[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 52 (Wednesday, May 1, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3592-S3594]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we have heard a number of topics discussed 
this morning which, of course, is the purpose of morning business and 
that is fine. We will, however, at the expiration of this time, move 
back into the topic that is before us--the one that seems to me is of 
major importance right now, the issue of which we are required to take 
some action within the next week is trade promotion authority.
  It is accompanied with several other bills, and so it has become a 
little more difficult to understand and more difficult to pass, in 
fact, because of the leverages. I think we ought to focus on trade, 
creating jobs, and to the extent that trade stimulates our economy, and 
to talk a bit about that. The President has had this on his priority 
list

[[Page S3593]]

for a good long time. The basic idea here is to provide the outline for 
the President to follow--the President and the Trade Representative and 
his other helpers--in terms of how we negotiate trade agreements around 
the world. Quite obviously, constitutionally, the Congress has 
authority there, the Senate has authority over trade, trade 
negotiations.
  But it is also clear that 535 people are not going to be able to 
negotiate trade agreements. Therefore, there needs to be a system, 
which has been in place until 1994, when it was not renewed, of doing 
this. It provides an outline for the President to follow with regard to 
developing trade negotiations and trade agreements with people around 
the world.
  Because of the expiration of that outline, we have fallen far behind 
those countries making agreements, and the impact of that has been 
rather marked. Certainly the time has come for us to do something about 
this situation.
  In this time of economic uncertainty, when we are seeking to build 
the economy, it is one of the bills the President has called on us to 
pass. The effects of it are fairly obvious. It can expand markets for 
American goods and services. It creates higher paying jobs. It taps the 
most effective workforce in the world to compete and boost 
productivity. It has all kinds of advantages.
  It is clear that when we have trade, some elements in the economy do 
not do as well, and I understand that. What we are trying to do is find 
trade agreements that will emphasize the positive aspects, which I 
think is very likely to happen, and to hold down to a minimum negative 
impacts.
  Economists say reducing tariffs by even one-third will reduce the 
world economy by $613 billion and boost our economy by $177 billion a 
year. All economists who are knowledgeable about this issue indicate 
there is a great deal to be gained from moving forward with a process 
that allows us to do what we need to do in areas where trade is 
prominent. We can stand back and let other countries have trade 
agreements, and we will find ourselves on the losing side.
  We were involved in the committee, of which I am a member, on this 
issue. We reported out a package, the bill on which we voted this 
morning to consider, the Andean trade bill, reauthorizing trade with 
poor countries in South America. This bill is an opportunity to renew 
that trade. One country is Colombia, in which there are a great many 
problems, a great many drug problems that affect us. Some other 
countries are Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru. This is not new trade. We 
have had this agreement before, and we will, I am sure, continue it.

  There is a question about the textile industry, of course, and 
Senators from those States are concerned about what it will mean to the 
textile industry.
  As I said, invariably there will be certain industries that will be 
impacted more than others. We need to deal with that situation.
  Attached to that bill, as I understand the plan, is trade promotion 
authority and the Trade Adjustment Act. It makes sense to separate 
these bills and deal with them independently. We dealt with them 
before. There is no reason we ought to be using one as leverage on the 
other. They ought to stand on their own merits. I hope we come to some 
agreement to separate these issues and deal with them independently. 
That makes sense to me.
  The renewal of Presidential trade promotion authority should be one 
of our top legislative priorities, and indeed it is one of the 
President's priorities. We have in the last few months dealt with the 
President's priorities. I am pleased with that, and I hope we can 
continue to consider his priorities. We have dealt with energy. We have 
dealt with the farm bill. We have dealt with tax reductions. We have 
dealt with education. These are issues the President has been pushing, 
and I do not see why we cannot work together to include trade promotion 
authority, which certainly has an impact on our economy and on families 
in this country.
  It passed the House by a very close vote; nevertheless, it passed. We 
are going to be dealing with a bill that will ultimately go to a 
conference committee to deal with the House or, as some prefer it, to 
take the House's version so there will not have to be a conference 
committee. I suspect that is unlikely. Nevertheless, that is the 
situation with which we are faced.
  In general terms, the procedures are a little difficult to 
understand, but they fall into two categories: The President's 
authority to proclaim changes in tariffs resulting from negotiations of 
reciprocal trade agreements with foreign nations and procedures for 
implementing provisions of such agreements entailing changes in U.S. 
laws. These procedures, commonly known as fast track, require an up-or-
down vote in the Senate. Again, the process is one of having the 
experts on trade making agreements and bringing them back to the 
Senate. That process has been used for a very long time.
  The key provisions of the bill are:
  Establish negotiation objectives of the United States. These 
objectives are designed to provide congressional guidance to the 
President in the negotiations he undertakes. He is not totally 
uninhibited when negotiating.
  It requires Presidential consultation with Congress before, during, 
and after trade negotiations, again to make sure there is congressional 
involvement, as there should be.
  It creates a congressional oversight group, a broad-based, 
bipartisan, and permanent organization to be accredited as official 
advisers to U.S. trade negotiating delegations--again, the voice of 
Congress in negotiations.
  It requires special consultation procedures for including 
agriculture, fishing, and textiles, recognizing these are segments of 
our economy that are impacted and need special consultation.
  As I said, it requires an up-or-down vote by the Congress.
  The administration, of course, is urging we pass a clean bill so we 
are able to make some adjustments with the House. Senator Baucus and 
Senator Grassley, the chairman and ranking member of the committee, 
have urged we hold it to limited issues. I hope we can, indeed, do 
this.

  The trade adjustment bill is more controversial. Most people agree 
there is merit to taking a look at the impact trade agreements will 
have on workers in the United States and that there ought to be some 
recognition of that impact and some assistance. Generally in the past, 
these programs have included financial and training assistance for 
workers displaced by import competition, assistance for firms facing a 
significant adjustment due to increased import competition, and 
assistance programs established in conjunction with NAFTA. This has 
been done in the past.
  This Trade Adjustment Act has been in place, and I believe most 
people believe there should be some help. However, it has generally 
been training, an effort to help people become reemployed, and not to 
set up a longstanding welfare relief program. That is what many of us 
try to guard against.
  I mentioned the programs that will expire, but there are some new 
provisions that have been put into the bill that I think will be 
controversial: Health insurance subsidies. No agreement has been 
reached as to how that will be done. Some people prefer temporary 
assistance be given in tax relief or tax assistance, where payments can 
be made for a period of time and let the workers select their health 
care.
  One of the proposals, however, is to have the Government pay up to 75 
percent of continuing what is called COBRA; that is, continuing the 
insurance program that was provided by the company. Unfortunately, 
there are no time limits on this proposal.
  We are developing another health care relief entitlement, which is 
troublesome to some, when we ought to be thinking about how do we get 
people back to work rather than providing a longstanding program.
  In addition to that, it increases the coverage to farmers, ranchers, 
independent fishermen, iron workers, and truck operators. Along with 
that is what is called assistance for secondary workers, those who 
supply the goods to the industry, whether it is upstream or downstream, 
and without a very clear definition as to what that means.
  It would be very difficult to identify the various people who could 
be impacted, and one can imagine how many would be suggesting they were 
impacted.

[[Page S3594]]

  These are the kinds of conflicts I think we have to deal with, and we 
should. We have to do something about it. Amendments will be offered. 
There is an amendment I was involved in, where a sugar 
anticircumvention provision was put in. What that deals with is, in the 
past, we have had a situation from Canada in which sugar was mixed up 
in molasses, brought over the border where sugar is not allowed but 
molasses is, the sugar is then taken out, and the molasses is sent 
back. We have been able to put a stop to that, but this is a permanent 
anticircumvention provision, which all it does is go around the law. So 
I hope that is not struck.
  There are a number of other things, of course, that could well be 
included.
  This is basically an issue that is very important to the United 
States. It is very important to the administration to be able to do 
their job. I do not think there is any question about that. I come from 
a State that is involved in agriculture. Agriculture is very much a 
part of trade. About 1 out of every 3 acres, almost 40 percent of the 
production, goes into foreign markets. We produce much more than we 
consume. So one of our real issues is to be able to develop some fair 
overseas foreign markets for agricultural products. That really has not 
happened as it should. As well as we get along, for instance, with 
Japan, we still have very high tariffs on U.S. beef. Japan could be a 
great market for us.

  In balance, it is like most everything else we have to face up to, 
which is that not everyone agrees. We will hear someone say we ought to 
do it the right way. I do not know of anyone who wants to do it the 
wrong way, but there are differences of views as to what is the right 
way. That is the reason we come together and vote. It is perfectly 
legitimate to have different points of view, but it is not legitimate 
to not deal with the issues that are before us.
  We spent a very long time on energy. I am very pleased we have a 
bill, but we now have to do something in the conference committee. 
Certainly, in terms of our situation, in terms of defense, in terms of 
terrorism, in terms of our economy, these are issues that have real 
impact. We can deal with lots of little things. We could list a number 
of major issues that have a great deal to do with the way we want to 
see our country in the future, and what we see down the line and that 
is really what we ought to be doing, is sort of setting some goals as 
to where we want to be in terms of freedom, in terms of economy, in 
terms of safety. Having set those goals, it is then reasonable to deal 
with the issues that are in the interim and determine whether those 
issues will lead us to the goals we have established.
  Unfortunately, too often I think we sort of deal with the issue that 
is at hand without much thought to where it is going to be over time. 
It is also true that we represent 50 States, and each of us is a little 
different. Some this morning were talking about health care. I am 
chairman of the caucus on rural health care. Wyoming is a rural State, 
so when one talks about health care, it is different in Meeteesi, WY, 
than it is in Pittsburgh, PA. There has to be a system to recognize 
those differences.
  The same is true with trade. It is different in different parts of 
the country. Overall, it is to our advantage, and I hope we move 
forward.
  In conclusion, we need to get on with some other things, like the 
budget, like appropriations, some of the things that have to be done in 
order to keep our Government rolling. I am sure we can do that. I urge 
we move forward and complete our work as soon as we can.
  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.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New York is recognized.

                          ____________________