[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 63 (Thursday, May 16, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4455-S4469]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE EXPANSION ACT--Continued


                Amendment No. 3429 to Amendment No. 3401

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I send an amendment, No. 3429 to amendment 
No. 3401, to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] for himself, Mr. Gramm, 
     Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Grassley, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3429 to amendment No. 3401.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To Require that any revenue generated from custom user fees 
be used to pay for the operations of the United States Customs Service)

       At the end of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert 
     the following:

     SEC. 4203. LIMITATION ON USE OF CERTAIN REVENUE.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any revenue 
     generated from custom user fees imposed pursuant to Section 
     13031(j)(3) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
     Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58C(j)(3)) may be used only to fund 
     the operations of the United States Customs Service.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Nickles 
be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will explain the amendment and discuss the 
reasons for it. I hope my colleagues will agree that this is an 
amendment that can be adopted. We don't even have to have a rollcall 
vote, unless someone asks for it. I think it is fairly straightforward.
  The amendment has to do with Custom user fees. Today, Custom user 
fees come in two separate categories, which I will discuss in a moment. 
About 300 million of them are statutorily designated to go to a 
particular set of accounts in the Customs Service. For example, it pays 
overtime for Customs Service personnel. There is about $1 billion in 
Custom users fees that takes a somewhat more circuitous route that goes 
into the general fund--generally money which the Appropriations 
Committee defines as funds for funding various functions of the Customs 
Service, hence the name ``user fee.''
  In fact, I will digress for a moment. We have taxes and we have user 
fees by which we raise revenue. User fees are generally targeted toward 
people who use a particular service of the Government. So we generally 
try to spend that money on the things for which they require us to use 
the money. An example is, if you use the national forest, you are 
beginning to find that you have to pay a little fee to go camping 
there. That is because we are kind of hard on the forests when we camp 
there, and somebody has to clean up the mess we leave behind, and so we 
pay a little fee for that. It is more fair for those of us who may take 
our kids camping in the forest to pay for the user fee than it is to 
charge the taxpayers generally.
  The same thing is true with Customs. We charge a fee for people who 
have their ships and their trucks and other things inspected by the 
Customs Service, and some bring goods into the United States of 
America. I am oversimplifying, but that is the general idea. So we take 
those same moneys and put them back into the inspectors, into the 
equipment that is used to inspect their train, or boat, or truck, for 
example, so that instead of waiting at the border for 2 hours, maybe we 
can get them through in an hour or less, hopefully, so we can expedite 
commerce at our borders, and for other purposes. That is the concept of 
a user fee. They pay to have us do this. We take the money and apply it 
to that.

  Now, what the underlying bill did--and I must say that as a member of 
the Finance Committee, I was unaware of this and I objected to it being 
done in an earlier bill, and I was distressed to learn it had been done 
in this bill--they extended the Custom user fees--that part is OK--and 
the net result of that is to contend that the expenses of the TAA 
portion--the trade adjustment assistance portion--of these free trade 
bills is paid for by revenue generated by extending the Custom user 
fees.
  Well, that is not true, and it should not be true. So what my 
amendment says is, no, Custom user fees are used for Customs. Here is 
what it says:

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any revenue 
     generated from custom user fees . . . may be used only to 
     fund the operations of the United States Customs Service.

  That is the idea. That would be a good thing, especially at this time 
in fighting our war on terror. We are imposing upon the Customs Service 
more and more responsibilities for doing a really good job of checking 
all of the modes of conveyance, and containers, and other kinds of 
shipments into the country. We read in the newspaper a couple days ago 
where 25 possible terrorists from Arab countries have been smuggled 
into this country in the holds of ships.
  I think the Customs Service can examine only 1 percent of the cargo 
coming in on ships. They cannot examine every part of every hold of a 
ship coming into this country, let alone every truck, train, or other 
mode of conveyance that brings goods into the United States. Yet we are 
asking them to be sure that nobody smuggles in contraband, drugs, 
nuclear bombs, biological weapons, chemical weapons, or illegal aliens 
who could be terrorists.
  We are asking a lot of the Customs Service, and we are not giving 
them enough money to do the job, which is why they have asked for more 
money. And most of us, I believe, are willing to provide more money for 
the Customs Service to do what we are asking them to do, not just for 
their general work but now enhanced by the requirements of the war on 
terror.
  At the same time we are imposing that additional burden on them, 
somebody had the bright idea to pay for the unrelated parts of this 
bill having to do with wage subsidies, health benefits, and so on, with 
Customs user fees. That is not right, and it is actually not even 
necessary.
  Why is it being done? Because somebody had the idea they could avoid 
a point of order being raised against the underlying bill so that 
instead of having to get 60 votes to pass the bill, 50 votes, the 
usual, would suffice. The fact is there is already a different kind of 
point of order that lies against the bill, so this serves no purpose.
  That is why I think even those who wish to say they have a way of 
paying for the bill by using these Customs fees could easily agree that 
there is no point in it, there is no purpose in it, and, therefore, 
rather than muddling up the law, rather than taking money from Customs 
when we are trying to fight the war on terror, they would be willing to 
adopt our amendment and not try to pay for the bill with Customs user 
fees.
  This is a technique and, as a matter of fact, it even has a name in 
the Senate, and it is called a ``pay-for.'' That is pretty inelegant. 
The idea is when you have a program that is going to cost, say, $10 
billion or $11 billion, as this is, it is going to be hard to get it 
passed unless we show we can pay for it. So we raise taxes $10 billion 
or $11 billion or find some other source of revenue that will cover 
that expense.
  In this case, the pay-for is the Customs user fees. As I said, that 
is not necessary because nobody is saying you have to find a way to pay 
for this. We are assuming that the general revenues of the United 
States will pay for the expenses of the bill. I am assuming that.
  I do not have any objection to the general revenues of the United 
States paying for the cost for this bill. They are too high, in my 
view. I wish we did not have all these costs, but to the extent there 
are costs, the taxpayers of the United States will pay for them through 
general revenues. We do not have to have a pay-for.
  To the extent it is being used to get around a parliamentary point of 
order, it does not need to either because there is a different point of 
order that lies against the bill.
  Instead of compromising our Customs Service, I plead with my 
colleagues in the name of the war on terror, in the name of good sense, 
let's adopt this amendment and eliminate the concept of the pay-for in 
this legislation.
  I have explained this in a more simplified form than it really is. I 
believe

[[Page S4456]]

I have been accurate in what I have said.
  Actually, there are two specific kinds of Customs user fees, to 
complicate this just a little bit. What it also illustrates is that for 
about $300 million of these user fees, we cannot do what this bill 
purports to do and pay for this bill with these fees.

  This is an 8-year extension of two different Customs fees: One, the 
so-called COBRA user fees which raise approximately $300 million per 
year; second, the merchandise processing fee. You can see what that is 
about; it raises approximately $1 billion per year. CBO estimates that 
the user fee section would increase revenue by about $11.54 billion 
through fiscal year 2011.
  The problem is the COBRA user fees already by statute are designated 
for use for a variety of other purposes. This is found in title 19, 
section 58, subsection (f) dealing with Customs duties, titled 
``Disposition of Fees.'' I will read a little bit of it:

       There is established in the general fund of the Treasury a 
     separate account which will be known as the Customs User Fee 
     Account.

  It goes on to talk about how these fees will be distributed:

       Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, all fees 
     in the Customs User Fee Account shall be used to the extent 
     to pay the costs incurred by the United States Customs 
     Service in conducting commercial operations, including, but 
     not limited to, all costs associated with commercial 
     passenger, vessel, vehicle, aircraft, and cargo processing.

  And so on. Then there is a list specifically under section 3(a) of 
how these COBRA fees are used. The one I specifically want to point out 
is paying overtime compensation and another is paying premium pay, and 
there are others--foreign language proficiency awards, and so on.
  This is important because earlier this year in the Terrorism 
Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, we had testimony by one of the 
officials of the Customs Service in which it was pointed out why these 
fees are so important.
  Again, these fees are already designated by statute to go for these 
specific purposes. We cannot use them again to pay for what is in this 
bill. Out West, we have a saying: You can only sell your pony once. In 
effect, somebody is trying to sell this pony twice. It has already been 
sold: $300 million goes to these specific items in Customs. You cannot 
take that same money and apply it to fund the underlying expenses of 
this bill. Again, it is not necessary. Nobody is making you do it. So 
do not try to sell this pony twice. You cannot do it.
  Moreover, it is not good policy. According to testimony on February 
26 of this year--the witness was Bonni Tischler, Acting Commissioner of 
the Office of Field Operations of the Customs Service. She gave some 
very valuable testimony. I will quote some of her testimony.
  I had said there is a lot to do with not only checking out the 
commercial activities that go on that we ask Customs to do, but to 
begin to deal better with terrorism. I asked if she had suggestions 
and, in particular, what the effect might be of taking Customs user 
fees away from the Customs Service in her ability to perform this task.
  She said:

       My personal opinion is it would severely hamper us.

  Ms. Tischler identified the numbers, and she was just about exactly 
on target with respect to the numbers, but regarding the merchandise 
processing fees, my question was:

     . . . if you were not to have the benefit of that in your 
     appropriations, I presume it would be fairly devastating, 
     would it not?

  Her response is:

       It would absolutely be devastating. I think our total 
     budget is closing in on $3 billion thanks to Congress and the 
     administration. So to take that much out, if it were as the 
     offset, would be truly devastating.

  I had put this in context and they did, too. This merchandise 
processing fee is not statutorily designated as the so-called COBRA fee 
is. This is not a matter of selling the same pony twice legislatively, 
but it is from a policy standpoint, since as I pointed out in my 
question and as she pointed out in her answer and as we can document, 
as a practical matter this is what the Appropriations Committee uses to 
define what it has available to fund the Customs Service. That is the 
way it ought to be policy-wise anyway; otherwise, we should just 
collect taxes from the American people.
  Since we are collecting a user fee from the people who use the 
system, the money they pay in ought to go back to help them in how they 
are using the system. The commercial people who have trucks that go 
back and forth across the border all day and pay a fee ought to know 
the fee they are paying is going to pay the people who are checking 
their trucks and getting them through the line as quickly as possible. 
That is what a user fee is all about.
  As a matter of policy, we should not be assuming that in order to 
have some way of paying for the expenses of this legislation that money 
is now available for that purpose.
  Some of my colleagues might say: This is all a ruse; this is all a 
fiction anyway. Indeed, to some extent, it is a fiction, which goes to 
show why this is not necessary.
  In effect, we are robbing Peter to pay Paul. We are saying: We have 
to find a way to fund the legislation that is before us, the trade 
assistance legislation. So instead of raising taxes, we are going to 
extend these user fees and, voila, we now have it paid for.
  As I pointed out, $300 million of it is not paid for because that 
pony has already been sold, but as to the remaining $1 billion, it 
should not be that we consider this the appropriate fund to pay for the 
expenses of the bill because it is user fees paid by people who are 
using the system.
  If you say, But it is all the same pot of money; money is fungible, 
so we will say we are funding this trade adjustment assistance out of 
the user fees, but then we will have taxes to pay for that, to pay for 
Customs, what we are really doing is acknowledging that we are going to 
have to find the money in the general budget; in other words, taxes are 
going to have to be found to pay for this.
  So it does not matter whether you acknowledge upfront that it is 
going to require $10 billion or $11 billion in taxes to pay for this 
bill or you say we are going to get the money from Customs and then we 
are going to have to find $10 billion or $11 billion in taxes to pay 
for Customs. It is the same deal. So why go through this fiction?
  If, as I said, it is to avoid a point of order on the legislation, I 
say, A, that is wrong; B, it is bad policy; but, C, it is not 
necessary.
  This was tried earlier with respect to the Patients' Bill of Rights, 
and I will quote briefly from a memorandum from the Acting Commissioner 
for James Sloan, the acting Under Secretary for Enforcement:

       The COBRA fees collected by Customs are used both to 
     reimburse Customs appropriation for certain costs, such as 
     overtime compensation, and to offset a portion of the Customs 
     Service salaries and expense appropriation. As an example our 
     FY 2001 collections will offset approximately $1 billion or 
     almost 50 percent of Customs appropriation this year. 
     Authorizing a COBRA extension to offset costs for something 
     other than the Customs Service could negatively impact our 
     available funding. Additionally, the Merchandise Processing 
     Fee authorized in the COBRA is a fee that is paid by 
     importers for the processing of merchandise by the Customs 
     Service. Directing the funds collected from this fee for 
     something other than Customs operations could pose GATT 
     interpretation issues.
       While Customs supports the extension of the COBRA fees, we 
     also acknowledge that changes are warranted with the manner 
     in which we collect those fees. We intend to review this in 
     the near term.

  In other words, when this issue came up in another context and 
Customs was asked about it officially as opposed to my unofficial 
question in the hearing we held earlier this year, the answer was the 
same. This would be harmful to the Customs Service, and this was prior 
to September 11, 2001. This was June 20, 2001.
  Now that we have imposed this additional burden on the U.S. Customs 
Service to help us fight the war on terror, it would be unthinkable for 
us, even as a ruse, to say we are going to use Customs fees to pay for 
the wage insurance or health benefits under this tariff legislation. 
Let's be truthful about it and say it is going to cost $10 billion or 
$11 billion, we will find that money out of general revenues somehow or 
another, and that is the cost of the program. That would be an honest 
approach.
  Let's not try to suggest it is already being paid for because we 
found the money in the Customs Service, because

[[Page S4457]]

unless we are not going to fund the Customs Service, we are going to 
have to offset that loss by finding $10 billion or $11 billion then in 
the rest of the budget to pay for the Customs Service obligations.
  I do not know what could be more clear, but I will just make this 
point and then see if any of my colleagues would like to ask any 
questions about this, or make any comments, because I really do not 
want to oversell the proposition. Perhaps this amendment could just be 
taken and we could move on.
  I do not mean to force a vote on it if people are willing to take it, 
but I will begin to discuss this in very thorough terms, with a lot of 
information that deals primarily with how it would adversely impact the 
war on terror, if there is going to be opposition to this amendment, if 
there is going to be an insistence that somehow or another we keep the 
Customs user fee as a pay-for, and object to my amendment which simply 
says Customs user fees should go to pay Customs expenses.
  If we are not willing to accept the amendment, then get prepared for 
a lengthy discussion about the impact of the war on terror. I am 
prepared to engage in that, but it is not going to be necessary, as I 
say, if there is an agreement on the other side that we are able to 
take the amendment.
  I know it is time to go to the vote on the Dodd amendment, or there 
will be a brief discussion beforehand, but might I inquire of the 
distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee what the process would 
be after the Dodd amendment? Would we go back to the discussion of this 
amendment or could there be a discussion about whether to take it and 
move on to another amendment? What would the pleasure of the chairman 
be at that point?
  Mr. BAUCUS. We are prepared to take the amendment.
  Mr. KYL. In that case, Mr. President, I learned a long time ago in 
arguing before the judge when he says, I am inclined to rule for you, 
you say, thank you, Your Honor.
  Could we do that by unanimous consent at this point and then move on 
to other business?
  Mr. BAUCUS. We could voice vote the amendment.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I express my strong support for this 
amendment.
  The amendment sends a strong signal from the U.S. Senate.
  Customs user fees should be used solely to fund the U.S. Customs 
Service, not as some offset for unrelated programs.
  Let's put this in context. When Congress first authorized these 
customs fees the avowed purpose was to underwrite the costs of Customs 
commercial operations.
  We should make sure these fees are being used for customs. That is 
what this Amendment does.
  Allow me to read just a few of the letters I received over the last 
several months on this issue.
  The National Association of Foreign Trade Zones writes:

       [We] recently learned that the Trade Adjustment Assistance 
     Bill . . . includes language that would provide for extension 
     of the Merchandise Process Fee to offset the cost of the TAA 
     program.
       As you are aware, the fee was originally established by 
     Congress to cover the costs of the commercial operations of 
     the U.S. Customs Service.
       The [National Association of Foreign Trade Zones] is 
     strongly opposed to any extension or reauthorization of the 
     [Merchandise Process Fee] from their congressionally intended 
     purpose.

And the National Association of Foreign Trade Zones is not alone.
  The National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America 
writes:

       [We are] aware of pending legislation due for consideration 
     regarding Trade Adjustment Assistance. While [we] support 
     TAA, we cannot support the use of user fees to ``pay for'' 
     this program.
       Merchandise processing fees need to be directed to the 
     agency for which they were collected--the U.S. Customs 
     Service.

  Aligent Technologies, a Fortune 500 company and one of the top 100 
importers in the Nation writes:

       The Merchandise Processing Fee is a ``user-fee'' paid by 
     importers to cover the cost incurred by Customs to process 
     imports.
       . . . If US Customs is to continue collecting [the fee], it 
     must directly fund Customs processing improvements, 
     specifically for the new Automated Commercial Environment and 
     other initiatives that are greatly needed to improve the 
     trade process.

  Members may be under the mistaken impression that extending these 
fees without ensuring that they go for customs is simply keeping a 
convenient money stream flowing.
  That is not so.
  You will hear that extending the fees without ensuring they are used 
for customs purposes will have no impact on Customs' budget.
  If it has no impact, why is it in the bill? It's in the bill because 
it has an impact on budget scoring. Once CBO scores these funds against 
trade adjustment assistance, they cannot be used by Customs for Customs 
modernization.
  These funds are no longer available to offset the costs of Customs 
modernization.
  So I think the Senator's amendment is very simple and very 
reasonable.
  I just want to make sure that Customs user fees are being used for 
their intended purpose.
  In fact, we included a similar sense-of-the-Senate resolution during 
markup of this bill.
  This is a commonsense amendment and I urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, very briefly, I think we are reaching time 
for the votes. I think it is proper that the Senate vote in favor of 
the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona because basically, 
under current law, passage of fees does go back to Customs. The 
merchandise fees that are collected go into the general revenue, but 
they have always historically been appropriated right back to the 
Customs Service. So the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona 
simply confirms existing practice.
  Basically, the Senator is correct on how the actual dollars are 
collected and should be collected and then transmitted back to the 
Customs Service. We are prepared to accept the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to amendment No. 3429.
  The amendment (No. 3429) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.


                           Amendment No. 3428

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, my understanding is that there are 5 minutes 
of debate equally divided on the Dodd amendment. I was going to ask for 
the yeas and nays on the amendment, but I understand that it will be a 
tabling motion, so let me hold on that.
  Briefly, I will describe what I thought would be a fairly 
straightforward, small, uncontroversial amendment, but some have not 
made it as such. What I tried to do with this amendment was to take 
three provisions of the United States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement out 
of the six that are incorporated in the agreement. The three that are 
missing, are critically important to have as part of the 27 pages of 
standards that we ask our negotiators to try to pursue as we enter 
trade negotiations with individual countries.
  The United States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement was adopted 100 to zero 
only a few short months ago in this body, and as part of that agreement 
we added the three standards that are excluded in this bill. The three 
standards ensure that other governments will not relax or ignore their 
own domestic labor laws to gain a competitive advantage, to strive to 
ensure that other governments' labor laws are consistent with core 
labor standards that have already been agreed to with the ILO and, 
thirdly, to agree that core labor principles, freedom of association, 
prohibitions on child labor, elimination of discrimination in the 
workplace, are all going to be efforts we would strive to promote. They 
are goals. They are objectives. Unfortunately, they have been excluded 
from the underlying bill.
  My purpose in offering this amendment is to include those important 
objectives. If we can include objectives dealing with e-commerce, 
investments, insurance, is it really asking too much, out of 27 pages 
of standards, to add 3 that would deal with child labor, job 
discrimination, and seeing to it your domestic labor laws are not 
eroded, making it disadvantageous for U.S. workers as we try to compete 
with these countries? I hope this amendment can be adopted. I regret it 
has come to a vote of motion to table.

[[Page S4458]]

  It seems to me we have had a dynamic process with regard to trade 
negotiations over the years. It used to be in the past we dealt with 
tariffs and quotas, and that was it. Over the years, we have added a 
dynamism to that, so we have added other interests that we want our 
negotiators to pursue when we are allowing countries to have access to 
our markets.
  I do not think it is asking too much to ask our negotiators, in the 
process of negotiating with countries, that they try to abolish child 
labor. The International Labor Organization has been signed by 163 
countries. We have already agreed to these provisions under the Jordan 
FTA.
  It seems to me that including these provisions in the trade promotion 
authority legislation now before us is a modest request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, to be quite candid, I wish we could accept 
this amendment. The Senator makes some very good points. The fact is 
that all those standards that he seeks are in the underlying GSP 
provision that is a part of the underlying legislation. That just 
brought our definitions of core worker rights up to date. As I 
mentioned before, I hope we can bring the definition of core worker 
rights in the fast track part of the bill also up to date. The overall 
objectives and the priority objective in the underlying bill have equal 
weight. We are splitting hairs.

  This amendment is very much opposed by many Senators. I am duty-bound 
as part of the agreement to oppose it. I wish we could accept this 
amendment because it is one we should be able to accept.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, once again, repeating what my colleague 
from Montana has said, this part of this legislation, not only in the 
Senate but also in the House of Representatives, is so carefully 
balanced, bringing in the labor and environmental issues, if you do 
something to pick up one vote on the liberal end, we lose a vote on the 
conservative end.
  I ask my colleagues to not in any way upset that balance. That is why 
this amendment should be defeated.
  The Senator from Connecticut is always a very sincere Senator on any 
subject. He presents his case well. This is one place where his ideas 
may be well for the country of Jordan, where we do $40 million a year 
in business, but it is not good idea when we look globally at 
negotiations with 142 countries. We cannot use the country of Jordan 
necessarily as a pattern for the whole organization.
  I am strongly opposed to this amendment. I think anyone who wants 
this President to get trade promotion authority, or trade adjustment 
assistance for that matter, should be too.
  Basically, the amendment takes the very carefully crafted House to 
compromise language on labor and Add-to it language negotiated by the 
Clinton administration in a bilateral agreement with Jordan.
  In my view this is not thoughtful trade policy. If this language is 
intended as a broad policy statement, it is unnecessary.
  The negotiating objectives in the bipartisan compromise already 
capture the key trade and labor provisions of the U.S. Jordan Free 
Trade Agreement.
  Taken literally, the language dictates the specific details of future 
labor provisions--saying that they have to look almost exactly like our 
bilateral trade agreement with Jordan. This simply does not make sense.
  The labor text negotiated with Jordan is not a one-size fits all way 
to address all labor issues with every U.S. trade partner, nor was it 
designed to be. The President will be negotiating regional, 
multilateral, and bilateral agreements using trade promotion authority. 
Any one of these may require a different approach to labor issues. He 
needs the flexibility to address labor issues in a variety of 
situations.
  That is what the bipartisan TPA bill does. In fact, I would say if 
you really want to improve worker rights around the world, you should 
support the bipartisan compromise. There is more in this bill designed 
to improve labor rights than any TPA bill that has passed the Senate.
  For the first time every, the ``core labor standards'' of the ILO 
will be referenced in U.S. trade negotiating objectives. Further, the 
bill directs the President to seek a commitment by other governments to 
effectively enforce their labor laws. These provisions will encourage 
countries to improve their labor laws, without infringing on their 
sovereignty.
  The bill also directs the President to seek to strengthen the 
capacity of trading partners to promote core labor standards.
  In addition, the Secretary of Labor will be directed to consult with 
any country seeking a trade agreement with the United States concerning 
that country's labor law. U.S. technical assistance will be available 
to help other countries raise their labor standards.
  Whenever the President seeks to implement a trade agreement with a 
country, he will submit a report to the Congress describing the extent 
to which that country has laws in place to govern the exploitation of 
child labor. This will focus attention on any problems which will help 
direct appropriate resources to solve these problems.
  Requiring a one-size fits all policy like this amendment does is not 
going to enhance labor rights. It will upset the careful political 
balance incorporated into the bipartisan TPA Act and kill the very bill 
that is best equipped to improve worker rights.
  If you want this bill or TAA to ultimately make it to the President's 
desk, I urge you to oppose this amendment.
  There is a fundamental truth about trade that a lot of Senators who 
are trying to amend this bill ignore--trade in of itself can lift 
people out of poverty and improve worker rights around the world.
  It is no coincidence that the wealthiest nations on Earth are those 
who embrace trade. And these are the nations that are most likely to 
have the highest labor standards in the world. The fact is, by passing 
this bill we can help poorer nations grow.
  Trade promotion authority will help us establish trading 
relationships with many developing nations. The poorest countries in 
the world desperately want the United States to trade with them and 
invest in them.

  Open trade and investment have helped to raise more than 100 million 
people out of poverty in the last decade, with the fastest reductions 
in poverty coming in East Asian countries that were most actively 
involved in trade. We can see similar results in the next decade if we 
pass this bill.
  A recent report by the World Bank called ``Global Economic Prospects 
and the Developing Countries'' shows this to be true. According to this 
study, a new WTO trade agreement could lift 300 million people out of 
poverty. Helping nations help themselves is surely a better path to 
global prosperity than mandates.
  The Senator from Connecticut stated several times in his remarks that 
if you vote against his amendment, then you are voting against the 
opportunity to do something about slave labor, child labor, and prison 
labor. This assertion is simply wrong.
  The United States already has standards relating to internationally 
recognized worker rights. We have had these standards for a number of 
years. In fact, U.S. standards on worker rights are nearly identical to 
the ILO standards that Senator Dodd wants to put into the Finance 
Committee's trade bill.
  For example:
  The First ILO standard relates to freedom of association. This is 
also the same standard the U.S. recognizes.
  The second ILO standard relates to the right to bargain collectively. 
This is the same standard we recognize.
  The third ILO standard relates to forced, slave, or bonded labor. 
This is exactly the same standard that we recognize.
  The ILO's fourth standard related to child labor. The fourth United 
States worker rights standard also relates to child labor.
  So to say that the United States needs ILO standards on worker rights 
because we aren't currently doing anything about these issues, or 
because we

[[Page S4459]]

don't have the ability to do anything about the problems addressed by 
these standards, is simply wrong.
  I again urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and support the 
bipartisan compromise.
  I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 115 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--46

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Helms
     Murkowski
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in 
morning business for 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Senator Leahy are located in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. LEAHY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3433 To Amendment No. 3401

   (Purpose: To provide a 1-year eligibility period for steelworker 
retirees and eligible beneficiaries affected by a qualified closing of 
a qualified steel company for assistance with health insurance coverage 
                        and interim assistance)

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I send to the desk an amendment 
which is sponsored by myself, Senators Mikulski, Wellstone, DeWine, 
Durbin, Voinovich, and Stabenow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller], for 
     himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Durbin, 
     Mr. Voinovich, and Ms. Stabenow, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3433.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. 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 printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')


                Amendment No. 3434 To Amendment No. 3433

      (Purpose: To clarify that steelworker retirees and eligible 
 beneficiaries are not eligible for other trade adjustment assistance 
      unless they would otherwise be eligible for that assistance)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Daschle] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3434 to amendment No. 3433.

  Mr. DASCHLE. 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 printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I rise this afternoon to talk for a 
few minutes about the need for trade adjustment assistance as a program 
and also an addition to it, something that meets the real needs of 
workers as currently contemplated, and then what is also contemplated 
in our amendment which is to add, at very small cost, about 125,000 
steel retirees.
  I want to talk about them. Their health benefits have been lost due 
to the import surge that has taken place. I passionately believe the 
trade adjustment assistance concept has to be considered an integral 
part of U.S. trade policy.
  When U.S. trade policies result in American workers losing their jobs 
through no fault of their own, much less Government inaction to protect 
them in a legitimate forum, then I think we owe them help.
  I want to take a moment to highlight the importance of the TAA health 
provisions that will hopefully be included in the final package the 
Senate passes.
  Majority Leader Daschle, Chairman Baucus, Senators Bingaman, Conrad, 
Mikulski, Wellstone, myself, and many others have fought to include 
health protection as part of TAA for the first time. Workers want to 
get it. If workers lose their jobs as a result of imports, they deserve 
to get something back. They deserve to be on their feet, they deserve 
to have access to retraining, and they deserve to get cash assistance. 
They also deserve to have something called health care, which is what 
everybody talks about and nobody does anything about, but we would like 
to. What has been lacking has been some help for displaced workers to 
retain their health care coverage. I am not talking about just 
steelworkers, I am talking about the general population.
  Under the Baucus-Grassley amendment that is under consideration now, 
they will have that help. I want to extend my sincere appreciation to 
the majority leader for his advocacy for provisions to provide health 
care assistance to displaced workers who lose jobs due to imports. This 
is a tremendous improvement to the existing program.
  I also thank him, as I believe all steelworkers do and should, for 
his support of our upcoming amendment that will extend the new TAA 
health benefit for steel retirees who have also lost their retirement 
health coverage due to closure of their former employer.
  The majority leader had originally agreed to include this as a 
provision in his substitute amendment. But as we all know, that effort 
was undermined by a point of order and a threatened filibuster. So we 
had to make an adjustment.
  The majority leader agreed to support the inclusion of the steel 
retiree health benefit as part of the overall Trade Adjustment 
Assistance Program because he understands what is at stake. He 
understands that steel retirees have lost their health benefits as a 
direct result of imports--the most ferocious assault of imports, with a 
blind eye from the U.S. Government and,

[[Page S4460]]

particularly in the last several years, just as surely as TAA-eligible 
workers, active workers, lost their jobs because of imports.
  If steel retirees have lost their health care coverage because their 
company closed as a result of this massive insurge of imports, they 
should get some temporary relief. In fact, we are giving them only 
bridge relief--1 year's relief--but it is a full year, which they would 
not now have. I am talking about 125,000 people right now in the 
country. They would get 1 year's health benefits. This amendment would 
provide it to them.
  As we seek to improve benefits for employees who lose their jobs 
because unfair--and in many cases illegal--imports have ravaged their 
industry, we cannot forget the former employees of these same 
industries--the retirees. Under the current TAA system, an active 
worker can get help in health care--if we pass it--because they are 
displaced by imports, but retirees are left behind. The people who have 
gone belly up and who are no longer working at all but who worked for 
years and years in the steel mills got nothing; they are shut out.
  The pending amendment will eliminate that disparity by affording 
retirees access to health care coverage that displaced workers 
hopefully will soon also be able to receive.
  If a steelworker retires and they have lost their health care because 
their company closed, they will now be eligible to receive the same 
temporary health benefits for 1 year as other workers--active workers 
who have lost their jobs and health coverage due to imports.
  These steelworker retirees are also victims of imports. They have 
lost health care because their companies closed. Their companies closed 
because the import crisis in the domestic steel industry became 
overwhelming. I call it a crisis because the International Trade 
Commission called it a crisis and said unanimously that it was due to 
serious damage caused by imports, imports from which our Government--
not just this administration but the previous one--failed to defend 
American interests.
  We have national laws on our books. We failed to defend them. They 
don't allow other countries to dump their steel products into our 
country. We failed to defend that. That is not true in other cases 
particularly, but it is true with steelworkers. They have been 
clobbered by this, and they have no health care retiree ability 
whatsoever right now.
  Health care coverage for steel retirees, who often live on fixed 
incomes, is incredibly important to them. It can mean the difference 
between all kinds of things that make their lives miserable or OK. I 
want to clarify this because it is confusing. Whom are we talking about 
in this amendment? Active workers and retirees. Active workers is the 
TAA category; active retirees is the steel category. Those are the 
people we want to add to the TAA for 1 year.
  Active workers who lose their jobs are not retirees, they are 
unemployed workers. Retirees--the steel folks--have met years-of-
service requirements--vested 15 years working and this kind of thing--
and they are out in the cold. Now their companies have closed and, for 
the most part, have filed chapter 7. LTV in Ohio filed for chapter 7--
no health benefits, no light bulbs, nothing; everything is shut down. 
The health benefits they used to plan for in their retirement are now 
gone. These are not people who can retain and find new jobs, they are 
retirees who have finished, for the most part, their working years.
  Under the new and improved TAA program, for active workers, if a 
worker loses his job, he will now be eligible for cash assistance, 
retraining, and health benefits. In the case of a retiree in the steel 
industry, they may not be eligible for any retirement benefits from the 
job that they have lost, and under the current plan retirees are 
eligible for nothing at all--unless my amendment is adopted, and that 
will only be for health, not for cash, not for training, or anything 
else. The money will only go to the retiree, not to the company.
  Retirees are eligible under my amendment for the TAA health benefits 
only if they were already eligible, going through this vested process, 
for retiree health benefits and if their former employer permanently 
shut down.
  We have created a small universe of 125,000 people. When I get to the 
offset in a minute, people are going to be shocked by how cheap it is, 
how easy it is to do. But the steel retirees will not be eligible for 
any of the cash assistance, or anything else that active workers who 
are otherwise displaced under the TAA will get. Active workers are 
eligible for TAA health assistance for the duration of the TAA cash 
assistance, which goes on. On the other hand, eligible steel retirees--
the subject of our amendment--would only be eligible for 1 year of 
health benefits. That was the bridge we talked about, to give everybody 
a chance to regroup and see what we can do to retain the steel industry 
and for them to be able to get health care.
  So this isn't a Cadillac plan we are talking about. This is a slimmed 
down version. If retirees don't have health care coverage because 
companies shut down due to imports, they should not be left behind--
particularly when the Government is responsible for not defending their 
interests over the past 30 years and not protecting the Federal law 
against dumping and willingly letting people do it. Of course, in the 
United States we are suckers for anything that is cheaper. It doesn't 
matter if it was made in America. Well, it matters in the steel 
industry, and we are about to lose it. Thirty-three companies have shut 
down in the last couple of years, and most of the others are on the 
brink. We could very well have no steel industry in 2, 3 years.
  Today, there are only about 125,000 retirees. That is what my 
amendment is about, along with Senator Mikulski and Senator Wellstone. 
So 125,000 retirees and their dependents, who worked for companies such 
as LTV in the steel industry do not have any health coverage. They have 
not, in fact, had any for the last several months, since March.

  These people live in Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, New York, Alabama, 
Illinois, Utah, Louisiana, North Carolina, Missouri, and they do not at 
this point live in West Virginia. Without the steel retiree provision 
in this bill, those retirees will continue to go without health care. 
Is that what we do here? Is that what we do as a legislative body?
  Many of these retirees are not Medicare eligible and have no other 
recourse. We all know about the terrible human scourge of Americans 
without health care coverage. We have done a lot of talking about that, 
but we have not done much to cure it. This is not what retirees who 
spent a lifetime working in the harsh conditions of a steel mill--which 
my colleagues, Senators Mikulski and Wellstone, have been in. Many 
others have, too. I have not. It is like a coal mine; you do not go in 
very often. It is dangerous, terrible work. They helped us win the war, 
and now we have a chance to do something for them.
  I come back to the fact that the Federal Government has failed the 
steel industry by not enforcing our national trade laws against 
dumping, which is what puts them out of work. Steel companies were 
forced into bankruptcy--as I said, 33 companies since the year 2000--
because our trading partners were dumping steel on our shores, and this 
is not my opinion. This is what the International Trade Commission 
found unanimously: That our industry had been seriously injured by 
imports.
  Because of the Government's inaction for so long on those unfair 
trading practices by our trading partners, our domestic steel industry 
has suffered irreparable harm. People look at that and say: OK, we do 
not have steel in our State; maybe it is true, maybe it is not. It is 
true. The Presiding Officer knows it. It is absolutely true. They are 
falling like flies. Their stock is selling at $1, $2. It is awful.
  Section 201 gave them a little bit of a boost, but it is a boost that 
will only last 6 or 8 months or a year at most, and then it will go 
right back down. Here we come to the workhorse.
  The provision is simply this. The provision will give retirees, many 
of whom are entering, as I indicated, their second month without health 
care coverage--85,000 of these workers are former LTV workers, which 
went chapter 7. They were in Ohio or they may have moved elsewhere. It 
tries to give them some breathing room.

[[Page S4461]]

  They will receive the same benefit we are giving TAA-eligible workers 
to keep their health care. It will allow these retirees some time to 
figure out how to secure other forms of health insurance. It will allow 
us who care about the steel industry to figure out how we keep them 
together in America so we can consolidate and keep a steel industry 
which a country such as America ought to have.
  The amendment has been officially scored by the Joint Tax Committee 
as costing--and please listen--$179 million over 10 years. The White 
House has been putting out figures six, seven times as large. It is 
dramatically less than what people claim this provision would cost--
$179 million over 10 years. It is paid for with two IRS administrative 
positions. The offset is in. It is there. It allow taxpayers to 
accelerate their payments to the IRS if they so choose to do that. 
Under current law, they cannot do that. The House has already passed 
this. They have already agreed to it. It was one of Chairman Bill 
Thomas's ideas.
  I do not believe any of my colleagues will object to this pay-for and 
should understand we worked hard to find agreeable offsets, thanks 
primarily to Chairman Baucus and his staff.
  This amendment improves upon an essential reform of our existing TAA 
program. It gives us health care. It targets temporary assistance to 
those who really need it.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment for retirees who are 
entitled to our help.
  I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, I join with pride and enthusiasm my colleagues, 
Senator Rockefeller and Senator Wellstone, in supporting this amendment 
to provide a safety net for American steelworkers who have been 
battered by decades of unfair and illegal trade practices.
  American steelworkers and their retirees worked very hard and played 
by the rules. They have served our country in war, building our ships, 
tanks, and weapons. I was so proud of the fact that in my own hometown 
of Baltimore, at Bethlehem Steel, we made the steel to repair the 
U.S.S. Cole so it could go back out to sea and continue to defend 
America.
  That is what steel is all about. It builds America. It makes us 
strong. It has made us strong in war, and it has made us strong in 
peace, making the steel for our buildings, our cars, our bridges, our 
roads.
  Yet for decades, our Government has watched as the steel industry 
withered, not because steel was unproductive, not because steel was 
overpriced, but because of cheap, subsidized foreign steel that has 
been dumped on our markets and, I might add, below the cost of 
production. That is what makes it illegal.
  The goal of the foreign steelmakers is to destroy our American steel 
industry. Then foreign producers will be free to raise prices and 
control production, and the United States of America, the home of the 
free and the land of the brave, will be dependent on foreign steel for 
keeping our domestic economy going and keeping America strong.
  What would it have been if the U.S.S. Cole, banged by a terrorist 
attack, had had to limp home only while we dialed Russia, Thailand, or 
Brazil to get the steel parts to send them out to sea? I think it is 
wrong to let our steel industry die.
  While we are going to fight for steel and its future--and we thank 
our President, President Bush, for the temporary tariffs to give steel 
a break--our steelworkers are facing a crisis because so many steel 
companies are in bankruptcy. What that means is, their health care 
benefits are now at risk. The Rockefeller-Mikulski-Wellstone-Stabenow 
amendment seeks to help those steelworkers who have suffered the most 
from unfair trade practices: the retirees whose companies are now 
bankrupt and whose health care benefits are now at risk.
  Our amendment is a simple one, and it is an affordable one. It would 
provide a 1-year temporary extension of health care benefits for steel 
retirees who lose their health insurance because of trade-related 
bankruptcy of their company. Guess what. We have even sunsetted it in 
the year 2007. This is a bridge to help them.
  Madam President, about whom are we talking? Who are the steelworkers? 
Who are the steel retirees about whom we are talking?
  First, the numbers: 600,000 retirees and their dependents; 33,000 in 
my own home State of Maryland are retired. But it is not about numbers 
and statistics. It is about people and it is about families. Who are 
they? Guess what. They have two characteristics in common: One, they 
all work for steel; two, they have all been good, outstanding citizens 
of the United States of America.
  In my hometown, Bethlehem Steel every year has been the largest 
contributor to United Way. Those men and those mills, those hot, steamy 
mills, are the first to sign up for dues checkoff so the Girl Scouts, 
Boy Scouts, Legal Aid, Meals on Wheels could have their contribution. 
They are also very often the first to volunteer for any good cause in 
our community.
  When you also look at the data on who are the steelworkers, you find 
that a high percentage of them are veterans. They were called up and 
they went to World War II. They went to Korea. They went to Vietnam. 
And guess what. While they were busy storming Iwo Jima or climbing the 
cliffs at Normandy, they were fighting for America. When they tried to 
make their way up Pork Chop Hill to plant the flag, they were fighting 
for America. When they were in that hell hole of the Mekong Delta in 
Vietnam, they were fighting for America. Now when is America going to 
fight for them?
  I think it is time America fights for them. The industrial unions had 
the highest compliance with the draft than any other sector of our 
society. They did not take academic deferments. They did not go to 
Harvard to get a theological degree. They did not get a parade when 
they came home. By God, they ought to at least be able to get their 
health care in their retirement.
  Now that is about whom I am talking. We are talking about the 
lifeblood of our communities and people who have been giving their red 
blood for America. This generation has the values that we cherish: Hard 
work, patriotism, habits of the heart, neighbor helping neighbor. Can 
we not at least find a couple of million bucks to provide a 1-year 
bridge to help them get the health care they need?
  Last week, I told my colleagues about Gertrude Misterka. Gertrude and 
I grew up in the same neighborhood. It is a neighborhood called 
Highlandtown. Our Baltimore neighborhoods have names like that. I know 
Gertrude because we not only grew up in the same neighborhood, but when 
I was first running for the city council, going door to door, she and 
her husband Charlie were living in the neighborhood and said they 
absolutely would back me.
  It was great to see her at my hearing in March, but, my gosh, what an 
incredible reunion. Gertrude is now a widow. She was married to a 
Bethlehem Steel worker named Charlie. Charlie worked with Bethlehem 
Steel for over 35 years. He was also a veteran. Charlie thought that 
for his 35 years at Bethlehem Steel, he would have a secure pension for 
himself and his bride. He also believed if he passed away, she would 
have a widow's benefit, she would have Social Security, and his mind 
was at peace because she would have her health care.
  Even after his death, he thought he could provide for her because the 
men at the mills believe you ought to really provide for your family.
  Well, Gertrude relies on this health care at Bethlehem Steel. She has 
diabetes, high blood pressure, and asthma.
  I said: Gertrude, the naysayers are saying you get gold-plated, 
lavish health care. Tell me what you get.
  She said: Barb, guess what. I get a $100 monthly pension. I do not 
get a COLA. When you retire at Bethlehem Steel you take what you get, 
but you do not get a COLA. My pension is frozen.
  Out of a $100 monthly pension, she pays $78 each month for her health 
care premium. So she has this little pension. She has Social Security, 
but out of her Bethlehem Steel, frozen with no COLA, she pays 78 bucks.
  She told me she asked her pharmacist what her medications cost. If 
she did not have health care, she would have to pay $6,716 for her 
medication.

[[Page S4462]]

  Now, she is a diabetic. You do not cheat on your diabetes medicine. 
What are we going to do if Gertrude goes into a coma? She is going to 
go into the hospital, and that is mega bucks. You have to take your 
test. You have to take your insulin. You have to regulate your blood 
pressure, and you have to take care of that asthma so it does not cause 
other complications.
  I listened to Gertrude that day and my heart went out to her and 
other steel retirees. I promised her I would fight to help those 
retired steelworkers. They need a safety net so they do not lose their 
health care. Then the only reason they will lose their health care is 
because their companies are in trouble and are going bankrupt because 
of documented unfair trade practices.
  These families worked hard for America, some for nearly 50 years, 
doing back-breaking work in hot mills and in cold mills. Families now 
need our help. Retired steelworkers who thought 30 or 40 years of hard 
work meant security for their families, widows who sent their husbands 
off to these mills every day: these are the true victims of years of 
unfair trade practice. So this is why we have our amendment.
  American steel is in crisis. Our steel companies are filing for 
bankruptcy protection; 31 since 1997, 17 last year. Steel mills are 
shutting down. Steelworkers are losing their jobs. Why are they doing 
this? Again, this is not happening because of the steelworkers being at 
fault, the retirees being too greedy, or the companies being poorly 
managed. The cause of the steel crisis is well-known: Unfair foreign 
competition has brought American steel to its knees. Foreign steel 
companies, subsidized by their governments, are dumping excess steel 
into America's open market at fire sale prices. This is not rhetoric. 
This is fact, documented by the International Trade Commission.
  Last year, they found these violations unanimously.
  Let me give an example. The Russian Government keeps about 1,000 
unprofitable steel plants open through subsidies. That is not 1,000 
steelworkers; that is 1,000 steel companies. Well, it is real easy to 
compete with them, is it not?
  The Russians are our newfound friends, but the Russians will not let 
us export our chicken legs to them. South Korea has nearly doubled its 
production capacity since 1990, without the domestic demand to support 
it. So, zip, in comes their steel. When Asian countries had the 
collapse of their economies, they again dumped the steel. Was any 
action taken? Oh, no. The globalizers backed it.
  I know we are going global, but while they are going global, we do 
not have to abandon the people who fought for America. I said earlier 
in my remarks about why steel is important: The railroads, the bridges, 
the ships, the tanks. Saving steel is not an exercise in nostalgia. It 
is a national security issue. We need to maintain production in very 
important sectors. No more than we want to be food dependent should we 
be steel dependent.
  Our President, George Bush, said steel is an important issue and he 
said it is an important national security issue. I could not agree with 
him more. Quoting Senator Stevens, a great patriot:

       During World War II, we produced steel for the world. We 
     produced steel for the allies. We rebuilt Europe. Could we do 
     it again?

  I am not so sure.
  America must never become dependent on foreign suppliers such as 
Russia or China for the steel we need to defend our Nation and keep our 
country on the go. Tariffs have been imposed by President Bush. I am 
going to reiterate what I said earlier in my remarks: I really do thank 
the President for doing that. Those tariffs were temporary, limited to 
3 years. They were specific and they were well documented through the 
ITC. I appreciate the President's action, and that was a very important 
step, but now we need the next step. Tariffs help the industry. Now it 
is also time to help the workers and their retirees who will lose their 
health care if their companies go under.
  Senator Daschle has led the way to provide a temporary 1-year 
extension of health benefits to qualified steelworkers. I sure support 
that. We are also helping with other issues related to current 
workers. Like the temporary work tariffs gave the companies breathing 
room to recover, we need a temporary extension of benefits to give 
workers and retirees breathing room to find health care. This is what 
we need to do.

  I was moved at a hearing by the stories of people such as Gertrude 
Misterka and others. I have been to the rallies. I have been to the 
meetings. I feel very close to these workers. I grew up in Baltimore in 
a neighborhood where most of the people in that community worked either 
at Bethlehem Steel, Western Electric, or General Motors. Western 
Electric has since closed. General Motors, we are not sure about its 
future there. Bethlehem Steel is in bankruptcy. We have real problems. 
This is our industrial base.
  In that neighborhood where I grew up, my father had a neighborhood 
grocery store. He opened it early every day so that the steelworkers on 
the early morning shift could come by and buy their lunch. These were 
the people I knew. These are not numbers and statistics, these are 
people with names such as Stanley, Henry, and Joe. These workers at 
Bethlehem Steel were not units of production, they were our neighbors. 
They were my neighbors, but they are your neighbors.
  What did we know about Bethlehem Steel? In Baltimore, we thought it 
was a union job with good wages and good benefits. Our neighbors could 
go to work and put in an honest day's work, get fair pay, and come back 
and build our communities. Right now, most of the Bethlehem Steel 
workers work very hard. Their commitment to Bethlehem Steel is a 
commitment to America, doing the work that needs to get done for fair 
pay and a secure future. We are proud of our workers at Bethlehem 
Steel. We are proud of what they did at the mill. We are proud of how 
they defended America. We are proud of the way they prepare the U.S.S. 
Cole.
  I think it is time we repair the agreements to assure our retirees 
have the health care they need.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, Senator 
Rockefeller, Senator Mikulski, and other Senators who have joined in 
this amendment. I thank Senator Mikulski for her remarks and for 
reminding Members we are not talking about statistics, we are talking 
about men and women whom we know and love and in whom we believe. I 
thank Senator Rockefeller for his painstaking work putting this 
amendment together.
  I am not the insider politician, but I want steelworkers--and not 
just steelworkers; I want people in the heartland of America, in 
industrial America--to know exactly what the situation is. It is 5:10 
on Thursday night in the Senate Chamber. Here is what is going on. We 
had an amendment originally as part of the trade adjustment assistance. 
It was an amendment that said part of trade adjustment assistance ought 
to be to build a 1-year bridge where we can at least make sure the 
steelworker retirees--in the case of Minnesota, taconite workers on the 
Iron Range--who worked hard all their life, and now over 30 companies 
have declared bankruptcy, including LTV company, a classic example, 
receive retiree health care benefits. People are terrified.
  We said, let's have a 1-year bridge. This was in the original 
amendment. Senator Rockefeller worked very hard on it. Jay took the 
lead. Senator Daschle deserves a lot of credit. He is the leader of our 
party. We have this as part of trade adjustment assistance.
  The administration came out Wednesday of last week with a letter. 
They said the cost would be about $800 million in 1 year. They were 
downright untruthful with the figures. Actually, we were talking about 
$180 million over 10 years, not $800 million over 1 year. The 
administration said it was adamantly opposed. It was crystal clear 
there was no way to move this package forward, and therefore this 
provision was removed.
  I was presiding in the chair when Senator Daschle said: I make it 
crystal clear that all amendments to try to modify this trade 
adjustment assistance package, I will oppose--but not the amendment 
that will deal with steelworkers, trying to give them help; I will 
support that.

[[Page S4463]]

  Now we bring the amendment to the floor. What does the amendment say? 
It says as part of this trade adjustment assistance package, $180 
million over 10 years, can't we build this 1-year bridge to provide the 
help to the people who have worked so hard, now terrified they will 
lose their health care benefits? It is cost effective. It helps people. 
It is compassionate liberalism, compassionate conservatism, 
compassionate Democrats, and compassionate Republicans. We ought to do 
this. It is the right thing to do.
  I want steelworkers and their families to know, this is now being 
filibustered. There are Senators who I assume will be debating this--I 
hope; certainly not the majority. The good news, Senator Rockefeller: 
Clearly, we have the majority of the votes. What we have now is no 
agreement on time, no agreement for an up-or-down vote. This bill is 
being filibustered. That is where we are. We are in a filibuster 
situation. One would think it was a cardinal sin and the most terrible 
thing in the world to try to provide some help to people--which is what 
this is about. Therefore, this is being filibustered. Therefore, we are 
going to continue with this debate. There won't even be a vote until 
next week. That is what is happening right now.

  I am pleased we have a majority of the votes. That is obvious, since 
the opponents do not want an up-or-down vote. We have a lot of support 
for this amendment. The question is whether we can overcome the 
filibuster, whether we can overcome the efforts to block this 
amendment.
  I remember Jerry Fallos, president of Local 4108 on the Iron Range of 
Minnesota, came here within the last month and testified. I cannot say 
it as well as he can say it. It is amazing. He has seen 1,300 people 
out of work. People are out of work, and these are good-paying jobs. 
And now you wonder how you will support your family, and 6 months or a 
year later you do not have health coverage, and you worry about that. 
For a lot of the taconite workers, it is their parents about whom they 
worry.
  That is what we focus on, people who are vested, worked a lot of 
years for companies, and now they are terrified their health care 
benefits are going to be canceled. Jerry said the people from the Iron 
Range are used to hard times: We are survivors, though. We work hard. 
We have always responded to our country in times of need. This steel 
industry has always been there for our country in times of war. But now 
we are asking for some help.
  I say to the 100 Senators, as you decide how to vote on this 
filibuster, this is $180 million over 10 years. That is all it is. If 
you made the estate tax permanent, which mainly goes to millionaires, 
plus, you would be talking about $8 billion over 5 years. If we can 
help out the wealthiest people, if we can have all kinds of tax breaks 
to multinationals, one would think $180 million over 10 years to 
provide help to retirees, a 1-year bridge before we finally put 
together a package that will help these people, would not be 
filibustered.
  I cannot even believe we are now out here fighting a filibuster, but 
that is the situation. I ask the question, Where are our values? Where 
is our collective humanity? Are we going to step up to the plate and 
help people? This is a very modest amendment. We have passion about 
this because it is people we know and we love and in whom we believe.
  I told Senator Rockefeller about one discussion I had with one 
steelworker. He said to me: Now we are counting on you all. A lot of 
our lives are at stake. People's lives are at stake.
  That is not being melodramatic. Senator Mikulski used the example of 
prescription drugs. Elderly people are terrified. They do not know how 
they will afford the costs. They worked hard. They did everything for 
our country. Companies now declare bankruptcy and walk away, and they 
don't know what they will do.
  We say can't we, over 1 year, provide help while we work together and 
come up with a package to help the retirees and help the steel industry 
get back on its feet? That is no small issue to the economy of the 
United States of America.

  I want to talk a little bit about the position the administration has 
taken. I will try to be well behaved.
  I do want to say on section 201 that the administration has already 
entertained all sorts of exemptions. There are now a thousand 
exemptions to the President's section 201 decision and Secretary 
O'Neill is reported as saying that a significant portion of them will 
be favorably decided. So it may not provide us with the trade relief we 
were hoping for, though as Senator Mikulski said, it is surely a step 
forward.
  On the Iron Range it was not. On the Iron Range you have tariff rate 
quotas, so basically until you have 7 million tons of slab steel, that 
can come into the country without any help whatsoever. That is what we 
have right now. That is what has put our taconite workers out of work. 
So it simply does not help at all.
  Then you have 32 U.S. steel companies in the last 2 years that have 
filed for bankruptcy. That is just unbelievable. That is 30 percent of 
the domestic steelmaking capacity. When they file for bankruptcy, this 
is terror that people then have to deal with because then they can walk 
away, and they do walk away from retiree health benefits. That is what 
we are speaking to.
  Let me just be really clear. There is a bipartisan group of Senators 
who have been working on the Steel Industry Retirees Benefits 
Protection Act, Democrats and Republicans. We all know there is a lot 
of work to do. The question is whether or not we can have this 1-year 
bridge. We can do something for people who, right now, are flat on 
their backs, who are terrified, who are worried. We can get some help 
to them because they are in this position through no fault of their 
own. Nobody can say that retired taconite workers and steelworkers are 
in the position they are in right now, worried about how they are going 
to afford health care costs, because they are slackers or because they 
are cheaters or because they don't work hard or because they are not 
loyal or because they are not patriotic or because they don't love 
America or because they have not done everything to serve our country. 
They have done all of that and more.
  The only thing we are asking is whether or not the Senate and this 
administration will help these families.
  I do not have the years or the savvy of either of my colleagues out 
here, but I have been here now 11\1/2\ years. I can figure out what is 
going on. This is an amendment that is tough to be against. This is a 
high moral ground amendment. There is a lot of passion behind this 
amendment. There is a lot of decency behind this amendment. Frankly, it 
is all about helping people--people who richly deserve and need the 
help.
  I think we have a majority vote, but the opponents will not give us 
that vote. They will not agree to a time limit. So we will be at this 
for the next several days. We will be at this over the weekend.
  I hope steelworker families and other families all across the 
heartland of America are in touch with all Senators because we are 
going to do everything we can to overcome this obstacle, this 
filibuster. A good, strong vote is important, and I am delighted 
because we have that; otherwise, there would not be a filibuster. Now 
we have to deal with the filibuster. I hope Senators will be there to 
support these steelworker retirees.
  I do not know about my colleagues, but for me, I have been waiting 
ever since this debate started on fast track for this amendment because 
here is where I think Tip O'Neill's adage about ``all politics is 
local'' is absolutely true. I would not make any apology to anybody 
about this.

  Senator Rockefeller and Senator Mikulski, there is nothing I want 
more in the world than to pass this amendment. We passed it already. We 
have over 50 votes. That is why it is being filibustered. There is 
nothing I want more in the world than to make sure we are able to come 
through for people. That is why this amendment is important: Not 
because of some strategy, not because of some tactic, but because it is 
on the floor of the Senate, it is 5:30 Thursday night but, darn it, 
this amendment is directly connected to the concerns and circumstances 
of the lives of people we represent.
  This is the right amendment. There is no other reason to be in the 
Senate than to try to pass this kind of legislation to help people--no 
other reason.

[[Page S4464]]

Nothing can be more important, and I hope we will have the support of 
our colleagues.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I would like to introduce a few 
things in the Record.
  First, I ask unanimous consent Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania 
be added as a cosponsor. He is the cochair of the steel caucus.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I also ask to have a letter from the vice chairman, 
president, and CEO of Nucor, which is the largest minimill in the 
United States, be printed in the Record.
  In the steel industry you have some conflict between integrated steel 
mills and minimills which take scrap and turn it into steel. It is an 
arcane but nevertheless very real conflict.
  I called Dan DiMicco in California about this amendment. He has 
written me a letter saying they have no problem with it at all. In no 
way will they oppose this proposal.

       Nucor has long advocated consideration must be made for 
     displaced steel workers or retirees in transition due to 
     permanent plant closures.

  One of the reasons he is for this is a point I made earlier. This 
money does not go to companies. It does not go to integrated steel 
companies or minimills. It goes to human beings.
  I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                            Nucor Corporation,

                                       Charlotte, NC, May 6, 2002.
     Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Rockefeller: I understand legislation pending 
     before the Senate would make certain steel industry retirees 
     who have lost their health care coverage eligible under the 
     Trade Adjustment Assistance program for federal assistance in 
     obtaining health insurance coverage through COBRA or state 
     sponsored plans for one year.
       Nucor Corporation will not oppose this proposal. Nucor has 
     long advocated that consideration must be made for displaced 
     steel workers or retirees in transition due to permanent 
     plant closures. The continued surge of illegally traded steel 
     has devastated communities across America and left many 
     retirees and their families without access to health care.
       As I understand the proposal under consideration, it would 
     help the retirees who have lost health care coverage due to 
     permanent closure of capacity directly and is for a limited 
     period of time. As such, I do not believe it would adversely 
     affect Nucor because it would not allow companies to 
     discharge their legacy obligations onto the federal 
     government. We continue to believe that pension and health 
     commitments of surviving mills should remain the 
     responsibility of those mills, not of the taxpayers or the 
     rest of the industry.
           Sincerely,
                                                Daniel R. DiMicco,
                                   Vice Chairman, President & CEO.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I also called Governor Bob Taft of 
Ohio yesterday afternoon. I told him we have this situation, we have 
this amendment. Yes, of course, LTV is located in his State, but that 
doesn't mean necessarily all the 85,000 steel retirees are located in 
his State. I met Governor Taft back in the 1960s. I don't know him 
well, but he is a fine Governor. He is a conservative Governor, a 
responsible Governor, and he did something I thought very unusual.
  What I was asking for was a letter of support for my amendment. The 
Governor gets this phone call from some United States Senator at 6 
o'clock in the evening saying: Can I have a letter from you by noon? 
That is when this Senator thought we were going to be doing this 
legislation today.
  He sent it. He sent it to Senator Voinovich, which is what he should 
have done. He is a cosponsor of the bill. But in it he says:

       Retired steel workers, similar to their currently employed 
     counterparts [active workers], are suffering irreparable harm 
     as a result of unfair trade practices. This amendment offers 
     temporary relief for those retirees in the greatest need.
       I urge you to support this amendment and thank you for your 
     attention to this important issue.

  He says a lot of good things about the amendment. I ask unanimous 
consent that also be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                State of Ohio,

                                       Columbus, OH, May 16, 2002.
     Hon. George V. Voinvich,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Voinovich: I am writing to express my support 
     for an amendment planned to be included in the trade 
     adjustment assistance section of the trade bill being 
     considered today by the Senate. As you are aware, the health 
     benefits of retired steel workers have been terminated as a 
     result of failed steel companies. Tens of thousands of 
     retired steel workers, concentrated in Northeast Ohio, are 
     now without health care or are struggling to pay expensive 
     premiums.
       I commend the President for his imposition of significant 
     remedies to defend our nation's steel industry from the 
     unfair trade practices of some foreign producers. 
     Unfortunately the relief did not come soon enough for some 
     companies. Major steel manufacturers have permanently closed, 
     health care and pension funds are exhausted and retirees are 
     left with few and costly health care options.
       The Health Care Benefits Bridge program will allow retired 
     steel workers to receive a health care credit for one year 
     equal to 70 percent of the total cost of premium of health 
     care coverage under COBRA or state established plans. The 
     retirees would be responsible for the remaining 30 percent. 
     The bridge plan would limit eligibility those retirees who 
     have lost health care coverage because of the permanent 
     closure of their former employer.
       Retired steel workers, similar to their currently employed 
     counterparts, are suffering irreparable harms as a result of 
     unfair trade practices. This amendment offers temporary 
     relief for those retirees in greatest need.
       I urge you to support this amendment and thank you for your 
     attention to this important issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                         Bob Taft,
                                                         Governor.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I also want to make one point clear. Some people 
say: Why can't the Department of Labor--which sort of decides on TAA 
matters--why doesn't it just include, administratively, steel retirees?
  They cannot. They do not have the power to do that. They do not have 
the authority to do that. The retirees we are talking about--Senator 
Wellstone, Senator Mikulski, myself, and Senator Stabenow, who 
obviously wants to say something--they do not have the power to do 
that. They cannot include them on their own. It can only be done 
through action of the Congress, which is why this amendment is before 
us.
  Back last summer, a number of us were doing the legacy bill, which is 
sort of the big solution, a $16 or $17 billion solution. And there is a 
great reason for that; it just did not happen to be a very compelling 
one at the time we were doing it. But you have to do three things to 
make steel work.
  I apologize to my colleague from Michigan, because I know how much 
she wants to speak.
  You have to invoke section 201. That is the International Trade 
Commission. The Finance Committee had voted to do that. Oddly enough, 
the Finance Committee has the same power under the law to invoke the 
International Trade Commission on the subject of imports and the damage 
from imports as does the President of the United States. So does the 
Ways and Means Committee. They did not choose to invoke it. We did. So 
had the President not invoked section 201, we would have, and already 
had voted to do so. So the same process would have taken place.
  The first thing you have to do is invoke section 201. What does that 
do for you? It gives a little bit of a lift in the market, as I 
indicated, for 6 or 8 months. People feel a little bit better. But it 
does not last. It did buy us time, and we needed time. Because we have 
to think, how are we going to keep the steel industry together? How can 
we have a 40 or 50-million-ton steel industry in a place called the 
United States of America, which sort of started this whole thing?
  All around the world, everybody, when they want to get into the 
United Nations, they start a steel industry and they buy a 747. Now, 
that is a little crude, and I apologize for saying that, but, frankly, 
that is what you do to establish yourself as a real country: You have a 
national airline--it might be one plane--and you have a steel industry. 
So these imports just come flowing into our country from all over the 
world. People underestimate the power of that. Of course, they are 
cheap because they are dealing with $1-an-hour labor, a little more or 
a little less. And

[[Page S4465]]

then sometimes our industries have to buy that because they have to 
survive.

  So I want to stress the urgency of particularly what has happened 
between 1998 and 2000 and 2001, where this enormous import surge 
overtook the United States in steel at the same time as another surge 
of total neglect on the part of the Government. This is not a partisan 
statement about this administration. It was the same thing in the last 
administration.
  I can remember endless hours in the steel commission arguing with Bob 
Rubin, Gene Spurling, and Charlene Barshefsky, and all kinds of high 
and mighty people. And they said: No, globalization is the deal. I 
said: I agree; it is the deal, and I voted for PNTR, and all the rest 
of it. But, frankly, we have something called a steel industry in 
Senator Stabenow's State and my State, and it is sort of the heart and 
soul of America. But they were not interested.
  I think Senator Wellstone's $800 million figure was, in fact, e-
mailed by the White House to a whole lot of Senate offices just as late 
as this afternoon, trying, again, to scare us away from this amendment 
based on cost.
  I will just end with this thought. It almost seems impossible we 
would be bringing an amendment to this body, an amendment which only 
affects 125,000 people at the present time, and they have to go through 
so much to even qualify. They have to have worked in the mill 15 years, 
and all the rest of it. And if the mill goes chapter 7--that is, goes 
belly-up, completely--it has to do so by January of 2001. And then it 
only lasts until January 1 of 2004. That means, if a West Virginia 
plant or a Michigan plant went belly-up and shut out the lights, sent 
out pink slips, with no health benefits, nothing, everything goes. The 
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation does take care of the pensions, 
but nobody takes care of health care. Nobody takes care of health care 
for these people.
  We still provide this amendment, which is so tightly constricted to 
125,000 people, costing $179 million over 10 years. Frankly, I don't 
know why the White House does not say: We want this. We accept this. We 
will take credit for it. It is a no-brainer. Yet, obviously, it is the 
subject of filibustering and all kinds of divisions. And I regret that 
very much.
  There is really nothing quite like a steelworker. They sweat and 
toil, as you can imagine. It is so dangerous. They lose arms, fingers, 
legs. They work in 125 to 130-degree heat in the summer. I am not 
pleading for them. I am just simply saying that when their company goes 
belly-up because of Government inaction, by not enforcing the Federal 
laws against imports, they deserve--if not to get cash, if not to get 
training, if not to get other benefits--at least to get health care 
benefits.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise with great pride to be a 
cosponsor of this amendment. I thank my colleague from West Virginia 
for his passion, his compassion, and his advocacy for great Americans--
our great American steelworkers. He has been here over and over again 
fighting on behalf of the industry, fighting on behalf of workers, many 
of whom are in Michigan. I thank him for his leadership. I also thank 
Senator Wellstone from Minnesota for his ongoing leadership and 
advocacy for our steelworkers, as well as thanking Senator Mikulski 
from Maryland.
  This is a dynamic trio that I am very proud to join, and I very much 
appreciate the fact that they are coming back over and over and over 
again until we can get this done.
  I share my colleagues' view that we are coming with a critical yet 
modest proposal in terms of how we debate in the Senate, covering 
125,000 retirees with health benefits at a cost of $179 million over 10 
years, which certainly sounds like a lot of money, but in terms that we 
are debating, it is a very small amount to put aside for a group of 
people who have worked their whole lives to build America.
  I find it so amazing, as we debated other bills--and we have talked 
about our overreliance on energy and the need to do more domestic 
production--that we, at this time, would not be up in arms about the 
possibility, hopefully not probability, of losing an American steel 
industry. I cannot imagine, in this time that we are focused on 
national security and war on terrorism, that we would even, in any way, 
allow the possibility that we might lose our domestic steel industry. 
Yet that is what is happening in our country.
  We have only six iron ore mines in the country: four in Minnesota and 
two in Michigan. When they are closed, we will no longer have the 
ability to pull the raw materials out of the ground.
  The men and women in the upper peninsula of Michigan work very, very 
hard. They and their families have gone through layoffs. They have gone 
through mine closings. They are on the edge. This proposal is simply to 
say that for those who are already retired, who had health benefits, 
who were promised health benefits, whose companies closed--and we had 
over 33 of them closed since the year 2000--we would give them a 1-year 
reprieve, 1 year of health care benefits, to try to help in the 
transition.
  I very much appreciate the fact that the President has acknowledged 
the concerns about steel and taken some action. There are efforts right 
now to help the industry, to address the question of unfair dumping. 
This is a small bridge for 125,000 people who are retired from an 
industry that is critical. They built America. And I believe we owe 
them at least that.
  For those who are now working in the great State of Michigan, whether 
it is in the upper peninsula or whether it is in the lower peninsula of 
Michigan, down river or metro Detroit, we owe them, as well, to stop 
the dumping, the unfair competition, so that we can give them an 
opportunity to succeed and give our steel companies, which are making 
investments, are efficient, and doing everything they can to stay 
afloat, the opportunity to succeed because we, as a country, need them 
to succeed.
  The issue of steel in our country today is absolutely critical. While 
we are working to find ways to stop unfair trade practices and, 
hopefully, the mechanisms and remedies that have been put into place 
will have some kind of positive effect--we certainly hope so--while we 
are working for other ways to support the steelworkers and their 
families, to support the businesses, this is a small way to acknowledge 
the significance and the importance of the steel industry and the 
steelworkers in the United States and to say for those who are 
retirees, who assumed when they would retire that they would have their 
health care benefits and who have lost them because of unfair 
competition, because of dumping in our country from other countries, 
that we, in fact, will recognize them in this whole question of trade 
adjustment assistance.
  I am proud to stand with my colleagues. I ask that we come together 
in a bipartisan way. With a small amount of investment, we can make a 
major statement and help 125,000 great Americans. I hope we will do 
that.
  I urge strong support for the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I see a few of the sponsors of the 
amendment are present. Maybe either one of the sponsors, since they 
know more about this amendment than I, might be able to respond.
  I am wondering how much this amendment will cost. How much does it 
cost per family, per beneficiary? Would either the Senator from West 
Virginia or the Senator from Maryland tell me that? Many times health 
care per family costs $7,000; sometimes steelworkers have very generous 
plans. Could they give me some idea of what it costs per family?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. As to the matter of how much it costs each family, 
that is not yet available because the circumstances vary enormously. 
Sometimes there might be a little bit of health care left over. In 
virtually all cases, there was none left over.
  The fact is the Joint Tax Committee, which looked at this in a rather 
conservative fashion, came out with a $179 million cost over a period 
of 10 years. I don't think the Senator from Oklahoma would challenge 
that.
  Mr. NICKLES. Per year or $179 million over a 10-year period?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Over a period of 10 years.
  Mr. NICKLES. Does the program last for 12 months? How many months of

[[Page S4466]]

health care are we providing for retired steelworkers?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. If the underlying amendment, referring to the TAA in 
general and health care, prevailed----
  Mr. NICKLES. Just the steelworkers.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I am answering, if the Senator would allow me to 
answer the question the way I would like to. That can provide health 
care for a couple of years, but not with the steelworker retirees. That 
is only a 12-month period, and that is it, once.

  Mr. NICKLES. I am just trying to learn what is in the Senator's 
amendment. I am going to debate against it in a minute, but I want to 
educate myself on what I am debating.
  The cost is $179 million over 10 years, but the program for 
steelworkers only lasts for 1 year, the 12 months' benefits. So it is 
actually about $179 million for 1 year's benefits for the eligible 
steelworkers in the Senator's amendment?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. That is correct. I think I understand what the 
Senator is also asking. And that is, if it is a 1-year program, we are 
only talking about 10 years. I would be happy to hand over a chart 
exactly of what is proposed. In fact, the funding is zero for this 
year, 86 for next year, 25 for following, 15, 16, 2, and then there is 
a series of just dots and dashes, not contemplating that there will be 
anything in the succeeding 10 years. That is what it was done for. It 
was done for 10 years.
  Mr. NICKLES. I will ask either Senator, the duration of the amendment 
to benefit only the steelworkers is for 12 months. I happen to have 
great respect for the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from West 
Virginia. I have a feeling that if that 12 months was expiring, that 
you would be coming for an extension of the 12 months.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. The Senator is entirely wrong in that. I apologize 
to the Senator from Maryland. That is incorrect. This is not a question 
of something which comes up for reauthorization. This will not happen. 
One year, once.
  Mr. NICKLES. In the underlying Daschle amendment that was introduced 
a week or so ago, it was a 2-year program; isn't that correct?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. In the underlying amendment for TAA workers who are 
different than steel retirees; those are active workers you are talking 
about. I am talking about steel retirees.
  Mr. NICKLES. Correct me if I am wrong, active steelworkers would 
apply and would benefit under the TAA proposal as any other TAA 
eligible employee. The Senator's amendment applies only to retired 
steelworkers?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. That is correct.
  Mr. NICKLES. And correct me if I am wrong, you are talking about 
retired steelworkers basically in two plants, is that accurate? Or is 
this retired steelworkers, any steelworker who happens to be retired? 
Or is it specifically to steelworkers who are in chapter 11 or chapter 
7?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. If I can answer the Senator's question, it is not 
any steelworker. It isn't anybody in chapter 7 or chapter 11. It is 
only to those who are vested, which by itself is a 15-year requirement. 
They get nothing that TAA, if it were to pass, would get in the way of, 
say, 2 years of health care. They don't get any cash. They don't get 
any transition. They don't get any retraining. All they get is 12 
months of bridge health care, period, once.
  Mr. NICKLES. Since we are not going to vote on this today and you are 
sponsoring the amendment, I have heard the arguments made. We want to 
help these families. And you are providing health care for the 
families, 125,000 families, I believe I heard you say. I would like to 
know, health care costs so much per month, so much per year per family. 
I would love for my colleagues to tell me how much these plans cost so 
we would have a little better idea of the per-family benefit.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. It is 70 percent of the COBRA cost. That is what this 
amendment is about. It is the same. COBRA costs on average about $700 a 
month. This picks up 70 percent. That is what we do for other 
employees. That is the cost.
  Mr. NICKLES. I am happy to know that. So if COBRA costs $700 a 
month----
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is an average.
  Mr. NICKLES. I am just trying to make sure we find out what we are 
talking about. If COBRA costs $700 a month and you are talking about 70 
percent of that, that is $500 a month. And you are talking about 12 
months, so you are talking about $6,000 benefit per year. Is that 
pretty close to accurate? I am just trying to figure this out so I will 
know, if we are getting ready to give benefits to one particular 
group--as a matter of fact, a couple of companies--I kind of need to 
know. I think it would be nice for the taxpayers to know.
  I am happy to yield to the Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. First of all, I am so glad that the Senator from 
Oklahoma is in the Chamber. We are glad that Members who have concerns 
or even opposition are here. Let's do the clarification.
  The Senator asked about the annual cost, $179 million over 10 years. 
First, in the year 2003, $85 million; 2004, $25 million because of a 
population dip; then up to $50 million in 2005; $18 million in 2006; 
and $2 million in 2007. And this is sunsetting at 2007. So the bill has 
a sunset.
  Mr. NICKLES. I think I have the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I just wanted to add about the complexity of going to 
the family because you see these retirees, and the way this would work 
is that it is a tax credit to the risk pool that takes this on. So we 
are not quite sure what the individual family premiums would be. We 
asked Joint Tax and the Budget Committee, those who advise us, to tell 
us what would be the annual estimates, and then an estimate between now 
and 2007.
  Mr. NICKLES. Well, I am not a big fan of tax credits, just so the 
Senator from Maryland knows--and the Senator from West Virginia already 
knows this about the Senator from Oklahoma. Therefore, I question the 
wisdom of doing this in tax credit form. It would be a lot more direct, 
legitimate, for scorekeeping and otherwise, to say we are going to 
write a check, and here are thousands of people, and say pay for your 
health care, than to try to go through silly system of tax credits, 
where it doesn't work very well. I think maybe I will explain that at 
some point.
  I am trying to have a better understanding. If you have a 12-month 
payment--or assistance in payment, 70 percent--for steelworkers, and we 
are doing that for 12 months, this is 2002; why are we making payments 
in 2004 and 2005? I don't understand that.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I will be happy to try to answer that. First of all, 
included in the $179 million--which I assume came as some surprise to 
the Senator from Oklahoma, because that is the entire cost over the 
entire amendment--the scoring group took into account what would 
happen, for example, not with just the 125,000 we have this year, but 
suppose Bethlehem Steel in Maryland, as could happen, went chapter 7, 
went belly-up next year; the Senator from Oklahoma should know--and 
there might be some residuals; there might be a caretaker or 
grandmother who has a dependent. If that company goes belly-up, that is 
already included in the $179 million. They looked at the condition of 
what they adjudged to be the steel industry and its future, and the 
health care cost attending to that and made their judgment. So your 
question still comes back to $179 million.
  Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate the clarification. If a company went 
bankrupt in 2004, they could receive benefits under this amendment, is 
that correct, up to 12 months?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. If one takes the scoring of this offset, one could 
posture that, and one could also raise the question that it might not 
happen. They were trying to figure out as best they could--and who can 
figure these things out absolutely perfectly--what is likely to happen 
in the steel industry and what the health care consequences are for 
retirees. All of that fits within the $179 million.
  Mr. NICKLES. I wonder, as well, as the sponsors of the amendment are 
very close to the steelworkers, if they can provide this Senator, over 
the next couple of days, what the benefits are and what the benefit 
package costs for retirees. Those are collectively bargained packages. 
I could probably find

[[Page S4467]]

that on the Internet. These are packages they provide for retirees. 
Given this fact, I would like to know, are we subsidizing plans that 
are very generous, comparable to Federal employees? I don't know.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. If I may answer the Senator, unlike the coal 
industry, the steel industry has a whole series of different bargained 
health benefit packages. I don't know exactly, but my guess is that 
right now the steel companies probably pay about 90 percent of the 
health care costs of the steelworkers, and the steelworkers pay 10 
percent. So they have already gone from 90 percent down to 70 percent, 
and then they have their choice, as the Governor of Ohio, Governor 
Taft, indicated, of using a variety of risk pools. It could be a 
variety of programs, but it is not a constant figure. It could vary, 
and it is definitely not based upon what it is they negotiated. They 
have made tremendous cuts and sacrifices from the agreements they 
negotiated with the steel company.

  Mr. NICKLES. What age of eligibility can people--when you think of 
retirees, you think of somebody at age 65. What is the earliest age a 
retired steelworker might be who might receive benefits under this 
proposal?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. As best we can figure, 25 percent of the 
steelworkers who might receive this proposal are not receiving 
Medicare. As such, none have prescription drugs.
  Mr. NICKLES. Correct me if I am wrong, so you have it that 75 percent 
of the pool are now Medicare eligible, is that correct?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Without the prescription drugs, correct.
  Mr. NICKLES. And 75 percent of the beneficiaries--the 125,000 
people--are eligible for Medicare, is that correct?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. That is correct.
  Mr. NICKLES. And 25 percent are not eligible for Medicare, so 
presumably under the age of 62, is that correct.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Under 65.
  Mr. NICKLES. I stand corrected, 65. So what is the earliest age that 
a beneficiary can receive benefits under the Senator's proposal?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I don't think it is a question of what is the age. 
It is a question of what happened to the company, when did it fit into 
the dates. We have constricted it by saying that the company had to go 
belly-up, so to speak, by January 1, 2000, until the year January 1, 
2004. You cannot tell what the age might be. We could presumably find 
out what the ages are right now, but you cannot predict that in the 
future because it does not depend on the age; it depends upon whether 
the company has gone out of business.
  Mr. NICKLES. One additional question. If a young person--say my son, 
or your son, is twenty-years-old, goes to work for a steel company and 
works there for 12 years or 15 years. Now they are 35 years old. 
Company XYZ goes bankrupt, so now that individual would they be 
eligible for this benefit at the age of 35?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Yes. The eligibility is based on the status of the 
company, meaning is it bankrupt; No. 2, if the individual has worked 
for the company for 15 years, not less, and if they have taken 
retirement. Now, they could be 38 years old. The company could be 
bankrupt. They could be out of work. That doesn't mean they have become 
retirees. So your scenario, though I think it would be technically 
correct, is not operationally correct.
  So 75 percent are Medicare-eligible. The other 25 percent usually are 
over 55, but are primarily between 60 and 65. This is why we are 
calling part of this a bridge. For some, it would be 1 year to even get 
them to Medicare.
  Mr. NICKLES. Let me ask one other question. To be eligible, then they 
have to be receiving retirement pay to be called a retiree?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Yes.
  Mr. NICKLES. So you could work 15 years and I don't know how many 
years you have to work--
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. May I correct the Senator for a second? Remember 
that the company they are working for no longer exists in order for 
them to qualify.
  Mr. NICKLES. I understand. I am trying to figure out who is eligible. 
So I think I heard the Senator from Maryland say they are eligible if 
they are receiving retirement checks. They may be receiving the checks 
from the steel company, which even though the company went bankrupt, it 
may well still be making payments for pension benefits, or maybe it 
dumped their liabilities on the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, 
or there may be some other consortium employer payment plan. But if 
they are receiving their retirement check, they are classified as 
retiree. What is the earliest age a person can be receiving a 
retirement check as a steel worker?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. That would vary company by company.
  Mr. NICKLES. After 15, 20 years of service?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Usually after 20.
  Mr. NICKLES. A couple other questions, and then I will make a few 
comments.
  If we are doing this for the steelworkers, how can you say we should 
not do this for the textile workers?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Can I answer the Senator's question?
  Mr. NICKLES. Why shouldn't we do it for the communication workers or 
the airline workers or the hotel workers in Nevada?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. May I answer the Senator's question?
  Mr. NICKLES. Yes.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. There has never been a case I know of in American 
history where the Government, over a period of 30 years, since the 
passing of the Trade Act in 1974, has been so absolutely unilaterally 
egregiously negligent of the interests of fulfilling American law which 
says that steel cannot be dumped at lower than its cost of production 
by other countries into this country.
  As my colleague may remember, President Clinton promised--actually it 
turns out it was West Virginia--he would not allow dumping to happen. 
The present administration has made similar types of promises. They and 
all other administrations have egregiously ignored the law. That is why 
I keep saying the Government's negligence is what makes the steel 
retirees so different in what they deserve and what they should get in 
the way of this modest health benefit for so few, primarily because, 
one, they have been injured by imports--that is what the International 
Trade Commission said--and second, the Government has been so totally 
negligent. Much of this is the Government's fault they are out of 
work--our Federal Government.
  Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate my colleague's response. I want to make a 
few comments, and I appreciate the patience of my friends and 
colleagues from Maryland, West Virginia, and Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, can I say one thing? I am not taking 
the floor. I know the Senator from Oklahoma wants to speak, and I will 
have a chance to respond. I thank him for his questions. It is 
important to get all of this information out. It is important for 
people to understand the human crisis.
  I say to my colleague, there are a lot of people who are really 
hurting out there, as my colleague from West Virginia has said; people 
who have been on the short end of the stick for over three decades of 
negligent policy. I thank my colleague very much for his questions.
  Mr. NICKLES. I thank my friend from Minnesota.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield so I can make an 
announcement to the Senate?
  Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the majority leader asked me to announce 
that there will be no more rollcall votes tonight. Also, tomorrow, 
after we have the vote at 10:30 a.m., there will be ample opportunity 
for those who are on the list to offer amendments if the Senators 
involved in the steel issue have nothing more to say and they have no 
objection to setting aside their amendment.
  Also, we will be in session on Monday. People who are complaining 
about not having an opportunity to offer amendments, tomorrow and 
Monday there will be adequate opportunity to do that. There will be no 
votes, but there will certainly be opportunities to offer amendments.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, can I ask the whip one question?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I know other Senators have amendments. I gather there

[[Page S4468]]

will be some opportunity for discussion in the morning on this 
amendment, and there will be other amendments. On Monday, is it the 
whip's intention we will be in session Monday evening as well for time 
to discuss this amendment?

  Mr. REID. The Senator should know, there are no votes on Monday, so I 
do not know how late the leader will want to stay in session. I assume 
we will come in around 1 o'clock on Monday and work all afternoon. If 
the Senator from Minnesota wants to talk about steel, that will be the 
first priority. If Senators no longer want to talk about steel, we can, 
if Senators agree, set that amendment aside so other amendments can be 
offered. There will be adequate opportunity Monday evening to talk on 
this all the Senator wants.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Then Tuesday we will have time for final debate as 
well.
  Mr. REID. We will make sure that is the case.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). The assistant Republican leader.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Nevada. I also 
urge colleagues if they have amendments to bring them down. I hope and 
pray we will be ready to conclude this bill soon.
  I do not think the amendment my colleagues from West Virginia and 
Maryland offered should be included in the bill. I think it is a killer 
amendment. I am concerned what people are trying to do in loading up 
the trade promotion authority bill. They know President Bush wants 
trade promotion authority, as every President has wanted trade 
promotion authority. Every President wants to negotiate trade deals 
because they realize if we are going to be the world leader in trade, 
we need to expand trade.
  We have been the beacon, the leader for trade all across the world. 
President Reagan, whom we honored today with a Congressional Gold 
Medal, was adamant in saying we want to expand trade. We did so, and 
that greatly contributed to the fall of communism. It opened up 
markets. It created jobs. It led to a robust world economy. Everybody 
started realizing that trade is mutually beneficial, we should pass 
trade promotion authority, and every President has had trade promotion 
authority going all the way up, including President Clinton. He had it 
in his first couple years but lost it in 1994, and did not ask for it 
until after the 1996 election.
  When President Clinton asked for it, he could not get it through the 
House. He could have gotten it through the Senate. We had the votes for 
it. The Senate traditionally has been more free trade. Unfortunately, 
he did not get it for the duration of his term, and many of us 
supported giving it to him.
  Whether the President was Republican or Democratic, we felt it was 
important. We happen to be supporters of free trade enough to know we 
have to be the leader in free trade if we are going to make it happen. 
It did not happen. President Bush asked for it and got it through the 
House. It is always more difficult to get it through the House than the 
Senate. President Bush got it through the House. Everybody said it was 
going to go through the Senate.

  Senator Daschle said: I support trade promotion authority, but we are 
going to add two other bills to it. Senator Baucus agreed. I disagree 
with it strongly.
  When we passed these bills out of the Finance Committee, they were 
not together. They were individual bills, as they always have been. We 
have always had trade promotion authority as one bill. We have done the 
trade assistance bill separately and both passed with large margins, 
usually a 70-vote margin. We did not have to tie the two together.
  Unfortunately, Senator Daschle and Senator Baucus tied in the Andean 
trade bill, which actually has to pass today, and it is not passing 
today. Now we could have imposition of tariffs on poor countries, 
Andean nation countries. It would be a disgrace for us to let that 
happen.
  Yet the Democratic leadership said we are going to tie all three 
together. Basically, what they were saying--and not hiding it--is we 
are going to hold trade promotion authority and Andean trade hostage 
until we get a lot of other things added to the trade adjustment 
assistance bill. I supported trade adjustment assistance, but let's 
look at how they are trying to expand it.
  They said: Let's have trade adjustment assistance, which is supposed 
to train people if they lose jobs due to imports, to learn a new job, 
new business, new trade. I fully support this. Usually it costs about 
$10,000 per person. Only one out of four who is eligible applies. The 
Democrats are saying now we want health care to be a benefit for this 
and have the Federal Government pay three-fourths of the cost. That was 
their original proposal. Now it is 70 percent. We do not pay three-
fourths for anybody. Why is it a Federal responsibility to pay now a 
70-percent tax credit? Most corporations get a deduction. That is 35 
percent of a deduction. There is a big difference between a 70-percent 
credit where the Government is writing a check and under this proposal. 
This proposal is a refundable credit, it is a welfare payment, it is 
the Government writing a check. That is very expensive.
  Then some people say: Maybe we can do that. That is not enough. Now 
we are going to have steel legacy costs for one industry, and now we 
find it is not just one industry, it is not just retired steelworkers, 
it is retired steelworkers for a couple of bankrupt companies. These 
are companies that went bankrupt, and we are going to pick up their 
health care costs.
  Three-fourths of these individuals are already eligible for Medicare. 
They are in the same Government health care program that my mother is 
in and that most senior citizens are in, but my colleagues are saying 
that is not good enough; we have to have the Federal Government provide 
additional health care.
  A lot of companies do offer Medicare supplements. Great. And they do 
that in a way that says: We do not want anybody to go out of pocket for 
anything. That is nice. It is a fringe benefit. Only some companies do 
this, as it is not available for everybody. There are a whole lot of 
people who only have Medicare. My colleagues want the Federal 
Government to pay for Medicare supplements for retired steelworkers if 
their company went bankrupt.
  Why are we going to do that? If we do it for them, why not do it for 
textile workers? They have the same problems. Why do we not do it for 
communication workers? Senator Lott--WorldCom is going through a heck 
of a debacle. They have laid off thousands of people.
  What about other communications companies? We see layoffs after 
layoffs. Is the Federal Government picking up their health care costs? 
Where are we going to stop this march toward socialism with Government 
saying: We will benefit this group and this group.
  We benefited the railroad retirees. We helped take care of their 
railroad retirement plan. Yes, we have done that. Let's take care of 
steel.
  We have already imposed tariffs that are supposed to help the steel 
industry. That is not enough. So even though we are going to have all 
kinds of tariff protectionism for the steel industry, that is still not 
enough. Now we are going to pick up the retirement costs for some of 
the bankrupt companies. Why do we not have a real incentive for people 
to sign any kind of contract, whether they can afford it or not, 
because Uncle Sam is going to pick up the cost? Wow, that is terribly 
irresponsible policy. How can it be done for this group and not for 
another group?
  When we start this policy where Uncle Sam is going to start picking 
up retiree costs, I am figuring out you can be 35 or 37 years old and 
get benefits under this proposal. Most people who are 37 years old--my 
son is about that age. I do not think of him as being retired, but to 
think my daughter is going to have to be paying taxes for him to get 
health care benefits is absurd. Yet that is what we are trying to do in 
this legislation.
  I am amazed at the fiscal irresponsibility that people are trying to 
put on this, and when I say ``people,'' I am thinking right now of the 
Democrats who are trying to run the trade adjustment assistance and 
trying to attach more and more stuff on it, and maybe it is because 
they really do not want trade promotion authority in the first place. 
Maybe some of the people are saying, we did health care, we did not 
think some of the Republicans could agree with that, now we will try to 
see if we can't put steel legacy; let us put more and more on this 
wagon and see if

[[Page S4469]]

trade promotion can keep pulling more and more along. They are going 
too far. This is terrible policy.
  I used to run a company that had the steelworkers in our plan. I have 
negotiated steelworker plans, so I know a little something about health 
care costs and I know a little something about plans. You can negotiate 
contracts you cannot afford. That is an easy thing to do. You go along 
to get along. You sign contracts. You have peace and harmony, and all 
of a sudden you have a contract you cannot afford, and you go bankrupt. 
Why in the world should the Federal Government be bailing out?
  I do not think you can do that. If you do it here, why don't you do 
it for every other union contract that has found itself on the wrong 
side of the economic chain? Why don't we pick up the health care costs 
for railroad retirees? We took up their pension costs. Why don't we do 
their health care costs? Why don't we do that for other unions? I do 
not know where you would stop if we agreed to this.
  We have already had a battle on, are we going to have wage insurance 
on this bill? Unfortunately, Senator Gregg's amendment did not pass. 
Wage insurance, which is about as socialistic a direction as one could 
go, was put on this bill. It is almost like people are saying we are 
going to keep loading up trade adjustment assistance, where we know 
they cannot swallow it, where we know we are going to bog down this 
bill, and the bill will not pass. This bill is just going to be loved 
to death. We are going to keep piling it on, piling it on, and piling 
it on.
  I hope people will step back a little bit and say a couple of things 
are happening. One, we happen to have a deficit. We do not have a 
surplus. So we are going to be taking taxes and we are going to be 
borrowing money to pay for a brandnew benefit for one little group of 
workers. Now, maybe that group of workers has a lot of political clout, 
maybe they contribute to a lot of campaigns, maybe they have a lot of 
influence, but I do not see why we should do it for this group and not 
do it for others.

  Maybe some people think we should do this for everybody. Maybe that 
is the objective. I do not know. But I do not think it is affordable 
when I start looking at the costs.
  The Senator from Minnesota was very generous to say the cost of COBRA 
is typically about $700. That is for a family plan. Then you multiply 
it by 12, and that is $8,400. Seventy percent of that is about $6,000; 
$6,000 per year for which Uncle Sam is going to be writing a check. 
That is a lot.
  The reason I was trying to compute this was, well, $125,000, and it 
is going to cost $179 million. Trying to figure that out, it is a lot 
less than that. The difference is, three-fourths of these people are 
already on Medicare. They already have health care. They happen to have 
the same health care my mother has, but my mother is going to be paying 
taxes so some individuals can get their Medicare supplement? I do not 
know that that is right.
  I do not know why the worker in Wal-Mart, who may not even have 
health care, has to pay taxes so somebody else can get not only 
Medicare but a Medicare supplement. This is pretty much a stretch.
  There are 40 million Americans who do not have health care insurance. 
They have health care, possibly through the emergency room or 
something, but a lot of them pay taxes. They may not be able to afford 
their own health care, but we are going to increase their taxes or make 
them go into debt so they can provide health care for somebody else who 
already has health care, who is already paying a lot because they get 
Medicare.
  Medicare is not a perfect system. I think it needs to be reformed. It 
needs to be fixed. It needs to include prescription drugs, and we ought 
to be doing that this year. We ought to be working in a bipartisan way 
to make it happen. To say we are going to be increasing taxes or debt 
on the rest of America so one group can have their Medicare supplement 
or people in their thirties or forties can get health care for a year--
and we all know the original proposal was 2 years. I also happen to 
believe that some people are going to try to extend this year after 
year, after year, after year. If they get it for 1 year, they will be 
fighting to get it extended for the next year. I am just guessing that 
might happen.
  I am going to work very hard to see that this bill does not happen, 
so we will not get started down that slippery slope of ever increasing 
entitlements, ever increasing expansion of spending, ever increasing 
loading up the trade promotion authority with things that are not 
affordable, that frankly should not become law. My guess is that if 
this amendment is adopted, we will not have trade promotion authority 
passed this Congress.
  Maybe that is the sponsor's objective. Maybe not. I do not know. But 
some people are trying to kill trade promotion authority. They are 
trying to load it up with too much. This amendment is too much, and I 
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment when we vote on it next 
Tuesday.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I do not know if the other side has had an 
opportunity to speak. I know they have had an exchange of questions. I 
need 3 or 4 minutes, if I may, and I will use my leader time for that 
purpose.
  I enjoyed Senator Nickles' remarks, and I associate myself with them. 
I agree with him, and I certainly hope we can prevail in not adding 
this amendment to this legislation. It would be a further blow to the 
legislation that has certain problems now. We need to get the trade 
legislation done and not further encumber it with other issues such as 
this one. One can argue about the steel legacy costs one way or the 
other, and I am sure we could get a pretty good debate here. I 
personally think we should not go down that trail, certainly not on 
this legislation.

                          ____________________