achieve beneficial trade agreements.
  Fast-track is not about politics. It is not be about providing the 
authority to a President whose trade policy we support, and not to one 
we do not. Fast track is about our responsibility as legislators to do 
our part to ensure fair trade in the global economy. Of course the 
White House should conduct trade negotiations. But there is no reason 
to give the White House autocratic power to do so. If a trade agreement 
cannot withstand the scrutiny of our democratic process, then it does 
not deserve to be enacted.
  My second reason for opposing the motion to proceed to this bill is 
that I do not have confidence that the specific trade agreements that 
are likely to be negotiated with this fast-track authority would 
achieve an improvement in the standard of living and quality of life 
for a majority of Americans. Nor do I believe that such trade 
agreements would be likely to improve the lives of the majority of the 
populations of other countries, the countries with whom we trade. 
Therefore, I do not believe I am likely to support the agreements, or 
their implementing legislation. Why would I give up my right in advance 
to amend bills which I do not think I will be able to support?
  We have had excellent debates over the nation's trade policy in 
recent years. We had a good debate over the North American Free Trade 
Agreement, the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade, which ultimately led to the creation of the WTO, over permanent 
normal trade relations with China, and more recently over trade and 
trade remedies regarding the steel industry. I would like to take a 
second to talk in particular about NAFTA and the WTO implementing 
legislation. I voted against the implementing legislation for those 
agreements because I believed those bills did not take this country in 
the right direction in trade policy. The results of those agreements 
have largely reinforced my view. I continue to regret that I did not 
have more opportunity to change those major pieces of legislation. I 
believe they have done us great harm.
  I did not oppose NAFTA and the WTO because I am a protectionist. I am 
not. I don't have the slightest interest in building walls at our 
borders to keep out goods and services. Nor do I fear fair competition 
from workers and companies operating in other countries. I am not 
afraid of our neighbors.

[[Page S3534]]

I don't fear other countries, nor their peoples. I am in favor of open 
trade, and I believe the President should negotiate trade agreements 
which lead generally to more open markets, here and abroad.
  Indeed, I am very aware of the benefits of trade for the economy of 
Minnesota. I am told about them constantly. We have an extremely 
international-minded community of corporations, small businesses, 
working people and farmers in our state, and we have done relatively 
well in the international economy in recent years. Minnesota has lost 
some jobs to trade, as have most states. But we also benefit from 
trade. We benefit from both exports and imports. Exports create jobs, 
as we all know. But imports are not necessarily a bad thing either. 
They provide needed competition for consumers, and they also push our 
domestic companies to become better, to be as productive and efficient 
as they can be. Open trade can contribute significantly to the 
expansion of wealth and opportunity, and it tends to reward innovation 
and productivity. It can deliver higher quality goods and services at 
better prices. Negotiated properly, trade agreements can help bring all 
these benefits to all trading partners in a fair way.
  My position is merely that Congress should exercise its proper role 
in regulating trade, which is what trade agreements do, so that the 
rules of international trade reflect American values. That is how 
American can lead in the world. It is how America should lead in the 
world.

  What are American values when it comes to trade? We believe in 
generally open markets at home and abroad. But we also believe there is 
a legitimate governmental role in the protection and maintenance of 
certain fundamental standards when it comes to labor rights. There are 
certain fundamental standards when it comes to the environment. 
Standards when it comes to food safety and other consumer protections. 
Fundamental standards when it comes to democracy.
  The question is how to pursue these values when we are negotiating 
trade agreements. The Bush administration believes that commercial 
property rights are primary in trade agreements, and should be 
enforceable with trade sanctions, and that environmental and labor 
rights are secondary. A majority of the Senate appears to agree. I do 
not. I don't believe most Americans agree with the President and the 
majority of the Senate on this question. I believe, and I believe that 
most Americans believe, that fundamental standard of living and 
quality-of-life issues are exactly what trade policy should be about. 
That is why strong and enforceable labor rights, environmental, 
consumer, and human rights protections must be included in all trade 
agreements, and as principle objectives in all trade negotiations. If 
trade agreements do not help to uphold democracy and respect for human 
rights, then they are deficient. That is my position. These should be 
the pillars of American leadership in the world.
  At the same time we are told that America must lead on the issue of 
trade, we are also told that if we do not negotiate trade agreements, 
even ones which do not live up to our principles, then other countries 
will do so with each other in our absence. We will be left out. What a 
contradiction. We must lead, but we must do so by weakening our values. 
By leaving protection of workers rights out of the agreements we 
negotiate. By surrendering our principled linkage of human rights 
concerns to trade policy. Are we saying that when it comes down to it, 
money is what basically matters? Is that how we should lead the world? 
Not in my view.
  Our trade policy should seek to create fair trading arrangements 
which lift up standards and people in all nations. It should foster 
competition based on productivity, quality and rising living standards, 
not competition based on exploitation and a race to the bottom. 
Protection of basic labor rights, environmental, and health and safety 
standards are just as important, and just as valid, as any other 
commercial or economic objectives sought by U.S. negotiators in trade 
agreements. We need to be encouraging good corporate citizenship, not 
the flight of capital and decimation of good-paying U.S. jobs. We ought 
not be pitting workers in Bombay against workers in Baltimore, making 
them compete against one another to get a decent living. Giving them 
ultimatums to accept an unlivable wage, or else. It is our 
responsibility in trade agreements to make the global trading system 
fair and workable.
  It is the role of national governments to establish rules within 
which companies and countries trade. That is what trade agreements do. 
They set strict rules. If a country does not enforce respect for 
patents, trade sanctions can be invoked. If a country allows violations 
of commercial rules, trade sanctions can be invoked. You can bet that 
U.S. companies get right in the face of our negotiators to make sure 
that the rules in these agreements which protect their interests are 
iron clad and will be strictly enforced. Of course it is one of the 
goals of trade agreements to advance the interests of U.S. employers. 
But we are elected to help ensure that those agreements allows trade to 
benefit the interests of a majority of Americans, not only those with 
significant commercial interests abroad. I would go further and say 
that we also even have an interest in advancing the interest of a 
majority of people in other countries. Development abroad means more 
demand for products and services that we produce.
  I believe our trade policy can achieve those goals. I wish that we 
would more often pursue them fully and in a balanced way. Our current 
trade policy is deeply skewed towards large corporate interests. That 
view is based on our experience with recent trade agreements. And 
unfortunately, this bill does little to require our negotiators to do 
better with new ones.
  The negative effects of NAFTA, which took effect in 1994, and the 
WTO, created in 1995, demonstrate the harm in failure to negotiate 
important safeguards in trade agreements. NAFTA's damaging results have 
been documented by a range of reliable observers. They include loss of 
jobs, suppression of wages, and attacks upon and weakening of 
environmental and health and safety laws. Fast-track promoters want 
this authority to make it easier to extend NAFTA throughout the 
hemisphere in a proposed Free Trade of the Americas agreement and to 
expand the WTO in a new round of multilateral negotiation. If we repeat 
our past failure to include adequate labor, environmental, and health 
and safety provisions in new agreements, we only condemn ourselves to 
seeing some of NAFTA and other trade arrangements worst consequences 
again.
  What have some of those consequence been? Let me draw from a report 
issued by the respected Economic Policy Institute. The report was 
issued in April of last year and is titled: ``NAFTA at Seven: Its 
Impact on Workers in all Three Nations.'' E.P.I's study examined the 
effects of NAFTA seven years after it implementation and concluded that 
in the United States: ``NAFTA eliminated some 766,000 actual and 
potential U.S. jobs between 1994 and 2000 because of the rapid growth 
in the U.S. export deficit with Mexico and Canada.'' Minnesota, 
according to the report, lost about 13,200 jobs due to the NAFTA 
related trade deficit. The report went on to say that in the U.S. 
``NAFTA has contributed to rising income inequality, suppressed real 
wages for production workers, weakened collective bargaining powers and 
ability to organize unions, and reduced fringe benefits.'' A second 
report released last October argues that when you look at the combined 
NAFTA and WTO trade-related job losses between 1994-2000, that number 
is over three million. According to the report, Minnesota lost nearly 
50,000 jobs. E.P.I also estimates that 5 to 15 percent of the decline 
in real median wages can be explained by the increase in trade.

  NAFTA also has not lived up to promises regarding the environment or 
domestic areas such as food safety. According to reports released by 
Public Citizen, since the implementation of NAFTA, U.S. food imports 
have skyrocketed, while U.S. inspections of imported food have declined 
significantly. Public Citizen notes that imports of Mexican crops 
documented by the U.S. government to be at high risk of pesticide 
contamination have dramatically increased under NAFTA, while inspection 
has decreased. It argues that U.S. border inspectors have simply

[[Page S3535]]

been overwhelmed by the large volume of food imports entering the 
country from Mexico. In a report from September titled: ``NAFTA Chapter 
11 Investor-to-State Cases: Bankrupting Democracy,'' Public Citizen 
documents the frontal assault on American law by foreign investors 
using rights and privileges given to them in the NAFTA agreement. It 
states that ``since the agreements enactment, corporate investors in 
all three NAFTA countries have used these new rights to challenge as 
NAFTA violations a variety of national, state and local environmental 
and public health policies, domestic judicial decisions, a federal 
procurement law and even a government's provision of a parcel delivery 
services.''
  Mr. President, our experience with NAFTA cannot be dismissed. It has 
contributed to a significant number of job losses and the suppression 
of real wages for production workers, who make up 70 percent of the 
workforce. Real wages have gone down in Mexico, too, despite the fact 
that some workers are performing high-skill, high-productivity labor. 
Our trade balance has dramatically worsened with respect to Mexico. And 
a number of U.S. firms not only have used the threat of relocating to 
Mexico to hold down wages, but some have even closed part of all of a 
plant in response to union organizing or bargaining. Violations of 
fundamental democratic principles, as well as of basic human and labor 
rights, continue to occur regularly in Mexico. And NAFTA's side 
agreement has not significantly improved Mexico's environment, or that 
of the U.S. Mexico border region.
  NAFTA is a bad agreement. But I must also note briefly the tremendous 
weakness of this fast-track bill itself. The bill reported by the 
Finance Committee requires only that trading partners enforce existing 
labor and environmental laws. Nowhere in this bill does it state that 
parties must strive to ensure that their labor and environmental laws 
meet international standards. Nowhere in this bill do we demand that 
countries make progress in protecting the rights of workers and the 
environment. This is unacceptable. Have we learned nothing? Shouldn't 
we, at a minimum, require that countries try to do better?
  The bill requires only that a country enforce its own laws as they 
stand today, and to add insult to injury, it has a loophole that allows 
countries to lower labor and environmental standards with impunity. It 
allows for strong enforcement of the provisions on intellectual 
property and other commercial rights, but then provides no adequate 
enforcement for violations of the labor and environmental provisions. 
In the real world, the effect of weak labor standards coupled with no 
enforcement mechanism means that while a U.S. company could easily 
bring a case against a country for not enforcing laws on copyright 
protection, that same country could fail to enforce minimum wage laws 
or even lower the minimum wage, and neither the U.S., nor a worker who 
is affected, could bring a case for violation of the trade agreement. I 
believe this provision shows exactly whose interests this bill is meant 
to benefit, and it's not the working man.
  And unfortunately, the drafters have not learned from the mistakes of 
the NAFTA agreement when it comes to investor lawsuits. Just like under 
NAFTA, this bill does not forbid investor lawsuits that challenge 
domestic laws on the grounds of expropriation--expropriation that is 
not even limited to the long standing legal precedent that it must 
involve more than just a diminution in value or loss of profits. Today, 
as we debate the motion to proceed, a lawsuit is underway between a 
Canadian company and the U.S. government dealing with this very issue. 
Under NAFTA, the Canadian company Methanex has sued the U.S. government 
for $970 million in future profits due to California's banning of the 
chemical MTBE, which Methanex produces. Small leaks of MTBE from 
storage tanks, pipeline accidents, and car accidents were found to have 
contaminated 30 public drinking water systems in California. California 
banned the chemical on safety grounds and now we, the American people, 
are supposed to re-imburse the company that made the chemical for their 
lost profits? Absolutely not.
  In 2000, another Canadian company, ADF Group Inc., filed a complaint 
using NAFTA's Chapter 11 on investment to challenge the federal 
requirement that U.S.-made steel be used in all federally funded 
highway projects. The case both challenges federal procurement policies 
and attacks a part of U.S. law that directly benefits American workers. 
Regardless of the outcome of this case, the fact that a private company 
could use NAFTA to challenge a popular domestic law that the U.S. has 
routinely tried to exempt from trade agreements, should trouble us all. 
The fast-track bill would do absolutely nothing to prevent more 
challenges to our Buy America Law in the future, and it would do 
nothing to guarantee that trade agreements will not be used to 
challenge laws we pass to protect our environment, public health and 
safety, and our workers.

  Proponents of fast-track argue that these inadequate negotiating 
objectives will produce concrete gains in protecting workers' rights 
and the environment in future trade agreements, notably the FTAA, the 
WTO, and pending agreements with Chile and Singapore. But the Bush 
Administration has provided no basis for confidence that it is will 
willing to expend the necessary energy and political capital to 
actually move workers' rights and environmental provisions forward in 
any of these arenas. In fact, every word and action from the Bush 
Administration since it has been in office points to the contrary. It 
is simply untrustworthy when it comes to trade policy.
  Section 131 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, as amended, directs 
the President to ``seek the establishment . . . in the WTO . . . of a 
working party to examine the relationship of internationally recognized 
worker rights . . . to the articles, objectives, and related 
instruments of the GATT 1947 and of the WTO.'' Despite this crystal 
clear mandate from the U.S. Congress, the Bush Administration has 
refused even to propose a working party on worker rights at the WTO. 
U.S. Trade Representative Zoellick told the House Ways and Means 
Committee on October 9th that such a proposal ``would kill our ability 
to launch the round . . . It has no chance whatsoever.'' The truth is, 
the Uruguay Round Agreements did not ask the President or his Trade 
Representative to evaluate the potential success of seeking a working 
party; it said the President ``shall seek'' such a party. Why would we 
give this President authority to negotiate trade agreements on an 
expedited basis, with no amendments, when it appears he already doesn't 
follow the instructions mandated by law from this body?
  This Administration has publicly announced it will not enforce 
provisions negotiated in good faith by the Clinton Administration in 
the Jordan Free Trade Agreement. The Jordan agreement incorporated 
enforceable workers' rights and environmental protections in the core 
of the agreement subject to the same dispute resolution provisions as 
the commercial aspects. Yet in July, USTR Zoellick exchanged letters 
with the Jordanian ambassador to the U.S., in which both pledged not to 
use trade sanctions to resolve disputes under the agreement. This 
effectively gutted the path-breaking labor and environmental provisions 
in the Jordan agreement, since they are the only provisions not also 
covered by WTO rules, which authorize sanctions separately.
  Also, the draft ministerial WTO declaration prepared for the next 
ministerial contains no progress on workers' rights whatsoever. There 
is not even a commitment for a formal cooperation agreement with the 
ILO, which would be a very minimal step forward, yet the Administration 
has not publicly criticized this aspect of the declaration.
  The draft text of the FTAA, released in April, also contains no 
language whatsoever, not even as a proposal, linking trade benefits to 
workers' rights or environmental protection. If the FTAA negotiations 
continue on their current path, even the modest workers' provisions now 
included in the Generalized System of Preferences--which currently 
applies to virtually every Latin American country--will be rendered 
moot. In regard to the on-going Chile and Singapore negotiations, the 
Bush Administration has apparently retreated from the Jordan agreement 
commitments which were to be the baseline for the labor and 
environmental provisions of any new agreement. It has also failed to

[[Page S3536]]

 bring forth any proposals on labor and environment in the 
negotiations. Chilean negotiators have told reporters that the U.S. is 
only asking for monetary fines to enforce labor and environmental 
standards. This falls short of even the modest Jordan standard.
  It is clear this Administration has no commitment to labor rights or 
the environment in its trade policy. In fact, it doesn't see them as 
fundamental principles necessary to achieve fairness in the global 
trading system--it sees them as ``potential new forms of 
protectionism.'' This is what USTR Zoellick said in a speech to 
business associations in New Delhi last year. He also told the 
audience: ``We can work cooperatively to thwart efforts to employ labor 
and environmental concerns for protectionist purposes.''
  Mr. President, we can not trust what this Administration says it will 
do when negotiating agreements because quite honestly, it doesn't 
believe what it is saying when it negotiates them. Worker's rights and 
protection of the environment in trade agreements are secondary to 
commercial interests. Period. They are secondary when it comes to 
workers and the environment abroad and they are secondary when it comes 
to workers' and the environment here.
  For example, we have watched workers in the steel industry bear the 
brunt of ineffective trade policies and more recently, inadequate trade 
remedies on the part of this Administration. Although the President's 
recent Section 201 decision brought relief to some segments of the 
United States steel industry, it did nothing for Minnesota's Iron 
Range--nor for the iron ore industry in Michigan. While the President 
imposed a fairly significant tariff on every other product category for 
which the International Trade Commission ( ITC) found injury, for steel 
slab he decided to impose ``tariff rate quotas.'' This brings us 
virtually no relief.
  Nearly 7 million tons of steel slab can continue to be dumped on our 
shores before any tariff is assessed. The injury will 
continue. Moreover, already some of our trading partners--Brazil, for 
example--are angling for exemptions that would drive the quota levels 
even higher. And, frankly, I fear this Administration might listen too 
sympathetically to such pleas.

  In fact, members of the Senate's Steel Caucus recently received a 
letter warning of potentially devastating impact of grants of 
exclusions awarded by the Administration. As the President of the 
United Steelworkers of America, Mr. Gerard, says, ``It would be tragic 
if having traveled so far to provide the industry and its workers and 
communities desperately needed relief, that the Administration now 
wasted this opportunity by making unwarranted exclusions at the behest 
of our trading partners.''
  Frankly, the commitment to protect domestically produced iron ore and 
the blast furnace capacity to process that iron ore is shockingly 
absent. We must remain vigilant.
  All of this leads me to the final reason I oppose moving to the fast-
track bill. It is obvious this nation has more urgent priorities than 
debating fast-track authority. America's manufacturing industry is in a 
deep, long-lasting crisis that threatens the future of American 
prosperity. Manufacturing job losses since July 2000 have totaled 1.3 
million. Manufacturing employment peaked in March 1998 at 18.9 million, 
but since then has declined by more than 1.6 million jobs to a total of 
17.3 million. Last year, total employment in manufacturing fell below 
18 million for the first time since June 1965. From 1994 to the 
present, growing trade deficits have eliminated a net total of 3 
million actual and potential jobs from the U.S. economy--nearly 50,000 
of those jobs in Minnesota, representing 2% of the state's labor force. 
Let's be clear. This crisis is a result of a failure of economic and 
trade policy. We should be addressing this failure, not granting fast-
track authority for major new trade negotiations.
  Domestic companies are hurting and domestic jobs are being lost by 
the thousands because of unfair trading practices not adequately curbed 
or punished by our domestic trade policies. What's perhaps most 
troublesome is that the trade-related losses of the past decade 
happened during times of economic prosperity so their effect was 
masked. I think we are just starting to feel the real impact of this 
nation's misguided trade policies. And now the Administration wants 
even more authority--fast track authority--to perpetuate these 
misguided policies? Where are their priorities? Do they even recognize 
the needs of workers in America?
  We must address the condition of the American worker first. Trade 
Adjustment Assistance is critical for thousands of American workers and 
their families, and it should not be boot-strapped to a flawed, 
undemocratic bill that will cause more long-term hardship. I support 
the trade adjustment assistance portion of this bill. It will provide 
important assistance that is urgently needed. But, I believe we should 
address TAA separately, on its own merits.
  Congress established TAA in 1962 to assist workers whose job loss is 
associated with an increase in imports. Workers are eligible for up to 
52 weeks of income support, provided they are enrolled in re-training. 
The program also provides job search and relocation assistance. Despite 
low unemployment through the second half of the 1990s, the number of 
workers eligible for TAA has increased. In 2000, approximately 35,000 
workers received TAA benefits. Unfortunately, existing TAA eligibility 
requirements have not kept up with the changing times. TAA covers too 
few workers and fails to address major problems that workers and 
communities face. The TAA provision in this package would help change 
that.
  It would broaden eligibility and expand benefits, providing benefits 
to secondary workers, including suppliers and downstream providers. For 
example, iron ore workers who faced layoffs because of increased steel 
imports would be covered. TAA eligibility would also be expanded to 
include workers affected by shifts in production, as well to those 
affected by increased imports. It would increase income maintenance 
from 52 to 78 weeks; substantially increase funds available for 
training; ensure workers who take a part-time job don't lose training 
benefits; and increase assistance for job relocation.
  The expanded program would link TAA recipients to child care and 
health care benefits under existing programs, and provide assistance to 
recipients in making COBRA payments. When you lose your job you lose 
your health insurance, and unfortunately that often means you lose your 
healthcare. While I was in Minnesota last summer, I heard from working 
men and women who had lost their jobs because of the economic downturn. 
In the fall I spoke to many who had become unemployed as a direct 
consequence of September 11th. Many of them told me that they were 
eligible for COBRA assistance but couldn't afford it. The average cost 
of COBRA coverage for a family is $700, more than half the monthly 
unemployment benefit. 80% of dislocated workers don't purchase it 
because they can't afford it. They end up having to make an awful 
choice: the choice between food and clothes for their families and 
having health insurance. This is unacceptable. We must provide 
assistance to the unemployed to ensure they have affordable health 
insurance.
  The TAA provision in this bill would recognize the special 
circumstances faced by family farmers, ranchers and independent 
fishermen, and would seek to provide assistance and technical support 
before they lose their businesses. It would provide wage insurance for 
older workers and help communities adjust to devastating job losses. 
Mr. President, entire communities are often affected by the closing of 
one textile factory or steel mill. We must coordinate federal 
assistance to these communities, help them develop strategic plans 
following job losses, and provide technical assistance, loans and 
grants.

  As of December, in Minnesota over 3800 workers have applied for Trade 
Adjustment Assistance as a result of NAFTA. Entire companies have 
relocated to Mexico or Canada, or workers have been laid off do the 
increase in imports from those countries. We must guarantee that all 
Americans benefit from trade by providing adequate trade adjustment 
assistance. But even that is not enough. We must protect the standard 
of living and quality of life of the American worker. We must address 
decline in real median wages and the weakening of workers rights in 
this country. And we must do so before we even think about fast-track 
authority.

[[Page S3537]]

  Why is it, for example, that we are proceeding to debate the need for 
expedited review of trade deals this Administration negotiates when we 
have yet to address the long over-due increase in the federal minimum 
wage. Have we considered the irony of this? Expedited review of trade 
agreements that cause us to lose jobs, that undermine worker safety and 
security around the globe, before we debate a paltry $1.50 increase in 
the minimum wage over three years?
  Poverty has nearly doubled among full-time, year-round workers since 
the late 1970s--from about 1.3 million then to 2.4 million in 2000. 
There are millions of mothers and fathers toiling 40 hours a week, 52 
weeks a year, who are still unable to meet their families' basic 
needs--food, medical care, housing, clothing. More than 32 million 
people in this country--more than 12 million of those children--were 
poor in 1999.
  A key part of the problem is an unacceptably low minimum wage. 
Minimum wage employees working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, earn 
only $10,712 a year--more than $4,300 below the poverty line for a 
family of three. The current minimum wage fails to provide enough 
income to enable minimum wage workers to afford adequate housing in any 
area of this country.
  Mr. President, every day the minimum wage is not increased it 
continues to lose value, and workers fall farther and farther behind. 
Minimum wage workers have lost all of their gains since we last raised 
the minimum wage in 1997.
  Today, the real value of the minimum wage is now $3.00 below what it 
was in 1968. To have the purchasing power it had in 1968, the minimum 
wage would have to be more than $8 an hour today, not $5.15. Since 
1968, the ratio of the minimum wage to average hourly earnings dropped 
from 56% to 36%.
  Members of Congress acted to raise their own pay by $4,900 last 
year--the fourth pay increase in six years. Yet we have not found time 
to provide any pay increase to the lowest paid workers, an increase 
that would add $3,000 to the income of full-time, year-round workers. 
Don't those who are most vulnerable in our society, those who are 
absolutely struggling to make ends meet, those who every day are forced 
to choose between food, clothing, shelter, or health care for their 
families, don't they deserve the modest increase in the minimum wage 
that is proposed in the legislation that has been stalled for far too 
long.
  A gain of $3,000 would have an enormous impact on minimum wage 
workers and their families. It would be enough money for a low-income 
family of three to buy: over 15 months of groceries; over 8 months of 
rent; over 7 months of utilities; or put a family member through a 2-
year community college program.
  History clearly shows that raising the minimum wage has not had any 
negative impact on jobs, employment, or inflation. Rather, in the three 
years since the last minimum wage increase, the economy experienced its 
strongest growth in over three decades. Nearly 11 million new jobs were 
added, at a pace of 218,000 per month.
  Nearly 9 million workers would directly benefit from the proposed 
minimum wage increase, many of whom are raising children. Thirty-five 
percent of these workers are the sole earners for their families. 
Sixty-one percent are women. Sixteen percent are African American and 
twenty percent are Hispanic American.
  Finally, since a minimum wage increase goes to families who need 
every dollar for basic needs, raising the wage will provide a much-
needed spur to our slowly recovering economy. Fifty-eight percent of 
the benefit of the 1996 and 1997 increases went to families in the 
bottom 40% of income groups. Over one-third of the benefit went to the 
poorest families, those in the bottom 20%.
  A fair increase in the minimum wage is long overdue. This body should 
not be proceeding to this wrong-headed fast track measure at all. But 
at the least we should not be doing so in advance of considering a 
minimum wage increase to correct some of losses suffered as the result 
of our shameful inaction in the past. No one who works for a living 
should have to live in poverty.
  I oppose the motion to proceed to fast-track authority for all the 
reasons I have laid out here today: the fast track mechanism is 
undemocratic, it is unlikely I will be able to support trade agreements 
negotiated under fast-track authority given the consequences of past 
trade agreements, the track-record of this Administration so far, and 
the text of the Trade Promotion Authority Act, and I believe is 
irresponsible to discuss fast-track authority before addressing the 
urgent needs of workers in this nation.

  I know that I am not alone in my opposition to fast-track authority. 
And I know that proponents of it will try to cast this debate as one of 
protectionists versus free traders. Nothing can be farther than the 
truth. The debate today is one of free trade versus fair trade. I know 
the difference. The American people know the difference. The debate 
today is about the responsibility of this nation to ensure justice in 
the global trading regime, to ensure democracy, human rights and all 
the values that make this nation great are not swept aside in the name 
of trade promotion. And it is about ensuring the American worker is not 
swept under the rug in the name of free trade.
  Mr. President, Americans and especially the American worker, 
understand the link between promoting human rights and democracy and 
promoting free trade. In fact, they demand that link. We have seen it 
in the street of Seattle, Washington; Genoa, Italy; and just two weeks 
ago here in Washington, DC. At the grassroots level, people are 
demanding that trade be more than the simple movement of capital. They 
are demanding that it be more than the protection of intellectual and 
investor property rights. They are demanding more than what we see in 
this fast-track bill. My position on trade agreements is their 
position. It is not ``no, never.'' It is ``yes, if.'' Yes to trade 
agreements if they protect democracy, human rights and internationally 
recognized labor rights; yes to trade agreements if they guarantee 
minimum safeguards for the environment; yes to trade agreements if they 
do not abandon family farmers to competition from export-oriented mega-
farms abroad operating free from any environmental regulation; yes to 
major trade agreements if they do not displace thousands of workers 
without any adjustment assistance. I oppose this motion to proceed and 
I will oppose the bill when it comes to the floor. To reiterate, 
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution says it is not the President 
but the Congress that shall regulate commerce with foreign nations.

  I am not willing to shirk my responsibility of being a part of 
shaping a trade policy that can dramatically affect the quality of 
lives of families and people I represent in Minnesota. I do not 
understand how we could agree to a fast-track procedure whereby we 
could have a trade agreement which would entail actually changing some 
of our domestic laws that deal with consumer protection, that deal with 
worker rights, that deal with a whole range of issues, and that we 
basically surrender our rights to have the opportunity to have an 
amendment considered on the floor of the Senate. It makes no sense 
whatsoever.
  This legislation locks us into fast-track rules now for debates and 
votes we will have later. The administration is talking about 
agreements with Chile and Singapore, the Free Trade Agreement of the 
Americas. In other words, we are deciding now whether to establish 
special and highly restrictive rules which will govern our debate on 
votes on pieces of legislation, votes that will take place later; an 
expedited schedule, no amendments, a limited number of debates. I don't 
understand it.
  We can have trade legislation without this procedure. With fast 
track, any kind of trade agreement can come to the Senate floor. It can 
affect environmental laws that we pass in our States--in Delaware, in 
Minnesota. It can affect food safety legislation that we might pass in 
our States or pass in the Congress. It can overturn and declare trade 
illegal. It can be a trade agreement that we make with different 
countries, that further depress wages in our country. That means many 
working families will lose their jobs. That means no respect for basic 
child labor rights. And where there is no respect for human rights, 
there is no respect for democracy.
  All of that can happen, and we are going to say through this 
legislation

[[Page S3538]]

that we forfeit our right as Senators to represent people in our States 
and try and amend these agreements so we can provide protection for the 
people we represent? I say to colleagues, on principle alone, I oppose 
this.
  By the way, I opposed the Democratic administration. It is not a 
matter of politics. I oppose any President having this authority. I 
don't believe we should give up what is not only our constitutional 
right but our responsibility as legislators.
  Robert Zoellick discussed why he needs fast track: If I am pressing 
my counterpart to go to his bottom line, he or she will balk if they 
feel the Congress has the ability to reopen the deal. My counterparts 
fear negotiating once with the administration and a second time with 
the Congress.
  From the floor of the Senate, I say for Mr. Zoellick, without 
acrimony, we have a system of checks and balances. We have three 
branches of Government. As a matter of fact, during the decade of the 
1990s, we negotiated close to 200 trade agreements only two of which 
used the fast track procedure. I have a list of them. The list goes on 
and on and on.
  Let me make a second point, which is more hard hitting. When I look 
at past trade agreements and some of the empirical evidence, I don't 
want to give up my right to amend future trade agreements which I think 
will have the same detrimental or an even more detrimental effect on 
families in the State of Minnesota or, for that matter, around the 
country.
  Let's just take NAFTA. The Economic Policy Institute, a highly 
respected think-tank, issued a report last year entitled ``NAFTA At 
Seven: Its Impact on Workers in all Three Nations.'' The report says:

       NAFTA eliminated some 766,000 actual and potential U.S. 
     jobs between 1994 and 2000 because of the rapid growth in the 
     U.S. export deficit with Mexico and Canada.

  Minnesota lost 13,200 jobs due to the NAFTA-related deficit.
  The report went on to say that in the United States:

       NAFTA has contributed to rising income inequality, 
     suppressed real wages for production workers, weakened 
     collective bargaining powers and ability to organize unions 
     and reduced fringe benefits.

  A second report released last October argues that when you look at 
the combined NAFTA and WTO trade-related job losses between 1994 and 
2000--and I voted for neither agreement--the number is over 3 million. 
According to that report, Minnesota lost 50,000 jobs. The EPI estimates 
that 5 percent to 15 percent of the decline in real median wages can be 
explained by this increase in trade.
  What are we saying? I will tell you something about potash workers. I 
was in Brainerd. It is so heartbreaking that 700 workers are out of 
work. When I called the CEO, he said to me: Senator, we can deal with 
any of the U.S. companies. We got killed by trade policy. In greater 
Minnesota they were shut down and lost $20-an-hour jobs with health 
care benefits.
  LTV's iron ore workers--slab steel is coming in, produced way below 
the cost of production, and 1,300 workers are out of work, having lost 
well-paying jobs with good health care benefits.
  Apparel workers, textile workers, auto workers continue to lose their 
jobs. In all due respect, we are supposed to be the party that 
represents working people. We are supposed to be the party for jobs. I 
fail to see how we live up to this responsibility by signing on to a 
trade agreement where we do not even have the right to offer 
amendments.
  These companies say to workers in this country: if you do not give up 
some of your health care benefits, or if you do not agree to keep your 
wages down, we are gone. They do not say to workers in Minnesota: we 
are going to North Carolina. They are leaving North Carolina, too. They 
are saying to American families: we are gone. We are going abroad. We 
are going to Juarez, or Singapore, or wherever. We are going to 
Vietnam. We are going to Cambodia where we can pay people 30 cents a 
day; we can hire little children; we can work them 18 hours a day; we 
can imprison people if they try to organize and form a union, and we 
can torture people and violate people's human rights. There are some 70 
governments today in the world that systematically practice torture.
  Then, what these companies say to these countries is: OK, we will 
come to your country, but if you dare ever pass legislation allowing 
people the right to organize and bargain collectively, then we will 
leave, or we will not come. You had better not have any environmental 
standards that make it hard on us, or then we will not stay. You had 
better not pass any laws that protect little children so they don't 
have to work 18 hours a day at age 11, or we will not invest in your 
country.
  We are given all these arguments about how we should be 
internationalists. I am an internationalist. My father was born in 
Odessa, Ukraine. My father's family moved to stay one step ahead of the 
pogroms. He moved to Siberia in czarist Russia and then came here at 
age of 17. He fled czarist Russia. There was a revolution. He was going 
to go back, and his parents told him: Don't come back, the Communists 
have taken over, Kerenski is out and Lenin is in. He never saw his 
family again, and they, in all likelihood, were murdered by Stalin.

  My father spoke 10 languages fluently. I don't. But I am an 
internationalist. That is not the issue.
  I know we are part of an international economy. I just want to ask, 
are there not any new rules that go with this? Just as 100 years ago 
when we moved from a farm economy to a national economy to more of an 
industrial economy--remember what happened? The women said: We want the 
right to vote. And then workers organized for an 8-hour day and 40-hour 
week, and then other citizens, the farmers and Populists alliance, 
said: we want some antitrust action; these trusts are destroying our 
lives. And there was the Sherman Act and Clayton Act, and then other 
people said: we want direct election of Senators.
  There was a group of citizens who in a democracy demanded what they 
as citizens in a democracy had the courage to demand, which was: As we 
move from an agrarian to a national economy, make that national economy 
work not just for these huge companies, but for all of us, for our 
families and our children.
  Now we are in the 21st century. What we are saying is, with this new 
international economy, can't we make sure that this new economy works 
not just for large multinational corporations? Can't we make sure that 
this new international economy works for workers--workers here and 
workers in developing countries? Can't we make sure it works for the 
environment and works for human rights and democracy?
  It breaks my heart that we are told we can lead, but we can't lead 
with American values. What we are hearing from the administration and 
some of the proponents of this is: We have to do this. We have to lead. 
But we dare not--and believe me, I will have an amendment on the floor 
that will do this--we dare not tie this to human rights or democracy. 
There cannot be any mention of human rights or democracy in any of 
these trade agreements. We are asked to lead, but not lead with our 
values. We are asked to lead, but not stand for human rights. We are 
asked to lead, but not stand for democracy. As a first-generation 
American, the son of a Jewish immigrant who fled persecution from 
Russia, I reject that proposition.
  There is much I could say that is more technical, and I will as we 
get to amendments, but I have one other question. Why are we on this 
legislation? How about first raising the minimum wage? In the coffee 
shops of Minnesota, when I walk in with Sheila and have a cup of coffee 
and a piece of pie, people don't say: Are you going to get to fast 
track? People talk to me about wages. They talk to me a lot about 
education.
  How about a debate about when we are going to fully fund special 
education and live up to our commitment? The Presiding Officer, as a 
former Governor, knows what that is all about in Delaware.
  How about a debate about affordable prescription drugs for seniors, 
and for others as well? We should be able to reimport drugs from 
Canada. Farmers and consumers should be able to reimport drugs back 
from Canada, if they have met all their FDA requirements. It helps not 
only senior citizens but all of our citizens.
  How about going from $5.15 an hour which, if it kept up with 
inflation,

[[Page S3539]]

would be $8 an hour--$1.50 over the next 3 years?
  In the State of Minnesota, to be able to afford housing at minimum 
wage, you would have to work 127 hours a week. There are not 127 hours 
in a week. It is just unbelievable. We are the Democratic Party. I am, 
today, speaking for the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. 
Housing? In the State of Minnesota now, in the metro area, you will be 
lucky if you get a two-bedroom apartment for under $900.
  Childcare? If you had a 2-year-old and 3-year-old, you would be very 
lucky if your expenses were less than $1,000 a month.
  Of course, childcare workers make $6, $7, or $8 an hour with no 
health care benefits. You can't support yourself on minimum wage. If 
you are a single parent, that takes almost all of your income. It 
doesn't even meet the question of health care costs, food, 
transportation, and maybe once in a blue moon to go to a movie, or go 
out to eat.
  Why aren't we focusing on the basic concerns of working families? I 
make this appeal on the floor of the Senate. Why aren't we talking 
about raising the minimum wage? Why aren't we talking about minimum 
wage jobs? Why aren't we talking about affordable prescription drugs? 
Why aren't we talking about health security for all? Why aren't we 
talking about how to meet these exorbitant health care expenses that 
small businesses can't meet? Why aren't we talking about what we are 
going to do as more and more of our neighbors, parents, or grandparents 
live to be 80 and 85 to make sure they can stay at home and live at 
home with dignity and not be forced to go to nursing homes? Why aren't 
we talking to our health care providers and to our physicians about 
adequate Medicare? Why aren't we talking about how we can have more 
support for nurses and attract more teachers? Why aren't we talking 
about retaining more teachers? Why aren't we talking about doing more 
for K-12? Why aren't we talking about affordable higher education, how 
we can make sure that every child by kindergarten knows how to spell 
his names, knows the alphabet, the colors, the shapes, and the sizes 
when they are ready to go to school?
  Why in the world are we not focusing on these issues that are so 
important to the vast majority of the people we represent?
  Why are we talking about fast track? Why are we calling upon all of 
us to give up our constitutional authority to amend trade agreements; 
to give up our responsibility to represent the people back in our 
States in case these trade agreements are antithetical to their rights 
as workers, or to their environment, or to their safety, or to their 
children; or to the rights of consumers?
  I wouldn't do it for any President. Why don't I just lay my cards out 
on the table. Forgive me. I wouldn't do it for this President.
  I don't see that this administration is at all committed to raising 
the minimum wage, or to making sure people have the right to organize 
and bargain collectively for labor law reform, or, for that matter, to 
protecting against repetitive stress injury, and to ensuring a safe 
workplace.
  I don't think there is a great commitment on the part of this 
administration on behalf of the environment, consumers, or ordinary 
people who do not have all the capital and who make the huge 
contributions. I don't see a whole lot of commitment.
  Now we are going to give this administration fast-track authority? I 
didn't vote to give it to the last administration. We can't come out 
here with an amendment to try to make things better. We can't fight to 
represent the people back in our States. And the trade agreements that 
I have seen so far--every single one--do not represent fair trade. They 
don't have child labor standards. They don't have basic human rights 
standards. They don't have any standards for protection of the 
environment. At the end of the day, there are depressed wages for 
workers not only in our country but in the developing countries as 
well. I think we can do better.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Interest Rates For Student Loans

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have not had a chance to review the 
specifics of the President's proposal. Jill Morningstar works for me on 
education. She gave me a briefing last night, which I haven't had a 
chance to read.
  As I understand it, the administration is now basically proposing 
that students will not be able to consolidate some of their students 
loans in order to lower the interest rates and give them a break on 
interest rates.
  I want to say to the White House that this is a true no-brainer; that 
is to say, it is a nonstarter.
  I think the more the administration hears from higher education 
students in the State of Minnesota and around the country, the more 
they are going to realize that it is not true that these students when 
not in school are traveling around the swank ski resorts or playing on 
all the swank golf courses because they have a ton of money. It is not 
true. If they are 18, 19, and 20, many of them are working several jobs 
30 hours a week. Many of these students in my State--I bet in Delaware, 
too--are in their forties and fifties and are going back to school.
  I am the beneficiary of the National Defense Education Act, which was 
a low-interest rate loan, and I only had to pay half of it back because 
I went into teaching.
  We should be going in the direction of more affordable higher 
education--not less affordable.
  I think the bind this administration is in with their proposal is 
they are trying to figure out ways of supporting the Pell Grant Program 
because so far in their budget they don't have the support for it and 
the ability to find other pots of money.
  This is sort of an unconscionable tradeoff. This is not the way we 
get more funding for Pell grants or other worthy programs--basically by 
severely undercutting students' abilities to be able to combine their 
loans and pay a lower rate of interest.
  This is really anti-education. Frankly, it is anti-student.
  I want the higher education community in Minnesota to know that is 
why I came to the floor. I am adamantly opposed to this policy. I join 
the ranks of other Senators--Democrats and Republicans alike--in 
opposition.
  I think for many middle-income families higher education ranks right 
up there as one of the huge issues. It is very important.
  I imagine that back in my State--and other Senators and 
Representatives will be doing the same thing--I will be having some 
meetings with students. Unless I am wrong, I think we will see a 
tremendous reaction, a lot of organizing, and a lot of insistence that 
the administration change this policy.
  I am on the floor of the Senate today to call upon the White House to 
basically back away. They are going in the wrong direction. They are 
going to really feel the political heat. You should really feel the 
political heat.
  This is the bind we are in. All of these worthy programs are on a 
collision course with the tax cut. Let us have tax cuts. Let us do some 
of it, but there has to be balance.
  We have done so much by way of tax cuts. Now they want to make these 
tax cuts permanent. We no longer have revenue when it comes to 
affordable higher education, prekindergarten, welfare reform, money for 
childcare, money for TANF, affordable housing, special education, title 
I, support for COPS, support for firefighters assistance grants, and 
more research for all kinds of disabling diseases and illnesses.

  So many people in the last couple of days have come from our State 
asking about money for Alzheimer's, diabetes, Parkinson's, mental 
health, and on and on. The money isn't there. This is one little 
example.
  I come to the floor of the Senate to make clear my opposition to the 
direction the administration is going. I call on students to organize 
for higher education to make sure their voices are heard. I think the 
administration needs to hear from you because they are about to make it 
harder for you to afford your education. That is a distorted

[[Page S3540]]

priority. We ought not be making it harder for men and women--whatever 
their age--who want to pursue higher education. It makes no sense 
whatsoever.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to express my strong 
support for the motion to proceed to the Andean Trade Preference Act.
  Since 1991, the Andean Trade Preference Act has helped the countries 
of the Andean region--Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, and Colombia--to more 
than double their exports to the United States, to nearly $2 billion in 
the year 2000.
  At the same time, exports from the United States into the Andean 
nations saw a 65-percent increase between 1991 and 1999.
  Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru have not only increased their 
exports, they have accomplished another important objective to them and 
to the United States; and that is, they are developing new, 
nontraditional sectors of their economy. They are developing legitimate 
commercial exports as alternatives to the illicit drug trade which has 
so bedeviled these countries in the recent past. This has been a huge 
benefit not only to the four countries of the Andean region but to the 
United States as well.
  Today, as an example, 85 percent of Colombia's cut flowers go by 
export to the U.S. market. In fact, these flowers alone account for 80 
percent of the air freight between the United States and Colombia.
  In Peru, the asparagus industry has served as an example of what an 
alternative crop production can achieve--an alternative to illicit coca 
production. Asparagus, growing in Peru, now employs 40,000 people in a 
legal agricultural enterprise.
  In spite of this progress, regrettably, the ATPA expired last year on 
December 4, its 10th birthday. It is in the national interest of the 
United states of America, as well as the national interest of the four 
nations of the Andean region, that this Congress act now to restore and 
enhance this highly successful program.
  The House has already done so. In December of last year, it passed 
its version of Andean trade preference renewal and expansion. It is 
time for the Senate to do the same.
  Why is this legislation important? And why is it important now?
  I suggest three reasons: the grave consequences of inaction, the 
opportunity to strengthen the partnership between the United States and 
the Andean region, and as an important tool in our global war on 
terrorism.
  What are some of the consequences of inaction?
  The expiration of the ATPA is having an immediate and negative impact 
on the export industries that have blossomed under the benefits of this 
program, as well as industries that support this trade.
  In February of this year, 2 months after the ATPA had expired, I 
requested that the administration grant a deferral on the collection of 
those additional duties which came due as a result of the expiration of 
the ATPA.
  The President, in my judgment, agreed and used the administrative 
power to postpone the collection of those additional ATPA duties for 90 
days with the expectation that Congress, during that period of time, 
would renew and extend ATPA.
  That period of deferral is almost over. The 90-day clock runs out on 
May 16. If we have not completed all the work needed to pass this 
legislation into law by then--including passage by the Senate, a 
potential conference committee with the House of Representatives to 
resolve what differences might exist, and final signing into law by the 
President--if we do not do all of those acts by May 16, the U.S. 
Customs Service will start sending out bills for duties which would 
then be due and payable.
  These bills will be steep for both importers and their customers. An 
example: Annual imports of flowers totaling $400 million from the 
region are liable for duties of up to 6.8 percent. Example: Annual 
imports of asparagus worth $50 million will get an additional 20-
percent tariff. Example: Leather handbags and luggage imports of $20 
million a year are subject to a 10-percent tariff. Example: Imports of 
precious metal jewelry, worth $140 million a year, will face up to 7-
percent duties.
  I know the Presiding Officer is a caring man and probably--I would 
say no doubt--gave to his wife, maybe to his mother as well, beautiful 
flowers for Valentine's Day and is preparing to do the same for 
Mother's Day. Chances are great that those flowers he has and will 
provide to his loved ones came from an Andean country. And the risk of 
applying these additional tariffs to the two most significant days of 
the year for the sale of flesh cut flowers, Valentine's Day and 
Mother's Day, representing 50 percent of the total cut flower imports, 
will be enormous.
  Because of the temporary extension of ATPA, only the tariff duties 
have been deferred. Growers will still be responsible if the renewed 
ATPA fails to become law by May 16, only 4 days after Mother's Day. On 
top of that, if you send those flowers for Mother's Day, they will 
probably cost you about $6 more just because we have allowed ATPA to 
lapse.
  With the proven, positive economic returns of the current ATPA, we 
must not only renew these trade benefits; the time has come to expand 
them.
  The Andean landscape was noticeably changed in the year 2000 with the 
passage of the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act. That legislation 
provided the Caribbean nations significant new trade benefits, 
essentially parity with the benefits which Mexico has received under 
the North American Free Trade Agreement Act. But in helping the 
Caribbean Basin, we have inadvertently hurt the Andean region.
  The Andean apparel industry is tiny in comparison to the apparel 
industry in Mexico and the CBI countries. Of these three preferential 
trade arrangements in the Western Hemisphere, NAFTA accounts for 
approximately 55 percent of U.S. apparel imports. CBI has a 41-percent 
share. The Andean Trade Preference Act countries provide only 4 
percent.
  Despite its small share of our imports, the U.S. market is the 
recipient of over 90 percent of the Andean countries' apparel exports, 
so it is a small percentage of our imports of apparel from the Western 
Hemisphere. But our market is an extremely significant economic 
opportunity for these four countries. If Congress does not level the 
playing field between ATPA and the Caribbean Basin, the potential job 
loss is tremendous. Colombia alone stands to lose up to 100,000 jobs in 
just the apparel sector. As I will indicate later, there are already 
early indications of a significant relocation of the apparel assembly 
industry from the Andean trade area to CBI or Mexico because of the 
some 8- to 10-percent competitive advantage which Mexico and the 
Caribbean now have over the Andean region as it relates to the export 
of finished apparel products.

  U.S. imports of apparel from Colombia in 2001 were down 18 percent 
over the year 2000. Total apparel exports to the United States from the 
Andean region were down over 11 percent for the same timeframe.
  As a result, U.S. exports of cut pants to be assembled into apparel 
in the Andean countries was also down but down by an average of over 33 
percent. This reduction in exports, which support the apparel industry, 
illustrates how the lack of trade benefits clearly hurts both the 
United States and the Andean countries.
  We must create a business climate that can provide Andean citizens an 
alternative to illegal industries. Promoting legitimate economic 
development rather than leaving these countries at a competitive 
disadvantage with their near hemispheric neighbors, especially in 
highly mobile industries such as apparel, is a critical goal of this 
ATPA legislation.
  If we are successful in our counternarcotics efforts in Colombia 
alone, it is estimated that there will be a quarter of a million people 
out of work. A quarter of a million people in Colombia earn their 
living in the elicit drug trade. It is our national policy and goal

[[Page S3541]]

to try to eliminate that elicit drug trade. As part of that strategy, 
we have a role to play in developing legal alternative jobs for those 
people who we hope will lose their jobs in coca production and 
trafficking.
  It is ironic that at the same time we are asking the region to 
eliminate an illegal industry that contributes almost 5 percent of its 
gross domestic product, we have created an environment which makes it 
more difficult for those same countries to retain legitimate 
industries.
  It is imperative that we correct that inequality now and send a 
strong signal with a renewed and expanded Andean Trade Preference Act.
  I have been talking about some of the immediate and microconsequences 
of inaction by the Senate. There are macroconsequences as well. As you 
can see in the chart I have brought, the Andean region is bordered on 
the north by Venezuela and on the south by Argentina. Venezuela, as 
evidenced by events in recent days, is facing an increasingly volatile 
and unstable political future. To the south, in Argentina, the economic 
situation is still reeling. Without active U.S. involvement in the 
region, the Andean nations could share the same fate as their northern 
and southern neighbors.
  Our Andean neighbors are trying desperately to keep their houses from 
catching fire.
  But the houses on both ends of the block are already in flames. The 
ATPA duty preferences expired, and the Andean countries are fighting 
that fire with water through buckets. We need a renewed and expanded 
ATPA to give them a big firetruck with a steady and reliable stream. We 
are sending exactly the wrong signal to our neighbors if we do not take 
active steps at this pivotal time.
  The second reason this is important is the building of partnerships 
between the United States and the Andean region. While the clock is 
ticking on Congress to act on ATPA legislation, there is another clock 
ticking in the Andean region and the Western Hemisphere, including the 
United States, in the area of apparel production. For now, many of the 
largest apparel assembly countries in Asia have been at a comparative 
advantage in the production of apparel. As an example, these two golf 
shirts, sold by the same company, same label, same color, would be 
considered identical. There is a difference. If you look inside the 
one, you will see that it was made in Nicaragua; the other was made in 
China. Other than that, they are identical.
  One other area in which they are different--they both sell for 
approximately $20--is the shirt that is made in Nicaragua costs 10 
percent more to produce than the shirt made in China. The shirt made in 
Nicaragua started as cotton grown in a U.S. field. That cotton was then 
made into the material from which this shirt was made. That material 
was then sent to Nicaragua, where it was assembled into this golf 
shirt. This shirt from China was made from Chinese cotton, converted 
into textile in a Chinese textile factory, and then assembled by 
Chinese workers.
  That is a significant part of the reason, even though this had to 
come halfway around the world; whereas the one from Nicaragua only a 
few hundred miles, and the shirt from China costs 10 percent less to 
produce than did the shirt from Nicaragua. How has this imbalance been 
maintained? It has been maintained because the United States, as part 
of what is called the Multifiber Agreement, sets an annual limit on how 
much product of a particular apparel can be exported into the United 
States.
  As an example, under current agreements, China is limited to 
exporting 2.374 million dozen golf shirts to the United States per 
year. That restriction on the amount of product that can be exported to 
the United States is a significant reason the partnership of the United 
States growing the raw material, converting it into clothing material, 
then shipping that to a Caribbean, Mexican, or Andean assembly factory 
for final conversion into the wearable product has been able to sustain 
itself.
  In the year 2005, the Multifiber Agreement goes out of effect. In the 
next 3 years, the apparel industry in the Western Hemisphere must get 
substantially more efficient in order to compete with China and the 
other major Asian producers, which will likewise come out from under 
the restrictions of the Multifiber Agreement in 2005. Failure to become 
much more efficient, in my judgment, puts the whole partnership of U.S. 
agriculture, U.S. textile, and Caribbean, Mexican, or Andean assembly 
in serious jeopardy.
  The assembly operations in this hemisphere, under our law--including 
the law we are now considering extending--must use U.S. fabric and 
yarn, buy U.S.-made sewing machines and equipment, and use U.S.-grown 
cotton and other fabric materials. If these industries do not become 
more efficient in the Andean region, the Caribbean, and Mexico, they 
will lose out in global competition to Asia. Then, American raw 
materials and equipment, and some 40,000 to 50,000 Americans who are 
involved in producing the material that goes into these garments that 
are assembled within the hemisphere will all be completely out of the 
picture. With the enhancement of the Caribbean Basin Initiative in 
2000, fabric exports to Caribbean nations from America, or assembly of 
apparel items, rose 170 percent since 1999.

  Last year, the United States exported $3 billion in cut parts to 
Caribbean nations, which supported some 60,000 jobs in the United 
States, 40,000 to 50,000 of which were in the textile industry. This 
increase in cut parts exports came despite an overall decline in U.S. 
exports of finished apparel from CBI countries.
  What this all means is apparel manufacturers are substituting U.S. 
fabric and yarn for foreign inputs, proving that the partnership 
between the U.S. textile and yarn producers and the Caribbean assembly 
operators is working. That is the same result we hope to achieve in the 
Andean region. If we can make importing our fabrics more affordable, 
based on trade benefits and reduced tariffs, then American jobs will be 
saved.
  But passing trade preference legislation is only part of the equation 
for making the apparel sector more efficient within our hemisphere. 
There must also be comprehensive implementation of both the letter of 
the law and the spirit behind it. Legislation expanding CBI in 2000 was 
a good example. Congress expanded the trade benefits for apparel 
assembled in the region from U.S. yarn and fabric. But there are still 
many more hurdles to clear before the region will be an efficient 
manufacturer of apparel--efficient in terms of our ability to compete 
with Asian manufacturers.
  Secretary of Commerce Don Evans has taken the lead in coordinating 
the administration's long-term implementation of the Caribbean Basin 
Initiative. Last year, the Department of Commerce canvassed its 
overseas post in the Caribbean to identify other problems that are 
holding the countries back from more efficient production. The 
Department's exports identified issues such as poor transportation 
systems, high energy costs, unreliable energy supply, and the 
unpredictable business climate as obstacles to greater efficiency in 
the Caribbean assembly industry.
  This year, the Department of Commerce has assembled an initiative to 
begin tackling some of these problems. When we pass Andean trade 
preference enhancement--and I am very optimistic that we will--there 
must be a similar effort to assure that not only are the trade benefits 
implemented but the region, as a whole, is prepared to meet the 
challenges of the sharply increased competition it will face in the 
post-2005 world.
  The third and final reason I think this is important--and important 
now--is the role that this legislation will play in our effort to 
combat narcotics and counterterrorism. The ATPA is more than just good 
trade policy. The ATPA is a key tool in fighting our Nation's war 
against terrorism.
  Recently, the Director of the CIA, Mr. George Tenet, came before the 
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, of which I am privileged to be 
the Chair, and said Latin America is ``becoming increasingly volatile 
as the potential for instability there grows.'' One reason he cited was 
the sluggish, oftentimes downward spiraling economy in Latin America. 
What was the other reason? Terrorism.
  Some of the worst terror and violence in the world is happening in 
the Western Hemisphere. In Latin America, the evil hand of terror has 
become

[[Page S3542]]

an everyday reality for too many. In Colombia, for example, 
paramilitary forces linked to the drug trade have instilled fear 
through random kidnappings and bombings. A statistic which I think 
would stun most citizens of the United States is this: In the year 
2000, of all the worldwide incidents of terrorist attacks against 
United States citizens and United States interests, over 44 percent of 
those worldwide terrorist attacks against Americans occurred in a 
single country, Colombia.
  Today in Colombia there is no substantial difference between one who 
is a drug trafficker and one who is a terrorist. Recent events, such as 
the indictment in a United States court of four members of the primary 
terrorist organization in Colombia, known by the name of FARC, on drug 
charges, confirm this trend.
  In the early days in the Andean region the drug traffickers who were 
providing cocaine were highly centralized. They had a chief executive 
officer. They were vertically integrated. That started with growing of 
the coca in the fields to financing its distribution in the United 
States and other demand countries.
  We made a major effort--we the civilized world, with the United 
States playing a key role--to take down these highly centralized drug 
organizations, particularly the Medellin and the Cali cartels. After a 
long period of significant investment and loss of life, we, the 
Colombians, and the international community were successful.
  We thought that by taking the head off the drug cartel snake, we 
would kill the rest of the body. In fact, what we found in the late 
1990s was these decapitated snakes were beginning to reconstitute 
themselves, and they were moving away from the large corporate model 
towards a more entrepreneurial model; where they used to have 
vertically integrated parts of the drug chain, now they have multiple, 
small drug traffickers for each phase of the process, from growing in 
the field to transporting, to the financing of the drug trade.
  For a period of time, these new entrepreneurial drug traffickers 
found themselves at risk because they did not have the security blanket 
that the old centralized system had provided. So they turned to the 
modern economic guerrillas, the Al Capones of Colombia, and made a 
pact. The pact was: We will pay you well if you will provide us 
security so we can continue to conduct our illicit drug activities.
  For awhile, that was the deal, but then the Scarfaces figured out: We 
are providing the capability of these drug traffickers to do their 
business, but they are making a lot more money in drug trafficking than 
we are in providing the security for the drug traffickers. So why do we 
not become drug traffickers ourselves? And they did.
  By the end of the 1990s, the drug trade, particularly in Colombia, 
had been largely taken over by the former ideological guerrillas who 
had become the Al Capones and now were becoming drug traffickers.
  The motives of those who commit violent acts throughout the world are 
variant, but one thread is predominant in nations plagued by 
terrorists: An economy unable to provide hope or a legitimate means for 
the people to earn a living. In Colombia, this condition is fed by the 
illegal businesses that are the root of violence: Drug cultivation and 
smuggling.
  The recent escalation of tensions in Colombia magnifies the urgency 
of America's involvement in helping to sustain South America's oldest 
democracy, Colombia. At the same time, Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia are 
also vulnerable to the surge of the illicit narcotics trade as they 
have developed alternative business programs.

  Fifteen years ago, most of the cocaine in the region was grown in 
Peru and Bolivia and then transported to Colombia for processing. Those 
levels have been dramatically reduced, in large part because local 
farmers have been encouraged, in significant part through U.S. 
programs, to make the transition from illegal cocaine to a legal 
agricultural crop. With this continued commitment, our neighbors will 
have incentives to develop both legitimate economic alternatives to the 
production of drugs and real avenues to end the violence that plagues 
so much of our hemisphere.
  If we are serious about halting the flow of illegal drugs to the 
United States, if we are committed to contributing to the stabilization 
of our nearest neighbors in the hemisphere, and if we are steadfast in 
our war against terrorism, then the United States must act now to both 
extend and expand these portrayed benefits, important for us and 
important for the four countries of the Andean region.
  Time is short for the people of our regions who stand to lose should 
we fail to pass this legislation. The time is now. The days between now 
and when the crisis occurs on May 16 are few. I urge my colleagues to 
expeditiously move to the passage of this legislation, to the 
resolution of differences, and to accept the invitation to attend a 
signing ceremony in the Rose Garden and then to see that the roses of 
hope will begin to bloom again in the backyards and fields of our 
neighbors in the Andean region.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I appreciate the indulgence of my 
colleague from South Carolina. I will speak for 5 or 10 minutes. I 
thank him for the courtesy.
  Madam President, the Senate is embarking on a historic debate, one in 
which we have the opportunity to expand economies, promote job 
creation, and reduce poverty, in the United States and around the 
world. As we consider this package of trade bills and debate whether to 
grant the President trade promotion authority, I hope we remain focused 
on the big picture. Both collectively and individually, these bills 
promote the expansion of global free trade and the prosperity that 
attends it.
  Since the end of World War II, the United States has served as a 
global leader and champion of free trade. Regrettably, a recent surge 
of protectionism, often driven by special interests that care nothing 
for the welfare of the average American consumer, has severely 
handicapped our leadership. Major U.S. trading partners doubt our 
dedication to free trade, and not without cause. Recent protectionist 
policies on lumber and, most egregiously, on steel have fueled the 
scorn of our global trading partners--and rightly so. Failing to pass 
trade promotion authority will forfeit our nation's legitimacy as a 
global free trade leader and confirm the views of critics around the 
world who don't take our devotion to free trade, and consequently our 
global leadership, seriously. We cannot let this happen.
  The authority first established by the Trade Act of 1974 and now 
proposed in TPA expired eight years ago. Since then, numerous trade 
agreements, in which the United States has not participated, have been 
negotiated and implemented around the world. The simple fact is that 
our trading partners are unwilling to negotiate agreements with an 
administration that lacks TPA.
  Today, there are 130 preferential trade agreements, and the United 
States is a party to three of them.
  Similarly, the United States is a party to only one of the 30 free 
trade agreements in the Western Hemisphere. Those 156 agreements to 
which we are not a signatory represent missed opportunities for all 
Americans.
  The American people benefit enormously from trade, even if they often 
don't realize it. Today, over 12 million U.S. jobs depend on exports, 
and those jobs pay wages that are 13 to 18 percent higher than the 
national average. Every day, American consumers reap the benefits of 
trade in the form of lower-priced goods and services. The office of the 
U.S. Trade Representative estimates that the combined benefits of the 
North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, and the Uruguay round 
agreements have saved the average American family of four between 
$1,300 and $2,000 a year. A University of Michigan study found that a 
global reduction of trade barriers could result in an additional income 
gain of $2,500 for the average American family of four.
  Too often, our Nation's approach to trade has been to open foreign 
markets

[[Page S3543]]

to American goods and services while erecting domestic barriers to 
foreign imports. But trade does not work that way. It is, by 
definition, a two-way street. Continuing along this protectionist path 
will ultimately cause more damage to the very American industries 
clamoring for protection today. Without reciprocity, the farmers and 
corporations of this Nation will soon lose access to the valuable 
markets they depend on to sell their goods. Such an approach turns 
trade, a positive-sum game in which all parties benefit from expanded 
economic opportunity, into a zero-sum game strangely reminiscent of a 
discredited, mercantilist past.

  Expanding free trade is a way to improve the well-being of all 
Americans, particularly the working poor. The most basic economic 
analysis shows that tariffs represent an unfair tax on an already 
overtaxed public. Reducing barriers to trade is the equivalent of a tax 
cut for every consumer. Presidential trade negotiating authority was 
necessary in the past to reach the agreements from which Americans 
currently benefit. That same authority is needed for this 
administration and others to negotiate future agreements, to build on 
our prosperity.
  By enabling the negotiation of bilateral and multilateral trade 
agreements, TPA will empower the President to eliminate trade barriers, 
reduce tariffs, and open foreign markets to American goods and 
services. American workers, farmers, businessmen, and consumers will 
benefit from the successful completion of the World Trade Organization 
negotiations in Doha, regional free trade agreements like the Free 
Trade Area of the Americas, and bilateral trade agreements such as 
those we hope to achieve soon with Singapore and Chile.
  On a regional level, it is particularly urgent that we support our 
allies in the hemisphere by deepening our trade relationship with them, 
in order to advance broader American interests in Latin America. Let 
there be no doubt: the Andean Trade Preference Expansion Act is 
important to U.S. national security and the security of the 
democratically elected governments in the Andean region.
  In 1991, former President Bush signed into law the Andean Trade Act. 
In a fresh approach to the war on drugs, he argued that promoting trade 
between the United States and the countries of the Andean region would 
expand their economies, create jobs outside the drug trade, and 
increase stability in the Andean region. After a decade in which 
democracy has taken root in these nations, these goals are even more 
important.
  Although the original Andean Trade Act represented a modest effort--
granting duty-free or reduced tariff treatment to a limited number of 
goods from Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru--it has produced many 
successes. Two-way trade between the United States and the Andean 
nations has more than doubled since 1991, and new industries have 
emerged as a result of the reduced-tariff benefits or the agreements.
  In Colombia, for example, the fresh-cut flower industry has created 
over 150,000 new jobs. These people are now harvesting and planting 
flowers rather than trafficking illegal drugs. Similarly, in Peru, the 
benefits of the Andean Trade Act encouraged farmers to cultivate 
asparagus, creating 50,000 new jobs, and making asparagus that 
country's largest export crop to the United States. Today, farmers in 
the region are choosing to plant products to be exported under the 
Andean Trade Act, rather than coca. Our strategic goals in the region 
require us to build upon these successes.
  The Colombia conflict lends particular urgency to the need for swift 
congressional action on Andean trade expansion. Not only are Colombia's 
people at risk from the FARC terrorists, Colombia's democracy is at 
risk from the corrosive effects decades of civil war have had on her 
institutions and her economy. The military and intelligence assistance 
America provides to Colombia is critical, but it is only a part of our 
policy response. We have an obligation to help our ally not only to 
defeat the terrorists, but to build the foundation for a lasting peace 
by supporting economic development in Colombia. Andean trade expansion 
provides a way to do that without costing U.S. taxpayers a dime.
  The government of the region, burdened by the spillover effects of 
the Colombian conflict, are the most eloquent advocates for the 
tangible benefits provided by the Andean trade agreement. The group of 
nations that benefit from the act are critical to the hemispheric 
stability, prosperity, and democracy America has worked to foster in 
the region. These nations stand with us in wanting to end the economic 
despair and dislocation the Colombian conflict has projected across 
their borders. It is in America's interest to counter the economic 
destabilization that war has brought to Colombia's neighbors with the 
broad-based economic growth that represents the region's best hope.
  The arguments that drive support for the Andean Trade Preference 
Expansion Act demonstrate how trade and development in the Andean 
region increase our national security. I hope the Senate will act 
swiftly on the ATPA, given the expiration of existing Andean trade 
preferences on May 16, as we accelerate our efforts to build prosperity 
and consolidate democracy in the region.
  As we consider this entire legislative package, I would caution my 
colleagues against further efforts to restrict free trade. I hope we 
will avoid the temptation to support veiled protectionist measures in 
order to secure passage of this bill. We cannot, in good faith, work to 
promote trade liberalization with one hand while restricting it with 
the other. Such an approach will not further the expansion of global 
free trade. Indeed, it will only solidify the distrust of our allies 
and trading partners while doing nothing to increase the prosperity of 
the American people.
  A critical component of this trade bill is how to develop the best 
possible solution for providing assistance to hard-working Americans 
who may lose their health insurance coverage as an unintended result of 
this legislation. This is a real concern and one that we must take 
seriously. However, we can't allow this issue to be politicized and 
used to deter the passage of this important trade bill. Both sides of 
the aisle have made significant progress toward a compromise. Now we 
must continue compromising until we iron out a fair and sound solution 
for addressing the health care needs of our Nation's workers.
  Ensuring access to affordable and quality health care for all 
Americans must be a priority, and I commend each of my colleagues who 
are fighting for health care protections for workers possibly impacted 
by this bill. But this simply can't be done if partisan politics 
prevent us from working together to find a solution that is good for 
our workers and the overall quality of our health care system.
  I look forward to this broad trade debate. I believe it is healthy 
for our Nation and our democracy for our leaders to make what is a 
compelling intellectual case for free trade, and to demonstrate to the 
American people how successful trade liberalization represents money in 
the pockets. We now have the opportunity to reverse the recent 
protectionist tide. It is time that we look to the future, consider the 
long-term interests of our Nation, and work urgently to provide the 
President with the authority he needs to negotiate for free trade.
  Madam President, I reiterate, the situation in the four countries of 
Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Peru is such that we cannot delay, 
longer than May 16, passage of the Andean Trade Preference Expansion 
Act. I cannot tell you the problems that will result in that very 
delicate region of our hemisphere at that time if the Andean Trade 
Preference Expansion Act is not renewed.
  Colombia is in serious trouble. Peru has only recently emerged from a 
very difficult period. Ecuador has been directly impacted by the 
conflict within Colombia. And, of course, Bolivia has had severe 
economic problems for a long period of time.
  This is a small step but a very important one. And our failure--our 
failure--to act on this legislation I think would send a very bitter 
message to our friends and allies in our own hemisphere.
  After passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement, America's 
goal was to have a hemispheric free trade agreement within a short 
period of time. Obviously we have fallen very short of that.

[[Page S3544]]

  I look forward to a vigorous debate with my friend from South 
Carolina and my friend from North Dakota who just came to the Chamber. 
I hope this debate is based on our mutual concern for the workers of 
America, but that concern should also be balanced by our concern for 
the average working men and families in America who will find that 
goods and services are less expensive to them. History proves it. No, 
we don't like to see lumber workers or cotton farmers or wheat farmers 
or anybody else harmed by free trade. We can take care of that impact 
on our economy and still serve the greater good of our entire Nation.
  I have had the great privilege of visiting South Carolina on many 
occasions. One of the greatest products of free trade is the BMW plant, 
which the Senator from South Carolina was instrumental in attracting to 
that great State. It is always a privilege for me to go back and visit.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague 
from Arizona, ranking member and former chairman of our Commerce 
Committee.
  The fact is, where we have that BMW plant, just 2 years ago, in 
Spartanburg County, we had 3.2 percent unemployment; it is now 6.1 
percent. It is just an outflow, a stampede almost of the exportation of 
textile jobs in South Carolina. Since NAFTA we have lost 53,900 jobs. 
That is one of the things they are debating with respect to trade 
adjustment assistance to get health care. If you are going to have 
trade adjustment assistance, I certainly want to apply it to those lost 
jobs. They are out there struggling in the sense that almost, in a way, 
I don't have any more jobs to lose. I have to apply it to those because 
they are retrained and skilled.
  I gave the example of Oneida, the little T-shirt plant where they had 
more than 400 employees with an average age of 47 years old, lose their 
jobs. So they trained them as expert computer operators, as Washington 
tells them to do. Who is going to hire the 47-year-old? They are going 
to hire 21-year-olds. So they are still out of a job. That is the 
desperate circumstance that is going on all over the country.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend from South Carolina. He has the floor. 
May I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute to respond?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I say to the Senator from South Carolina, I know there 
are individual and heartbreaking stories of people who have lost their 
jobs in the textile industry in South Carolina. The fact remains that 
history and the record show that every American family, whether they 
are unemployed or employed or rich or poor, has benefited by the 
importation of less expensive goods and services into the United 
States. We balance this with assistance, training, in every way we can, 
including reaching agreement on health benefits for dislocated workers.
  I never have sold anything to a grocery store. I bought a lot from 
grocery stores. I buy flowers a lot cheaper when they are grown in 
Colombia than when they are grown in South Carolina. It has never been 
my ambition for any child to grow up to work in a textile factory. I 
would much rather have them work in a BMW plant or high-tech factory or 
other kinds of employment for which we can provide the training and 
education.
  I hope the Senator understands the fact that Americans have profited 
by free trade enormously. Yet we can still address the specific 
problems that result from dislocated workers. That is what free trade 
is all about. That is why I believe this Nation will continue to 
prosper when we have free trade agreements consummated between 
ourselves and our neighbors. We should be concerned about the economy 
of countries such as Colombia because their narcotraffickers can take 
over that country and export their goods, which are drugs, into this 
one.
  I thank the Senator from South Carolina. I look forward to a renewal 
of our spirited discussion which we have had for many years, always 
marked by respect for the views of the junior Senator from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona. There 
is no question that they are better jobs, but textiles are very good 
paying jobs at $10 and some odd cents an hour. Those are middle class 
Americans.
  The Senator is correct, facts are facts. That is why this particular 
Senator, as Governor some 40 years ago, went to Europe to get that BMW 
plant. I didn't get BMW at that particular time. Since that time, in my 
travels to Germany, we now have in South Carolina 117 German plants in 
my little State. So, yes, we have gotten way better jobs. We have 
continued to work on that.
  But I would just address a few comments with respect to the need for 
the trade bill. I heard my distinguished leader earlier today. He 
outlined the need for the trade bill. He said: Wait a minute, you have 
to understand, after all, these are just singular examples that I had 
given earlier in the morning's debate with respect to Vietnam and 
Jordan. Those are just one country. He said: But when you have 
multilateral countries, it is sort of hard to get them all together and 
then get an agreement, then bring it back to the Congress and have 
amendments.
  Not so. The Andean trade agreement we are now discussing involves 
several countries. Without fast track, we have listed in the 2001 Trade 
Policy Agenda and 2000 Annual Report by the U.S. Trade Representative, 
some 100 different agreements. I have gleaned many of them. Of course, 
the African Growth Opportunity Trade Agreement, involved a few dozen 
countries. We got that without fast track. We told President Clinton we 
didn't want to abdicate our responsibility in regulating foreign 
commerce.
  Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, says the Congress shall 
regulate foreign commerce. It doesn't say the President, or the Supreme 
Court, but the congressional branch, the legislative branch. We were 
not going to abdicate that authority, which we are being asked to do at 
the present time.
  We didn't do it. And to refute that argument with respect to the 
multilateral requirements, the Caribbean Basin Initiative with nine 
countries; the chemical weapons treaty, of course, that we debated 
during the Clinton administration, there were over 100 countries; the 
semiconductor agreement with the European Union, the United States, 
Japan, and Korea, more than a dozen countries joined in that one 
without fast track; the telecommunications agreement with the Asia 
Pacific countries, that was more than a dozen countries involved there; 
the international tropical timber agreement with numerous countries, 
the United States; Central American Regional Trade Investment Agreement 
in November of 1998, there were nine countries; the WTO 
telecommunications agreement in 1997, that was some five dozen 
countries. So was the WTO financial agreement in 1999. I could go on 
and on.
  Don't be sold a bill of goods about the difficulty of fine points and 
numerous countries. That happens right regularly, and that is why you 
have trade agreements, and that is why we have been able to get over a 
hundred during the past 10 years alone.

  Now, Madam President, the next point that was made was that the 
United States has only 4 percent of the world's consumers. Of course, 
right to the point, the distinguished leadership is confusing the 
population with numbers of consumers. What we are really interested in 
is that 4 percent. Those who are opposing fast track are interested in 
those 4 percent of consumers because, unless you have a job and are 
making a living, we have consumers going out of business. That is the 
stopping, the cessation of consumption that has this economy in a funk.
  I just had a gentleman, from SBC Communications, telling me how his 
stock had gone down. I said: Meet the group. MCI has changed leaders 
today. So you have all of these telecommunications companies that are 
high-tech, and more growth, and they are in a funk because we don't 
have manufacturing, we don't have jobs. We have been exporting jobs 
faster than we can possibly create them. The United States also has the 
most skilled and productive workforce in the world--what is left?
  I pointed out here, with respect to the steel, that I commend 
President Bush for his recent actions. Mr. McNamara, the former 
Secretary of Defense and head of the World Bank, went running all 
around to the Third World

[[Page S3545]]

emerging countries telling them they could not become a nation state 
unless they had steel--the capacity to produce steel for the weapons of 
war and the tools of agriculture. As a result, I look outside my office 
in Charleston at the dock, and they are off-loading Brazilian steel for 
construction all over the Southeast. Some 20 miles away is Nucor, the 
most productive, modern, competitive steel plant in the world. But how 
can they compete when the Brazilians are dropping steel off at less 
than cost on the dock there in Charleston. The rules are not being 
enforced.
  What we need is not a free trade policy, we need competitive trade; 
we need to go back to the word itself--``trade''--something for 
something. Not aid. That is what the Andean thing is all about down 
there with Colombia, Ecuador, and Bolivia. They are saying: Look, get 
out of the drug business. That is what this initiative is about. Get 
out of the drug business and grow pineapples and bananas and that kind 
of thing.
  I went and asked--in one of the meetings where I was getting a 
briefing in Bolivia a few years ago--what about this growing of 
pineapples. He looked at me and laughed. He said: You think I am going 
to struggle growing pineapples when I can get a little crop going and 
make a whole year's income in a week's time, when it would take a year 
with the pineapple crop, and have to worry about the weather?
  He said: With these drugs, you don't worry about the weather.
  Incidentally, he pointed out on the map an area as big as Georgia. He 
said: That is off limits for the Bolivian policy. We can grow anything 
we want to there.
  Let's get into these trade agreements in depth and find out what is 
going on. The tail of the drug war is wagging the trade policy of 
America. I went up 14,000 feet to La Paz and they were chewing the 
drugs walking up and down the street. Oh, we had a wonderful thing. We 
had conquered a little bit of it. We had not conquered much. What was 
in Bolivia went into Colombia, and it gets into Peru and Ecuador--those 
four countries. The United States has one of the most open markets in 
the world. Well, that is exactly what they all argue, and everything 
else, that our open market is going to open their closed markets. In 
the 1990s, they argued that if we get these trade agreements, we will 
open the markets. We have yet to get into Japan or Korea.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent--is the Senator from Arizona 
ready to speak?
  Mr. KYL. I am. But if the Senator wants to close, that is okay.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield from my time 10 minutes to the 
Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I will complete this quickly.
  Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent to 
be recognized following Senator Kyl's presentation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I have to respond to Senator 
Kyl because this deals with Senator Leahy's committee.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, if I might suggest this: Probably Senator 
Reid and I will have a colloquy over a series of unanimous consent 
requests that I will make. I will just count that on my time. When I am 
done, I will certainly have no objection to the Senator from North 
Dakota speaking.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the colleagues in the Chamber for allowing me 
to have a few more minutes. I wanted to make an important point.
  Ten years ago, in 1992, they said that is what we needed, just 
exactly what they said--to open up the markets. We would get these 
agreements to open up the markets. So here is a booklet by the Special 
Trade Representative on foreign trade barriers, and it equaled some 262 
pages. Now, after we have gotten the NAFTA agreement, which was to open 
up markets, and after we have gotten WTO, which is a multilateral 
agreement--incidentally, let's find out how many markets have been 
opened. The book now has gone from 262 pages to 455 pages. It has 
doubled.
  We have doubled the foreign trade barriers. All these wonderful free 
trade agreements were supposed to open up the markets. You continually 
hear that, but that isn't what occurs. Twelve million export-related 
jobs are manufacturing jobs. There are less than 17 million 
manufacturing jobs left in the country. Manufacturing has gone from 26 
percent of the workforce 10 years ago to 12 or 13 percent today. The 
export-related jobs pay 13 percent to 18 percent more. Definitely, the 
manufacturing jobs do pay more. The union jobs, in a general sense--
such as the Longshoremen and the AFL-CIO--are the ones opposed to fast 
track, vigorously, because they are exporting their jobs out from under 
them.
  The balance of trade--you cannot turn back the clock on trade any 
more than on technologies; namely, typewriters versus computers. This 
is the old argument about, wait a minute now, we went from the horse 
and buggy days to the automobile, and now in trade we are going from 
typewriters to computers.
  Here is a sample of the U.S. trade deficit in the world. We have a 
$20 billion deficit in the balance of trade with computers. We have a 
deficit in the balance of trade with cellular telephones, pacemakers, 
night vision equipment and other telescopes, and electrocardiographs. I 
could go on and on. The idea that, son, you don't understand, we are 
moving into globalization, and we have moved now from typewriters to 
computers. I told the story years ago as a witness.
  I was told: Look here, let them make the clothing and the shoes. We 
will make the airplanes and computers. The truth is they are making the 
shoes and clothing and the airplanes and computers.
  Finally--and I am trying to close down for my distinguished friend 
from Arizona. In the 1990s, we liberalized trade and saw record 
economic growth and job creation, some 20 million new jobs created from 
1994 to 2000, and without fast track.

  I do not know who got these points up for the distinguished leader 
about why we need it, because, yes, we had wonderful economic growth, 
but we had that without fast track. That was due to another measure 
that we passed in 1993.
  I thank the distinguished Senator, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). The Senator from 
Arizona.


                          Judicial Nominations

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from 
South Carolina, and I ask that the record reflect my agreement with my 
colleague, Senator McCain, on this matter. Since I have agreed with 
Senator Reid to discuss another matter, I will simply indicate at a 
later time I will make remarks concerning both the Andean trade bill as 
well as trade promotion authority.
  There is another matter which is very timely. As a matter of fact, it 
is important we speak on it now because there is scant time to get some 
very important business done in the Senate, which has to do with the 
confirmation of judges but more specifically the holding of hearings on 
judges because they cannot be confirmed until there has been a hearing 
on them. For too many of our judges, we do not even have hearings 
scheduled.
  It would be one thing if we waited 2 or 3 months after a nomination 
to schedule a hearing, but I am speaking of people who have been 
nominated now for almost an entire year and there has never been a 
hearing scheduled for them. I am going to take a minute or two to talk 
about who they are.
  I will quote briefly from a Washington Post editorial and then 
propound a series of unanimous consent requests that will perhaps move 
us toward the hearings we need to get these judges confirmed.
  Preliminarily, Democrats and Republicans can both cite a lot of 
statistics about judges confirmed under one administration or another, 
and can pat themselves on the back about a job well done. But it seems 
to me one thing stands out that is unmistakably clear, and that is when 
the President has nominated a distinguished American to serve on a 
Federal district court or, in this case, a Federal circuit court of 
appeals, and the Senate does not deign to

[[Page S3546]]

give those people a hearing for over a year, something is wrong.

  There is no excuse for holding someone for a full year. It has now 
been a year, minus 1 week, since the President made his first circuit 
court of appeals nominations, 11 in all. Eight of them have never had a 
hearing.
  Quoting briefly from this Washington Post article of April 22:

       It has been nearly a year since President Bush nominated 
     his first batch of judges.

  Parenthetically, that was done on May 9, 2001.

       Of the initial group of 11 appeals court nominees, 8 have 
     still not had hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. 
     Two of these nominees are of particular local interest: John 
     Roberts and Miguel Estrada. Both have been nominated to the 
     D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which currently has 4 of its 
     12 seats vacant. Both, on the surface anyway, seem well 
     qualified, having done extensive appellate work in the 
     solicitor general's office and in private practice. Both have 
     high profile bipartisan support. Yet neither has moved. And 
     while Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy has said 
     that Mr. Estrada will receive a hearing this year, he has 
     pointedly failed to promise the same for Mr. Roberts.

  Skipping part of the editorial to two other quotes:

       Nominees should receive timely consideration out of 
     deference to the President, out of respect for the 
     institutional needs of the judiciary, and out of a sense of 
     fairness to the individuals. But delays are particularly 
     objectionable when nobody will even come forward to make a 
     case against the nomination.

  The final three sentences of the editorial:

       If there is a case to be made against either nominee, the 
     onus is on opponents to make it and its proper forum is a 
     hearing. If there is no case, the Senate should move to a 
     vote. Either way, further delay is not the answer.

  I ask unanimous consent that this Washington Post editorial dated 
Monday, April 22, 2002, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Apr. 22, 2002]

                           Give 'em Hearings

       It has been nearly a year since President Bush nominated 
     his first batch of judges. Of the initial group of 11 appeals 
     court nominees, eight have still not had hearings before the 
     Senate Judiciary Committee. Two of these nominees are of 
     particular local interest: John Roberts and Miguel Estrada. 
     Both have been nominated to the D.C. Circuit Court of 
     Appeals, which currently has four of its 12 seats vacant. 
     Both, on the surface anyway, seem well qualified--having done 
     extensive appellate work in the solicitor general's office 
     and in private practice. Both have high-profile bipartisan 
     support. Yet neither has moved. And while Judiciary Committee 
     Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has said that Mr. Estrada will 
     receive a hearing this year, he has pointedly failed to 
     promise the same for Mr. Roberts.
       Mr. Leahy is in a tough spot. He has taken a beating for 
     his handling of judicial nominations, a beating that is 
     largely unfair. The Senate has confirmed 45 judges since he 
     took over the committee, which is a respectable pace. He 
     certainly has not yet begun to match the obstructionism with 
     which the same Senate Republicans who now criticize him 
     managed the confirmation process while they were in charge of 
     it. Neither, however, has he entirely restored dignity and 
     fairness to it. Rather, like his predecessor Orrin Hatch (R-
     Utah), he is allowing individual nominness to sit around with 
     no explanation for what are turning out to be long periods of 
     time. These delays are hard to justify under any 
     circumstances. Nominees should receive timely consideration 
     out of deference to the president, out of respect for the 
     institutional needs of the judiciary, and out of a sense of 
     fairness to the individuals. But delays are particularly 
     objectionable when nobody will even come forward to make a 
     case against the nomination.
       So far, anyway, nobody has made a serious case against Mr. 
     Roberts or Mr. Estrada--neither of whom has an extensive 
     public record of statements or writings to criticize. Liberal 
     groups have complained that Mr. Roberts, as a lawyer for the 
     government, helped write briefs that argued against abortion 
     rights. The more general anxiety seems to be that both men 
     are young, talented conservatives who could upset the D.C. 
     Circuit's ideological balance. It is true that President 
     Clinton's nominees to the D.C. Circuit were held up also--as, 
     incidentally, was Mr. Roberts when he was initially nominated 
     by the elder President Bush, But government by tit-for-tat is 
     an ugly spectacle. If there is a case to be made against 
     either nominee, the onus is on opponents to make it and its 
     proper forum is a hearing. If there is no case, the Senate 
     should move to a vote. Either way, further delay is not the 
     answer.

  Mr. KYL. I will indicate the names of these 8 nominees, and I will 
point out that of the 11 who were nominated by the President on May 9, 
2001, 3 have been confirmed. Two of those were judges previously 
nominated by President Clinton, and I think that is interesting. The 
Judiciary Committee chairman is willing to move people who were 
nominated by President Clinton but not by President Bush. So when we 
talk about nominees of President Bush having been confirmed to the 
circuit court of appeals, remember that two of the three of this 
initial group were originally nominated by President Clinton.
  The eight nominees who have languished before the committee are the 
following, and they are individuals all of extraordinary experience, 
intellect, and character:
  John Roberts is a nominee to the DC Circuit. He is one of the leading 
appellate advocates in the United States, having argued 36 cases before 
the U.S. Supreme Court. He served as Deputy Solicitor General. I doubt 
there is another lawyer in this country in the Solicitor General's 
Office who has argued 36 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.
  Miguel Estrada is nominated to the DC Circuit. He has argued 15 cases 
before the U.S. Supreme Court, worked as a Federal prosecutor, as 
Assistant Solicitor General, and a Supreme Court law clerk. He came to 
America as a teenager, spoke virtually no English and, if confirmed, 
would be the first Hispanic ever to serve on the DC Court of Appeals.
  Justice Priscilla Owen, who is a nominee to the Fifth Circuit, has 
served on the Texas Supreme Court since 1994. In her successful 
reelection bid in 2000, every major newspaper in Texas endorsed her.
  Michael McConnell is a nominee to the 10th Circuit. He is one of the 
Nation's leading constitutional scholars and lawyers. His reputation 
for fairness and integrity has generated support from hundreds of 
Democrat law professors across the country.
  Jeffrey Sutton is a nominee to the Sixth Circuit, another of 
America's leading appellate lawyers. He graduated first in his class 
from Ohio State Law School, has gone on to argue over 20 cases before 
the U.S. Supreme Court and State supreme courts, and served as the 
solicitor in the State of Ohio.
  Justice Deborah Cook is also a nominee to the Sixth Circuit. She has 
served as a justice on the Ohio Supreme Court since 1994 and, before 
becoming a judge, was the first woman partner at the oldest law firm in 
Akron, OH.
  Judge Dennis Shedd, a nominee to the Fourth Circuit, was unanimously 
confirmed to be a Federal judge in 1990. He is strongly supported by 
his home State Senators, Democrat Hollings of South Carolina and 
Republican Thurmond of South Carolina. He served in the past as chief 
counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  Finally, Judge Terrence Boyle, a nominee to the Fourth Circuit, was 
unanimously confirmed to be a Federal district judge in 1984. The 
former chairman of the State Democratic Party supports Judge Boyle's 
nomination, stating that he gives everyone ``a fair trial.''
  On January 25, Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy indicated that 
Justice Priscilla Owen, Michael McConnell, and Miguel Estrada would 
receive hearings this year. Each has waited nearly a year for a hearing 
and more than 2 months for a hearing since this statement.
  Chief Justice Rehnquist recently stated that the present judicial 
vacancy crisis is alarming and, on behalf of the judiciary, implored 
the Senate to grant prompt hearings and to vote these nominees up or 
down.

  I conclude by showing two things. On this chart it shows the 
President's rate of judicial confirmations by the Senate, comparing 
President Clinton and President Bush. The red line ends at exactly 11 
months after each President nominated his first nominees. These are 
both district and circuit court nominees.
  By the end of 11 months, President Clinton had 67 percent of his 
nominees confirmed. President Bush, 11 months after his first nominee 
was made, only had 44 percent of his confirmed. At the end of 14 
months, as it shows, President Clinton had 90 percent of his nominees 
approved--14 months after the first nomination was made. At the rate we 
are going, President Bush will be lucky to have 50 percent.
  Let's be specific about circuit court nominees because I think this 
is even

[[Page S3547]]

more telling. This chart shows the circuit court confirmation rates by 
the Senate. Again, after 11 months, President Bush has had 31 percent 
of his circuit court nominees approved by the Senate. By contrast, 63 
percent of President Clinton's nominees were approved to the circuit 
courts after 11 months, and 14 months after he made his first nominee, 
86 percent of President Clinton's nominees had been approved by the 
Senate. At the rate we are going now, we are obviously not going to get 
to 86 percent. We cannot get the confirmation until we have had a 
hearing. It would be reasonable to expect hearings to be held on the 
eight nominees within a year of the time they were nominated. Whatever 
the record of success, whatever the number of hearings that have been 
held for district court nominees, whatever else one might say, there is 
absolutely no excuse for not even scheduling a hearing on a circuit 
court nominee for a full year after that nominee was nominated by the 
President.


                       Unanimous Consent Request

  I have a unanimous consent request to propound, and I expect a 
fulsome response from the Senator from Nevada. I ask unanimous consent 
no later than May 9, 2002, the Judiciary Committee shall conclude 
hearings on each of the eight nominations remaining of those made by 
President Bush on May 9, 2001, to the United States Circuit Court of 
Appeals.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have a 
number of things to say. I don't mean to detain people unnecessarily, 
but I don't think this is unnecessarily. I will take some time. The 
Senator from Arizona is welcome to stay or not. I have something I want 
to say regarding this issue.
  One thing I want to say in my reservation, and I will save the rest 
as I get the floor, I have the greatest respect for my friend from 
Arizona, a man who is an outstanding lawyer. I knew of Jon Kyl's legal 
reputation in Nevada. I knew of him in Nevada because of his reputation 
in Arizona as a lawyer. He was good at a lot of things.
  One of the things we look to Jon Kyl for with respect is his great 
knowledge of water law. In the arid Southwest, when a lawyer 
understands water rights, someone in the legal profession, someone who 
bears a standard, one whom others look up to--not many people know 
water law.
  The point I am trying to make is that the Senator from Arizona is a 
fine lawyer. He is a fine Senator. But I want to remind him as to one 
of the things he spent a little time discussing today, the DC Court of 
Appeals--Senator Kyl discussed the need to fill vacancies in the DC 
Circuit--President Bush has nominated two people to the circuit court. 
Because they have been nominated by President Bush, my friend from 
Arizona, the lawyer whose credentials I have already established, has 
changed his tune. Lawyers can do that. When they do, sometimes you have 
to bring it to them.
  On March 19, 1997, for President Clinton we were trying to get 
approved a man by the name of Merrick B. Garland, a lawyer from 
Maryland, to be a U.S. Circuit judge for the District of Columbia.
  The Senator from Arizona said, among other things, when responding to 
Senator Sessions: Like my colleague from Alabama, my colleague from 
Iowa, and others, I believe the 12th seat on this circuit does not need 
to be filled. I am quite skeptical that the 11th seat, the seat to 
which Mr. Garland has been nominated, needs to be filled, either. The 
case against filling the 12th seat is very compelling and it makes me 
question the need to fill the 11th seat.
  He goes on to say: In the fall of 1995, the court subcommittee of the 
Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the caseload of the D.C. Circuit. 
Judge Silberman pointed out that the courtroom normally used for en 
banc hearings seats only 11. In other words, that is all they can 
accommodate.
  Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona, 4 or 5 years ago, thought 
there was no need to have these seats filled in this circuit court. But 
he has changed his tune now because we have a different President.
  For this and other reasons, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the kind remarks that 
the Senator from Nevada made about my law career, and I do appreciate 
that sincerely. He knows of my affection for him.
  Before I make my next request, I point one thing out with respect to 
what the Senator from Nevada said about my opposition to filling the 
12th position on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. At that time, there 
were two vacancies. He correctly read my remarks. I said I didn't think 
we needed to fill the 12th, and I had questions about the 11th. But 
there are now 4 vacancies, and I don't think there is any doubt we need 
to fill numbers 9 and 10. When we get up to No. 11, maybe I will have a 
question still, and I might even not support filling the 12th. But that 
was a totally different situation because we were talking about the 
12th and final vacancy.
  Here we have four vacancies, and I have advocated that we fill two of 
them.
  In view of the objection that was heard, let me ask my colleague if 
he would agree to the following, and I propound this request: I ask 
unanimous consent no later than May 9, 2002, the Judiciary Committee 
will conclude hearings on at least seven of the eight remaining of 
those nominations made by President Bush on May 9, 2001, to the D.C. 
Circuit Courts of Appeals.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I don't often smile on the 
Senate floor, but I really have to smile at this request. The reason I 
do that is I had a Senator come up to me today and say: Why are we 
voting on all these judges? We voted on four judges last week. We voted 
two judges today.
  I have other things I will say, but I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate the objection.
  We have voted on several judges. I am talking about holding hearings 
on judges nominated over a year ago, not voting on them; just holding a 
hearing and trying to hold the hearings before the anniversary day.
  In view of that objection, let me propound this request: That no 
later than May 9, 2002, the Judiciary Committee shall conclude hearings 
on at least six of the eight nominations remaining of those made by 
President Bush on May 9, 2001, to the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we could go through 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. I 
object.
  I reserve the right to object in this instance because the Judiciary 
Committee is working very hard. Let me lay the foundation.
  Senator Leahy became chairman of the Judiciary Committee. In fact, we 
didn't organize--he became chairman sometime in July or August--because 
we had trouble getting the organization going after we took control of 
the Senate. Immediately after he became chairman of the committee, 
however, 9-11 occurred, and a short time after that, anthrax in Senator 
Daschle's office basically closed up one office building and that took 
care of half the Senators.
  In spite of 9-11, the new leadership role that Senator Leahy 
obtained, and the anthrax scare, he went ahead and held all kinds of 
meetings of the Judiciary Committee. I attended one in the basement of 
the Capitol. There we had a circuit court judge, Judge Pickering. I 
remember that very well because I had one of my Nevada judges there. I 
testified for my judge. It was very crowded. Senator Leahy was 
commended, as he should have been, for holding the hearing. There was 
really no room.
  Senator Leahy has gone to great lengths to make the Judiciary 
Committee one that functions well. I will lay out in some detail what 
he has done to maintain the Senate's proper role in the selection of 
judges. Remember, the Judiciary Committee had the lead role in a number 
of other very important items following September 11. The work that we 
did with antiterrorism legislation was all done in the Judiciary 
Committee. Senator Leahy, with his counterpart, Senator Hatch, worked 
night and day for weeks to get that done. We finally got it passed. It 
took an inordinate amount of time.
  I say to my friend from Arizona, with the deepest respect, Senator 
Leahy and the Judiciary Committee are going to hold hearings. They have 
already held hearings.

[[Page S3548]]

  As I have said on this floor on a number of occasions: This is not 
payback time. If it were payback time, we would not have already 
approved 52 Federal judges since Senator Leahy took over that 
committee. But we have approved 52 Federal judges.
  If it were payback time, we would not be holding any hearings. 
Remember, we had judges who waited more than 4 years for a hearing. We 
are not going to do that.
  People who are selected by the President of the United States to be 
judges, whether they are trial court judges or circuit court judges, 
are going to have hearings. I assume there would be some exceptions, 
but I can say, with little reservation, Senator Leahy is going to hold 
hearings for all these people and in as timely a fashion as he can.
  I therefore object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, in deference to the Senator from Michigan who 
is here, I gather, to speak, instead of going through the numbers of 5, 
4, 3, let me just see if I could get my colleague to agree to this 
because we do have a full week left. I am a member of the Judiciary 
Committee, and I can tell you, we have not been that busy. We have had 
plenty of opportunities for hearings. These eight nominees have been 
sitting around for a year, and none of them has had a hearing. We could 
easily have a hearing for two of these nominees before the anniversary 
date of 1 year from their nomination by the President.
  I ask unanimous consent that no later than May 9, 2002, the Judiciary 
Committee shall conclude hearings on at least two of the eight 
nominations remaining of those made by President Bush on May 9, 2001, 
to the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator reserves the right to object.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I can assure the Senator from Arizona and 
anyone within the sound of my voice that Senator Pat Leahy is going to 
do the very best he can in holding hearings for all nominees, not only 
circuit court but trial court judges. As to whether or not he can 
complete two judges within the next week--the next 9 days is what it is 
because tomorrow is May 1--I really cannot tell Senator Kyl whether 
that will take place.
  But I know the Senator from Vermont is going to do the best he can. I 
heard him in a conversation today, right here. He was right here 
because he was at the leader's desk this morning talking about the 
judges whom we approved. I heard him talking to a Senator regarding a 
circuit court judge, that he would do a hearing in the immediate 
future. Immediate is pretty quick. I know that will be done.
  With respect and the knowledge that Senator Leahy is going to move it 
forward as quickly as he can, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. KYL. I think I know the answer to this, but it would certainly be 
possible for us to have a hearing on one nominee. As a member of the 
committee, I think it is doable, I can tell you. I think it is only 
fair that Senator Leahy pick out one of these people and have a hearing 
for him or her 12 months after their nomination.
  So, out of desperation, I ask unanimous consent that no later than 
May 9, 2002, the Judiciary Committee shall conclude hearings on at 
least one of those nominations remaining of those made by President 
Bush on May 9, 2001, to the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, my friend should not be 
desperate. This is not a desperate situation. I am not on Senator 
Leahy's committee. I can't speak for his committee. But I have some 
responsibility to try to see that the Senate operates in an orderly 
fashion, especially things that go on here in the Chamber. I am 
convinced Senator Leahy will do everything he can to move these men and 
women forward who have been nominated.
  Remember, I am sure we have had at least 52 hearings. We have 52 
judges who have moved forward during the last few months. That is 
pretty good. So it is not as if there is a so-called stonewall. He is 
doing the best he can.
  I say with some degree of apology to my friends from Michigan and 
Kansas, I am going to speak for a few minutes on the judges situation, 
so I think they should rest their legs for just a little bit because I 
am going to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Yes, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I guess in light of this last objection, as 
the lawyers say, I will rest my case. I think I have made my point. I 
hope we can have this conversation again in the next 2 days. Having had 
an opportunity to confer with Senator Leahy, I hope the Senator from 
Nevada will have better news for us, but especially for the eight 
nominees who have been languishing now for a full year, and we can 
quickly move to have a hearing on at least some of those nominations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield without losing my right to the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we consider 
an increase in the minimum wage no later than June 15.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KYL. Yes, Mr. President. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I think I made my case.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada, the assistant 
majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business and the time count against the 30 hours, postcloture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, just last week, as I indicated, the Senate 
confirmed its 50th judicial nominee. Today we got two more judges. This 
has happened in less than 10 months since the change in majority. More 
of President Bush's judicial nominees have been confirmed in less than 
10 months than were confirmed in all 12 months of 4 of the 6 years 
Republicans controlled the Senate.
  I have always been very dubious of numbers because even as one who 
did not have a degree in engineering or did not do much in the way of 
math in high school or college, I can still do a lot of things with 
numbers. We can manipulate numbers--you know that is easy to do. We can 
have all kinds of numbers games. I will run through a few numbers here 
this evening on judges.
  The thing I want everyone to know is that Chairman Pat Leahy is an 
honorable man. He represents a very small State in population, the 
State of Vermont. He takes a very close look at everything that affects 
Vermont. He does a great job for Vermont.
  One reason I have so much respect for Chairman Leahy is his view is 
of more than the State of Vermont. He has a national view. He has been 
a Senator for a long time, the first Democratic Senator ever elected 
from the State of Vermont.
  He has been able to represent that State so well, but also do a good 
job for our country. A lot of times that is not easy to do, but he has 
done that.
  He has been chairman of the Agriculture Committee. I served on the 
Appropriations Committee. He has been chairman of that very volatile 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, foreign aid--the committee from 
which people run. He doesn't run from that or anything else. He is a 
very courageous man, Pat Leahy.
  I only say that because we can do all kinds of things with numbers. 
My friend on the other side of the aisle can bring out fancy little 
charts and say this happened. I can bring them here and talk about what 
has happened. But I want everyone to look for just a minute in their 
mind's eye at Pat Leahy. Does he want to leave a legacy in the Senate 
that he was the kind of person who would not approve people who are 
qualified lawyers who want to become Federal judges? The answer is no.
  Pat Leahy also before he came here was a prosecutor, a lawyer. He was 
a good one. He was a young man. But that is why he got elected to the 
Senate, because he was a great prosecutor.

[[Page S3549]]

  Look at Pat Leahy a little bit. Put yourself in his role. He wants to 
be recognized as somebody who runs the Judiciary Committee in a fair 
manner. I do not know of anyone who could question his honesty, his 
integrity, and therefore I say let's not really worry about all these 
numbers.
  I can make a case with numbers. I think he has done more than he 
physically should have done, because it has just been so hard for him 
to do that. I talk about the committee hearing. My colleagues 
complained that we have only approved--I don't know how many circuit 
judges he said. But we had hearings on them. Pickering had a hearing. 
He couldn't make it out of committee. That is more than they gave our 
people.
  He said some people on May 9 will have waited a year. Well, that is 
too long, and I recognize that. But it is not 4 years.
  More than 50 of President Clinton's nominees never even got a vote. 
Others waited years to be confirmed. Still others languished for years 
and many months before a hearing and then no vote. They had hearings 
and never had a vote in the committee. The Judiciary Committee never 
voted. Where were the Republican voices of concern then?
  Under Republicans, total court vacancies rose from 63 in 1995 to 110 
in July 2001, when the committee reorganized, and circuit vacancies 
more than doubled from 16 to 33. The Republicans caused all the 
vacancies about which they are now complaining.
  I had a big murder case when I practiced law. A young man shot his 
two parents. It was a very serious case, to say the least. But today 
people still joke about that case. There isn't anything to joke about. 
It is the old standard joke that you have heard a thousand times: He 
was now an orphan. He pled for the mercy of the court because he was an 
orphan. He killed his parents.
  That is about what we have here. Republicans caused these vacancies. 
Vacancies continue to exist on the courts of appeals, in part because a 
Republican majority wasn't willing to hold a hearing or vote on more 
than half--56 percent--of President Clinton's circuit nominees in 1999 
and 2000, and was not willing to confirm a single circuit judge during 
the entire 1996 session.
  This is like somebody who kills his parents and then asks for mercy. 
They ask for mercy because they are an orphan.
  They helped create these vacancies.
  I repeat: On more than half--56 percent--of President Clinton's 
circuit nominees in 1999 and 2000, the Republicans were not willing to 
hold hearings and vote on them. In 1996, not a single circuit judge was 
confirmed. Some of the vacancies they are talking about go back to 
1990, 1994, and 1996. They refused to fill the vacancies.
  Under Senator Leahy's leadership and Senator Daschle's leadership, 
judicial vacancies are going down, with 50 judges confirmed--as I 
indicated last week, it is now up to 52--including 9 circuit judges. 
That is more than were confirmed in all 12 months of 4 of the 6 years 
of Republican control. As of April 29, there were 90 vacancies, and 29 
of them were circuit.
  The Senate has already devoted a week in March to Senator Lott's 
amendment, No. 3028, to the energy bill. One reason it took the energy 
bill so long is we had a week of time on the sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution demanding that those nominated last May 9 have a hearing by 
May 9. The Senate, of course, rejected this, as it should have done. An 
almost unanimous Senate supported, instead of the second-degree 
amendment to that resolution, the committee's continued fair treatment 
of judicial nominees and its efforts to schedule and hold regular 
hearings on judicial nominees.
  That is what we said we would do. That is what Senator Leahy is 
doing. The Judiciary Committee has continued its efforts in accord with 
the Senate resolution which passed this body. The Judiciary Committee 
held 17 hearings involving 61 judicial nominees. That is more hearings 
on judges than the Republican majority held in any year of its control 
of the Senate. They were considered en bloc form rather than one or two 
at a time. In effect, we have had at least 54 hearings.
  I say that really skewing numbers a little bit because in some 
hearings more than one person was brought before the committee.
  That is more hearings on judges than the Republican majority held in 
any year of its control of the Senate.
  I repeat: The Judiciary Committee had 17 hearings in less than a 
year, and that is more than held in any year of the Senate when the 
Republicans controlled it.
  Rather than berating the Judiciary Committee, I commend Senator Leahy 
and the members of that Judiciary Committee for doing the good work 
they have done. Remember, they have more responsibility than just 
approving judges. The Republican leadership never followed a ``first 
in, first out'' rule. As the former chairman said in 2000, ``If 
nominees were only considered in the order they were nominated, the 
process would grind to a halt as more qualified nominees would back up 
behind the questionable nominees.'' That makes sense.
  The Democratic leadership has been working hard to process the 
nominations of qualified, noncontroversial nominees to address the 
vacancy crisis caused by previous Republican obstruction and inaction.
  We are carefully reviewing the records of those nominated last May, 
as well as other nominees. All but one of those nominated last May 9 
were chosen by the President without any consultation with both parties 
in the Senate. In spite of that, we have already expedited and 
confirmed three of them.
  One of the May 9 nominees lacks home-State consent. Surely the 
minority is not suggesting overriding the Senate tradition of consent 
or what we call blue slips from both home-State Senators. Senator Orrin 
Hatch--a dear friend--would never agree to that when he was chairman. 
He would never consider that. The other seven appear to be relatively 
more controversial nominees who require a great deal of background 
research. They will have hearings, but more work needs to be done. If 
the committee fails to do this thorough investigation of these men and 
women who would serve for life, it fails its job to the rest of us.
  When these nominations come here, I depend on the Judiciary 
Committee. I am not a member of that committee. I assume that if there 
is a problem with one of them, someone is going to provide that for me. 
If they don't and something comes up later, I am going to be very 
upset, as well as Senator Leahy and the other members of that 
committee. They need to take the time to do the job right.
  Five of the May 9 nominees were nominated to seats that have been 
held vacant for years and years by Republicans. Well-qualified Clinton 
nominees to those seats were blocked by Republicans, including two 
well-qualified gentlemen active in the Hispanic community in Texas: 
Enrique Moreno and Judge Jorge Rangel; three distinguished lawyers from 
the African-American community: James Wynn and James Beatty of North 
Carolina, and Elan Kagen; and other nominees with equally outstanding 
credentials, such as Kent Markus of Ohio and Allen Snyder of the 
District of Columbia.
  I would like to take just a little bit of time to pay our colleagues, 
our Republican counterparts, the courtesy of making sure that this 
request for unanimous consent for immediate action on Bush nominees is 
OK with them, including the anonymous Republican Senators who held up 
votes on Clinton nominees such as Bonnie Campbell, Judge Margaret 
Morrow, and many of the circuit court nominees who languished for years 
without ever receiving even a vote in committee.
  The deep concern now expressed about vacancies was oddly silent when 
the minority--then the majority--was blocking more than 50 judicial 
nominees.
  Some Republicans held these seats open for years for another 
President to fill. That President is President Bush. They wanted to 
save these seats for a Republican President. Maybe some thought these 
would be judicial activists for their agenda and would tilt the balance 
of numbers on these circuit courts to give Republican appointees a 
majority, with the hope of winning through these activists what they 
were not been able to win at the ballot box.
  One of the people for whom I have the greatest respect--he is my 
friend, he has great Nevada roots, and he has all kinds of family in 
Nevada--is Karl

[[Page S3550]]

Rove, a close confidant of the President. He has given speeches to 
conservative groups talking about he wants what he refers to as 
conservative judges. He has a right to say that. But that is why 
Chairman Leahy has an obligation to look and make sure these people are 
qualified and that they have more credentials than just simply being 
conservative.

  Advice and consent does not mean giving the President carte blanche 
to pack the courts. The committee's evaluation of nominees is a 
critical part of the checks and balances of our democratic Government 
that does not give the power to make lifetime appointments to one 
person alone to remake the courts along narrow ideological lines, to 
pack the courts with judges whose views are outside of the mainstream, 
and whose decisions would further divide our Nation.
  President Bush has singled out Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas, the 
Supreme Court's most conservative Judges, as model Judges. Well, isn't 
it interesting he would do that. He has chosen Scalia and Thomas as 
model Judges. I wonder if that had anything to do with the decision 
they made dealing with Florida when they, in effect--there are not only 
articles written--lots of those--but there are books written of how 
Scalia steamrolled the other Judges. And Scalia elected George Bush 
President. Well, no wonder he thinks he is a model judge. I think if he 
selected me as President, as he did President Bush, I would also 
probably think he was a model.
  The committee is acting responsibly. The Judiciary Committee, led by 
Pat Leahy, is acting responsibly in its consideration and scheduling of 
nominees. We would be able to move more expeditiously on nominees if 
the White House were acting in a bipartisan way, by nominating more 
consensus nominees to these lifetime judgeships, conferring with the 
Judiciary Committee, conferring with home State Senators.
  Even with the partisanship of the White House and the Republicans, 
Senator Leahy's Judiciary Committee has had more confirmations of 
circuit court nominees in less than 10 months than were confirmed in a 
similar period for Presidents Reagan, Clinton, and the first President 
Bush.
  Nine circuit court judges--consensus nominees--have been confirmed in 
less than 10 months. This is more confirmations of circuit nominees of 
President George W. Bush than in the first 10 months of the Reagan, 
Bush I, and Clinton administrations combined.
  We also have the best pace of confirmation in recent history. The 
Democratic-led Senate is averaging 5 confirmations per month, as 
compared with 1.6 per month during Bush I, and 3.1 per month and 3.6 
per month for President Clinton and President Reagan, even though they 
had Senate majorities from their own party.
  So that is why I have objected to these motions. Chairman Leahy and 
the Senate Judiciary Committee should be commended for reforming the 
process and practices used during the 6\1/2\ years of Republican 
leadership. We are holding more hearings for more nominees than in the 
recent past. We have moved away from the anonymous holds that so 
dominated the process from 1996 through 2000. We have made home State 
Senators' blue slips public for the first time.
  The Democratic leadership and Majority Leader Daschle should be 
commended and not attacked with these unfair claims and motions.
  Mr. President, I apologize to my friends, especially the Senator from 
Michigan, whom I know wishes to address the Senate. I also apologize 
and extend my deep appreciation to the Senator from Florida for his 
usual courtesy in remaining in the chair so the Senator from Michigan 
can speak. I am personally very grateful to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first, I indicate to our leader from 
Nevada that he is certainly welcome to take whatever time is necessary 
to talk about this very important issue and to set the record straight. 
I very much appreciate the Senator being able to do that in such 
articulate terms so that it is very clear that we, in fact, are moving 
ahead in a way that, frankly, has been unheard of when we have had a 
President of one party and the Senate majority of another party in 
terms of confirming judges.
  So I certainly associate myself with the Senator's comments and very 
much appreciate his advocacy.


                           Prescription Drugs

  Mr. President, I rise this evening to speak about an issue that is 
incredibly important. It is probably one of the most important 
challenges facing our families today; and that is the question of the 
cost of prescription drugs.
  I cannot think of a more important issue facing older Americans, who, 
on average, use 18 different medications in a year, or a more important 
issue facing families, who, for example, may have a disabled child, or 
a more important issue for anyone who is struggling and does not have 
coverage under their insurance policy for prescription drugs.
  We know that right now, even as we are at the dinner hour on a 
Tuesday evening, there are seniors who are sitting down at their 
kitchen table and deciding: Do I eat supper or do I take my medicine?
  We are the greatest country in the world. I say shame on us for our 
inability to address this issue and to have a Medicare prescription 
drug plan that lowers the costs for everyone. This is an issue that now 
touches every part of our economy.
  Today, I met with the leadership of Michigan Blue Cross-Blue Shield. 
Yesterday, I met with people who are involved with hospitals and home 
health care agencies and nursing homes.
  I meet with small business owners who cannot afford to keep their 
insurance for their employees because the costs are going up 30 
percent, 40 percent a year, and the majority of that is the 
uncontrolled costs of prescription drugs. I meet with the big three 
automakers, and I hear the same thing.
  These costs are out of control. There is no accountability, and it 
affects every part of our economy and the lives of too many Americans.
  So I rise this evening to ask our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, and to ask the President of the United States, to join with us 
in a serious effort--not words, not efforts that look as if they do 
something on paper but do not really solve the problem--but to join 
with us in a serious effort to provide a comprehensive prescription 
drug benefit under Medicare that is long overdue, and to join with us 
in a number of issues and a number of strategies to lower the costs of 
prescription drugs for every American.
  I find it extremely frustrating, when we know that American taxpayers 
underwrite much of the research--certainly the initial basic research 
through the National Institutes of Health for new prescription drugs, 
new technologies, new cures--and I certainly support that. I support 
the fact that we allow research tax credits and deductions. And 
taxpayers subsidize those efforts as well. It is important for us.
  But I am very frustrated that after we have patents that are given 
for 15 years, 20 years, to companies to recoup their costs, when they 
do not have to have competition, we create a way for them to come up 
with these new, wonderful drugs that are lifesaving, and yet, at the 
end of the line, Americans pay more than anyone in the world--and that 
is not an exaggeration--for those drugs. If someone is uninsured, 
Heaven help them--which the majority of seniors are in this country--
because when they walk into the pharmacy, they are paying the highest 
prescription drug price of anyone in the world.

  Tomorrow, we are going to start Older Americans Month. And I say 
again, shame on us for not addressing this issue in a comprehensive 
manner.
  I ask my colleagues to join with us in a number of efforts. One, we 
want to make sure that generic drugs are more available and that we 
close loopholes that are now used by the companies to change patents or 
do other things that stop generics from coming on the market even 
though it is the same--a very comparable drug--at a dramatically 
reduced price. We certainly have legislation right now in the Senate 
which Senator Schumer and Senator McCain have put forward that needs to 
be addressed.
  We also need to do something about the explosion of advertising. 
Since the FDA changed the rules a number of years ago on direct 
consumer advertising, I daresay you can't turn on your

[[Page S3551]]

television set in any 5-minute increment and not see at least one 
advertisement for a prescription drug. They are nice ads. Many of them 
are very pretty. But we pay a heavy price for that advertising.
  We also pay a heavy price for the promotions that are going on in the 
doctors' offices and all of the effort that goes into this question of 
advertising rather than putting the money into research for more 
lifesaving drugs.
  We want to address that in the Senate, and we ask our colleagues to 
join with us to stop this spiraling situation where right now there is 
twice as much being spent on advertising in this country, advertising 
and promotion of prescription drugs, than on research to create new 
lifesaving drugs. We intend to put forward proposals to do that in the 
next week.
  I specifically wish to talk for a moment about S. 2244, an effort my 
colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, and many of us have joined 
in to provide another way of creating cost savings; that is, to open 
the border to Canada. I find it ironic that at the time we are creating 
open trade, fast track, a trade bill on the floor of the Senate, we 
have in place walls at the border of Canada. And coming from Michigan, 
where it is 5 minutes across the bridge, 5 minutes across the tunnel, 
this is a very real wall where we are told, based on legislation passed 
back in the 1980s, that even though you can get your medications made 
in America, FDA approved, safe drugs, my citizens in Michigan or those 
from Florida or anyone cannot go 5 minutes across that Ambassador 
Bridge or that tunnel and lower their cost because of a law that was 
put in place to protect our companies from competition.
  We believe, those of us who have put forward S. 2244, that the wall 
needs to come down. If we are going to talk about open trade, we should 
not close trade. We should not be allowing lack of competition on 
prescription drugs. If we did that, we could see amazing changes 
immediately. It would not cost money other than probably a small amount 
as it relates to the FDA. We are not talking about any large sum of 
money to be able to open the borders and immediately we could lower 
costs 40 percent, 50 percent or more.
  I took two different bus trips to Canada to demonstrate, as other 
colleagues have, the cost differences, working with the Canadian 
Medical Society, going through a Canadian physician and a Canadian 
pharmacy to demonstrate the differences in the prices for prescription 
drugs. I wanted to share with you some of those differences.
  Zocor is a drug for high cholesterol. In Michigan, it is $109 a month 
for the prescription; it is $46.17 in Canada--$109 versus $46.
  Even more dramatic is Tamoxifen. We had women on our bus trip with 
breast cancer. In Michigan, they are paying $136.50 a month for 
Tamoxifen. In Canada, they purchased it for $15.92--$136 versus $15.
  There is something seriously wrong when our citizens are having to 
pay such a large amount of money when compared to other countries, 
particularly our Canadian neighbor to the north, and at the same time 
they are having to juggle all of the other expenses in their life, and 
many people are not being able to purchase Tamoxifen or Zocor or 
Prilosec, all of the other drugs where there is such a disparity.
  I invite colleagues tonight to join with us in supporting S. 2244, to 
become cosponsors, to join with us in an effort to say that we are 
going to open the borders; we are going to create competition; and we 
are going to make sure Americans who underwrite so much of the cost of 
the new medications being developed every day have the opportunity to 
get the very best price.
  We need to do that. It is long overdue. From my perspective, there is 
no excuse at this time not to proceed to support this effort to open 
the border, to create new opportunities for generic drugs, to make sure 
we are addressing the high cost of advertising and to put some sense 
around that, and promoting research rather than more advertising. These 
are all items that need to happen, and they need to happen now.

  My biggest concern is that we don't have the same sense of urgency in 
the Congress that I hear from my own family, from neighbors and 
constituents I represent in Michigan. This is not a theoretical debate. 
This is real. This is about whether or not people will be able to live 
longer because they can benefit from the medications being developed 
with the help of taxpayers or whether they are going to struggle every 
day to decide whether to eat, to pay the utility bill, or to get their 
medicines they so desperately need.
  We can do better. Our older citizens, our families, our children, our 
businesses wanting to cover their employees for health care costs 
deserve better. We have an opportunity to do that in the Senate and to 
say to everyone: We have really done something that will make a 
difference in the lives of the people we represent. I suggest the time 
is now.
  I yield the floor.
  (Ms. STABENOW assumed the chair.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I wanted to echo the eloquent 
comments the Presiding Officer, speaking in her capacity as the Senator 
from Michigan, has spoken about, a problem that is so rampant today.
  Medicare was designed 37 years ago in 1965. Think of the condition of 
health care at that time. It was centered around acute care in 
hospitals. Thus, as we designed the system which would be a health 
insurance system for senior citizens to assist with medical expenses, 
what were most of the medical expenses? In 1965, they were expenses 
that were attendant to hospital care and physician services that often 
occurred in and around the hospital. Medicare Part B was set up for 
additional expenditures, primarily physician expenditures. That has 
served our senior citizens so very well, as a health insurance system 
at the time that they knew they needed health care, when, as we get 
older, things don't quite work as they did when we were 21.
  Over that 37 years we have had these wonderful, I call them, miracles 
of modern medicine that have occurred through technology, through 
research, through the ingenuity of American enterprise. And as a 
result, we now have a health care system that produces prescription 
drugs that can often cure our ailments when compared with the state of 
medical care 37 years ago.
  I talk about that little bit of history to follow the comments of the 
Senator from Michigan because it is instructive for us as to why we 
need to modernize the Medicare system 37 years later and now provide a 
prescription drug benefit.
  There is no question in the State of Florida, with our abundance of 
wonderful, vibrant senior citizens, that people want Medicare 
modernized with a prescription drug benefit. Clearly, in the election 
of 2000, I talked about it, and I know both of the candidates for 
President talked about it in the State of Florida--indeed, they had 
signed up to the idea that we were going to be spending--then the 
figure was $300 billion to $350 billion over a 10-year period. That is 
what was thought to be the expenditures to give a fairly substantial 
Federal Government investment for providing prescription drugs to those 
who were eligible as senior citizens under Medicare. And here we are, a 
year and a half after that election, and we still have not enacted it.
  The administration has come forth with a proposal for $190 billion 
over 10 years. That is not going to cut it because that is not what was 
promised. With the explosion of the cost of prescription drugs, the 
cost of that prescription drug benefit over the next decade might well 
be in excess of the $300 billion to $350 billion that we talked about 
during the campaign of 2000. So we ought to be addressing it here.
  In the meantime, the Senator from Michigan has pointed out other ways 
that we can start addressing the cost of prescription drugs. Why could 
we not address a system by which we could suddenly pool the various 
needs and start buying in bulk and, therefore, bring down the cost per 
unit? That is a common economic principle. So as we approach a 
discussion of whether we are talking about trade or whether we are 
talking about judicial appointments, we need to constantly remind 
people about the promises and the expectations in the election for 
President in the year 2000, and those statements were very clear in the 
State of Florida,

[[Page S3552]]

which became so critical for the outcome of the election.


                              Andean Trade

  Madam President, since we are on the trade bill, I want to make a few 
comments about a tremendous dilemma that I have with regard to this 
trade bill. I am a free trader. I am for free and fair trade. That has 
basically been the kind of voting record that I have had in the last 
year and a half. I believe that a State such as my State, Florida, 
which is so affected by being not only a microcosm of America but now 
so much of a microcosm of the Western Hemisphere, will benefit 
economically by free and fair trade.
  The dilemma in which I find myself, as does my colleague--my senior 
colleague, wonderful colleague, Senator Bob Graham--is that the very 
premier industry of Florida, the citrus industry, the very industry 
whose symbol graces all of our license plates on our vehicles in 
Florida--the Florida orange--is threatened if we don't take action on 
an amendment in this bill.
  What I have said is that I support free and fair trade. What we find 
is that, with the concentrated, frozen orange juice production, the 
country of Brazil has 50 percent of the world consumption of 
concentrated orange juice. Florida has 40 percent of the world's 
production, and that is primarily servicing the needs of the domestic 
market in the United States, a large part of which has been created as 
a result of the advertising over the last five decades by the 
Florida Citrus Commission, so that now orange juice is a regular staple 
of the diet at the breakfast table in America each morning. So it is 50 
percent Brazil, 40 percent Florida, and the remaining 10 percent is 
spread throughout the rest of the planet.

  The problem is that it is not free and fair trade if Brazil is 
allowed to undercut because of Brazil growers colluding into a cartel, 
undercutting the price of Florida, and dumping additional product on to 
the market. If there is not tariff protection for the Florida citrus 
industry, Brazil will be participating not in free and fair trade, but 
Brazil will have taken over the market and they will have a monopoly. A 
monopoly is exactly what we want to get away from in global economic 
markets. We want the crosscurrents of economic competition to bring the 
best product at the lowest price. That is not what is going to happen.
  So the dilemma that my senior colleague, Senator Graham, and I find 
ourselves in is wanting to support the administration on the trade 
promotion authority or, as some people call it, the fast track, where 
the administration can negotiate the agreement without every little 
detail having to be approved, except when the final agreement has to 
come back to the Congress, which I think is a step in the right 
direction, and facing the Hobson's choice that if we do so without an 
amendment that would protect this industry from a monopoly from foreign 
shores, our major citrus industry would be facing a life or death 
choice.
  Now, that is not an easy choice for this Senator. So I call to the 
attention of the Senate the fact that Senator Graham and I will be 
offering an amendment that doesn't specifically just speak to Florida 
orange juice but says that if there is an order by the International 
Trade Commission against dumping by companies or by a country, or if 
there is a countervailing duty as a result of an order by the 
Department of Commerce because foreign competition is subsidized by a 
foreign government and therefore it is not free and fair trade--if 
there is an order from either one of those two, whatever the commodity 
is, the tariff cannot be reduced until 1 year after that order by the 
Department of Commerce, or that order by the International Trade 
Commission has been removed, because that noncompetitive practice has 
been eliminated by that foreign country or those foreign corporations.
  In other words, if we want to have free and fair trade and there is 
an order that another country is not being free and fair, we are not 
going to put the American industry at the disadvantage of having the 
tariff lowered so that anticompetitive action in that foreign country, 
against which there is already an order, is not able to protect that 
industry in America.
  I am not just talking about orange juice. I am talking about steel. I 
am talking about salmon production in the Northwest. I am talking about 
honey production in Montana. I am talking about any commodity where 
organizations such as the Department of Commerce or the International 
Trade Commission say there is anticompetitive behavior, and therefore 
there is an order against that anticompetitive behavior; if that order 
is in place, then you cannot reduce the tariff.
  That seems to me common sense. Therefore, there is no reason the 
administration should not accept Senator Graham's and my amendment. Yet 
they will not. Just today Senator Graham and I talked to the Secretary 
of Commerce: Well, we will look at it. I understand. That is a polite 
way of saying: No, we do not agree.
  I have talked to people about this amendment until I was blue in the 
face. I have talked to the chief lobbyist for the White House as to why 
this is so important to Florida, which happens to be important to this 
administration. I have talked to members of the Finance Committee to 
get them to understand why this is so important, not only to Florida 
but to other States with regard to steel, salmon, and beekeepers in 
their honey production.
  The fact is, the administration thinks it has the votes. In fact, it 
thinks it is filibuster proof; that it has more than 60 votes for this 
trade bill. Therefore, there is no willingness to engage in a 
discussion with Senator Graham, me, and others about adding this 
amendment, as they did so vigorously in the House when, several months 
ago, they passed the trade promotion authority bill by the razor thin 
margin of one vote.
  I can tell you, Madam President, it will not only be tonight, but I 
will continue to speak until my face, to use an old southern 
expression, turns blue. I will continue to speak every opportunity I 
have as we go about considering this trade bill over the course of the 
next 2 to 3 weeks.
  I hope there are folks in the White House who are listening. The 
State of Florida has a great deal at stake in this debate. It is not 
that we are asking for any special protection; we are asking for free 
and fair trade. We do not want another country to have a monopoly of a 
single product that is so very important to our State of Florida.
  Madam President, neither you nor I expected to be here at this late 
hour, but it was an opportunity for us to say something that is very 
important to this country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I rise to speak on the pending 
business, the trade promotion authority bill. I will be brief.
  I believe I am the only Member of the Senate who has worked in the 
Trade Representative's office. In 1991, I had a wonderful experience as 
we were negotiating several major treaties at that time. Without 
qualification, for the United States to engage in more trade 
negotiations and more trade agreements is positive.
  There will be sectors in the United States that have difficulty. That 
is why we have trade assistance provisions, to make those transitions 
better. But overall, for the U.S. consumers and the U.S. economy, trade 
promotion, reducing barriers and tariffs--and tariffs amount to nothing 
more than taxes; tariffs are taxes--this is a positive action for U.S. 
producers and U.S. consumers. Not that it is uniform for everybody, but 
for the overall economy this is positive. It has been positive and 
remains positive.
  Narrowly for my State, the State of Kansas, where we have a lot of 
agricultural exports, where at least 1 out of 3 acres goes to the 
export market, the international market is a critical market for us. A 
lot of our livestock goes to the international marketplace. It is a 
very important part of our business.
  Aviation is a main part of our industry. Much of that goes into the 
international marketplace as well.
  This is positive. It is probably the best thing we can do at this 
time, on top of the tax cuts, to stimulate the U.S. economy, and 
expansion of our broad-band access is a third issue that can stimulate 
the overall economy. Trade is a key one. It is broadly supported in 
this body. It is not supported by everybody, but overall it has a 
strong base of support and that is because our economy is built on 
trade

[[Page S3553]]

and so much of our opportunities to expand this economy are built on 
trade. The trade needs to be both free and fair.
  I hope we can get a strong vote for trade promotion authority to 
encourage the President to engage in substantial trade agreements with 
key trading partners of the United States so we can aggressively move 
our economy forward and out of the sluggish position and the negative 
growth we had last year and continue strong, positive growth.
  I wish to talk narrowly about a particular provision I would like to 
see us take up, and I will be putting forward an amendment with regard 
to this issue, and that is expansion of trade in central Asia. I am 
referring to those countries known as the ``stans,'' that were under 
the Soviet Union--Kazakhstan; Uzbekistan became more familiar to us in 
the war on terrorism; Turkmenistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, 
Tajikistan as well. We need to enter into permanent normal trade 
relations with these nations.
  As we seek to engage them, as we seek to work closer with them in the 
battle on terrorism, as we seek to engage them internationally, 
particularly Kazakhstan on expanded oil production and gas production 
so we are not as dependent on the Middle East for oil, it is very 
important that we engage them in the area of permanent normal trade 
relations; that we are able to give to them the same status we give to 
virtually every country trading with the United States around the 
world.
  They are key countries. They are key in the battle on terrorism, as 
we have already seen. They are key in our energy diversity. I am hoping 
we can get more of our energy production at home. That is what we 
debated over the last 5 weeks.
  We also need to diversify our source of energy. One of the key areas 
to which we can go is Kazakhstan and also Azerbaijan. We need to have 
permanent normal trade relations to expand that energy supply and 
expand that energy exchange.
  They want to grow with us. Some are trying to pull them into being a 
radicalized militant state against the United States. There are forces 
in several of these countries seeking to do that. One of the best 
things we can do with them is to broadly engage them economically.
  We have the opportunity, but we do not have PNTR with these nations 
in the central Asian region. We do with Georgia, we do with Kyrgyzstan, 
but not the other countries I named.
  I will be putting forward an amendment, hopefully with a number of 
cosponsors, that is going to be modeled after the Central Asian Trade 
Act of 2002. In this bill, we would like to bring up the issue of PNTR 
with these central Asian countries.
  I hope my colleagues will look at this carefully, critically, and 
with an eye to what is best for this region and what is best for the 
United States.
  In our battle on terrorism, it is best we be engaged with these 
countries. In our battle to diversify our energy sourcing, it is best 
we be engaged with these countries. For their stability in this region 
of the world long-term, it is best that we are engaged. One of the 
prerequisites for us being able to do that is PNTR.
  I am quite hopeful we can take this up; that it will be a 
noncontroversial amendment; that it can be accepted, passed, and that 
we can move this on through so we can get PNTR for central Asia and we 
can start working so we are not engaged in this region militarily, pull 
out of the area, then we see more militant activity buildup and we have 
to go back in. Rather, let's be engaged in this region on a long-term 
basis so we do not have to go in episodically, with billions of 
dollars, and try to clean up a problem that evolved over a period of 
time.
  This is one we can head off at the pass. We can deal with this, we 
should deal with this, and I am hopeful we are going to be able to take 
this amendment up on PNTR for central Asia during this debate.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, as the Senate debates the Andean Trade 
Preference Expansion Act, ATPEA, I wish to call attention to another 
issue vital to the long term success of the Andean nations in the world 
economy.
  International arbitration was created in order to mitigate the risks 
of overseas investment due to political consideration and capricious 
changes that can affect legal institutions. It gives investors and 
sovereign nations an agreed-upon mechanism to resolve disputes. 
Arbitration is a key building block to attract foreign investment, 
promote modernized legal systems, and provide for the kind of legal 
economy that we are seeking to foster with this legislation.
  For this reason, Congress stipulated in the recent Andean Trade 
Promotion Act, ATPA, that beneficiary countries were required to 
recognize as binding and enforce international arbitral awards in favor 
of U.S. citizens and companies. I am concerned that the U.S. Government 
has not done enough to ensure that one beneficiary in particular, 
Colombia, has lived up to this requirement. Before Congress passes new 
legislation on this matter, shouldn't we hold countries accountable for 
violating this criterion under the previous legislation?
  Unfortunately, Colombia has a disturbing trend of disregarding 
binding arbitration rulings. The Colombian Government has refused to 
abide by rulings of arbitration tribunals that are unfavorable, 
launching aggressive campaigns to undermine arbitration. It has 
utilized the inefficiencies of its internal legal structures to avoid 
payment. This blatant disregard for arbitration harms companies that 
have already invested in Colombia, dissuades others from investing much 
needed capital, and violates the qualification criteria for ATPA and 
ATPEA.
  In one case, a 22-month binding arbitration tribunal, agreed to by 
the Colombian Government, ruled that Colombia must pay $61 million due 
to what it defined as reprehensible behavior and breach of contract. 
Despite concerns raised by Members of Congress, the Colombian 
Government has refused to even discuss the issue with the American 
companies. The cost to the Colombia economy in lost international 
investment due to this lawless behavior may be greater than any aid 
that we can provide, and indeed, raises questions about U.S. aid.
  For these reasons, I call on the President of the United States and 
the U.S. Trade Representative in particular to hold Colombia, and any 
other country that fails to uphold the qualification criteria for 
ATPEA, to the letter of the law under consideration today. The 
administration is seeking expanded trade benefits, but it should first 
require that Colombia implement the rulings of arbitration panels. To 
do otherwise would undermine the intended effect of this legislation in 
lifting these developing nations to the status newly industrial 
democracies governed by the rule of law.
  Mr. ALLEN. Madam President, I rise today to address the House version 
of the Andean Trade Act (H.R. 3009). First, I strongly support fair and 
free trade. Second, I favor granting the President trade promotion 
authority. Third, I believe that certain improvements can be made to 
help workers who lose jobs due to international competition. And 
fourth, I do believe the current Andean Trade Act should be extended.
  However, as currently drafted, this is an Act that could have an 
adverse impact on the people of Virginia. In particular, Southside 
Virginia has been especially hard hit the past few years by the loss of 
textile and apparel jobs. Textile manufacturers in the United States 
are finding it more difficult, if not impossible, to compete with the 
low cost of overseas labor and limited environmental protection laws.
  We must fully consider the potential impact of this Andean Trade 
proposal rather than rush into a convoluted procedure for voting on 
unrelated, albeit important, issue. The men and women involved in the 
manufacturing and production of textile and apparel products are 
suffering. We need to find ways to help these individuals, not bring 
additional heartache. The House version of this bill unnecessarily 
increases the amount of non-U.S. yarn and fabric coming into our 
country. The existing law has been sufficiently beneficial.
  The U.S. textile and apparel industry, which employs 1.4 million 
people and accounts for 8 percent of all workers in our country, has 
fallen on hard times. Over the past five years, the textile industry 
has lost about 180,000 jobs,

[[Page S3554]]

nearly one-third of the industry's workers. During this same time, 
there have been at least 220 textile plants that have closed their 
doors and ceased operations.
  Last year alone, 116 mills closed in the United States. The workers 
at these locations lost their jobs as domestic producers struggled to 
compete with cheaply priced imports. As a matter of fact, almost 
140,000 textile and apparel employees have lot their jobs in the last 
15 months.
  Just yesterday, DuPont Textiles and Interiors announced that it will 
be reducing its workforce by more than 2,000 employees worldwide. 
Unfortunately, 200 of those workers will be from Virginia.
  Also in Virginia, we've lost Tultex, VF Imagewear, and Pluma. And, 
Burlington Industries in Pittsylvania County, which makes synthetic and 
wool products, has been forced to eliminate thousands of jobs.
  As you know, the Andean nations are well known for their production 
of these products as well. Burlington and others will no doubt be 
impacted by the increase of products into our nation from these Andean 
countries.
  My vote to oppose cloture is to take a stand for the right of 
Senators to fully consider the House version of this bill and offer 
amendments. As I have stated, I am a firm believer in free and fair 
trade agreements that will, on balance, benefit millions of Americans. 
But what has been happening in the textile and apparel industry is not 
desirable for the people of Virginia.
  One aspect of trade is that some workers will almost inevitably have 
to move to other jobs. When workers are displaced, we must reasonably 
help ease the impacts of international competition. A bill I introduced 
last year, the Homestead Preservation Act (S. 1848) can assist these 
workers who have lost jobs due to international competition. This 
proposal would provide workers who have been displaced from their jobs 
because of international competition to become eligible for a secured 
loan so that they my continue making their mortgage payments on their 
home for up to one year while they find new employment.
  In summation, I strongly support trade promotion authority to tear 
down tariffs and barriers to American products, goods and services. But 
trade promotion authority ought to be considered separately from the 
extension of the Andean Trade Act. I, nevertheless, look forward in the 
next few weeks to working with my colleagues to fully examine the House 
passed version of the Andean Trade Act and am hopeful that the Senate 
will pass a version that is not so harmful to U.S. textile jobs. My 
vote on procedure is to allow Senators the opportunity and right to 
calmly review, debate and revise the House passed version of the Andean 
trade bill without the confluence and distraction of other issues that 
should be addressed separately.
  In the end, we need to pass three separate bills dealing with trade 
promotion authority, trade adjustment assistance, and the Andean Trade 
Act. Each of these measures should be accorded individual scrutiny, 
amendment and ultimate passage. Indeed, the tactic of merging these 
issues together can result in the House rejecting the most important of 
all three--trade promotion authority. This ploy to join all these items 
together can culminate in the unfortunate failure to pass any of these 
measures this year.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, what is now before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to proceed to H.R. 3009.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in 
morning business and the time run against the 30 hours.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Terrorism Insurance

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I have used this illustration on other 
occasions--I hope not too many, but I know I have used it before--and 
the reason I do it is, for me, it is illustrative of what is taking 
place in the Senate.
  When I was a little boy, I lived in a small town in southern Nevada. 
I had a brother who was 10 or 12 years older than I, and he got a job 
with Standard Stations one summer. That was a big deal for us. He was 
out of high school, and they transferred him to Las Vegas to be an 
assistant manager to a service station in Ask Fork, AZ. As a little 
boy, I never traveled anyplace, and he agreed to take his little 
brother to Ask Fork, AZ. Oh, I was excited about going there. I do not 
know how long he spent there, probably about a week or 10 days, but 
just the anticipation of the trip was really amazing because I had 
never been anyplace.
  So I went to Ask Fork, AZ. It was a little railroad town in Arizona, 
very large compared to where I was raised, in Searchlight. When I 
arrived there, I learned my brother had a girlfriend. I thought he was 
going to be taking me every place, but he did not take me anyplace 
because he had this girl with whom he was involved.
  He did take me to meet her little brother, who was about my age. So I 
spent a lot of time with him. I have never forgotten that because it 
was his house and they were his games and his equipment. Every game we 
started to play, I could beat him; it did not matter what it was. But I 
never won anything because he kept changing the rules so I could never 
win.
  I went home, having seen a lot of the world, at least in my eyes--Ask 
Fork, AZ--having spent a week or 10 days with this boy about my age, 
and had never been victorious in anything because, I repeat, every time 
he would change the rules in the middle of the game anytime I was 
beginning to win.
  I bring that to the attention of the Senate because that is what we 
have going on in the Senate now is the same kind of a deal with 
terrorism insurance. It does not matter what we do; it is not good 
enough. We start with this, we try that. Okay, that sounds good. We 
offer it in the form of a unanimous consent agreement. Well, that is 
not quite right; I think we had better change this. No, we cannot agree 
to allow you to bring that to the floor.
  Weeks have gone by, and we now have no legislation in the Senate to 
deal with the serious problem the country is having. I will bet the 
Presiding Officer has had people call her and come to see her--
realtors, people from banks and other financial institutions, insurance 
people, developers--saying: Senator, why have you not done something 
about terrorism insurance? My construction job cannot go forward. The 
insurance companies will not write me insurance.
  They have come to me, and I have responded the way I think we all 
have: Well, this is something we should try to do something about.
  Senator Daschle has been trying to get something to the Senate. He 
has worked with Senator Dodd, he has worked with Senator Hollings, he 
has worked with Senator Sarbanes, and we have agreed to bring 
legislation to the floor. Last Thursday, I offered a unanimous consent 
agreement. I am not going to do that tonight--there is no one present 
for the minority--but I would like to, and I should. I would like to 
have them again object to the unanimous consent request to bring this 
legislation to the floor. We have also gone to the extreme. We first 
started out by saying: Why don't we have two amendments? They said: We 
want more than two. We said: How about four? Now we are at four 
amendments.

  I cannot understand why we cannot do that. There is something about 
the bill that people do not like, have an up-or-down vote with an 
amendment.
  We attempted to move the Dodd-Sarbanes-Schumer bill last December. 
There was no disagreement about the base bill, but over the amendments 
offered and the time to dispose of the amendments. On April 8, we tried 
to get another agreement to take up the legislation, and there was no 
objection to base text. The Republicans always agreed to the underlying 
Dodd-Sarbanes as the vehicle to bring to the floor. Now the objections 
are no longer about the number of amendments and the time agreements, 
but they are opposed to bringing it up.
  A strange thing happened last June. The Democrats took control of the 
Senate. It is a slim margin, but we still have control of the Senate 
and we control the agenda. The minority might

[[Page S3555]]

not like that but that is the way it is. That is the rules of the 
Senate. Therefore, Senator Daschle has a right to determine what 
legislation is going to be brought forward. The majority leader 
determines what bills are brought to the floor. If the minority is 
opposed, they have a right to offer amendments and attempt to modify 
the text of the bill. When it comes to terrorism insurance, this does 
not seem acceptable.
  I want the world to know--because I don't want anyone from Nevada to 
think I am doing anything to hold up this legislation, or that any 
Democrat is doing anything to hold up this legislation; we are not--we 
are ready to legislate on terrorism insurance. As I have said, we have 
offered to bring up the bill with four amendments on each side. It 
gives everybody an opportunity to make the changes they seek. They 
object to this. The legislation is must-pass legislation. We need to 
get it out of here and get it to conference.
  The White House says publicly they desperately want us to do 
something. They should weigh in with the Republican Members of this 
Senate and help move something forward. Treasury Secretary O'Neill 
testified today that the lack of terrorism insurance could cost 1 
percent, at least, to gross domestic product because major products 
will not get financing due to lack of insurance.
  It is not just insurance companies increasing their policies or 
changing them. Banks are refusing to finance large projects because 
they lack insurance coverage. Policies are going through the roof or 
they are excluding terrorism from the coverage. This has a devastating 
effect on the economy, and it will get worse.
  I encourage my friends on the other side of the aisle to review 
today's testimony from Secretary O'Neill before Senator Byrd and the 
Appropriations Committee. The time to act is now. We can take up this 
legislation and move it very quickly or we can continue to keep 
changing the rules in the middle of the game and wind up with nothing. 
That would be very bad for our country.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding we are in a period of 
morning business; is that right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Not yet.

                          ____________________