[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 63 (Thursday, May 16, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4434-S4450]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE EXPANSION ACT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of H.R. 3009, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 3009) to extend the Andean Trade Preference
Act, to grant additional trade benefits under that Act, and
for other purposes.
Pending:
Baucus/Grassley amendment No. 3401, in the nature of a
substitute.
Gregg amendment No. 3427 (to amendment No. 3401), to strike
the provisions relating to wage insurance.
Amendment No. 3427
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 90
minutes of debate on Gregg amendment No. 3427.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Utah.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, as we go through the details of this
debate, I think it would be well for us to take a moment at the
beginning to look at the overall situation we face and try to put this
debate into some kind of context.
A fundamental principle that we need to remember in all of these
conversations and discussions is this: All money comes from the
economy. It does not come from the budget. It does not come from the
actions of the Congress. It comes from the economy. If there were no
underlying economy, there would be no money for the Federal Government
to allocate. We have seen governments around the world that have tried
to create money with no economy by passing budgets, and we have seen
the disaster that occurs.
So the fundamental principle that we need to address, to begin with,
is what are we doing that will help the economy grow? What are we doing
with trade promotion that will make the American economy stronger? If
we can always keep that in mind as we address these various amendments,
we will not do harm to our Government or what it is we are trying to
accomplish for our citizens.
The next principle that follows from that one is this: The most
significant thing we can do to help the economy grow is to increase
productivity--increase productivity of capital, of labor, of our money,
that it is invested in the right places, so that we do not do things
that will cause the economy to be less productive than it would be
otherwise.
These are two very strong fundamentals. We must keep the economy
strong and growing. The way to keep the economy strong and growing is
to increase productivity. That brings us to the Gregg amendment.
The Gregg amendment would strike out a wage subsidy program that is
currently in the bill that is clearly antiproductive. That is, the bill
as it currently stands, would decrease American worker productivity in
ways that we have already seen historically demonstrated in other
countries. We can go, particularly, to the European countries and
discover that they have problems with productivity, and they have
problems with new job creation. One of the reasons they have problems
is that they have structurally built into their economy a subsidy for
nonproductive worker activity. It sounds very benign--indeed
beneficial--to say to a worker: well, you have lost your job and
therefore we will tide you over to another situation until you can get
back on your feet. We have unemployment compensation for that. We have
other safety net provisions.
But the Europeans, by and large, have adopted the notion that we not
only tide you over, we make you whole and keep you in your present
income circumstance regardless of our employment circumstance. I had
this brought home very dramatically when the company that I ran came
into difficulties and lost some clients and had to face laying off some
people--ultimately including me. One of my employees, who was in our
European subsidiary, said this with a complete straight face, not
understanding how America works: How many months do we get from the
Government in terms of maintaining our present salaries when this
company fails?
I said: None.
He said: In the country where I am working, they get a year and a
half to 2 years of continuation at present salary.
I said: Sorry, you are working for an American company--and he had
come back here from Europe--and you are here in America. You have to
find another job.
He did. He not only found another job, he found a better job than the
one he had with me. I had to find another job as my company failed. I
did.
If we had been under the circumstances of the language that is in
this bill, we could have said to ourselves that we did not have any
pressure to find another job; we could be subsidized where we were. We
did not need to move forward. We could go just
[[Page S4435]]
as things were, and the economy, as a whole, magnified from this
example, would become less productive.
Putting it into context again, looking at it as a general principle,
here are the principles: If the economy is not strong, we will not have
any money to allocate. If the economy is not seeing increased
productivity every year, it will not remain strong, and we can look at
our European friends and say, if we do what they have done, in the name
of compassion for our workers, we will end up hurting our workers, our
economy, and our Government.
Sometimes it takes the spur of a little bit of pressure to keep
Americans going. But our historic pattern has been that the strong
economy helps not only the people at the top but, foremost, it helps
the people at the bottom. Keeping them in a temporary position of
stability ultimately produces long-term detriment to the economy and to
the individuals themselves. For that reason, I support the Gregg
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the amendment
offered by Mr. Gregg.
Let me say, first of all, that this bill represents a very balanced
compromise between Democrats and Republicans. I have worked hard to
defeat some amendments that I view as killer amendments, I am
disappointed that this amendment--which I also view as a killer
amendment--has even been offered. This amendment would strike an
important provision in the TAA bill--wage insurance. Wage insurance, as
many now know, gives an incentive to displaced workers to find
employment more quickly. It does this by cushioning them against income
losses they might experience after losing a job and starting again in a
new field. Now, there have been some misstatements about when wages
insurance was added to this bill. I have heard some Members suggest
that this was added after the markup. That is simply not true.
Wage insurance was included in the original bill introduced by myself
and Senators Bingaman and Daschle last July. And it was open to debate
at the Finance Committee markup last December. As a part of a
compromise with Senators Grassley and Gramm, we have all agreed to make
this program a pilot program to see if it works. If it does, I suspect
we many want to broaden the program. If it does not, I expect that
Congress will end this program. But it is hard to argue against, at a
minimum, giving this widely-supported program a chance. So how does it
work?
We have drafted this as a pilot program for older workers. Due to
their long tenure in a single job or industry, older workers tend to be
the hardest TAA participants to reemploy and the most likely to
experience significant earnings losses in a new job. So, under our
bill, any worker who is at least 50 years old and certified eligible
for TAA can choose to participate in the wage insurance program.
To qualify for wage insurance, a worker must take a new job that pays
less than the old one within the first 26 weeks of regular unemployment
insurance. By opting for wage insurance, a worker agrees to forego the
18 months of additional income support the could get under traditional
TAA. Wage insurance lasts 2 years and is capped at $5,000 per year. A
worker would not be eligible for wage insurance if he made over $50,000
per year. Now, why should we try a wage insurance program as part of
TAA?
First, I would note that this is an issue that has been championed by
Both Republican and Democratic leaders, and by academics. A number of
Republicans, including Secretary Rumsfeld and Ambassador Zoellick--as
members of the Trade Deficit Review Commission--and former USTR Carla
Hills, have supported wage insurance. Alan Greenspan has also expressed
support for such a program. These prominent individuals support wage
insurance because it uses market incentives to shorten the period of
unemployment.
Second, this is an innovative way to get hard-to-employ people back
to work faster. The idea behind wage insurance is that a worker will be
more willing to take a lower paying job--and get back into the
workforce sooner--if someone is making up part of the difference
between the old and new wage. After a year or two of experience on the
job, wages tend to rise, reducing the long-term wage losses.
Third, this program actually saves money. During the 26 weeks a
worker receives unemployment insurance, they can choose traditional TAA
benefits or they can get a job and opt for wage insurance. The choice
is up to the worker, but on average providing wage insurance will cost
less than providing traditional TAA benefits. By getting people back
into the workforce sooner, wage insurance will reduce unemployment
rolls, reduce traditional TAA participation, and reduce overall costs
to the government. Basically, if a worker certified for TAA takes a job
before the end of his 26-week unemployment insurance period, the money
that would have gone to fund income support starting in week 27 is
instead used to pay the wage insurance. The difference is that the
total amount of wage insurance a worker could receive is much less than
the cost of traditional TAA benefits. One year of TAA income support at
an average of $250 per week is $13,000, while wage insurance is capped
at $5,000 per year. There are additional savings because the government
will also not be paying for training.
Fourth, on-the-job training works. Studies show that on-the-job
training is better for both employers and employees. Wage insurance
gives workers the incentive to take entry level jobs and train on the
job and it gives employers more control over the kind of training that
employees receive.
I would also like to respond to some of the criticisms raised last
night about the wage insurance program. First, critics have suggested
that wage insurance will give people an incentive to lower their
productivity, that wage insurance will persuade workers to turn down
good-paying jobs that use their skills in favor of underpaid dream jobs
like a fly-fishing instructor or a Disneyland worker. That seems pretty
far-fetched to me. Workers in their 50s have kids in college,
retirement nest-eggs to build, and mortgages to pay off. Research shows
that older workers are the most likely to have obsolete job skills that
do not lead to well-paying jobs they need to meet these obligations. I
expect that these workers will take the best job they can get.
We have an example in my own state of Montana. Last year the Asarco
lead smelter closed in East Helena. Most of the workers have been with
the plant many years and are in their late 40s or older. There are no
more lead smelting jobs in the U.S. where they could match their wages
and use their skills. Most ended up starting again in jobs that paid
much less--if they could find jobs at all. This wage insurance program
could have helped many of them get back on their feet faster. In any
event, I would emphasize that this is a pilot. If it turns out that
critics are right and wage insurance leads to a glut of fly fishing
instructors, the program can be ended after the 2-year trial. But I
don't think that is what we will see.
The second criticism made of wage insurance is that it is
inconsistent with the purpose of TAA, which is to provide retraining.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The purpose of TAA is not
training for its own sake. The purpose of TAA is to get trade-impacted
workers back to work as quickly as possible by helping them get new
skills. Wage insurance serves that goal, because it encourages on-the-
job training. And on-the-job training is the best way to learn new job
skills.
Finally, we have heard that this wage insurance program is a form of
age discrimination. Giving older workers first crack at an alternative
to traditional TAA is not age discrimination. But if this is truly a
serious concern, I would be happy to amend this provision, and expand
wage insurance to workers of all ages.
Mr. President, in concluding, let me say that there have been several
Members who have criticized TAA in the last several days. They suggest
it does not work. Yet they reject new bipartisan ideas--like wage
insurance--that are offered as alternatives to TAA. I don't understand
that. This amendment puts at grave risk the bipartisan compromise that
has been struck in this bill. I oppose the amendment and I hope my
colleagues will work hard to defeat it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
[[Page S4436]]
The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, in a few moments I believe there are other
Members coming over to speak, but let me outline once again some of the
problems of this language. Remember, the way this is structured is that
if one loses their job as a result of trade activity, they can take
another job that pays less, and then the taxpayers pay them $5,000 a
year for taking a job that pays less if they are over 50 years of age.
There is no training requirement language.
There is no requirement that if there is a similar suitable job that
pays the same, you take that. Say you lost your job at a manufacturing
industry which was trade affected, and there was another job down the
street in the manufacturing industry, in the same business, but that
company had been able to compete effectively. You can take a job there
at the same amount. There is no requirement you must take that; you can
work for your cousin, brother, anyone, take a less paying job, and get
paid $5,000 from the taxpayer to do that.
There is no requirement to remain in the community. A key in the
trade adjustment language is that workers remain in the community. The
concept was to revitalize the community through the trade adjustment
language. There is no requirement to do that. I can see a lot of people
losing their jobs--hopefully not a lot--in the Northeast or the Chicago
area or the northern part of the country. Say they are 50 years old.
They will say: Hey, I'm out of here; I'm going south where it is warm.
I will get a job being an assistant golf pro, which is what I always
wanted to do, and I will get $5,000 from the taxpayers to do that.
There is no requirement to remain in the community.
There is no requirement for economic damage. In other words, there is
no requirement that you need the money. There is a $50,000 payment
level, but if you have a lot of assets or your spouse happens to have a
high income, you still can benefit from this program.
There is no arm's length requirement. I can see a situation where an
agreement may have been reached in the small business just having tough
times. They close the store and open across the street, and they get a
$5,000 subsidy. Maybe it is just a family situation and you work the
system so you can go to work for your son who is running a construction
business. The chances to manipulate the system because there is $5,000
of taxpayer money pouring in to support you are very significant.
There are a lot of structural problems as well as philosophical
problems that we as a society are going to begin to pay people to be
less productive. That is a concept which goes against American
entrepreneurship.
I would like to yield to the Senator from Missouri, but I believe we
are going back and forth.
Mr. BAUCUS. Senator Grassley and I have to go to a Finance Committee
meeting in 8 minutes. I would like Senator Grassley to have the floor.
Mr. GREGG. Obviously, the Senator is the leader on the floor, and we
certainly recognize that right.
I reserve my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire.
The Senator from Montana has laid out very clearly why this amendment
must be defeated. This is a carefully crafted compromise. The year 2002
is not like previous years in the Senate when we have devoted a lot of
bipartisanship to trade agreements. There is bipartisanship, but it is
not as certain that we will pass a bill as in the previous 25 years
when similar legislation passed.
I emphasize what Senator Baucus said: This is a carefully worked out
agreement. It may not be entirely to the liking of Senator Baucus or
perhaps not entirely to my liking, but we have to stick together to get
this legislation passed. It is probably one of the most important
pieces of legislation to be considered in the Senate.
Although the Senator from New Hampshire has some valid arguments, I
cannot support an amendment that upsets the balance of the package by
striking these wage insurance provisions. There are things in the
package that Members on each side may not like. It is their prerogative
to amend whatever they see necessary. I cannot support stripping out
this section of the package.
Another reason is, wage insurance provisions in the legislation have
not been tested, as some would say. Somewhere along the line, new ideas
become law. Just because this is a new idea does not mean it is a bad
idea.
I will read what Ambassador Carla Hills, former U.S. Trade
Representative for President George Bush, said last year, a long time
after she left her position as Trade Representative, when she appeared
before the Senate Finance Committee:
We should explore the concept of wage insurance to
supplement the incomes of displaced workers--whatever the
cause--who take an entry-level job in a different, more
promising sector at lower pay. This would respond to workers'
anxiety over near-term wage loss, encourage them to stay
productive in the work force and obtain the training that has
proved most effective--which is training on the job.
Carla Hills went on to say in a report called ``Getting Over the Fear
of Free Trade'':
The key goal of all of these ideas, as unconventional as
they may seem at first, especially to the U.S. business
community or the Republican Party, is straightforward. It is
to educate and motivate more Americans to stand up in defense
of open markets lest we lose the benefits that come from the
free flow of ideas, capital, and goods.
We should listen to Ambassador Hills. I believe American anxiety
about globalization stems in part from job instability. Wage insurance
eases those fears.
As we consider voting on this amendment, I ask Members on my side of
the aisle to keep their eye on the ball. The ball happens to be trade
promotion authority, a contract between the Congress of the United
States and the President of the United States, negotiated for 270
million Americans, a better world, a world that creates job
opportunities. Trade creates jobs.
As President Kennedy said, trade, not aid, when it comes to helping
the rest of the world. The United States has full responsibility to
look out for our interests, the interests of the American people, but
also to be a leader in the world. Being a leader in the world involves
our participation in not only the economic concerns of the world but
maintaining the peace. One of the tools of maintaining peace is
economic opportunity. The cooperation comes to the world because of
people trading. We often brag about political leaders and diplomats
doing so much for world peace. We obviously create an environment for
world peace, but there is nothing that works more for world peace than
opportunities for individuals to interact with other individuals around
the world in a commercial way. That does more to break down barriers
and establish world peace than anything else.
Trade promotion authority is one of the three or four parts of this
legislation. That is the 800-pound gorilla at which we ought to all be
paying attention. It takes a carefully crafted compromise to get to
that point. Some of the items in the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act
that people on my side of the aisle might not like--and wage insurance
could be one--are very small compared to the ball that I am asking
Members to keep their eye on--trade promotion authority.
As the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board said regarding trade
promotion authority and freeing up trade around the world, as a result
of the agreements we last endorsed in this body, the North American
Free Trade Agreement, 1993, the Uruguay Round of Tariffs and Trades,
1994, those have helped reduce costs to the American consumer by $4,000
for a family of four.
That is equal to more than we have given in tax cuts in recent years
to American families. Think of the good that comes to the economy
because we have an opportunity to export and our consumers have an
opportunity to import. We have an opportunity to reduce costs because
of increased efficiency. That is all going to come in the future, as it
has in the past, 50-some years under the GATT arrangements, because we
are going to give our President trade promotion authority.
That is what we want our eye kept on. This compromise on trade
adjustment assistance is part of that compromise.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I will say this quickly and then I will
yield to the
[[Page S4437]]
Senator from Missouri and then to the Senator from Tennessee, but I
rarely disagree with the Senator from Iowa. I consider him to be one of
the best Senators in the Senate. He is certainly a thoughtful and
effective Member of the Senate and a strong leader, especially for free
trade. I certainly support his commitment to the trade promotion
authority, but the price of that trade promotion authority should not
be the creation of a brandnew entitlement which has explosive potential
and is regrettably not a new idea. In fact, it is a very old idea. It
is a European industrial socialist policy idea which has failed in
Europe, failed in the old countries. We should not bring it to the new
country.
I yield to the Senator from Missouri 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my friend from New Hampshire. I say
to my good friend from Iowa, I know he is a devoted, committed advocate
of free trade. Coming from agricultural States such as his and mine, we
know our farmers absolutely depend upon access to the world market to
make sure they gain their return from the marketplace rather than from
the mailbox. When we see trade decline, we see agricultural prices drop
to terribly low levels.
I think the problems we have in agriculture are largely attributable
to the collapse in Southeast Asia. We are only going to get the markets
back and our income back and the costs of the farm bill down when we
open up more trade agreements and see healthy trade with our partners
throughout the world.
Having said that, I come to the floor as a very strong proponent of
free trade. It is not just good for farmers; it is good for the people
who work in the industries. The exporting industries pay 13 percent to
15 percent more than the nonexporting industries.
Our service sector is a leader in the world in exporting services of
all kinds, and we benefit from that. When I go out to shop every day at
home in Mexico, MO, or St. Louis or Kansas City, I have better priced
goods and better quality goods because there is competition. I buy
American-made goods every chance I can if they are available. But I
know I am getting the best price and I am getting the best quality
because they have to compete. So every one of us, as a consumer,
benefits from the competition through increased choice and lower
prices. That is why I think trade promotion is so important.
That is why I am so disappointed today to see the trade promotion
bill has been hijacked. This is no longer a trade promotion bill; it is
a welfare entitlement bill which talks about trade promotion, gives the
President some authority, and then takes it away.
We failed to table the Dayton-Craig amendment. There were strong
arguments made for that amendment: We can't give up our sovereignty.
Let me tell you what it does. It essentially says to any country that
is even thinking about negotiating a deal with the President or his
Trade Representative: Forget about it. Forget about it because whatever
you negotiate with the President, the Congress can take it away when
they come back. That essentially kills the authority of the President
to negotiate a trade agreement, authority that previous Presidents have
had in recent years as we made progress toward getting free trade.
I wish we would take the Andean Trade Promotion Act out of this bill.
Everybody knows we need it. Today is the day one deadline occurs. We
need to reassure our partners in the Andean region that we want free
trade with them, to maintain it and not to see the tariffs come back.
We ought to pass that and send this turkey back to get some wings and
feathers on it so it will fly because this will not fly.
One of the amendments we have before us by the Senator from New
Hampshire is just one step we ought to take to clean it up. As the
Senator from New Hampshire has so eloquently stated, this is a brandnew
subsidy without checks and balances. It does not guarantee that people
will get the benefits and the economic opportunities that we should
seek. There is no limitation based on necessity. The subsidy would go
to an older worker who simply chooses to quit the rat race.
As the Senator from New Hampshire pointed out, you can get a wage
subsidy for doing what you want--a former office worker could join her
daughter's catering firm or a factory worker who treats a trade-related
plant closing as an opportunity not to take an equal job in the
community but to take early retirement, move to Florida, and maybe
serve as a greeter at Wal-Mart or a groundskeeper at a golf course so
he could have a couple of rounds of golf in and have a little wage
subsidy.
I have nothing against that. I know some of my colleagues like to
play golf, but I would sure hate paying them for their privilege of
playing golf. My colleagues in this body who are good golfers do so on
their own time, after they put in the 60-hour workweek, so it does not
hold for them. But to encourage people without limit to do what they
wish and take a subsidy along with the other entitlement programs is a
bad precedent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair and thank my colleague from New
Hampshire. There are many other good arguments. I urge my colleagues to
support the Senator from New Hampshire and help us go back to the job
of cleaning this bill up to make it a trade promotion rather than an
entitlement promotion bill.
Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from Missouri for his excellent
thoughts, and I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment of
Senator Gregg. I think the debate on trade promotion authority is a
classic example of something that used to be nonpartisan, as I
understand it, and that is trade--as was the consensus I thought we
developed that I believed was a good thing for our country. It is also
an example of how often nowadays it seems we are asked to do some bad
things in order to do something that is any good.
We are urged to keep our eyes on the ball, which is trade promotion
authority, they say. I hope we all agree that free trade is good, that
trade promotion authority is good. I think standing by itself it would
pass overwhelmingly. But I am beginning to wonder what the ball is.
If, in fact, we are taking the first steps toward the Federal
Government sending somebody a check for their insurance coverage, if we
are taking the first step toward the Federal Government providing a
wage differential for this group, that group, and then the next group--
to me that is the ball. As important as trade promotion authority is, I
am not sure I am willing to do that evil in order to do the other good.
If the idea is to load down something that is so clearly beneficial
to this economy and this country such as trade promotion authority, the
Andean trade agreement, with so many things that are so onerous that it
is going to defeat the underlying bill--if that is the purpose, I think
those who seek to carry that out are very close to accomplishing their
goal.
It would be a pity, it would be a bad thing for this country, but I
am afraid that is what we are looking at. Trade promotion authority and
the Andean trade agreement are being held as hostages for a series of
new entitlement programs, which really have nothing to do with trade
but have everything to do with a social agenda which, as the Senator
from New Hampshire pointed out, has failed in other parts of the world.
While they are scrambling to try to be more like us, we are scrambling
to try to be more like them, it seems.
If there is anything we ought to agree to in this body, it is the
importance of trade promotion authority and the Andean trade agreement,
at a time when our friends to the south of us, the Colombian
Government, are about to be taken over by narcotraffickers, if they
have their way, and have the first narcogovernment in our hemisphere
instead of the democracy that is there now. Is anything more important
than stopping that? I don't know.
We have a relationship with the Government of Ecuador where we have a
forward operation location to assist us in drug eradication. Fighting
drugs, terrorism, there is nothing more important than that. And
everyone knows we need to have a trading relationship with these folks
who are trying to do the right thing, trying to impose the rule of law
and other beneficial things that we stand for in their countries,
[[Page S4438]]
and yet that is being held hostage to these new entitlement programs.
The amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire, of course, has to do
with one of the more onerous ones, which is an open invitation to
outright fraud and abuse. Every year we come up with new assessments of
how many billions of dollars we pay out to people who are dead or who
are defrauding the Government or whatnot. This is an open invitation to
do that. It is a program that would make the European leftists blush,
and yet we are trying to move in that direction. But it is only one
part of the onerous provisions that have loaded up this trade promotion
authority bill.
So in order to do something good for our country, good for consumers,
good for folks in Tennessee, who go to the store and want to buy goods
a little bit cheaper--in order for us to do that, we are being asked to
sign off on a bill that would triple the cost of trade adjustment
assistance. We all agree that we need some trade adjustment assistance,
but now we are being asked, in a time of deficit, in a time of war, to
triple this program for this 2 percent of workers.
For this constituent group, in this election year, we are being asked
to do that, to give this group of people--this small group of people--
an additional 6 months of unemployment compensation. The average guy
who gets laid off gets 6 months. So now this 2 percent would get up to
2 years. So this group goes from 6 months to 2 years, and it expands
the number of reasons they do not have to undergo any additional
training.
Trade assistance was originally designed as a training program to
help people get a new job. This bill has over a half dozen exceptions
where people do not even have to take training, including a provision
that says you do not have to take training if there is another
comparable job. If there is another comparable job, why do you need
trade assistance anyway?
This bill would expand coverage to secondary workers, double or
triple the number of people eligible. It creates a new program to pay
farmers when commodity prices are below 80 percent of the previous 5-
year average and imports contribute in part to the decline in price.
We just passed $190 billion in entitlement spending for farmers in
the farm bill. This, in large part, duplicates that. There is a new
program, a new bureaucracy in the office of the Department of Commerce.
This program duplicates existing programs that provide assistance for
communities. And it is a new bureaucracy in the process.
All of this is at a cost of who knows what. Estimates have been all
over the lot, but they are all based on assumptions that people would
participate in this new program at the same level as they participated
in the old program. This is a much more generous program. It stands to
reason a much higher percentage of people are going to participate in
it.
So you are probably looking at $1 billion, or between $1 billion and
$2 billion a year for a 10-year period, something like that, for
something that could never pass on its own, something that no one would
have the temerity to put in a piece of legislation. It is only because
you are trying to hold free trade hostage, the Andean trade agreement
hostage to this new group of entitlement programs.
If this new wage guarantee provision, for example, really works out
the way we are talking about--that it is open and rife with waste,
fraud, and abuse--what are the chances of this new entitlement program
being canceled? Zero. It never happens. It never will happen. What are
the chances of it being expanded? Pretty good. It is up to $5,000 now
for the wage differential. What are the chances of that coming in and
getting more and more generous?
Look at where trade adjustment assistance has gone from when it was
first passed to what is being proposed today. No one ever dreamed, when
trade adjustment assistance was first passed, that somebody would be
proposing that we would do things in terms of 70 percent of their COBRA
or wage differential, or all these other things that are being
proposed. The same thing will happen with this new list of
entitlements.
So I strongly urge adoption of the Gregg amendment. It would make a
bad bill a little better. There are many of us who are tussling and
grappling with something--and that I think all of America should be
grappling with--and that is the balancing off of something so important
as giving the President authority to get into the 21st century a little
bit, and become a leader in this country, as we are supposed to be, in
free trade, put our money where our mouth is, giving him trade
promotion authority that our Presidents have had up until President
Clinton, and get on with it.
If we cannot compete in this world economy with all the advantages we
have, I will be very surprised. We should not be afraid of it. As
important as all that is, however, I am afraid there is an effort here
to saddle it with things that are bad for this country, that are the
camel's nose under the tent, things that would never pass on their own.
I say we have to keep our eye on the ball.
We are going to hold free trade hostage. We are going to hold our
friends in our hemisphere--whom we ought to be trying to do everything
to help--hostage in order to get a new array of social programs and
guarantees and things that are old and tired and have failed in other
parts of this world and should never be started in this one.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the assistant leader,
Senator Nickles.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant leader is recognized.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, one, I compliment Senator Thompson for
the speech he made as well as Senator Gregg from New Hampshire for this
amendment.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. This amendment would
strike the wage subsidy program. I am glad we are going to have an up-
or-down vote on it; and I hope this amendment will be adopted
overwhelmingly, because this wage subsidy program is a bad idea.
There are a lot of bad ideas floating around. The Senator from
Tennessee just mentioned a couple of them. It bothers me that evidently
the Democrats who put together this package--and I say that because the
Trade Adjustment Assistance Program passed in the Finance Committee
without adequate discussion. We spent all day on trade promotion
authority, and trade promotion authority passed, 18 to 3 in the Finance
Committee. Trade adjustment assistance was rushed through the
Committee. The two hour rule was raised and some would even question
whether we finished it in time because of this objection, and whether
it passed too late. There was not enough discussion. I am on that
committee.
Well, what is it? It is the Federal Government saying: if you lose
your job, presumably because of trade, and you take another job, the
Federal Government will come in and pick up half the difference if your
second job is less money.
I would like to have colleagues who support this come and defend it.
Why are we doing this for so many of people? I question the wisdom of
the proposal.
I will just give you an example. What if you are a Senator whose wife
just happens to work. Maybe it is a high-tech firm, which closes.
Someone could say it was because of trade that it closed. And so she
became unemployed, or became reemployed, and took a lesser paying job.
So Uncle Sam is going to write my spouse a check for $5,000.
As the Senator from Tennessee said, this is just an opening round.
Proponents will attempt to expand this program, should it pass. Why are
we going to have the Federal Government setting wage rates? And
guaranteeing these wage rates? How ridiculous of an idea can it be? How
socialistic can it be? Maybe people don't not like to use that word,
but socialism is the Government setting wages and prices. This is
pretty socialistic.
I am embarrassed as to how bad this idea is. I compliment my
colleague and friend from New Hampshire for raising this, pointing this
out to the Senate.
There is no income test. We could be writing checks for people who
could have $1 million in assets. Presumably, if they lost a job and
then took a lesser job, Uncle Sam will write them a check for half the
difference in many cases, even if they are millionaires. What kind of
sense does that make?
[[Page S4439]]
I am embarrassed for the Senate. I am bothered by this process the
majority leader has put in that says: To take up trade promotion, you
also have to take trade adjustment assistance. Incidentally, when we
are doing this, we will also put in a new wage subsidy program. We will
have a brand-new benefit for trade adjustment assistance, including the
Federal Government, for the first time ever, picking up 70 percent of
health care costs not only for directly affected workers but for
upstream workers as well, defined broadly enough to where no one knows
how many hundreds of thousands of people might qualify for that
benefit.
In addition, we will have a brand-new wage subsidy paid for by
taxpayers. I have an interest. I have a son. I have three daughters.
They are all taxpayers, and I am too. They don't want to pay for this
benefit. Their taxes are plenty high. All of a sudden, we are talking
about new entitlements for people. Where is the money coming from? We
have a deficit now.
Somebody said: If passed, this new program is limited to $50 million.
What proponents are trying to do is get this new entitlement started.
Then we will see how much it costs 10 years from now, and supporters
will probably try to raise the limit from $5,000 to such sums as
necessary. You name it. Entitlements can grow like crazy. I would hate
to think we would adopt this, and then 10 years from now find out we
have a multibillion-dollar program and ask: Where did this come from?
This was a partisan proposal jammed in on top of trade promotion,
basically extortion, saying, if you don't give us this, we will not
give you trade.
The Senate needs to reject this proposal. This is a bad idea. When we
talk about other countries, we encourage them to move to free markets.
I am embarrassed that some of us are trying to move in their
socialistic direction. Wow.
As a matter of fact, I had a constituent in my office a few minutes
ago. He was listening to the Senator from New Hampshire. I told him I
had to join this debate. I explained the amendment. My constituent's
response was: I can't believe they are trying to do this.
This is about income redistribution where the Federal Government is
paying wages, we will have a wage guarantee program. This is a wage
subsidy program; that is exactly what this is. This is part of a very
bad idea, a very bad process. It needs to be resoundingly rejected.
I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to support the Gregg
amendment and strike this brand-new entitlement program.
If there are proponents, I would love to have a dialog and find out
how this will work and find out if a millionaire could benefit from
this program; and find out if someone's spouse, who maybe is from a
very wealthy family, if they could benefit from this program; or find
out, if I was working for $50,000, and I happened to be over 50 and I
decided to take a job for $40,000, if I can use that money to cover my
golf bets. The Senator from Missouri mentioned maybe this is good for
the golfers. I happen to be a golfer. I like that idea. But I have
never thought of the Federal Government paying for my golf side bets.
I can't believe we are even considering this. What an embarrassment.
This amendment should be passed, and it should be passed
overwhelmingly.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I understand the other side is going to
yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Texas, and then we will go to 5
minutes to the Senator from Arizona. We are alternating.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, we yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, as many of my colleagues know, I was asked
by the White House and by the Republican leadership to try to negotiate
a package that would allow us to pass trade promotion authority. In the
process, I found myself in a position of having to either kiss an ugly
pig on the mouth or send it off to the barbeque.
Through our negotiations, we were able to drop the steel legacy
provision. We also were able to dramatically reduce the proposed wage
insurance program, cutting its funding level from $100 million to $50
million and its authorization from 5 years to 2 years. But I am not
going to stand here today and argue on behalf of the principle of wage
insurance. I can tell my colleagues that as a conferee, I am going to
oppose this provision, and I hope it will be removed.
I believe that our leader and Senator Grassley and I are in the
position where we have made an agreement, and therefore we must stick
to it. I could stand here and say I am very unhappy that those who have
entered into the agreement on the other side of the aisle nonetheless
have found it convenient to continue to load more and more and more
onto this wagon, to the point where the axle is about to break. But in
my book, when you give your word, when you try to work out an
agreement, when you try to make compromise work, you give up the luxury
of coming back later and picking and choosing which provisions to
support. In fact, it is sort of like fast track: you make a deal and
you must stick by the whole package.
This afternoon we are going to have several votes. First, we are
going to have a vote on Senator Dodd's amendment, which effectively is
the same amendment as the one offered yesterday by Senator Lieberman.
If that amendment passes, I am off this wagon. We also are going to
have a vote on adding back the steel legacy provision. If steel legacy
costs are included in this bill, I am going to do everything in my
power to kill this bill, even though I am for fast-track authority and
believe it is critical. You simply reach a point where greed and
irresponsibility so overwhelm the underlying cause that you just cannot
tolerate it.
There's a bigger point to all this, and that is the question of
taking ownership. Quite frankly, I don't believe the chairman of the
Finance Committee and the majority leader of the Senate have taken
ownership of this trade promotion authority bill. I think we have had a
game of piracy to try to see what can be gotten in return for this bill
since they know that the President wants this bill and that it is in
the national interest. They claim to be for the bill, but at every step
along the way, we are having piracy committed against this bill.
I gave my word when I signed on to the agreement. Had I been the
principal instead of the negotiator, I am not sure I would have agreed
to our agreement. In fact, I probably wouldn't have. But I did.
However, if these other amendments pass, if the deal is not kept, if it
is clear that this piracy is going to continue, then at that point I
would feel free to vote my conscience.
The point is that we have made an agreement. As appealing as it is to
me to go back and undo the wage insurance part of it--a rotten,
stinking part of it--I don't think that that would be responsible. But
I will fight to get rid of this provision in conference and I hope that
it will be dropped.
I have taken some degree of ownership of this bill, and feel a
responsibility for it. For this process to succeed, I believe that
those of us who want fast-track authority--the majority leader, the
minority leader, the chairman of Finance, the ranking member of
Finance, and those Senators who want this bill--have to begin to show
some ownership of and responsibility for the bill as negotiated.
If we do not, and instead keep seeing efforts to pile on, we are
going to kill this bill. For example, if steel legacy is added to this
bill, it is dead. If the Dodd amendment, which is effectively the same
vote we had on Lieberman, is added to this bill, we won't have trade
promotion authority and I therefore will be off the wagon and out of
the deal.
Today, I am in the deal. As I said, I have taken on partial ownership
of the bill. When you sign on to a compromise, when you take partial
ownership, when you take responsibility, it means you have to stand up
for the deal and vote against even those amendments that you otherwise
would support.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The majority leader is recognized.
[[Page S4440]]
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program
dedicates a very small piece of what we gained from trade to help those
people who lose from trade, get back on their feet, and that is really
what this amendment does.
The current TAA program helps some people but does not address some
of the key problems people face; it leaves out too many other people
altogether.
We fix some of these flaws. When a plant shuts down or moves
overseas, workers lose their livelihoods and families face the
uncertainty of not knowing how they are going to pay for food or a
mortgage, or take their child to the doctor.
This bipartisan agreement will provide these workers with the
opportunity to go back to community college to learn some new skills.
They will receive unemployment insurance and subsidized health care to
help them get through the difficult times and help them get a new job.
To a 35-year-old worker facing a difficult circumstance of a lost
job, this sounds like a potential lifeline. But for a 53-year-old
closer to retirement age, and less likely to be able to transition into
a new job or field, those benefits are largely an empty promise. And we
know it.
That is why we have worked so hard to keep the wage insurance
provision in the bipartisan package we negotiated with Senators
Grassley, Lott, Gramm, and the White House. This provision was part of
our agreement, and it must be retained.
Wage insurance is a pilot program--that is all it is--to test a very
powerful idea. It says to older workers, if you take a lower paying job
than the one you lost, some of the money that you would have received
in unemployment insurance will go to offset a portion of the wage loss
you will suffer.
By helping offset the loss of taking a lower paying job, wage
insurance discourages dependency and encourages work. Wage insurance is
not just compassionate policy, it is smart policy.
By getting people back into the workforce sooner, wage insurance will
reduce unemployment rolls and the overall cost to Government. In
reality, the provision will cost nothing more than what the Government
would have been paying in unemployment insurance because people will
have to give up their unemployment benefits to get the wage insurance.
This provision is prowork and it enjoys broad intellectual support on
the left and on the right. In 1998, partly because of the unintended
effects of trade, Congress established the U.S. Trade Deficit Review
Commission. Among the key members of the Commission were President
Bush's Trade Representative, Robert Zoellick; Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld; and George Becker, former President of the Steelworkers.
This group doesn't agree on much. But wage insurance was one clear
area of agreement. Here is what they had to say--a bipartisan
commission:
We recommend that Congress consider new ways to address the
broader cost of job displacement. Such consideration should
include assessing ways of filling the earnings gaps created
when new jobs initially pay less than previous jobs. As
discussed, wage insurance is one such option. It has the
advantage of encouraging displaced workers to accept new jobs
as quickly as possible.
Here is another voice:
It would be a great tragedy were we to stop the wheels of
progress because of an incapacity to assist victims of
progress. Our efforts should be directed at job skills
enhancement and retraining . . . and, if necessary, selected
income maintenance programs for those over a certain age,
where retraining is problematic.
That is not a Democratic Senator speaking. That is Federal Reserve
Chairman Alan Greenspan. In case my colleagues missed the translation,
``income maintenance programs for those of a certain age'' is wage
insurance. Alan Greenspan is talking about wage insurance. Wage
insurance for older workers is exactly what we are talking about this
morning.
Finally, from a think tank:
The proposed wage insurance program would strongly
encourage workers to quickly find new jobs.
I will repeat that because it may resonate with some of my colleagues
on the floor.
The proposed wage insurance program would strongly
encourage workers to quickly find new jobs.
That quote comes from the Heritage Foundation, and it comes as yet
another endorsement of this amendment.
Older workers who lose their jobs and are struggling to find a new
one have enough uncertainty to worry about. They should not also have
to worry about whether they can afford to take a new job. The wage
insurance provision gives workers something more than an empty promise.
We already scaled this proposal back from $100 million for each of
the next 5 years to $50 million for 2 years. But we cannot afford to
lose it entirely. It is a central component of the bipartisan agreement
we made with Senators Grassley, Lott, Gramm, and the White House.
I urge my colleagues to keep this agreement intact and reject this
amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards). The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment
of the Senator from New Hampshire to strike this wage subsidy provision
from the bill. In my view, if it stays in the bill, it could well sink
it. It would be difficult for me to support the bill on final passage
if this provision is in it, notwithstanding my support for the bill. I
admire the Senator from Texas because he was part of a group that
negotiated portions of this bill that would be on the floor before us.
He feels committed to supporting the version that was negotiated which
includes this provision. Of course, he should do that. I think he also
makes a good point to suggest that others who may be supporting other
amendments need to keep their commitment in mind.
But the statement here reminds me a little bit of the old politician
that said that it is important for us to always stand on principle and,
in certain situations, to even be able to rise above principle. That is
what is involved here unfortunately. The principle is to have a free
market with labor and capital, people freely able to be hired. And it
is possible sometimes through government decisions that people lose
their jobs, through competition that people lose jobs. It is even
possible that if there is a tariff reduced as a result of a free trade
agreement, that could result in somebody losing their jobs.
People lose jobs for all kinds of reasons. The question, though, is
whether or not we should make an exception and provide that certain
people who work have rights more than others and are entitled to
certain kinds of subsidy benefits in their wages as a result.
If we decide that is a good idea, how are we going to explain to
other workers that we are leaving them out in the cold? The reality is
that this is a foot in the door that will create an argument for
everybody, regardless of their circumstance, to have a wage subsidy
like certain other countries in the world of GATT, competitors of ours
who cannot compete as well because they have these kinds of government
subsidy programs for wages. In fact, it is a transfer of payment from
hard-working Americans, middle income Americans, to those who are more
wealthy. It is blatant discrimination against hard-working Americans,
an invitation to fraud and abuse. As I said, it is a very dangerous
step toward Government control. It is theoretically capped, but we know
the initial expenses will be a drop in the bucket compared to what it
will cost over the years.
Other constituencies will soon demand their own form of wage
insurance, whether subsidies or other wage controls, and I think it
would be virtually impossible to say no to them once we have
established the principle. That is what I am talking about here--
principle. There is no limitation in this program based upon necessity.
It is available to dislocated workers who simply choose to quit the rat
race and take an easier job. There is no training requirement, and that
was always a component of the program that has been supported here in
the past by the Senate. The Trade Adjustment Act has always included a
training component to train displaced workers for new and better jobs.
But this wage subsidy program circumvents that and allows certain
workers essentially to opt out.
[[Page S4441]]
There is no consideration in this provision of whether there are
suitable jobs available in similar circumstances. The older displaced
worker is free to take the job, earn an entitlement, regardless of
whether equivalent work is readily available. For whatever reason,
family health or personal preference, the individual is free to pull up
stakes and move anywhere in the country, take a job, and receive the
subsidy.
There are some who suggest that would benefit my sunshine State of
Arizona. It would be pretty nice to quit the job in the Rust Belt and
move to Arizona because of the subsidy provided in this bill.
There is no protection against fraud and abuse. There is a perverse
incentive in this provision for employers to reduce the wages they pay
knowing the Federal subsidy will supplement their workers' income and
make up the difference.
There is no requirement the new employer and employee be at arm's
length. This is a very critical provision rife for potential fraud and
abuse. There is no inquiry permitted as to whether the new job, perhaps
with a family member or friend, is a legitimate consequence of the
displaced worker having to leave his former employment. Because the
U.S. Government makes up the difference in wages, it is, as I say, rife
with potential for fraud and abuse.
We ought to go back to principle and not politics.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has used 5 minutes.
Mr. KYL. I suggest my colleagues support the amendment of the Senator
from New Hampshire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I yield myself 6 minutes.
Mr. President, I thank Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley
for their superb work so far on the trade bill.
These are complex matters of policy, with potentially far-reaching
consequences, that we are dealing with on this bill, and our two
leaders on the Finance Committee have led us with foresight and wisdom.
It is so important, as always, that we carefully balanced both the
positive and the negatives of the legislation at hand.
As a member of the Finance Committee, I have taken our role, as
Americans, in the global economic picture very seriously. Our
leadership is crucial to the success of any efforts to open markets,
whether in a multilateral forum such as the World Trade Organization,
or in a regional context, such as a proposed western hemispheric
arrangement. And let us make no mistake about the absolute need to open
markets, to ensure the freer mobility of capital, to guarantee everyone
a chance at a more prosperous and more stable future.
The underlying trade bill helps us meet this need, helps us fulfill
our vital role as the global economic leader, by extending to the
president the trade negotiating authority he needs to undertake more
effectively the multilateral and other important negotiations that a
stable global economy will require.
Once the President has negotiated an agreement, he brings it back to
us for our consideration. If we support the agreement he has
negotiated, then we take another step into the future by opening more
markets and further growing our economy.
But the underlying trade bill also meets another highly important
need: it gives us the resources and the authority to respond to those
workers and those firms that will inevitably be displaced by the
growing, changing economy.
The wage insurance provision of the trade adjustment assistance
package helps us do just that. It offers a helping hand to older
Americans who have lost their livelihoods to the inevitable
dislocations increased trade creates. It does so by recognizing the
obvious reality that a time consuming return to school for job
retraining may not be in the best interests of older workers who are
close to retirement age. It also recognizes the reality that older
workers have a much harder time than younger workers re-entering the
job market, particularly at the same income level they enjoyed
previously. It meets the needs of these older workers by allowing them
to insure wage loss. To receive the benefits of wage insurance, the
older worker foregoes the additional income support he could otherwise
receive if he or she went back to school. Thus, the worker receives
benefits while he or she re-enters the job market and without having to
go back to school, which, again, for this worker may not be the best
option given his or her age.
I strongly support the wage insurance provisions of this bill, and I
would also have supported an even more generous version of this
provision.
Yet, with this trade bill, we have all made compromises, for the sake
of getting a good, comprehensive piece of legislation to send to the
President's desk. Wage insurance is a much needed part of the TAA
package. It is fair and it is responsible.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the Gregg amendment as we
proceed to that vote and remember that there is not a one-size-fits-
all, but that all of our workers need the special attention and the
ability to move within the workforce in a way that is conducive to
them, to their lifestyle, and particularly to their age. I thank the
Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. GREGG. Did the Senator yield back the remainder of time?
Mrs. LINCOLN. Yes, I yield back the remainder of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I will make my statement and then we can go
to the vote.
First, I thank the many Members who have come to the Chamber and
supported this amendment. There have been a number of points made that
I think have been extremely appropriate as to the failure of the
language in the bill and the need to have this amendment to correct it.
I want to respond to a couple points made by the Democratic leader.
First, this issue of the deal. A number of Members spoke and said this
is a lousy idea. It is really not a very good policy, the concept of
paying people to take less productive jobs, having the taxpayers pay
people to take less productive jobs. This is not good policy, but I
have to be for it because there was a deal agreed to.
As far as I can tell, there were only six people in that room at the
most. So maybe those six people have reached an agreement, and around
here, if you give your word, you have to stand by it. I respect the
people who came to the Chamber and said they are going to stand by
their word.
For the rest of us, we should look at the policy of whether or not
this is a good idea, and it is not. It is called a pilot program, and
the Democratic leader said it was a pilot program for which they wanted
$100 million, and they agreed to $50 million over 2 years. As he
described it, it is a central component of the understanding they
reached.
Mr. President, $50 million is a lot of money, but around this
building, it does not even deserve an asterisk. So there is something
more at work. We are not talking about $50 million if it is a central
component of the agreement. We are talking about something people
expect to expand radically over the years. This is a brandnew major
entitlement which will expand dramatically. It is not some benign
little pilot program. If it was, it would not be a central component of
this agreement. Thus, this attempt to dismiss it is as something
marginal clearly does not fly, even though it is alleged to be a pilot
program.
There was also a statement made that this is an attempt to benefit
older workers. Actually, the language of this bill does the exact
opposite. We have on the books the age discrimination language which
says you cannot discriminate against somebody in their job who is over
50 years old.
We have on the books laws which say that older workers should be
given deference and should be allowed to retain their jobs and should
be allowed to improve their position in the workplace and should not be
discriminated against because of their age.
This amendment says exactly the opposite. It says to the older
worker: When you lose your job due to trade, we are going to say you
are not capable of getting a better job; we are going to tell you go
find a lesser job, and then
[[Page S4442]]
we will pay you from the other taxpayers of America $5,000 to do that.
It takes the theory of ``you cannot teach old dogs new tricks'' and
says: Not only can you not teach old dogs new tricks, but we are going
to pay you $5,000 to forget everything you have learned and take less
of a job.
It makes absolutely no sense in the context of the other laws which
we have on the books relative to age discrimination. In fact, it flies
in the face of years of attempts to make sure that as people get
further into the workforce, they are not discriminated against.
Of course, as has been outlined, it has no structure to it, no
controls to it. Under the trade adjustment concept, the whole idea is
to train people who lose their jobs as a result of trade activity, to
train them to get a better job, to give them opportunities to get a
better job. This language says you should get less of a job. It reduces
your employment capability. There is no training language in this bill.
In fact, you cannot train under this bill. It basically rejects the
training language of the trade adjustment language.
There is no requirement that you take a similar and suitable job. So
if you have the ability to do something that is unique and you can take
it across the street after you lose your job somewhere and get paid
just as much or maybe even more, there is no requirement that you do
that. If you would rather do something that maybe pays you a lot less
because it is more socially acceptable to you, it is more in tune with
your lifestyle--the example has been used of going and becoming an
assistant pro at a golf course because you would rather play golf
rather than work in a steel factory--you can do that; that is your
right; you should be able to do that. Pursuit of happiness is part of
our culture, but you should not get $5,000 from the taxpayers who are
still working somewhere on the line to do it, which is what this bill
tells you.
If there is a similar and suitable job, you are not required to take
it. You are not required to remain in the community, which means it
undermines the community. I talked at length about that last night. You
are not required to have a need for the job. Your spouse could be
making $100,000, $200,000, or $300,000. If you had a job where you
earned $50,000 and you take a lesser job, you still get $5,000 from the
taxpayers of America, even though your spouse may have a huge income.
There is no test relative to the manipulation of the system. An
employer may be closing down one plant on trade adjustment language,
opening up another facility in a different area, moving people into
there, and getting a $5,000 payment. There is no language about that.
There are no controls.
There is no control in the area of meeting the needs relative to, as
I said, staying in the community. And there is no arm's length control.
You could work within the family, for example, move from one job to
another. Maybe your son runs a construction company and you are working
for a steel mill and the steel mill goes out of business; you go to
work for your son's construction company and the taxpayers of America
would have to pay you $5,000. Those are the technical issues that lie
with this question.
The bigger issues are these: No. 1, it is a brandnew entitlement with
immense potential. No. 2, and most importantly, it undermines our basic
philosophy of how we have had our economy structured the last 200
years.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. GREGG. Therefore, I hope people will join me in supporting this
amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is not a sufficient second.
The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. On behalf of myself, Senator Gramm of Texas, and Senator
Grassley of Iowa, I move to table the Gregg amendment, and I ask for
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski), the Senator from
Virginia (Mr. Warner), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott) are
necessarily absent.
I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from
Virginia (Mr. Warner) would vote ``no.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 38, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 114 Leg.]
YEAS--58
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Torricelli
Voinovich
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--38
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cantwell
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Smith (NH)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
NOT VOTING--4
Helms
Lott
Murkowski
Warner
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately
following the last vote today, May 16, the Senate proceed to the
consideration of Calendar No. 282, H.R. 3167, the NATO expansion bill,
and that it be considered under the following limitations: that there
be 2\1/2\ hours for debate, with the time divided as follows: 60
minutes under the control of the chairman, Senator Biden, and ranking
member or their designees, 90 minutes under the control of Senator
Warner or his designee; that no amendments or motions be in order--I
understand there has been a change in plans. I withdraw that proposed
request.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that in the sequence of the
amendments to H.R. 3009, the next three Democratic amendments be Nelson
of Florida regarding dumping, Corzine regarding services, and Hollings
regarding TAA expansion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, might I
inquire of the Senator from Nevada, are these the three amendments that
you would put following the list of amendments that were agreed to
yesterday?
Mr. REID. The Senator from North Dakota is correct.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I want to try to understand also, the
previous unanimous consent request of the Senator from Nevada, which he
has withdrawn--is it the Senator's intent, with the subsequent
unanimous consent request, that we move off the fast-track bill and on
to NATO expansion? And if so, what would be the length of time we would
be off the fast-track bill?
Mr. REID. It is my understanding, I say to the Senator from North
Dakota, that we will do 2\1/2\ hours on this tonight and return to the
fast-track bill tomorrow.
Mr. DORGAN. With votes, Mr. President? I inquire, will there be votes
tomorrow?
Mr. REID. The majority leader announced yesterday there likely will
be votes tomorrow. So I say to my friend from North Dakota, I know his
concern is we have a long list of amendments and are we going to get to
all the amendments.
I say to my friend from North Dakota, we are doing our very best to
[[Page S4443]]
work our way through these. And the majority leader has said publicly,
and on a number of occasions, he wants to allow people to have the
ability to amend this. I have not heard the leader say at any time that
he is contemplating, in the near future, a motion for cloture.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if I might continue to reserve my right to
object, yesterday, we created a sequencing of amendments. I was not
consulted in that. I was on the floor expecting to be recognized
following the Gregg amendment. And then the Senator brought to the
floor a sequencing of amendments that has me somewhere following some
very big, lengthy amendments that are going to take a lot of floor
time.
I was surprised by that and not consulted about it. So if we are
going to sequence amendments--I regretted it all the way to work this
morning that I did not object yesterday. I think the way for us to do
this, of course, is to consult with each other. Since I was on the
floor expecting to be able to offer an amendment, and talked to the
appropriate staff about doing so, I was very surprised about the
sequencing that came yesterday. But I don't believe it is the fault of
the Senator from Nevada. It is not my intention to suggest that. But if
we are sequencing things, let's consult with everyone first.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent
request?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend from North Dakota, he is
not alone. There are a number of other people who have come to me today
asking why they are not higher than the rest. But I do say, we have a
lot of amendments, and certainly there was no intent to, in any way,
discourage or prevent the Senator from North Dakota having his
amendment heard. In fact, it is my understanding that the Senator from
North Dakota has other amendments that he wishes to offer. I apologize
to him, and others, that perhaps we could have done more consulting
with others, but we didn't, and we are now in this posture. We will try
to do better in the future.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is not about being higher on the
list. It is about, if there is going to be stage management here, then
there should be consultation on how we are going to manage the stage. I
was expecting to be, and was told I would likely be, recognized
following the Gregg amendment.
Look, I am where I am at this point because of the unanimous consent
request that I should have objected to yesterday and did not. I only
point out, as we proceed, it would be helpful to consult with the rest
of us. If not, I will be constrained to object on future unanimous
requests.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). Under the previous order, the
Senator from Connecticut is recognized to offer an amendment.
Amendment No. 3428 To Amendment No. 3401
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for himself and
Mr. Lieberman, proposes an amendment numbered 3428 to
amendment No. 3401.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To clarify the principal negotiating objectives of the United
States with respect to labor and the environment)
Section 2102(b)(11) is amended by striking subparagraph (C)
and inserting the following new subparagraphs:
``(C) to ensure that the parties to a trade agreement
reaffirm their obligations as members of the ILO and their
commitments under the ILO Declaration on Fundamental
Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up, and strive
to ensure that such labor principles and the core labor
standards set forth in section 2113(2) are recognized and
protected by domestic law;
``(D) recognizing the rights of parties to establish their
own labor standards, and to adopt or modify accordingly their
labor laws and regulations, parties shall strive to ensure
that their laws provide for labor standards consistent with
the core labor standards and shall strive to improve those
standards in that light;
``(E) to recognize that it is inappropriate to encourage
trade by relaxing domestic labor laws and to strive to ensure
that parties to a trade agreement do not waive or otherwise
derogate from, or offer to waive or otherwise derogate from,
their labor laws as an encouragement for trade;
``(F) to strengthen the capacity of United States trading
partners to promote respect for core labor standards and
reaffirm their obligations and commitments under the ILO
Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and
its Follow-up;''.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself
and my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman.
Before I get into the details of the amendment and why I think it is
an important amendment, let me state what I think many of my colleagues
may have been aware of over the years.
I have been a longtime advocate of promoting free and fair trade
throughout my tenure in this body of more than two decades. I have
historically supported the granting of fast-track authority. I voted
for trade agreements that have resulted from that authority. So the
Member who offers this amendment is one who has a strong record over
the years of advocating and supporting expanding trading opportunities.
I come from a State that has been tremendously dependent over the
years on export markets for the health and well-being of the people who
live there.
I say that as a background so you understand what my thinking is
about this amendment, and why I think this amendment is so important to
people such as myself who have been supporters of trade agreement. The
adoption or the defeat of this amendment could have a profound effect,
I say to my colleagues, on someone such as myself, who likes to believe
that we have progressed, over the years, in trade agreements, expanding
and fighting for the rights that we demand not only for our own
citizenry but in trying to expand around the globe to benefit and
improve the quality of life for people elsewhere with whom we have
trading agreements.
What I have observed over time is that the evolution and the content
and scope of these agreements, their depth and their breadth have grown
dramatically since I first arrived in this body more than 20 years ago.
No longer are we simply dealing with tariffs and duties and quotas to
be levied on tangible goods. That was the case when I arrived. But
because good people in this body, of both parties, over the years have
fought to expand what would be a part of these agreements, we have
improved dramatically these trading accords.
We now deal with virtually every facet of our economy. The process
has evolved. And matters once totally outside the realm of trade
agreements no longer are. And that is good news for America.
I am thinking, for example, of the NAFTA agreement, which I supported
and which passed the Congress only after the Clinton administration
negotiated side agreements related to labor and the environment. Those
side agreements were controversial to some in this body, but they were
so essential to the passage of NAFTA.
Throughout my 20 years in the Senate I have been a strong supporter
of trading agreements and fast track.
I am very proud of my record of support for these agreements. It has
been a critical issue for my State and the country. You are not
listening to a Member who historically has objected every time a trade
agreement or fast-track authority has come up. Quite the contrary, I
have been one who has stood in support of these agreements because I
believed they were in our country's best interest.
Over time there has been an evolution in the content and scope of
these trading agreements--that has been wonderful news for the United
States--as their depth and breadth have grown dramatically. It used to
be we just negotiated agreements that dealt with tariffs, duties, and
quotas on tradeable goods. That was it. You didn't consider anything
else.
Those days are long since past. We now deal with virtually every
facet of
[[Page S4444]]
our economy in the context of trade negotiations. The process has
evolved, and matters once considered totally outside the realm of a
trade agreement no longer are. I am thinking of NAFTA, which I strongly
supported, which was an important agreement that passed the Congress
only after the Clinton administration negotiated side agreements
relating to labor and the environment. Those side agreements were
controversial to some in this body, but had they not been included, we
would never have passed NAFTA.
That is a fact.
What I am saying about the amendment I am proposing--I will get to
the details in a minute--for people such as myself, the adoption of
this kind of an amendment is critically important to our votes when it
comes to final passage. Maybe they are not necessary, but I would hate
to think as we begin the 21st century that we would take a step back
from exactly the progress we have made in the latter part of the 20th
century when it comes to trading agreements. That is all I am
suggesting we do here: To maintain this progress as we go forward.
More recently, both the House and the Senate unanimously endorsed the
United States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement. The Bush administration in
fact urged Congress to do so. The Jordan agreement broke new ground and
set a standard, a floor by which other agreements will be judged as
they relate to the support and protection of core internationally
recognized labor standards.
The United States-Jordan Agreement also contains a mechanism to
resolve disputes related to violations of the terms of the agreement,
including violations of labor rights equal to violations that in the
context of commerce and other economic transactions between our two
nations. The Jordan agreement was very forward looking, dynamic, and
supported by 100 percent of the Members of the Senate. As part of that
agreement, the United States and Jordan pledged not only to uphold
existing domestic labor laws in conjunction with the trade agreement,
but we also recognized that ``cooperation between them provides
enhanced opportunities to improve labor standards'' in the future.
Last week, King Abdallah of Jordan was in Washington. Many of my
colleagues had an opportunity to see him. The Middle East crisis was
foremost on his mind for obvious reasons. He also took the time to
mention that the implementation of the United States-Jordan Free Trade
Agreement was working very well. For those who may say this places
onerous burdens on developing countries, Third and Fourth World
countries, and this is too difficult a task, King Abdallah of Jordan
made the point that the United States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement was
working extremely well.
No one expects every country with which we will be entering into
negotiations to have the same standards and protections the United
States has with respect to protection of workers' rights, just as they
don't have as well developed patent and copyright laws or environmental
standards. We know that. But we do believe that if every country had
identical standards and practices, negotiations would be unnecessary.
The purpose of engaging in negotiations and reaching comprehensive
trade agreements is to encourage other nations to stretch themselves to
do more in these areas. Trade agreements should be viewed as a dynamic
process for ratcheting up global standards across the board.
The Jordan standards, unanimously adopted by Members of this body,
are a mechanism for making that happen in the labor sector.
One of the reasons I am offering the Jordan standards as a part of
this bill is that they passed 100 to nothing here. There was no debate
about whether or not these standards ought to be included in that
agreement. My concern is, if we don't raise the level on this trade
authority, we will be taking a step back.
My amendment merely takes three provisions of this agreement and
incorporates them in the underlying bill. I commend the committee
because they took three of the provisions of the Jordan free trade
agreement included them in the legislation. But in the absence of these
three I will discuss shortly, this is a flawed proposal.
For those reasons, my amendment ought to be adopted. We don't expect
everyone to have the exact standards we do. But we think these rights
are not just unique to this country. We think the people's right to
collectively bargain, the people's right to be protected against child
labor are good standards. These are standards we want the rest of the
world to try to reach.
We don't want the world to hire children to produce products that are
sold in America. We want the environment to improve not just in our own
country but around the globe as well. By including the standards in the
Jordan agreement in this agreement, we advance the very cause of those
ideals which we have championed as a people, regardless of party. In
many ways it has been the bipartisan insistence on these inclusions
that has made them so important and so dynamic for the rest of the
world.
Is there any doubt that it is in the economic and foreign policy
interests of the United States to encourage respect for workers'
rights, abolish child labor, or to protect the environment? Those ought
not belong to a party, they belong to a Nation. Is there any doubt that
governments that treat their workers with respect, that allow them to
freely associate, that have adopted laws against child labor, that have
established minimum wage standards, are governments that tend to be
strong and stable democracies, or that governments that don't value and
protect their citizens are generally tyrants who are not only a threat
to their own citizens but to their neighbors as well?
President John Kennedy once said that a rising tide lifts all boats.
The growth in international commerce can certainly be that rising tide.
But it will only lift all boats if we ensure that increased trade goes
hand in hand with respect for internationally recognized labor rights
and have a shared commitment to making the lives of working people
better. That is why I believe it is so critical that we send a clear
signal that we truly are seeking to get our trading partners to adopt
standards that our friends in Jordan readily agreed to and find are
working extremely well.
What an irony it would be that we demand it of Jordan, a country with
all of its difficulties, with a remarkable leader in King Abdallah who
finds he can live with it, and we turn around, after a unanimous vote
in the year 2001, passing the United States-Jordan agreement, and adopt
a trade accord here that would allow us to take a walk away from the
very standards that only months ago we applied to the nation of Jordan.
The Jordan Agreement is living well with the agreements and standards
we applied there. To now take a hike on the standards we agreed to
under Jordan, and to say to everyone else that they get to adopt a
lower standard would be a tragedy. This agreement ought not to be
adopted if we exclude these provisions that we have already adopted 100
to nothing in the Senate only a few short months ago.
Let me explain what the amendment does. It is not complicated. It is
very straightforward. My colleagues will understand this is not an
exaggerated, new idea. I am merely taking the language that already
exists, that was adopted unanimously in the year 2001.
The amendment, for those who want to follow the details of this,
would modify section 2102(b)(11) of the underlying managers' amendment
as it relates to the principle trade negotiations with respect to labor
by adding language drawn from the United States-Jordan Free Trade
Agreement. The language proposed in my amendment is an addition to the
language included in the managers' package.
I commend the managers. They did include language, very specifically,
from the United States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement in this bill. That
is very helpful.
But we are missing some language here. Let there be no doubt. When
you are dealing with traders around the world, they will make clear
note that the absence of language was not a mistake, not some
oversight; the intentions are quite clear that all of a sudden we are
changing the rules of the road. I don't think we want to send that
message.
So I know there will be arguments that the United States-Jordan Free
[[Page S4445]]
Trade Agreement is included entirely in this bill. It is not at all. I
commend the managers for what they have done. The managers were
working, of course, from the House version of this bill. That placed
certain constraints on them in committee. I hope that the full Senate
will act on this matter now, so we can be more flexible and fully
reflect the important precedent set by the United States-Jordan Free
Trade Agreement in the areas of labor and the environment.
I have prepared a chart that replicates article 6 of the United
States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement. It relates to the obligations of
the United States and Jordan with respect to labor. Let's look to the
provisions of that agreement and compare it with the text of the bill
and the additions my amendment would make to that text.
Article 6.1 of the U.S. Jordan Agreement, is reflected in section (C)
of the pending amendment. This amendment would establish as a principal
negotiating labor objective, the reaffirmation by parties of their
obligations and commitments as members of the ILO--International Labor
Organization--in the context of labor negotiations and in the context
of future trade agreements and a commitment to ensure that domestic
labor laws are consistent with the ILO Declaration on Fundamental
Principles and Rights at Work.
What does that mean? It is a lot of language. It means, in the
context of the negotiating process, that governments that are members
of the ILO, of which there are 163--virtually everybody we are trading
with--must be mindful of the obligations that have already been assumed
as members of that organization. That is a radical thought, isn't it?
It was signed on to by 163 countries.
We are saying, if you want to trade with us, we want you to live up
to the commitment you made when you signed on. That is what we said to
Jordan. We said: Look, you are a member of the ILO and we are going to
say if you want to have a trading relationship with us--and we want it
with you--we want to have clear language in the agreement that says you
must live up to those obligations that you already signed on to. That
is not exactly a radical point in this context. What are those
obligations? To respect, promote, and realize fundamental labor rights,
such as freedom of association, elimination of forced labor, abolition
of child labor, and the elimination of discrimination with respect to
employment.
I hope I will not have to debate in this Chamber, as we begin the
21st century, whether or not it is in the interest of the United
States, when we enter trading agreements, that somehow we are going to
sit back and remain silent when it comes to discrimination, child
labor, and the right to promote respect or fundamental rights and the
elimination of forced labor.
I don't think that is terribly radical for the U.S. in this century
to be talking about having or advancing those standards in future
trading agreements. So if you are going to defeat this amendment,
understand we are going to step back to what we agreed to 100 to 0 a
few months ago and to say to every trading partner we have, you can
disregard this--disregard forced labor, child labor, and the notions of
free association and the elimination or discrimination with respect to
employment. I don't know of a single Member of this body, Republican or
Democrat, who wants to be associated with a trading agreement that
retreats from those very principles we have adopted in this body
already. We are not asking these countries to do anything more than
they are obligated to do as members of the ILO. That is all. This
provision is not currently included in the managers' principal
negotiating objectives, and I think it should be.
Let's look at the next provision. Article 6.2, embodied in section
(E) of my amendment, namely, that the parties recognize it is
inappropriate to seek a competitive trade advantage by relaxing or
waiving domestic labor laws. I hesitate to even explain this one. We
are saying we don't want you to step back in your own domestic laws in
order to create a more favorable trade environment. That would be so
damaging to our own country. We are saying, if you want to have an
agreement with us, if you want to sell your products in America, you
cannot start retreating on your own laws and putting American workers
and American companies at a disadvantage.
We included this provision in the United States-Jordan agreement. We
said we want a guarantee that you are not going to slip back and undo
the laws you already adopted. You don't have to trade with us, but if
you want to, we insist that you live up to the laws you have already
written. That is not a radical thought.
Certainly, it seems to me that by excluding specifically that
language from this agreement, having specifically ratified the trading
agreement only a few short months ago, that we would be sending a
signal with which I don't think many people in this Chamber would want
to be associated. So it is extremely important.
What is the harm in including this provision? Do we support other
countries gaining a competitive advantage over U.S. industries,
businesses, and manufacturers by ignoring their own laws? I don't think
so. And I certainly hope not.
Article 6.3 of the Jordan agreement is embodied in section (D) of my
amendment; namely, to recognize the rights of parties to establish
their own labor standards, but also the commitment to strive to ensure
that their laws are consistent with the core labor standards, and that
we should be trying to, over time, improve working conditions. Again,
this doesn't seem terribly radical to me.
Articles 6.4 and 6.5 of the Jordan agreement are already contained in
the underlying bill, as is 6.6, the definition of labor laws. Again, I
commend Senators Baucus and Grassley, and other members of the
committee, for already taking the United States-Jordan Free Trade
Agreement and including the provisions I have just mentioned.
So we have already set the precedent of taking the exact language of
the United States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement and explicitly included
some of the language in this bill. The obvious omission of the articles
I have just mentioned, involving the points I have raised, I think,
would be glaring in terms of our retreat from those principles we think
are extremely important.
My comparison of the agreement with the underlying bill and with the
provisions of my amendment show that this bill does not incorporate all
of provisions in the United States-Jordan agreement. I believe that
only with the adoption of this amendment Senator Lieberman and I have
offered can we fairly assert that there is parity between this bill and
the United States-Jordan accord. Let's assume for the moment that you
agree with the managers of the bill, that they have already
accomplished Jordan parity. I might ask, what is the harm of accepting
this amendment, which I clearly have shown is no more or less than what
is in the United States-Jordan agreement? It seems to me by taking this
additional language, we have done nothing to damage the statements made
by the authors of this bill. I fail to see what great damage could be
done to this bill or to the President's negotiating authority with the
addition of a few additional negotiating objectives. There are
currently 27 pages of principal negotiating objectives in the pending
managers amendment, covering 14 areas, such as trade barriers,
services, investment, intellectual property, e-commerce, agriculture,
labor, environment, and dispute settlement.
I don't think we believe that U.S. negotiators will be successful in
delivering on every single one of these objectives. But the point of
including them is to encourage U.S. negotiators to pay attention to the
issues of discrimination in employment, forced labor, and child labor.
We think those are worthwhile objectives that should be payed attention
to. If you can pay attention to e-commerce, to investments, to
intellectual property, tell me what your rationale is for taking a hike
and walking away when job discrimination, child labor, and forced labor
ought to be on the table as well as part of our standards.
If it is OK to watch out for the banks, for the high-tech companies,
how about watching out for people who have no one else to watch out for
them and to insist that if you want to trade with America, sell your
goods in Nevada, or in Connecticut, or in Texas, or anywhere else, at
least you have to put these standards on the table.
[[Page S4446]]
So we urge adoption of an amendment to incorporate these standards,
to encourage our negotiators to pay attention to these objectives that
have been delineated, and send a signal to our trading partners that we
care about them--at least the Senate does. Republicans and Democrats
care about these issues. We care about trade, but we also care about
working people. We care about them at home and around the globe. If you
are going to have the luxury of selling your products and services
here, for the Lord's sake, please pay attention to some things that go
to human decency.
That is all we are talking about. That is why we truly believe our
negotiators should be attempting to achieve standards that already
apply. I suspect if I were offering this language for the first time,
people would say I am breaking new ground. I am not breaking new
ground.
In the year 2001, this Senate unanimously voted for the agreement.
This body, at the urging of President Bush, adopted the United States-
Jordan Free Trade Agreement, and the very standards written here are
written into that law. Should we say to other countries we insist
Jordan do something, but the rest of you can just ignore these
important standards?
As I said earlier, our partners in negotiation are not foolish; they
are not naive; they are not stupid. They are going to know there is a
difference between this bill and the Jordan agreement. They are going
to assume rightly--or, more importantly, wrongly--that there is a
message sent by that difference. If we do not want to send such a
signal--and I do not believe the managers of this bill do--then I think
we should be careful with the language we incorporate here.
I believe, without the adoption of this amendment, the Jordan
standards will not be fully on the table for discussion, and we will
have missed a unique opportunity to insist they be a part of all future
agreements.
Madam President, I urge the adoption of this amendment. It is not
complicated. It is very straightforward. It is not precedent setting,
and I think it is where America is. These are American values. If we
can add standards in every other imaginable area to protect every
financial interest one can think of, should we not also try to do
something about kids who get hired to produce some of the very clothes
people are wearing every day; shouldn't we see to it that job
discrimination and forced labor are not going to produce the products
we sell on the shelves of our small communities and large cities of
this country? I do not think that these ideas are radical. They are
about as American as it can get. I hope my colleagues will think
likewise and support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, for the benefit of Senators, we likely
will not have a vote on the Dodd amendment until about 4 o'clock today.
The President, if not on the Hill, will be here shortly. A number of
people are going to be meeting with him.
Of course, at 2 o'clock we are going to be in recess for the awards
ceremony for President Reagan and Nancy Reagan, and we will not be able
to vote until 4 o'clock.
I hope that when debate is completed, within whatever period of time
it might take, we can have a vote at 4 o'clock, and if Senator Kyl, who
I understand is going to offer the next amendment for the Republicans,
can debate his amendment for whatever time is left until 2 o'clock, and
then from 3 to 4, and we can have two votes at 4 o'clock. That is what
we would like to do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the
Dodd-Lieberman amendment. The amendment is very similar to the
Lieberman amendment yesterday in terms of its impact, though the
approach is very different, so I will not belabor it. But I do want to
make several points that I think are relevant to the amendment.
The first point is in response to Senator Dodd's argument that the
language he wants to impose on all future trade negotiations is
identical to the language included in the Jordan free trade agreement
approved unanimously by the Senate.
That argument assumes that one size fits all. It is similar to the
argument I might make if I were going to try to buy a tire
manufacturing company after buying a set of its tires. I might argue:
You were willing to sell me a set of tires on credit without
collateral. Now that I want to buy your whole company, how come you
want collateral?
What worked for Jordan does not necessarily work elsewhere. I want to
remind my colleagues that we rushed to approve the free trade agreement
with Jordan because it was an important foreign policy action regarding
a friend in one of the most unstable and difficult parts of the world
in a time of emergency. It was in effect a foreign policy decision, not
a trade policy decision. Indeed, our imports from Jordan are twenty-
five one-thousandths of 1 percent of all imports coming into the United
States. Trade, while not unimportant, clearly did not drive this
agreement.
Yet Senator Dodd's point is that if this language was good enough for
Jordan, why is it not good enough as a general principle for all
trading partners? That question kind of answers itself. If a signature
on a note to buy a set of tires at a car dealership is good enough, why
isn't the signature good enough to buy a car, or the car company?
Because the situations are different.
The point is that a trade agreement with, say, Europe would be very
different than a trade agreement with Jordan. In terms of trade, a
trade agreement with Europe would be shooting with real bullets in
terms of trade, jobs, and economic growth, because we already have a
well-established economic flow between the United States and Europe.
Such a trade agreement would not simply be about foreign policy. In
contrast, we are just starting to increase our economic flow between
the United States and Jordan, and the agreement quite clearly had a
critical foreign policy component. Of course trade with Jordan is not
solely about foreign policy. But to say that the principles we set
forth in the Jordan agreement ought to be the principles that dictate
every agreement we enter into in the future simply is not a valid
analogy.
My second point is that the document before us is the result of long
hours of labor by the Finance Committee. Now, I am not saying that the
Finance Committee has cornered the market on wisdom or is infallible,
but I will say that the Committee held numerous hearings and had days
of debate. Eventually, we worked out a bipartisan compromise on these
issues, and the bill was reported 18 to 3. The trade promotion bill
approved by Finance is the bill that is supported by the administration
and is broadly supported by every major element of the American
economy.
In that bill, we achieved a balance that preserves the flexibility of
the administration to negotiate different trade agreements depending on
the particular circumstances. To suggest that somehow we do not deal
with child labor is simply not valid. Labor issues are a factor through
this bill. For the first time, we have an extensive negotiating
objective in a fast-track bill dealing with labor and environmental
issues. In addition, we have included language that refers to ILO
conventions both those we have ratified and those we have not--on
forced labor, minimum employment age, and similar matters. However, the
bill as reported provides flexibility, rather than assuming that one
size fits all.
I do not think there is one size that fits all in almost anything
that government does, which is why so many of our programs fail. But
even if there were one size that fits all, to suggest that the Jordan
Free Trade Agreement, an agreement with a country that produces twenty-
five one-thousandths of 1 percent of the products that we import,
should serve as the mandate for all future agreements simply does not
stand up to scrutiny.
In the Finance Committee bill, we have dealt with labor. We have
dealt with the environment. And in both areas we have set standards
higher than we have ever set before. To suggest that we ought to go
back to one particular trade agreement approved in the midst of a
crisis in the Middle East with a country that sells twenty-five one-
thousandths of 1 percent of all
[[Page S4447]]
items we buy from the rest of the world, and make it the ironclad
standard for every trade negotiation we enter into again from now on,
seems to me to be putting us in the kind of straitjacket that we would
not want to put any administration in. That is why the Dodd-Lieberman
amendment is opposed by a broad cross-section of American business. It
is opposed by the administration. It is opposed by the chairman and
ranking member of the Finance Committee.
It is one thing to try to add to the bill a totally new matter that
we have not dealt with before. But it is another thing altogether to
come in now, on the floor of the Senate, and try to rewrite heart of
the bill based on one agreement entered into largely for foreign policy
reasons with a key country who happens to sell us just twenty-five one-
thousandths of 1 percent of all imports that we buy. Given the current
trade flows between the United States and Jordan, any error in the
agreement probably would not cause profound economic damage to either
country. Our trade flows are just not large enough. Our overall
relationship was and is important enough to approve that agreement. It
was a good thing to do, and I supported it. But that agreement cannot
become the ironclad standard for every trade agreement from this point
on.
A few points to sum up. This amendment is unnecessary and undoes the
bipartisan compromise on labor issues. It is not as if we do not deal
with labor issues in the bill before us. In fact, we dealt with them in
great detail. They were negotiated extensively, and as a result we now
have strong bipartisan support for the bill. To come in now and rewrite
the labor section based on one trade agreement we approved during a
foreign policy crisis with a country whose sales to the United States
are minimal relative to total world sales is just not sound public
policy.
Secondly, the amendment proposes a one-size-fits-all approach that
takes the smallest size as the base. The fact is that right now, there
are few countries in the world from whom we buy as few goods as we do
from Jordan. More imports are bought by some cities in Texas in a month
than are bought by the whole Nation from Jordan in a year. We all hope
that the agreement will promote greater trade with Jordan. But the fact
is that its sales to us will remain relatively small compared to the
sales by the rest of the world. To use the Jordan Agreement as the
standard and override the bipartisan compromise in a bill written to be
as coherent and flexible as possible does not make any sense.
We are not in the welfare business when it comes to trade. It is one
thing for a trade agreement to help a government in Jordan. But when we
are negotiating trade agreements with the Europeans, or the Japanese, I
want the agreements to help us. I want them to benefit from a trade
agreement too, but my first concern is to make sure that we benefit. In
this case, the negotiation with Jordan was for Jordan. But any
negotiation with Europe or Japan should be for America. To apply a
foreign policy-driven standard to such negotiations just would not be
sound policy.
It boils down to one point: different negotiations require different
approaches. Any negotiations with China, for example, would be very
different from our negotiation with Jordan, just as buying a set of
tires on credit is a little bit different than buying the tire company.
When you're buying the tire company, you should expect standards that
are vastly different in terms of obtaining credit.
I hope we will defeat the Dodd-Lieberman amendment. It basically
tries to change the very heart of the bipartisan trade promotion
authority bill through an amendment offered on the floor. This is the
second time we are seeing such an effort. Yesterday, we had an effort
by Senator Lieberman to undo the bill. Today, we have a second effort
by Senator Dodd and Senator Lieberman to undo the bill. I hope the same
people who voted against the effort to undo it yesterday will vote
against undoing it today.
I am proud of the Jordanian agreement, and I gave it my support. But
it should not be the be-all, end-all standard for all future trade
agreements. I do not think anybody thinks that it should. It may very
well be that some colleagues with a certain bent on some issues like
the language of the amendment better than the language of the bill. But
the language of the bill is something that has been very carefully
negotiated. So I would urge those who want a trade bill to vote against
this amendment.
Let me conclude by stressing one point of concern. One of the things
that has disturbed me for most of this year, and that has become very
clear on this trade bill, is that increasingly people are not taking a
proprietary position on issues that are of vital national importance.
Certainly I am not trying to judge anybody else's motives, but it seems
to me that we are seeing votes cast on this trade bill where, from the
outside, it looks as if nobody is taking ownership of this critically
important bill.
In the 24 years I have served in the Congress, I do not think I have
ever witnessed a Finance Committee that could not defend its own
legislation on the floor. We are seeing efforts to make wholesale
changes that would undo the entire agreement. We have what is close to
piracy where people are trying to load one more item on this wagon, and
the wagon is now rickety and on the verge of running into the ditch.
Anybody paying attention to this debate knows that trade promotion
authority at this point is almost dead. Now we have an effort to
rewrite the heart of the bill's bipartisan language on labor, and
impose a standard that we negotiated with a country whose trade with
the United States is a fraction of the trade we have with the world.
Under such circumstances, I will not be willing to pay the already
great tributes of health insurance for unemployed that is paid by
workers who do not have health insurance, and wage guarantees that are
higher for the beneficiaries than the average wage of working people in
the country.
If we truly want this bill to become law, then we are going to have
to begin to take some ownership of the bill. We can start by defeating
this amendment. Well intended though it may be, it is harmful because
it makes the assumption that one size fits all, using a standard
applied in an agreement driven by foreign policy to a nation whose
sales by any measure are minor in the context of overall United States
trade.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that once the debate concludes on
the Dodd amendment--we are attempting to have a time set for this vote
on the Dodd amendment. As I indicated earlier, we will be out of
session from 2 to 3 because of the President Reagan and Nancy Reagan
award, and other things will take place at 3 p.m. We will vote at 4
p.m.
Mr. GRAMM. On this matter or any motion related to it?
Mr. REID. Yes.
Mr. DODD. While we are waiting, my good friend from Texas and I have
worked on a lot of things together. We disagree on this particular
point.
For clarity purposes, we are talking about 27 pages of standards that
are part of this trade promotion authority. We are talking about the
addition of three principle negotiating objectives. It is not one-size-
fits-all any more than it is one-size-fits-all on the other 27 pages of
standards. We are taking, what is already partly in the bill, to the
credit of the manager of this bill, several provisions in the United
States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement. My colleague said this was a
foreign policy document, not a trading agreement. If that were the
case, why did we add provisions that expanded the concerns about child
labor and discrimination in the workplace, forced labor, the rights of
free association? If we merely wanted to do a foreign policy document,
we would have had a barebones agreement with Jordan, if it was just to
send a message that we wanted to be of some help. But, no, we
incorporated collective wisdom and included the dynamic principles we
care about into the Jordan Agreement.
This is about America. It is not fair to Americans who lose their
jobs because of a trading agreement, where some other country can hire
children, discriminate in the workplace or disregard the rights they
signed on to in the International Labor Organizations. That gives them
a tremendous advantage at the expense of America.
[[Page S4448]]
Jordan may be small; these principles are not small. They may
represent twenty-five one-thousandths of 1 percent, but forced labor,
child labor, discrimination in the workplace, and the right of
association are not twenty-five one-thousandths of 1 percent of what
Americans care about. We care about these principles. And we fight for
them. We eliminated them in our own country years ago. We struggle
every day to make them work, even in the 21st century. We are saying if
you want the right to sell your goods in America, these are principles
and objectives we think you ought to try to achieve. They are
objectives.
The idea that we would exclude these objectives--I just don't
understand the rationale of that. With 27 pages of objectives in this
bill, that include objectives on e-commerce, investment, and many other
standards--how about including some standards that apply to working
people? How about that? Is that so radical a thought?
We have already adopted by 100 to zero a United States-Jordan Free
Trade Agreement establishing principles, adding 3 more principles, to a
27-page set of negotiating objectives. Not every country is America. We
are not foolish. We do not say you must absolutely meet the standard of
the United States when it comes to job discrimination, child labor,
forced labor. It would be ludicrous if I were to write and say you must
absolutely achieve the same standards we have. That is unrealistic. We
have not done that.
If I cannot write this into a trade promotion authority, where do I
write it? Do I have to do it agreement by agreement by agreement? Why
not just make this part of the principles of our negotiators? These are
not radical ideas. All that I am saying is that as part of the
principal negotiating objectives, including the provisions you already
added from the free trade agreement with Jordan, these three Jordan
standards ought to be included. It is not too much to ask.
I appreciate my colleague from Texas and his colleagues on the
Finance Committee spending time getting their ideas incorporated into
the bill. I am chairman of the Rules Committee, and a bill recently
came out of the Committee. I had 100-some-odd amendments; 43 were dealt
with on the floor. I was not offended. I prefer that everyone did
everything I wanted them to do. I don't know a Senator who doesn't feel
that way. The reason we have 100 Members representing 50 States is,
people have a right to raise concerns and offer amendments. We are
doing that.
I commend the committee for what they have done. The Finance
Committee, under the leadership of Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley,
have done a terrific job. It is not easy. They have incorporated parts
of the United States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement. But they left out
three that I think are important. I am merely suggesting, and I regret
this requires a recorded vote. These are objectives, that is all. My
Colleague from Texas mentioned Europe. We are worried about trading
with Europe? Is this such a difficult job in Europe, with forced labor,
child labor, and employment discrimination? I don't think so. The
problems arise with smaller countries that are still emerging where the
problems exist.
If, by requiring our negotiators to raise these principles, we might
improve the quality of life of people in these developing countries, is
that such an outrageous suggestion? Is that something that America
should retreat from as a nation that takes pride in the fact we try to
recognize the rights of all people? When our Founding Fathers wrote the
cornerstone documents of this country, they didn't talk about these
rights, those inalienable rights, only occurring if you manage to make
it to America. Those inalienable rights are rights that are endowed by
the Creator to all people. In the 21st century, to try to slow down the
abolition of child labor, forced labor, job discrimination, and to
suggest we ought to keep it out of this bill, this trade promotion
authority, I don't think reflects who we are as a people. It is a step
back from where we are as a people.
This is not one size fits all. We know fully well as we enter trading
agreements, there will be nations that will do a better job or not as
good a job in the areas I have mentioned. I don't think it is so
radical to ask our negotiators to have these, along with the other 27
pages of standards. Every business interest in America is guaranteeing
their interests are going to be negotiated when it comes to reaching
agreements. What about working people? Why can't they be on these 27
pages, as they have in many places? I don't think it is a lot to ask by
adding these three.
I urge my colleagues to support this effort. The role of the full
Senate is not to be a rubber stamp. What I am offering I think is more
of an oversight. The managers were dealing with a House version of the
bill, and they added the three provisions of the Jordan agreement, and
they left these three out. I think it is the intent of the managers to
include the principal negotiating standards of the Jordan agreement.
And really denouncing this because the country we negotiated with was
small--these principles are not small; the fact we negotiated with a
small country does not mean the principles are not large in the minds
of the American people. We ought to make them principles, regardless of
the size of the country with which we negotiate. It is a great tribute
to the nation of Jordan, a small struggling country, one of the most
crisis-ridden areas in the world, that they could live with these
standards as part of the negotiation we entered with them. If a small,
struggling country can accept this, representing one tiny percentage of
our trading partners, then certainly larger countries should do no
less.
Therefore, the very argument of my colleague from Texas when he says
this is like arguing about the price of a tire when you try to buy GM--
child labor, forced labor, job discrimination are not tires. Those are
not just small consumer items in the list of human principles and
values. We think they are important principles and they ought to be
given a status--more than a sale of a tire on a car.
I urge my colleagues to join us in this and support this language and
put it in the bill. It makes it a stronger bill, a better bill, a bill
we can be proud of when we negotiate trading agreements in the future
with other countries.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I listened very carefully to my good
friend from Connecticut. I imagine people, while they are listening to
him, are wondering what is this debate all about, really? Certainly
none of us want to promote child labor. All of us want to discourage
child labor. All of us, as Americans, with the values we have as
Americans, want to promote our American values.
The question is, what is in this bill, what is not, what are we
debating, and what are we not debating? Essentially, as I listen to my
good friend, the Senator is arguing for the bill. What the Senator
suggests is virtually what is in the bill. There is really not any
difference. When I listen to the Senator, he makes it sound as if there
is a huge difference, but there really is not.
First of all, we do incorporate the Jordan provisions in the
underlying trade promotion authority fast-track bill that are labor and
environmental standards. Let's remember, the Jordan agreement is an
actual trade agreement; whereas today we are debating whether to give
the President authority--along with passing the trade adjustment
assistance and Andean Trade Adjustment Act--whether to give the
President the authority to negotiate future trade agreements under a
certain procedure.
There is a difference between a current, existing agreement that was
negotiated--that is Jordan, on the one hand--and future agreements
which have not been negotiated on the other.
The Senator from Connecticut is essentially saying the standards,
exact language as in the Jordan standard, essentially should be the
language that applies to environmental and labor provisions and dispute
settlement provisions in all future trade agreements. Again, I think it
is important to note that there is a difference between what is
actually negotiated in an agreement and future trade agreements. That
difference is very important.
No two trade disputes are exactly alike. No countries are exactly
alike. The matters over which they negotiate are different. Each
negotiation involves different issues, different complexities, and
these require us to be
[[Page S4449]]
creative, to adapt, and not take--the common phrase is the cookie-
cutter approach.
I also want to react to the argument of my friend from Connecticut
who implied that ILO negotiating objectives are not in the bill or
negotiating to reduce child labor is not in the bill. That is not
accurate. It is in the bill.
There are three categories of objectives. This sounds a bit arcane.
One is principal objectives, overall objectives, and then other
objectives. But the language in the bill makes it clear that each of
the objectives has the same priority.
You may ask why they are not all in the same category. I am not sure
I can answer that question, but the operating principle is that the
language in the bill provides that each of these objectives, although
they might be in different categories--one of them includes ILO labor--
is a core labor standard. It also includes--promote respect for
workers' rights, the rights of children consistent with core labor
standards of the ILO, and understanding of the relationship between
trade and workers.
The main point, though, is respect for workers' rights and the rights
of children consistent with core labor standards of the ILO. That is an
objective and it is an objective that has equal weight compared with
all the other objectives. It is in the bill. To say it is not is simply
not accurate.
In summary, the concerns the Senator from Connecticut voices are met.
They are in the bill. They have equal weight.
One can argue: If it is in the bill, why not just accept what the
Senator has suggested? We are in this unfortunate situation, though,
where we have this bill put together, and it is a bipartisan bill. It
passed the committee 18 to 3.
If we are to have trade adjustment assistance enacted into law, which
I think is the most important part of this bill, and if we are going to
have the Andean Trade Preference Act extended, which is very important
to South American countries, and if we are going to have fast-track
authority, which I think is necessary for these very complex trade
negotiations, otherwise other countries will not enter into
negotiations with the United States, this amendment has to be defeated.
The substance of what the Senator talks about is already covered in
the bill. It is substantially covered in the bill almost to the degree
the Senator wants. But to adopt the Senator's amendment will cause this
agreement to unravel. It is already very precarious.
I remind my colleagues the other body passed the fast-track part of
this legislation by one vote. I know there are some Senators in the
body who do not want to pass fast-track legislation. They are opposed
to it. But a very significant majority of Senators wants to pass
legislation. They are in favor of it. If this amendment were to
succeed, due to the very strong opposition to this amendment by a very
substantial number, if not unanimously, of the Members of the other
side of the aisle, this amendment could unravel this bill. It is a
delicate balance. That phrase is used over and over again, but I can
tell you it is a delicate balance.
I wish I could help my friend and accept the amendment, but for all
intents and purposes, to take care of all his concerns, if he were to
push a little further, it could very well push us over the edge. And I
do not think we should take that risk.
We cannot let perfection be the enemy of the good. We can strive for
perfection, but if we get too close to trying to get perfection it
causes unintended consequences elsewhere.
I urge my colleague to remember it is a very delicate balance we have
before us.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I will be very brief. My colleague and
friend from Montana has been very patient. He has an awfully difficult
job chairing this important committee and dealing with the various
issues that are raised.
As I said at the outset of my remarks, I commend the committee for
its effort.
I thought this might be an amendment that would be easily accepted. I
did not expect it to evoke the kind of debate we have had from my
colleague from Texas because it really should not be a huge debate. My
colleague from Montana is right, we should just accept this and move
on. I will tell you why, very simply. Again, not to be arcane, but the
language of the bill, on pages B-4 and B-5, starting at the bottom of
page B-4, says:
to promote respect for worker rights and the rights of
children consistent with core labor standards of the
International Labor Organization (as defined in section
2113(2)). . . .
Section 2113(2) defines those labor standards. They include:
the right of association;
the right to organize and bargain collectively;. . . .
It says:
a minimum age for the employment of children; and
acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages
[and the like].
That is very different from the ILO standards.
So the ILO standards, as defined in section 2113(2), are different
from the ILO standards. The ILO standards say:
the effective abolition of child labour; and
the elimination of discrimination. . . .
``The elimination of discrimination'' is not included in section
2113. So they are different.
I thought the amendment would have just been accepted. It says: ILO
``as defined.'' It is different from ILO. That is the reason we wanted
to use the language as the principals in the Jordan agreement, because
our trading partners are not foolish. They will understand there is a
difference.
So ``the effective abolition of child labour'' and ``the elimination
of discrimination'' are in the ILO standards but not in the standards
we are going to negotiate. So that is the reason we offer the
amendment.
I really expected it, as I say, to be something that did not provoke
a significant debate. But there is a distinction.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator is absolutely correct. And as the Senator
well knows, in this ongoing evolution here, we have worked with the ILO
definitions under the extension of GSP. And GSP is also in this bill,
and that is the Generalized System of Preferences.
The question is: What are the ILO standards? I am sure the Senator
knows better than any other Senator that the ILO standards were changed
in 1998. The earlier version was enacted or stated in the early 1950s.
We, after great discussion, I might add, were able to get a modern,
updated ILO definition in GSP, although it is not in this bill.
My thought is, when we are in conference, that is an issue we can
address. The Senator raises a good point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, as I understand it, in the unanimous
consent agreement, we will come back to this debate, and there will be
5 minutes, where the time will be equally divided, to make summations
before the actual vote occurs.
Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield?
Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I do ask unanimous consent that once
debate concludes on the Dodd amendment, the amendment be set aside to
recur at 3:55 p.m. today; that at 3:55 p.m. there be 5 minutes
remaining for debate, with the time equally divided and controlled in
the usual form; with no second-degree amendment in order prior to a
vote in relation to the amendment; and that upon the use or yielding
back of time, without further intervening action or debate, the Senate
proceed to vote in relation to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Madam President, if this debate concludes before 2 o'clock,
Senator Kyl will come and offer an amendment. That debate will continue
until 2 o'clock, and then from 3 to 4 he will also be debating that. We
hope that during that period of time we can complete the deliberations
on the Kyl amendment and also set a time, shortly after the Dodd vote,
so we can have two votes a little after 4 o'clock. But we ought to see
how the Kyl amendment goes before we make that decision.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I do not know if other Members want to be
[[Page S4450]]
heard on this amendment. I am prepared to yield the floor, and I will
suggest the absence of a quorum shortly, unless the Chair, obviously,
wants to do something. If others want to speak, or if Senator Kyl wants
to come over and start his debate, I am perfectly amenable to that.
If other Members, all of a sudden, want to come and discuss the Dodd
amendment, the Dodd-Lieberman amendment, there will be a period to do
so before we actually get to a vote, I assume, at 4 o'clock.
With that, Madam President, I thank, again, the distinguished
chairman of the committee and the ranking member and their staffs for
their patience. They demonstrate great patience in these debates, and I
thank them for that.
____________________