[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 66 (Tuesday, May 21, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4580-S4591]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE EXPANSION ACT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of H.R. 3009, which the clerk will 
report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3009) to extend the Andean Trade Preference 
     Act, to grant additional trade benefits under that Act, and 
     for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Baucus/Grassley amendment No. 3401, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Rockefeller amendment No. 3433 (to amendment No. 3401), 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.
       Daschle amendment No. 3434 (to amendment No. 3433), 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.
       Dorgan amendment No. 3439 (to amendment No. 3401), to 
     permit private financing of agricultural sales to Cuba.
       Allen amendment No. 3406 (to amendment No. 3401), to 
     provide mortgage payment assistance for employees who are 
     separated from employment.
       Hutchison amendment No. 3441 (to amendment No. 3401), to 
     prohibit a country that has not taken steps to support the 
     United States efforts to combat terrorism from receiving 
     certain trade benefits.
       Dorgan amendment No. 3442 (to amendment No. 3401), to 
     require the United States Trade Representative to identify 
     effective trade remedies to address the unfair trade 
     practices of the Canadian Wheat Board.
       Reid (for Kerry) amendment No. 3430 (to amendment No. 
     3401), to ensure that any artificial trade distorting barrier 
     relating to foreign investment is eliminated in any trade 
     agreement entered into under the Bipartisan Trade Promotion 
     Authority Act of 2002.
       Reid (for Torricelli/Mikulski) amendment No. 3415 (to 
     amendment No. 3401), to amend the labor provisions to ensure 
     that all trade agreements include meaningful, enforceable 
     provisions on workers' rights.
       Reid (for Reed) amendment No. 3443 (to amendment No. 3401), 
     to restore the provisions relating to secondary workers.
       Reid (for Nelson of Florida/Graham) amendment No. 3440 (to 
     amendment No. 3401), to limit tariff reduction authority on 
     certain products.
       Reid (for Bayh) amendment No. 3445 (to amendment No. 3401), 
     to require the ITC to give notice of section 202 
     investigations to the Secretary of Labor.
       Reid (for Byrd) amendment No. 3447 (to amendment No. 3401), 
     to amend the provisions relating to the Congressional 
     Oversight Group.
       Reid (for Byrd) amendment No. 3448 (to amendment No. 3401), 
     to clarify the procedures for procedural disapproval 
     resolutions.
       Reid (for Byrd) amendment No. 3449 (to amendment No. 3401), 
     to clarify the procedures for extension disapproval 
     resolutions.
       Reid (for Byrd) amendment No. 3450 (to amendment No. 3401), 
     to limit the application of trade authorities procedures to a 
     single agreement resulting from DOHA.
       Reid (for Byrd) amendment No. 3451 (to amendment No. 3401), 
     to address disclosures by publicly traded companies of 
     relationships with certain countries or foreign-owned 
     corporations.
       Reid (for Byrd) amendment No. 3452 (to amendment No. 3401), 
     to facilitate the opening of energy markets and promote the 
     exportation of clean energy technologies.
       Reid (for Byrd) amendment No. 3453 (to amendment No. 3401), 
     to require that certification of compliance with section 307 
     of the Tariff Act of 1930 be provided with respect to certain 
     goods imported into the United States.
       Boxer/Murray amendment No. 3431 (to amendment No. 3401), to 
     require the Secretary of Labor to establish a trade 
     adjustment assistance program for certain service workers.
       Boxer amendment No. 3432 (to amendment No. 3401), to ensure 
     that the United States Trade Representative considers the 
     impact of trade agreements on women.
       Reid (for Durbin) amendment No. 3456 (to amendment No. 
     3401), to extend the temporary duty suspensions with respect 
     to certain wool.
       Reid (for Durbin) amendment No. 3457 (to amendment No. 
     3401), to extend the temporary duty suspensions with respect 
     to certain wool.
       Reid (for Durbin) amendment No. 3458 (to amendment No. 
     3401), to establish and implement a steel import notification 
     and monitoring program.
       Reid (for Harkin) amendment No. 3459 (to amendment No. 
     3401), to include the prevention of the worst forms of child 
     labor as one of the principal negotiating objectives of the 
     United States.
       Reid (for Corzine) amendment No. 3461 (to amendment No. 
     3401), to help ensure that trade agreements protect national 
     security, social security, and other significant public 
     services.
       Reid (for Corzine) amendment No. 3462 (to amendment No. 
     3401), to strike the section dealing with border search 
     authority for certain contraband in outbound mail.
       Reid (for Hollings) amendment No. 3463 (to amendment No. 
     3401), to provide for the certification of textile and 
     apparel workers who lose their jobs or who have lost their 
     jobs since the start of 1999 as eligible individuals for 
     purposes of trade adjustment assistance and health insurance 
     benefits, and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
     prevent corporate expatriation to avoid United States income 
     tax.
       Reid (for Hollings) amendment No. 3464 (to amendment No. 
     3401), to ensure that ISAC Committees are representative of 
     the Producing sectors of the United States Economy.
       Reid (for Hollings) amendment No. 3465 (to amendment No. 
     3401), to provide that the benefits provided under any 
     preferential tariff program, excluding the North American 
     Free Trade Agreement, shall not apply to any product of a 
     country that fails to comply within 30 days with a United 
     States government request for the extradition of an 
     individual for trial in the United States if that individual 
     has been indicted by a Federal grand jury for a crime 
     involving a violation of the Controlled Substances Act.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will now be 90 minutes of debate in relation to amendment No. 3433, to 
be equally divided. The time will expire at 11 a.m.
  The Senator from Nevada is recognized.


                Amendment No. 3470 To Amendment No. 3401

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Senator Landrieu, and I ask unanimous consent that after it is reported 
it be laid aside.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Ms. Landrieu, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3470.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

[[Page S4581]]

 (Purpose: To provide trade adjustment assistance benefits to certain 
                           maritime workers)

       On page 86, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC. 113. TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR MARITIME EMPLOYEES.

       Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of the 
     Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002, the Secretary 
     of Labor shall establish a program to provide health care 
     coverage assistance under title VI of that Act, and program 
     benefits under chapter 2 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 
     (19 U.S.C. 2271 et seq.) to longshoremen, harbor and port 
     pilots, port personnel, stevedores, crane operators, 
     warehouse personnel, and other harbor workers who have become 
     totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become 
     totally or partially separated, as a result of the decline in 
     the importation of steel products into the United States 
     caused by the safeguard measures taken by the United States 
     on March 5, 2002, under chapter 1 of title II of such Act (19 
     U.S.C. 2251 et seq.).

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be laid aside.
  The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3433

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, we are now on the retired 
steelworkers amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture. We 
are basically allowing a very small group of steel retirees who, 
through no fault of their own--we are going to allow them to get the 
TAA health credit for 1 year only, and for 1 year only once. So it is a 
highly restricted amendment, more so than TAA benefits generally. No 
transitional costs, no cash benefits, no retraining, none of that.
  If you support trade adjustment assistance for workers who lost jobs 
because of imports, you must support some temporary assistance--1 year 
and only once--of just health benefits for steel retirees who lost 
their coverage because of the same types of imports.
  The fact is, the American steel industry has suffered more than any 
other industry that I can think of. If you check the record, no other 
industry has suffered and been such a victim of a flood of imports as 
has the steel industry. It is very well documented. In the 
Presidentially initiated section 201 initiative, which involved the 
investigation of the International Trade Commission, and Republican and 
Democratic Senators are members, recently unanimously declared that the 
steel industry had been seriously injured by imports. Nobody else has 
gone through that process. They studied it and found out the steel 
industry had been clobbered by imports over a long period of years.
  Steel has been besieged by unfair trade and subsidy practices. One of 
the things that so wrenches my gut is that the U.S. Government has done 
nothing about it. We have done nothing about unfair trade practices, 
about dumping, countervailing duties, cartels, or predatory pricing. We 
have just let it continue because somehow the steel industry, I guess, 
does not count as much as a number of other industries in the minds of 
various administrations. I am talking not just about this 
administration, but previous ones also.

  For 30 years, it is not just that bad things have been happening, but 
we have been breaking our own trade laws, as well as international 
rules. We have been ignoring them.
  We passed a law saying there shall be no dumping. We did that in 
1974. Administrations constantly ignore that law. So we have unfair 
foreign trade practices that have led us to this crisis. There was 
insufficient action against foreign dumping.
  Do people know what ``dumping'' means? It means selling a product to 
another country at less than the cost of producing it in that country. 
So they are dumping it, so to speak, into the American markets.
  There was insufficient action, again, under U.S. law--we were 
breaking our own laws--and international trade rules against decades of 
foreign subsidies to steelmakers. We do not subsidize our steelmakers. 
We never have. Everything they have done, they have done on their own--
everything. Other countries subsidize their steelmakers. They 
underwrite their steel industries.
  Our Government has turned a blind eye to the foreign steel cartels. 
Anybody who has anything to do with steel understands that. Those 
cartels have served as protectionist barriers to protect foreign 
steelmakers. Those barriers have protected them from international 
competition, from fairness, even from quality, and our Government 
declined to pursue endless reports that foreign steelmakers from 
different countries were operating in collusion.
  What do I mean by that? These other countries that are producing 
steel decided they were not going to compete with each other; they were 
going to take all of their steel with this huge global overcapacity 
because our Government was not enforcing trade laws and they would send 
it all to America. Hence, our steelworkers were put out of work.
  Somehow we, in our innocence and belief that everything will work 
out, did not view steel as a vital national asset. Every other country 
does. They have used all kinds of policies, all kinds of unfair 
policies, all kinds of illegal policies to promote their domestic 
steelmakers at our expense, and our Government never aggressively 
pursued any of those illegal practices. That is not to criticize the 
Government. The point of this amendment is that it has penalized the 
steelworkers who are now in chapter 7 and retired, out of work, lights 
out, with no health care.
  I can think of no other sector where an American industry that is 
organized along commercial lines has had to engage in the brutal 
competition with what is called ``national champion''--foreign 
steelmakers that are state protected, that are state subsidized and, in 
many cases, state owned. How does one cope with that? You do not 
because we will not enforce our own laws.
  That is the trade case. The other side is the human case. Senator 
Wellstone said this very well the other day. Why is it we have such 
trouble when a few select people--we are talking about 125,000 here--
are in trouble through no fault of their own, through no protection of 
their Government, and we have trouble giving them any help?
  The Presiding Officer and this Senator voted for a farm bill. It is 
embarrassing when we look at the help we gave soybeans in this country 
and then compare it to what this would cost to help 125,000 
steelworkers who are retired because their companies went belly up and 
our Government would not do anything to help them.
  We have to think about people, Mr. President. It is not unfair to 
think about people in the Chamber of the Senate. It is not unfair to 
think about helping people who are in dire need when we help them for 1 
year and only one time with health benefits. That is less than trade 
adjustment assistance in the underlying amendment. That is probably 
closer to 2 years. We are only asking for 1 year for 125,000 retired 
steelworkers.
  The human toll is enormous. Somebody explain this to me: How does the 
Senate sit by while steelworker retirees and their families bear the 
brunt of our collective Government failure to adequately enforce our 
laws?
  After the administration's refusals to support any comprehensive 
solution for our steel industry during the ANWR debate--we had a much 
broader amendment then--we scaled it way back. Senators Mikulski, 
Wellstone, Specter, DeWine, Voinovich, Stabenow, and others decided we 
would only work for a temporary solution of 1 year of health care 
coverage for steel retirees who lost their health benefits when their 
companies permanently closed. What is wrong with 1 year of benefits? 
What is wrong with that?
  It is a bipartisan amendment. Workers who lose their jobs due to 
imports have some temporary health care coverage under this bill. Steel 
retirees who lost their health care coverage because of imports do not 
have health care coverage, and we are trying to get them some--1 year 
of TAA health credit and only once. It is not too much to ask for a 
group of American workers. I hope and pray my colleagues in the Senate 
will vote to support cloture.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the 
Rockefeller-Mikulski-Wellstone amendment and to vote for cloture to 
provide a safety net for American steelworkers. These steelworkers and 
retirees have been battered by decades of unfair illegal trade 
practices.
  I thank Senator Rockefeller and his staff for the excellent 
leadership

[[Page S4582]]

they have provided in crafting this amendment. This amendment is 
simple, straightforward, and affordable. Our amendment would simply 
provide a 1-year temporary extension of health care benefits to steel 
retirees who have lost their health insurance because of documented, 
trade-related bankruptcy of their company and documented predatory 
practices that caused their companies to go into bankruptcy. Our 
amendment seeks to help those steelworkers who suffered the most from 
these predatory trade practices.
  We use the term ``unfair'' to the point where nobody pays any 
attention to it anymore. I want to make clear what happened to them. 
These practices were predatory. They were predatory practices against 
American steel in which there were foreign countries engaged in 
practices of dumping their steel below the cost of production in the 
American markets.
  When Asia had its economic crisis, they dumped. When Russia was 
trying to get out of its economic crisis, they dumped. Often this 
dumping was strategic, subsidized, and predatory.
  Who were the casualties of this trade? We did not even declare it a 
trade war. We just wimped, whined, and surrendered while all this 
foreign steel came in.
  Mr. President, I am so proud of our country. We keep winning Nobel 
Prizes, but we keep losing markets, and one of the markets we have lost 
is steel.
  Our amendment seeks to help those who have been injured because of 
these predatory and internationally illegal actions against us. Whom 
are we trying to protect? Simply the retirees, many who were laid off 
or forced to take early retirement because their companies are now 
bankrupt and their health care is now at risk.
  American steelworkers and their retirees worked hard, played by the 
rules, served their country in war, served the armed services building 
our ships and our tanks, and in peace they made steel for our 
buildings, our bridges, and our cars.
  Steel built the United States of America. Steel helped save the 
United States of America. Should we not honor this by providing a 
safety net for the retired steelworkers who are victims of 
international predatory practices?
  For nearly 50 years, our Government has watched the steel industry 
wither. It accelerated particularly in the 1970s and then in the 1990s, 
not because steel was unproductive, not because steel was overpriced, 
but because of these documented predatory practices: Dumping cheap, 
subsidized foreign steel into our markets.
  Our opponents say we should not put this amendment on the trade bill; 
and look for something else; do not tie up trade. I disagree. Illegal 
trade created the problem, so let's solve it in the trade bill. Unfair 
competition brought American steel to its knees. These foreign steel 
companies are subsidized by their government. They dumped excess steel 
into our markets.
  Let me just give an example about our new friends, the Russians. I 
thank the Russians for cooperating with President Bush in the war 
against terrorism, but while we are dealing with one predator, they 
should look at themselves. Russia keeps open 1,000 unprofitable steel 
plants through their subsidies. That is not 1,000 steelworkers. That is 
1,000 steel factories are kept open by their subsidies. What do they do 
with what they produce? Dump, dump, dump. I think we ought to dump the 
unfair trade practices.
  We have to remember whose steel is in our country and the fact that 
we need to be steel independent. Maybe we can call one of those 
Russians the next time our Navy needs steel.
  The Presiding Officer might be interested to know that Bethlehem 
Steel in my own hometown of Baltimore produced the steel to repair the 
U.S.S. Cole. If we needed steel to repair the U.S.S. Cole, I am sure 
the Russians would get right on it and we would pay any price for it, 
but I really do not want to have to turn to foreign steel to build the 
weapons to protect America as we reinvigorate our military. Somehow or 
another this is not right, it is not logical, it is not strategic, and 
I think we are going to really rue the day we let steel go down.
  For some people in this body that is okay. There are those outside 
who say we do not need American steel, and they do not even worry about 
the American steelworker. Opponents of our amendment say it is unfair 
to target a specific group of Americans for assistance. Well, our 
steelworkers have been targeted, but it is by decades of these illegal 
trading practices.
  This problem has been ignored by Presidents of both parties. However, 
I thank President Bush for taking the first step to impose temporary 
limited tariffs on imported steel to give us a breather. Now we need 
President Bush to take the next step to support us as we try to work 
our way out of something called legacy costs, the costs of pensions and 
health care. We wanted a temporary 1-year bridge to do this in the same 
way that the tariffs are temporary. We are not looking for handouts, 
give-backs, giveaways. We are looking for the opportunity to work our 
way out of it, and I think we could do it in a bipartisan way.
  I am really disappointed the President is working directly against 
me. He had to call in some Republicans to try to convince them to vote 
otherwise. This should not be about those kinds of battles because I 
think the President took the first step. I think he is getting bad 
advice, and I am sorry he is opposing us on this amendment. Hopefully, 
we can change his mind on the long-range issues. But if President Bush 
had joined us in the fight, as I say, I would be the first to applaud 
him.

  Opponents of our amendment say a specific industry should not be 
singled out. Well, we do that in this Congress. We single out specific 
industries and then talk about their value to America. I agree with 
that. Our Government singles out specific industries all the time when 
it is in our national interest. We single out industries when it is in 
our national interest because we need them as part of our economy or as 
part of our national production. That way, we can talk about the fact 
that when we help farmers or airlines. The national interest means 
national responsibility. I absolutely agree with that.
  I have been in the Senate when I have heard my colleagues speak 
eloquently about the need to save the family farm. Why do we talk about 
saving the family farm? Because it is important to food production in 
the United States of America and it is part of our core values. It is 
part of our heartland. Absolutely, we should look out for saving the 
family farms.
  At the same time, how about the steelworker families? We need to be 
steel independent. We need to find ways to help the steel industry to 
consolidate, and that means temporary tariffs in dealing with the 
health care benefits.
  Farmers are important. So are steelworkers. Now let's talk about the 
airlines. Airlines, again, turned to us at a time of national crisis. 
Gosh knows, they took a terrible hit, and indeed it was a situation 
where we were concerned that our airline industry would go bankrupt 
because of the terrorist attacks on the United States of America: We 
need to look out for our economy. We need to look out for the airlines, 
the people who work for them, and the people who depend on them. I 
supported that.
  What about steel? Are they not in the same category? Are they not 
part of our national economy? Are they not part of the fact we have to 
be independent? Were they not, too, hit by predatory practices? I do 
not mean to say that the two are parallel, but there has been direct 
documented injury.
  In a few minutes, the Senate will vote on cloture. I am so sorry the 
Senate has come to this. Opponents of this amendment are afraid to 
bring it for a vote. Two weeks ago, everybody said we did not have a 
chance; we did not have a vote; who cared? Well, America cares; my 
colleagues care; and I really want to thank my colleagues who listened 
to Senator Rockefeller, Senator Wellstone, and myself as we have talked 
on the floor, as we have talked in the halls, as we have talked in our 
offices. I thank my bipartisan colleagues such as Senator Specter, 
Senator Voinovich, and Senator DeWine. We thank our colleagues for 
listening to our arguments.
  We wanted to have a discussion, a debate, and do it the Senate way 
and let's see where the votes came out. But instead of doing it in what 
I consider the

[[Page S4583]]

majority way, we are going to hide behind a complicated procedure 
called cloture.
  For those watching on C-SPAN, cloture means debate is shut off, which 
essentially means the amendment is shut off, the amendment is ended. In 
a regular vote, we only need a majority. I think we are going to have 
that majority because I think the majority of the Senate acknowledges 
the rationale of our argument both in terms of trade and human cost.
  Instead, we are going to hide behind a parliamentary procedure that 
creates an obstacle of 60 votes in order to overcome it. I am 
disappointed in that, and I am disappointed there is no one present to 
argue with us.
  Are there no real arguments against us? Are there no real bona fide 
arguments? I came today with something called a battle book. I was all 
set to debate, refute, and argue about what is in the best interest of 
our national economy, in both the short-range interest of our 
steelworkers and their health care and the long-range needs of America.
  But hello, empty Chamber. Where are my colleagues? Is there no one to 
dispute us? If no one is present to dispute us, then give us a straight 
up-or-down vote. Maybe we are too far down the line for that, but the 
fact is we are going to have our vote, and we very likely might win it.
  We have been working very hard, and so have those who support steel, 
the American labor movement, the steel unions, the families and 
districts such as in Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Indiana, Utah, and Ohio.
  We will take our vote, though. I want to think about for whom I am 
here. One hundred and twenty-five thousand steel retirees have already 
lost their health care. They worked for many years in our Nation's 
steel mills. Veterans and widows of veterans, senior citizens who live 
on as little as $10,000 a year. Americans who thought that promises 
made should be promises kept. These are Americans who did not run off 
to Bermuda to avoid paying taxes. When their country needed them, they 
were there.
  The American steelworkers have one of the greatest histories of 
generosity, of give and take, the American way, than any other 
corporate organizational entity. The American labor movement had the 
highest rate of compliance, particularly during the Vietnam war, in 
service to their country. They did not run away. They fought. When they 
came back, they did not get a parade. Now they ought to at least get 
their health care. When their country needed them, they were there, 
working hard every day, serving their country and their community, 
believing they would have a secure retirement and health care.
  This issue is here to stay. This is a very real issue. It will not go 
away. There is a need for the steelworkers who have diabetes; the 
diabetes will not go away. The high blood pressure will not go away. 
The prostate cancer will not go away. All that will happen is 
steelworkers will go to emergency rooms, a place already overburdened, 
placing the responsibility on the emergency rooms.
  I ask my colleagues to stand up for working Americans who are on the 
verge of losing everything they worked for.
  I urge Members to vote for cloture for the Rockefeller-Mikulski-
Wellstone amendment. Stand up for steel, America, the way the workers 
stood up for America over the last several generations.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I have watched the Senators for several 
days, and I am convinced how right they are. I ask unanimous consent on 
amendment No. 3433 to be named a prime sponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Murray). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous 
consent the quorum call be charged to the opponents of this amendment. 
I want some debate out here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. 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. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask my distinguished colleague from 
Minnesota to yield 5 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I am pleased to yield.
  I say again to the opponents, after the Senator has completed his 
remarks, I will ask unanimous consent, again, that we have a quorum 
call and it be charged to the opponents.
  We want people out here to be held accountable for their position.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to speak in 
support of the pending amendment of which I am a cosponsor. In my view, 
it is a modest request to ask that health benefits be extended to this 
category of steelworker retirees for a period of 1 year because these 
steelworkers, men and women, have been victimized by unfair foreign 
trade--subsidies, dumping, subsidized and dumped steel, which has come 
into the United States in violation of U.S. trade laws and in violation 
of international trade laws.
  I compliment the President again, as I have on many occasions, for 
his invocation of tariffs which give the steel companies in America an 
opportunity to regroup and to reorganize. The tariffs will also give 
the steel companies an opportunity to compete with steel manufacturers 
and steelmakers around the world, which are much larger.
  We have seen the demise of more than 30 steel companies in the past 
several years, which have gone into bankruptcy proceedings because they 
simply cannot compete with steel that is dumped and steel that is 
subsidized coming into the U.S. markets.
  I am pleased to say that two weeks ago yesterday when I visited the 
Irvin Steel plant in Pittsburgh, they were in full capacity. They had 
hired some 65 additional steelworkers and they had plans to hire more 
steelworkers because the tariffs have given them some relief. However, 
in order for the steel industry to reorganize and reconstitute itself, 
there is going to have to be something done about these so-called 
legacy costs for health benefits for retirees. These are obligations of 
the steel companies which are in bankruptcy reorganization proceedings. 
The plan is to have one steel company in the United States take over 
all of these steel companies which are tottering, and to reorganize and 
regroup, with one steel company emerging as a powerful steel company to 
compete with enormous steel companies in foreign countries. They cannot 
take over these companies if they have to take over these legacy costs.

  That is why, one way or another, we are going to have to work it out. 
I believe in the long run it will be cheaper for the Federal Government 
to undertake these legacy costs; that is, to pay unemployment 
compensation, trade assistance, the many other benefits, and Medicare 
which will be paid in any event.
  I regret we could not get the cash loan from ANWR proceeds. However, 
that is yesterday. There is no use crying over that spilled milk.
  The steelworkers in America have taken it on the chin. Not long ago, 
there were 500,000 steelworkers in the United States. Today, there are 
fewer than 140,000. Pennsylvania, my State, is the cradle of the steel 
industry. In western and central Pennsylvania, there are many steel 
companies. In Bethlehem, PA, there is the Bethlehem Steel Company. 
These retirees are hurting.
  When we are considering legislation for trade promotion authority for 
the President, I think the President is right, he needs trade promotion 
authority to negotiate trade deals to increase prosperity all around 
the world. In so many countries, it is so much better to have trade 
than to give them foreign aid. Trade promotion authority will also help 
the economy of the United States. It is not without some problems with 
NAFTA, and some other problems as well, however in the long run, trade 
promotion authority will be very helpful.
  Just as this bill takes up trade adjustment assistance, it is fair 
and reasonable that this modest approach for

[[Page S4584]]

a single year ought to be incorporated in this bill. I think the 
amendment is very well placed.
  I thank my colleague from Minnesota for yielding time. I thank the 
Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, how much time is there on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. The majority leader is speaking under leader time; is 
that correct?
  I thank him.
  If I may have one second, I certainly want to have a chance to speak 
and join my colleagues, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Mikulski, and 
Senator Specter.
  Since I think there is a lot at stake with this amendment, sometimes 
we forget about what this means. Personally, I am extremely 
disappointed that the opposition has not come forth. After the majority 
leader speaks, I will suggest the absence of a quorum and will ask that 
all time be charged to the opponents because people need to be held 
accountable for their positions on such an important question which is 
crucial to environmental quality or lack of quality of life for the 
people we represent.
  I thank the majority leader for being present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, in order to accommodate the time 
constraints, I will use my leader time to make some remarks with regard 
to this.
  I will begin by complimenting and thanking my colleagues for the 
extraordinary job they have done. I will say for the record--and I want 
all to know--that I have never seen a more passionate or a more 
determined effort on the part of my colleagues on any issue than I have 
by my colleagues on this one. Senator Wellstone, Senator Rockefeller, 
and Senator Mikulski in caucus, in leadership, in private meetings, and 
in every conceivable forum have made this an issue that we now clearly 
understand. I am grateful to them for enlightening us, for sensitizing 
us, and for making this the kind of cause it deserves to be, not only 
within our caucus but within the Senate and within the Congress itself. 
Everyone should know that were it not for their passionate defense, we 
would not be here this morning.
  Second, I don't know if there is a more important issue as it relates 
to the well-being of workers who are vulnerable. We can talk about 
wages, we can talk about all the other issues involving displacement 
and the effects of trade, but when you talk about health, you are 
talking about the well-being of individuals who have no other choice 
but to seek remedy as these Senators seek it in this amendment.
  This is a powerful message. We have people out there who have no 
access to health care, through no fault of their own, and who have no 
opportunity to avail themselves of any health option, in large measure 
because they have fallen victims in many cases to the trade challenges, 
the trade problems, and the trade issues that are the very basis for 
the debate we have had on trade throughout the last several weeks. I do 
not know how you look at those people in the eye and say: Look, I 
understand you have a problem. I understand you can't go to a doctor. I 
understand your wife is sick and you can't go to a hospital. I 
understand you can't go to an emergency room. I understand the 
humiliation and all of the pain you must suffer and all of the anxiety. 
But I am not going to support their amendment. Go talk to somebody 
else, tell them about your problem, because I am not going to deal with 
it.

  If we turn down this amendment, that is the message we are sending to 
every one of those people who are out of work and who have no health 
insurance. That is the message: We don't care.
  We shouldn't be doing that. That is why this amendment is so 
critical. We should be saying: Look, we understand. For those of us who 
embrace trade legislation, it is all the more imperative that we do it.
  There are a lot of my colleagues who, for understandable reasons, are 
saying: Look, I don't want to see trade promotion authority because all 
it does is displace workers, all it does is cause pain.
  There are those of us who say: Well, there is a lot to be said about 
that, but the overall good of the country depends on trade promotion 
authority. But if we say this, we also ought to say that when those 
people are displaced, they are going to get help. When they are 
displaced, they are going to get the kind of care they need. When they 
are displaced, they can see a doctor or go to a hospital. Then, by God, 
we have to find a way to make that happen, or this country doesn't 
deserve to pass any trade legislation.
  Let us deal with the victims as well as the prize winners here. Let 
us understand that. Let us not look at the big numbers, let us look at 
the faces of the human beings affected by this. That is what this 
amendment does.
  This is an important vote. I hope everybody pays very careful 
attention to the consequences of their vote this morning.
  Some say this is an easy ``yes'' or ``no'' vote. Maybe that is right. 
Maybe that is right. But if it is an easy no, I daresay--and I will 
challenge my colleagues who haven't thought about this--they haven't 
given it the kind of care and consideration it deserves.
  At times, I wish we had a chair right in the middle of the well, 
right here. I would like to have a steelworker sitting right here as we 
vote. And I would like to have every Member walk by and say: You know I 
am going to look you in the eye, and then I am going to vote no.
  I think if we forced someone to have a chair down here with a 
steelworker and his family sitting here, the vote would be 100 to zero. 
But they are out there somewhere. Nobody has to look at faces, or 
names, or victims. Let us understand those families are right outside 
these doors. Those families are glued to their televisions this 
morning, hoping and praying that we can do something about this. 
Hoping. Let's give them cause for hope. Let's give them the ability to 
understand that we hear them, that we care about them, and that we want 
to make a difference in their lives.

  Madam President, America's steelworkers have literally built this 
nation--from the skyscrapers that define us, to the military that 
defend us.
  But today, those steelworkers who have defined and defended us need 
our help.
  The last few years have been among the worst in history for the 
American steel industry. In 1997, the Asian financial crisis disrupted 
global steel trade and diverted much of the world's excess steel 
capacity to the U.S. market.
  That started a decline that has only gotten worse. In just the last 2 
years, 31 steel companies have filed for bankruptcy. Since January of 
2000, more than 50 steelmaking or related plants have shut down or been 
idled. And steel prices are now at their lowest levels in 20 years.
  This crisis has been devastating for steelworkers, their families, 
and their communities. Over 43,000 steelworkers have lost their jobs, 
and another 600,000 retirees and their surviving spouses are in danger 
of losing their health care benefits because the companies that once 
employed them are now facing bankruptcy.
  This amendment provides 1 year of subsidized health benefits for 
those retired steelworkers now in danger of losing them.
  Last month, many of our Republican colleagues in the Senate said they 
supported a much more generous assumption of legacy costs as part of an 
effort to open the Arctic Refuge to drilling.
  I said to them, at the time, if you are serious about helping 
steelworkers, you will have a chance to do it.
  This is your chance.
  This is a modest, stopgap measure--far more modest than what 
Republicans claimed last month they would support.
  It covers 70 percent of retired steelworkers' health care costs for 
just 1 year. That is all it does. It does not cost the taxpayers a 
penny. It does not solve the larger issue of so-called legacy costs. It 
does not create a new entitlement.
  There is a lot this amendment does not do. But what it does do, is 
show that we understand how much these workers are suffering. We 
understand that after a lifetime of hard work, they deserve better than 
uncertainty.
  No one can afford to be without health insurance, but that is 
particularly true for people who have spend a

[[Page S4585]]

lifetime in jobs that demand hard, physical labor. For these people, 
sometimes health insurance means the difference between self-
sufficiency and poverty.
  I know that the administration has come out against health insurance 
for steel retirees. I hope the administration will reconsider.
  Last year, we agreed we would leave no child behind. This year, let's 
make sure we leave no worker behind as America moves into the new, 
globalized economy.
  This amendment is cost-effective, it helps people, it is 
compassionate. I can see no reason to oppose this amendment. I hope my 
colleagues will join me in supporting it.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Believe me, I so much want to speak and respond. But, 
again, just listening, first, to my colleague from West Virginia, and 
then my colleague from Maryland, and then the majority leader, and the 
way in which this affects people's lives, and how can people vote 
against helping people, what is the other position?
  I want some debate. I want to respond. I don't want us to use all our 
time and then have opponents come out here and speak and speak and 
speak, without being held accountable for their comments in debate.
  So, again, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I ask unanimous consent 
that the time be charged to the opposition, which has been unwilling to 
even speak on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator let me take a second?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Sure.
  Mr. REID. I appreciate the Senator doing that.
  Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask unanimous 
consent the pending amendment be set aside. This is for Senator 
Jeffords.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I object, Madam President.
  Mr. REID. Object to setting the amendment aside? OK. I understand.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by my good friend, the junior Senator from West Virginia.
  My understanding of the amendment is that it provides a 1-year 
eligibility period for steelworker retirees and eligible beneficiaries. 
The problem is it does not offer a way to pay for it.
  Some of you may recall we had an extended debate on this floor a few 
weeks ago on aspects associated with energy development and the energy 
bill and proceeds from the proposed sale of opening ANWR. In that 
amendment offered by Senator Stevens and myself, we proposed to fund 
the steel legacy issue relative to retirement.
  This matter has been discussed in this body. My understanding is that 
Senator Santorum has spoken against the Rockefeller amendment. And I 
believe Senator Specter did as well.

  I think we have to go back----
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a second, a split second?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am going to yield after my entire statement.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Just for the record----
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am not going to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has the floor and has 
declined to yield.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. And I thank my colleague. But I do 
want to continue uninterrupted because my statement is going to be very 
short.
  I think the basis for the opposition is the illusionary effect that 
it has rather than the practical reality associated with a resolve of 
this issue.
  As I indicated, Senator Santorum took the floor to decry the 
amendment. I recognize that Senator Santorum is as strong an advocate 
of the steel industry as any Member of this body, and his credibility 
is certainly unchallenged. I have listened to the Senator from 
Pennsylvania describe this amendment as a ``cruel hoax'' on the workers 
and on the future for U.S. steelworkers.
  I happen to agree with his description of the amendment because it 
fails to fund the benefits and leads workers and retirees of the steel 
industry down a blind alley. It is going to authorize something--get 
their hopes up--but you are not going to fund it.
  It is a shame because, as I indicated in my opening remarks, a month 
ago, the Senate had a chance to pass a comprehensive fix for the so-
called steel legacy cost. And that is the issue that threatens the 
benefits of retired workers and the future, in my opinion, of today's 
steelworkers.
  In that debate we challenged America's steel industry and America's 
steel unions and America's steel caucus to the reality of coming aboard 
on a major project that could rejuvenate America's steel industry; and 
that is associated with the building of approximately 3,000 miles of 52 
to 54-inch pipe that would go from my State of Alaska to the Chicago 
city gate--an order that would be worth approximately $5 billion.
  What would that do to stimulate America's steel industry? Well, one 
can only guess. But that was basically turned down. It was ignored by 
the steel unions, ignored by members of the steel caucus because 
evidently the interest is not rejuvenating America's steel industry, 
but it is addressing the obligation of retired workers and their 
benefits. I understand that. But I see in the legislation we offered an 
opportunity for both.

  The tragedy is that when this pipeline is going to be built, it will 
be built with Japanese steel, with Korean steel, with, perhaps, Italian 
steel. Evidence of that was in the 1970s, when we were constructing the 
Trans-Alaska 800-mile pipeline. What was the condition of America's 
steel industry then? It was in decline. That was unfortunate. That 
entire pipeline was built with Japanese, Korean, and Italian steel. The 
reason offered was, we didn't make it anymore.
  Now there is an opportunity to rejuvenate the industry. These are 
U.S. jobs. These are union jobs in U.S. steel mills, a major order, $5 
billion. Is there any interest? No. The contribution of the proceeds 
from the sale of ANWR in the billions of dollars was offered in the 
Stevens amendment, but it was objected to by America's environmental 
community. It was not a case of whether we could open it safely. It was 
an issue of politics. It was a charade.
  We even reached out to the coal mining beneficiaries by helping them 
with shortfalls in their health care benefit program, something the 
present proposal does not do.
  The main difference between our fix and the proposal before us is our 
proposal was comprehensive and, most importantly, it was funded. The 
amendment offered by Senator Stevens and myself a month ago would have 
used a significant portion of the money from the oil and gas leasing in 
ANWR to help workers and the industry reorganize itself to compete in 
world markets.
  This is an extremely important distinction because the Senator from 
West Virginia rejected an opportunity to embrace the future. Instead, 
he would rather put another burden on taxpayers and leave our workers 
and the industry, in effect, in the dark. When he rejected the 
amendment, the Senator from West Virginia and his supporters claimed 
they could not support it because they couldn't get a positive 
guarantee in writing from the President and the House of 
Representatives that they would support it.
  Now, a month later, we introduce a hollowed out version of the 
Stevens amendment with no support, no assurance from either the 
President or the House of Representatives, and no money to pay for it. 
It doesn't take a mindreader to determine where you would have been 
better off. It is an outrage to the steelworkers and retirees who are 
being used, and it is an insult to the American taxpayer who will be 
asked to place yet another burden on their shoulders.
  Make no mistake, this amendment is about politics. It has nothing to 
do

[[Page S4586]]

with the men and women of the steel industry, who are certainly 
struggling.
  My greatest disappointment is not with the authors of the amendment 
but with the leadership of the steelworkers union. Most of its members 
helped build this country. They made steel what it was, a significant 
factor in democracy and the growth of our Nation. They made steel for 
the tanks and the guns that turned the tide in Europe and the Pacific 
during World War II. They worked in the arsenal of democracy. Yet today 
their union leaders are turning their backs on the workers and the 
retirees in favor of hanging out with environmental extremists who are 
opposed to the very steel plants and iron mines in which their workers 
were so proud to work.
  They would rather support phantom efforts such as the amendment today 
than obtain real benefits for workers and retirees and beneficiaries. 
They know this amendment will not pass because it is just a political 
statement. Evidently they don't care. It is appalling, but they 
apparently don't care if the plants close, the workers are idle, and 
the benefits don't get paid because the companies go under.

  A month ago, Senators were given the opportunity to decide whose side 
they would be on: environmental fundraising groups, rich kids who 
protest everything about America that the steel industry built, or the 
workers and retirees themselves, plus the coal miners and 
beneficiaries. The choice was easy: limited, environmentally 
responsible development of only 2,000 acres of land in Alaska in return 
for paying for the benefits for hundreds of thousands of workers and 
offering the industry a chance to rebuild itself, or party politics, 
which is merely the equivalent to a press statement or two and showing 
support for the corporate environmentalists that made the issue a test 
of their vision for the Democratic Party.
  Unfortunately, most of the Members chose party politics and the 
special interests of corporate environmentalists over the working men 
and women of this Nation. It is times such as these, when our Nation is 
at war and our steel industry and our workers are suffering, that 
Washington has ceased to be a serious place. The workers deserve better 
than this hoax, this empty gesture. They need a real plan.
  Again, as I have indicated, to suggest that what we had to have in 
order for this to go was support from the President and the House of 
Representatives, and now we find ourselves with no money to pay for it, 
I question the necessity of those earlier guarantees. What we have 
today is no money, no funding, no assurance from the White House. If 
the authors are serious about solving this problem, I am willing to sit 
down today and discuss real options that could get a majority of votes 
in the body and rejuvenate the steel industry and get it going.
  If I were in the industry and I were involved in the union and I had 
the opportunity for a $5 billion domestic order in this country, I 
would gear up for it. I would open the iron mines. I would expand the 
steel industry. I would insist that U.S. firms have an opportunity to 
participate in the largest single order ever outlined in the country. 
It is going to go to our foreign friends.
  I believe the membership of the steelworkers union, the beneficiaries 
and retirees, are smart enough to figure out when they are being used 
for political purposes. I hope they will cry out to the leaders in the 
union and to the Senate and let them know that they do not appreciate 
having their futures used for political purposes.
  Needless to say, I oppose the amendment and ask my colleagues to do 
the same.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. The Senator from Alaska has mentioned politics and 
that the steel industry evidently decided not to take advantage of this 
multibillion-dollar offer that he and I talked about a number of times. 
I made it very clear to the Senator from Alaska during our 
conversations that whereas we do make pipe in the United States, we 
only have about 40 million tons of production left. And we don't make 
pipe of the size that was required for what the Senator was talking 
about at ANWR. That was the only reason. It was not politics.
  The Senator talks about letters from the White House. I don't know if 
the Senator disagrees, but the Senator talks about letters from the 
White House. There was a reason for that. That was that the White House 
was and still is--they have been e-mailing all over the country and 
getting other people to e-mail because they have opposed this from the 
very beginning. They have opposed legacy costs. They made it very 
clear. All of their Cabinet officers made it very clear. The President 
made it clear. That is the reason we are reduced to simply having 1 
year of health benefits because we have no other alternative. I would 
have, as the Senator from Alaska knows, voted probably for ANWR if 
Senator Stevens, who was equally as angry as I was over what 
transpired, had been allowed to proceed. But it was simply bludgeoned.
  I hope that the Senator would agree with that.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may respond to my good friend, the Senator from 
West Virginia, first, we are both aware of the fact that the President 
did support opening ANWR. He would have signed an energy bill with ANWR 
in it. Clearly, the intent of the amendment, had it passed, was that 
the proceeds would go for the steel legacy fund--a significant portion 
of it. I know the Senator from West Virginia wanted an ironclad 
commitment from the White House.
  I simply share that had we passed the amendment, we would have 
identified the funds as flowing to the steel legacy as compared to 
where we are today, which is we are talking about a 1-year proposal 
with an authorization only and no identification of funds. It seems to 
me we were much better off previously, had you accepted the deal. Had 
it passed, that is where the funds would have gone.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I want to bring to the Senator's 
attention that this amendment is paid for by offsets that had been 
cleared and verified by the Budget Committee. So it is paid for. I 
wanted to have that said for the Senator's clarification. I thank my 
colleague for his sympathetic comments about steelworkers.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I don't want any more time to run on 
my side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  It is not appropriate to include the steel legacy program on the 
trade adjustment assistance legislation and I urge my colleagues to 
oppose it.
  This is a trade bill and inclusion of this amendment will doom the 
legislation. This is not just a helping hand for retired steel workers. 
It is the largest and boldest corporate welfare proposal I have seen in 
quite a while.
  Not only is it corporate welfare but acceptance of this proposal is 
an invitation to others to come in to government largess in the same 
way: Promise the workers anything but give your promises to the 
taxpayers.
  This legislation gives a free pass to companies and unions to bargain 
for benefits as irresponsibly as they would like. They may do this with 
the knowledge that they will never have to keep their promises. 
Instead, they can foist their benefit packages on the backs of the 
hard-working taxpayers. That includes many who have no insurance or 
retiree health because their employers cannot afford to purchase it.
  My additional arguments against inclusion of the steel legacy program 
are as follows: Neither the costs of nor the implications of including 
steel legacy costs have been examined in the Senate Finance Committee.
  The Senator from West Virginia introduced his bill, S. 2189, on steel 
legacy costs on April 17, 2002. That is barely a month ago. The GOP 
members and staff on the Senate Finance Committee have asked repeatedly 
that hearings be held on this issue but none has been held or 
contemplated.
  This suggests that there are individuals on the Finance Committee who 
may not want this issue of steel legacy costs seriously examined. A 
generic hearing was held on March 14, 2002, in the HELP Committee. It 
was a very

[[Page S4587]]

nice hearing but it consisted solely of one panel and steel labor and 
management and one panel of affected steel workers. There were no 
opposing views, no academics, no thoughtful examination of the 
implications of the proposal, no discussion of the fact that other 
industries with unsustainable benefit promises to retirees are hoping 
to get in on this deal.
  Now the Senator from West Virginia has altered his proposal a little 
in order to slip it into the Trade Act. He says it is designed to cover 
just 125,000 workers and just for 1 year. But bear in mind that a 1-
year bridge benefit is not the long-term intention of the amendment. 
Once you grant this benefit it will never sunset.
  The ultimate solution for the proponents of this program is to cover 
all steel workers in a permanent entitlement program. The steel 
workers, themselves, have suggested that as many as 600,000 retired 
steelworkers will be picked up by such a permanent program. In 
addition, current steelworkers, as they retire, would come into the 
system, making the pool of covered individuals much larger.
  How many more individuals does that add to the pool? We don't know. 
We have some basis for comparison, but on a much smaller scale.
  But our experience with the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefits Act 
is just one-tenth the size, around 60,000 individuals, of the steel 
proposal. We have no reliable cost data on this proposal. Though Joint 
Tax told us that it only costs $179 million over 1 year.
  The truth is that experience tells us two things: No. 1, estimates of 
program costs are always too optimistic. No. 2, mortality estimates are 
unduly pressimistic.
  One estimate is that the full program, covering all steel retirees, 
would cost around $13 billion. But experience tells us that the 
estimate is probably too low. The legislation also creates a moral 
hazard. By allowing the parties to dump legacy costs they couldn't 
afford, it sends a message to all other industries. It tells them that 
they should make unsustainable benefit promises and lay them on the 
taxpayers.
  In order to avoid this ``moral hazard'' in the future, this proposal 
would have to contain incentives to get the parties to change the way 
they bargain for benefits. We can see how that moral hazard still 
exists in the coal industry today.
  Coal miners are still bargaining for, and the Bituminous Coal 
Operators Association is still promising, the same expensive benefit 
package that they dumped on the system 10 years ago.
  Shifting their irresponsible collective bargaining costs to other 
parties did nothing to change the way they bargain for or promise 
benefits in the coal industry.
  The coal workers and companies got away with making someone else pay 
for their unsustainable promises, so they keep on doing the same thing.
  The ``moral hazard'' is happening in steel but on a much larger 
scale. Steel is 10 times the size of coal. The steel retirees are 
similar to any group of retirees who lose their health care coverage; 
they are a sympathetic group. But so are the retirees from countless 
other industries who lost or did not receive retiree health benefits 
because their company could not afford them.
  The proposal before us creates a new Federal entitlement program for 
this particular ``sympathetic group'' that would cost billions of 
dollars.
  My staff heard from a lobbyist from a major manufacturer in the 
transportation industry this week. That lobbyist said to ``get ready'' 
because they wanted to unload their retiree health costs on the 
taxpayers, too. This lobbyist suggested that their industry is much 
larger than the steel industry.
  If you vote for this amendment, you will be ushering in an era other 
special retiree health care programs for all the other industries who 
have their own lobbyists.
  Steel retirees should be considered in the context of deliberations 
on the uninsured. For several years we have been debating what to do 
about the uninsured and about prescription drug coverage under 
Medicare. We may decide that steel retirees fit into our deliberations. 
Ultimately, we may decide otherwise.
  But we at least ought to explicitly consider the implications of the 
legislation. Bear in mind that there is another irony with the steel 
legacy costs proposal. Some very large steel companies--LTV and 
Bethlehem--went bankrupt, in part, because the 1992 energy tax bill 
mandated them to pay the retiree health care obligations for former 
coal employees under the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefits Act.
  Over the past 10 years these now bankrupt steel companies have spent 
hundreds of millions of dollars paying for the irresponsible health 
care promises of the Bituminous Coal Operators Association and the 
UMWA. Think about that.
  The shifting of retiree health costs is a vicious circle. The 
amendment expands the TAA health insurance assistance to steelworkers 
whose companies permanently closed operations while in bankruptcy. 
Think about who ends up holding the bag. It is the rest of America. It 
is the taxpayers--from the single-mother waitress with children who 
does not have health care. It is the white collar workers in Silicon 
Valley who do not have health care. It is the Midwestern farmer who 
pays for his family's health care. It is all the other retirees who pay 
tax on their Social Security benefits. This amendment creates a double 
standard. There is one standard, guaranteed health care for one class 
of folks, retired steel workers of a few companies. There is another 
standard for everyone else. Is that fair? Does that make sense?
  This bizarre proposal is compounded further by the double standard it 
creates for steel industry retirees. That's right. What we have here is 
a ``rifle shot'' for a couple of companies.
  I have been one who has fought rifle shots in the Tax Code. Well, 
fellow Senators, you have got a rifle shot in front of you.
  We do not know all the companies that will benefit from this but 
certainly LTV Steel which is in chapter 7 liquidation and Bethlehem 
Steel that is in chapter 11 bankruptcy.
  Let me take a minute to review our TAA health insurance compromise 
and what the implications of the steel retiree health language would 
mean for the TAA health credit.
  The agreement we worked out gives TAA workers an advanceable, 
refundable tax credit, set at 70 percent, that can be applied to the 
purchase of selected qualified health insurance in either COBRA or 
State insurance pools.
  The compromise also includes funds for National Emergency Grants, so 
that States can provide subsidized coverage to workers before State 
insurance pools are established.
  With no company left to provide COBRA benefits, and very few State 
insurance pools ready early on, steelworkers will wind up being covered 
through the interim National Emergency Grant program, not the tax 
credit.
  I happen to support this important interim Emergency program. But I 
strongly believe the addition of new categories of workers is a 
mistake. It sends a signal to all industries, not just steel, that 
nearly full Federal support for unmet health insurance promises is 
available from the Federal Government.
  You should also know that the bill introduced by the proponents of 
this amendment provides that steel retirees will each receive a cash 
life insurance payment of $5,000. You may be thinking that is not very 
much life insurance. But multiplied by 600,000 that is $3 billion.
  In conclusion, I would be remiss if I didn't reiterate that I believe 
this is a sympathetic group. But I don't know that it is so sympathetic 
that we will be able to afford their bad debts, all $13 billion of 
them. Why? because the transportation lobbyists will be here next thing 
you know asking that we cover their bad debts.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this proposal.
  To vote for this amendment will doom the trade bill. We must examine 
proposals such as this carefully and deliberately, weighing the 
implications of our action.
  Since most workers and retirees, including early retirees do not have 
any retiree health many policy questions are raised by this new Federal 
entitlement program.
  The ``sunset'' of the Senator from West Virginia in this provision is 
simply a temporary bridge to permanent program.
  I have many, many more concerns regarding this proposal. I will not 
go into them here.

[[Page S4588]]

  Madam President, this is a very serious amendment. It does tremendous 
damage to the possibility of getting trade promotion authority to the 
President. I can better say this if I would read from some rough notes 
that I made in regard to a speech that my friend, Senator Baucus, made 
against the Gregg amendment on wage insurance when it was up last week. 
These are not direct quotes, but Senator Baucus made the best argument 
on the Gregg amendment that I can make against the amendment by the 
Senator from West Virginia.
  First of all, you have to remember the words ``very balanced 
compromise,'' three words that Senator Baucus used. We have a very 
balanced compromise before us. We ought to think in these terms: If we 
want trade promotion authority to go to the President, we don't want to 
upset that balanced compromise.
  A second point he made on the Gregg amendment is: I worked very hard 
to kill crippling amendments that would kill TPA.
  This is one of those crippling amendments that could kill trade 
promotion authority.
  He expressed in another statement his ``disappointment about the 
amendment before us,'' meaning the Gregg amendment, again upsetting a 
bipartisan compromise.
  Then, lastly: If this amendment passes, there will be no bill.
  That was said about the Gregg amendment. We defeated--Senator Baucus 
and I working together--the Gregg amendment on wage insurance. I worked 
to preserve that compromise, although a majority of my caucus was 
against it, the same way Senator Baucus has worked to kill a lot of 
amendments that have upset this compromise by being in the minority of 
his caucus.
  What we are talking about is the center of the Senate. If anything is 
going to get done in the Senate on the controversial issue that we have 
before us--trade promotion authority, passing the House by a one-vote 
margin, 215-214--we are going to have to preserve the very balanced 
compromise that Senator Baucus and I have brought to the floor. Then we 
have the Senator from West Virginia with his amendment.
  I think in the same way that Senator Baucus believed the Gregg 
amendment would upset this very carefully crafted compromise on trade 
promotion authority, the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia 
does the same thing. So that is the reason I ask for the defeat of this 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, how much time do the opponents have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has 13 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. We have less time. I would be pleased to defer to the 
opponents if they want to speak.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. We are not quite ready to speak. I ask that the Senator 
use a little bit of his time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, let me, first of all, thank my 
colleagues for being here. I especially thank Senators Rockefeller and 
Mikulski. I also thank Senator Daschle for his remarks. They were 
powerful and they were personal and they were on point.
  My colleague from Alaska spoke, and I will echo what my colleague 
from West Virginia had to say in response. The only other thing I want 
to say is my colleague from Alaska said the proponents know this 
amendment will not pass, and it is really not enough. Frankly, we don't 
know it won't pass, and it will pass if the votes are there. Every 
steelworker and every worker and every family and every citizen in our 
country believes this is a matter of elementary justice--that is to 
say, in the trade adjustment assistance package of this legislation. 
Let's also provide some help to retired steelworkers who worked hard 
all their lives, be it in Maryland or the iron workers or the taconite 
workers on the range in Minnesota. They have worked for companies that 
have declared bankruptcy, and they thought they had retiree health care 
benefits. It is very important to them and their spouses.
  Health care costs are a huge issue to the elderly population, and now 
the companies declare bankruptcy, walk away from it, and they are 
terrified and they don't know what they are going to do. They have 
worked hard all their lives for an industry that has been absolutely 
critical to our national defense. You could not find people more 
patriotic or more hard-working--people who are, frankly, asking for 
less.
  All we are asking for in this amendment is a 1-year bridge so that we 
can put together legislation for the future that will not only deal 
with these retirees and help them but also help the steel industry get 
back on its feet.
  This is the extension of trade adjustment assistance, and 70 percent 
of the COBRA costs would apply to these retirees. It would be a huge 
help. Now, my colleagues come out here on the floor and speak against 
it--some do--and they act as if we are presenting something that is 
egregious, almost sinful, when we are talking about helping people.
  This is one of these sort of ``buddy, you are on your own'' 
philosophies. If you have been working hard all your life for a 
company, you are working in an industry for 30 years, the Government 
did nothing to deal with unfair trade practices, now the company 
declares bankruptcy and you have no help and you are terrified they 
say, buddy, you are on your own. That is basically what we are hearing.
  Some colleagues come out here and say we should have done it on ANWR, 
although the House Republican leadership would not sign off on it, the 
White House would not sign off on it, and it didn't look like it was 
going to happen or like it was a very serious proposal. Now there is 
this effort to bring people together. Republicans support this. 
Senators Specter and Voinovich came out here and spoke as well. Senator 
DeWine supports this.
  I think this is a matter of elementary decency, elementary justice. 
We are trying to provide some help to people. That is what this is 
about. I, frankly, am amazed that we are now going through this. I 
think my colleague from Maryland said this, but I want everybody to 
know this is a filibuster. One Senator said they don't have the 
support. I think we have a majority of support. We are going to have 
majority support and we should have more than the majority support.
  We should not be in this situation where we come to the floor to 
advocate for people we represent for a minor expenditure of resources, 
to provide some help to people who worked hard all their lives, as a 
part of trade adjustment assistance, only for 1 year, an interim 
measure, and this is being filibustered, being blocked.
  I cannot think of any reason to block this except for just absolute 
ideological opposition that, my God, when it comes to helping people 
who are really struggling, through no fault of their own, there is not 
anything the Government can or should do.
  How much time is left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes 10 seconds.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I reserve the last 2\1/2\ minutes to respond to my 
friend from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I thank my colleague, Senator Grassley, 
for his leadership and for his desire for us to pass a trade adjustment 
bill. Unfortunately, we have to pass three bills at once. We should be 
passing one bill. I have spoken about that issue a couple of times.
  This is the legislation we have before us. It is pretty thick and 
comprehensive legislation. It has three bills in it. I venture to say a 
lot of my colleagues do not know the substance of the bill. I have been 
doing a little homework on it, and the more I find out about the 
amendment that is pending the less I like about it.
  For example, I do not think we should combine trade adjustment 
assistance in the same package as trade promotion authority. 
Historically, we have never done that, and we do not need to do it now. 
Some people are trying to take trade promotion authority hostage, which 
they know the President wants, and say: We will not give it to you 
unless you pay our ransom, and our ransom is enormous new entitlements, 
one of which is trade adjustment assistance; that includes not just

[[Page S4589]]

training, but also the Federal Government picking up three-fourths of 
the health care costs, compromised down to 70 percent.
  Interestingly enough, if one qualifies for the health benefits under 
trade adjustment assistance, looking at page 147, where it starts, to 
page 155, it says if you are going to get the health care tax credits--
and they are refundable, so Uncle Sam will write you a check--you 
cannot have other coverage. You cannot have Medicare, Medicaid or S-
CHIP. It is in the bill. Maybe our colleagues did not know that.
  What they are trying to do for the steelworkers is to pick up health 
care costs for their retirees, and, incidentally, they can have 
Medicare or Medicaid. I do not find that to be fair. This is like 
saying we are going to give qualifying individuals trade adjustment 
assistance; we are going to give them health care or help them with 
their health care expenses, but the steelworkers can have Medicare, 
too, and everybody else cannot.
  Three-fourths of the beneficiaries under this proposal, according to 
the sponsors, are now Medicare eligible. Everybody else is going to be 
excluded--they cannot have both--but, incidentally, steelworkers can 
have both.
  I asked the question last week: If we are going to do it for 
steelworkers, why not do it for textile workers; why not do it for auto 
workers; why not do it for airline workers? All these industries have 
lost thousands of jobs. What about communications workers? They have 
lost thousands of jobs too. Are we not concerned about their health 
care costs? We are going to single out one industry, one union and say: 
We are going to give you enormous benefits.
  Some people have said the cost of this benefit is $179 million over 
10 years. The bill says the benefit period is for 12 months, but they 
say the total cost is $179 million. What they did not include is 
another $58 million which is included in the same CBO number that says 
cost and outlays are actually $237 million. That was omitted in the 
debate we had last week.
  I am looking at the amendment. I have stated a couple of times that I 
want the Senate to work and I want the Senate to work effectively and 
efficiently, and it is not doing so. It is not doing so when we take up 
a bill such as this with three bills in one.
  The trade promotion authority section of the bill was passed out of 
the Finance Committee. The Andean Trade Act was passed out of the 
Finance Committee. Trade adjustment assistance was passed out of the 
Finance Committee, but the trade adjustment assistance proposal 
included in this did not pass out of the Finance Committee. Senator 
Daschle and maybe Senator Baucus revised it and included a lot of new 
items.

  Now I am looking at the pending amendment that deals with steel on 
which we are going to be voting momentarily. Talk about a crummy way to 
legislate. This is the amendment Senator Daschle and others offered. It 
talks about eligibility for assistance. I am trying to comprehend who 
is going to be eligible, and the other day I asked questions about who 
is going to be eligible.
  It says on page 2 of this amendment: Referred to the Trade Act of 
1974 as amended by S. 2189 as introduced on April 17, 2002. Here is S. 
2189 as introduced by several individuals--Senator Rockefeller, I 
believe, is the principal sponsor--on April 17. This was introduced a 
month ago. It has never had a hearing, and two or three times in the 
pending amendment, it refers to S. 2189 as if it is law.
  The cost of S. 2189 has never been formally estimated by CBO, but I 
heard estimates up to $13 billion. Its eligibility is much broader than 
the pending amendment, but the pending bill continues to refer to S. 
2189, as if that is the statute we are going to follow for eligibility. 
There is a lot of confusing nonsense between these two, neither of 
which have had a hearing before the Finance Committee in the Senate, 
and they are enormously expensive. They are brandnew entitlements.
  I am troubled by the fact that we would ask taxpayers, many of whom 
do not have health care but they pay taxes, to be subsidizing retirees 
who have health care and are in the Medicare system. We already pay for 
their Medicare. Now we are saying we want to pay for their Medicare 
supplement. We have never done that.
  Picking up an individual's Medigap policy has not been a 
responsibility of the Federal Government. That is what we are doing 
under this proposal for three-fourths of the individuals. Many other 
people who are a lot younger than age 65 will also qualify.
  I question the wisdom of whether or not we should be asking all 
taxpayers to be benefiting one particular union and say: We are going 
to bail you out; we are going to take care of your retirees' health 
care costs, but we are not going to do it for textile workers, we are 
not going to do it for communications workers, we are not going to do 
it for auto workers.
  Wait, maybe we are going to. Maybe this is the camel's nose under the 
tent and we will do this industry by industry. Whoever has the stronger 
lobby, whoever puts the money forward, whoever asks Congress, maybe has 
the most organized proponents: Let's have a bailout and pick up the 
cost of health care for our retirees; we cannot afford it so, please, 
taxpayers, you take care of us.
  We already have taxpayers picking up Medicare and Medicaid, and now 
we are telling people: Yes, now we are going to pick up all extraneous 
benefits. Unions and management, you do not need to worry about what 
you negotiate because Uncle Sam, if you cannot afford it, if you go 
bankrupt, we will pick it up for you; just be irresponsible as can be, 
and we will pick it up for you.
  I do not think that makes a lot of sense. This also is detrimental to 
a lot of companies in the steel industry who are not in this situation, 
who have been responsible, who are trying to make ends meet, fulfilling 
their commitments and abiding by their contracts. We are asking them to 
subsidize their competitors. I fail to see the wisdom in this effort.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on this cloture motion. I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I will take 1 minute, and there will 
be 1 minute for Senator Mikulski and 1 minute for Senator Rockefeller.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I do not know how to do this in a 
minute, but I have listened to my colleague from Oklahoma. I think his 
problem is he just does not like trade adjustment assistance. His 
problem is he just does not think, when it comes to some of the most 
pressing issues of people's lives--in this particular case retired 
steelworkers and taconite workers--there is not anything the Government 
can and should do. That is his position.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be willing to yield on my colleagues' time.
  Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to yield the time. I point out, it is 
against Senate rules ever to impugn a Senator's motive. I want to make 
sure the Senator does not violate that rule.
  Also, I will be happy to explain my position. Trade adjustment 
assistance never included health care and I think it is a mistake 
without having any idea, and I think it is a serious mistake to do so 
for one industry. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague. Actually, I was not talking 
about personal motives. I said I think my colleague does not like the 
trade adjustment assistance as part of this legislation because I think 
that is what he said.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I think this is the right thing to 
do, and I hope colleagues will support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I want to close for our side, if 
that is all right with my colleagues.
  I say to the Senator from Oklahoma he is using the classic, sort of 
nose-under-the-tent approach. No other industry has ever gone before 
the ITC in the last 20 years and come out with a unanimous vote proving 
injury because

[[Page S4590]]

of imports as has the steel industry. No other industry has ever been 
so totally and entirely neglected by the U.S. Federal Government, under 
Republican and Democratic leadership, allowing cartels and state-owned 
subsidies to simply crush our steel industry. What we are talking 
about, and what we are voting on, is whether steel retirees who lost 
the health coverage they earned because their company shut down 
permanently due to an import crisis should get the benefit of 1 year of 
health care, and only get it once. We understand that we pay for the 
cost, that the pay-go is taken care of. The essence of the vote is 
before the Senate.
  I further say that the Senator from Oklahoma, I am sure, 
misunderstands one thing: Other industries--I think he refers to the 
minimills--the minimills support this amendment, and we have a letter 
from Nucor, the largest, to so say. This is a matter of people, only 
125,000. It is paid for in a tax-friendly way.
  I urge my colleagues to support the cloture vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from West Virginia has 
expired.
  The Senator from Iowa has 4 minutes.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. I wish to correct the Record. I think I stated in the 
Record earlier that the total cost was $179 million, plus the pay. Now 
I am told by staff that the $58 million is already included in the $179 
million, so I wish to correct that. The total cost estimate by CBO is 
$179 million, not $237 million. I misread.
  I ask unanimous consent that this chart be printed in the Record at 
the conclusion of my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit No. 1.)
  Mr. NICKLES. Let me reiterate to my friend from Minnesota, I have 
already supported trade adjustment assistance. Trade adjustment 
assistance is to provide assistance to people who lose their jobs in 
training. That is the purpose of the program. The average cost has been 
about $10,000 a year. About one out of three who are eligible have 
participated in the program to be retrained to get a job. I support 
that.
  Now our colleagues are saying, in addition to that, we want to offer 
health care, and health care up to 2 years. If people believe we are 
going to take a program such as this and say to retired steelworkers, 
we are going to give this benefit for 1 year, I do not believe it. The 
bill they referred to, S. 2189, is a permanent program and its cost is 
estimated to be $13 billion, not a 1-year program, not a couple-
hundred-million-dollar program. It is a permanent program. That is 
their objective, to have the Federal Government pick up retired 
steelworkers' health care costs. I do not think that is fair to 
taxpayers. I do not think it is fair to other industries such as 
textiles, the auto industry, airlines, and others that have also 
suffered losses.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote no.

                         ESTIMATED REVENUE EFFECTS OF TAA HEALTH COVERAGE PROVISIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE OFFSET PROVISIONS
                                                    [Fiscal years 2002-2012; in millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Provision              Effective    2002    2003    2004    2005    2006    2007    2008    2009    2010    2011    2012    2002-07   2002-12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provide a Refundable Income     ppa 12/31/01  ......     -86     -25     -50     -16      -2  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......      -179      -179
 Tax Credit for 70% of the
 Cost of the Purchase of
 Qualified Health Insurance by
 Persons Who are Certain
 Steelworker Retirees
 (includes outlay effect).
Miscellaneous Revenue Offset
 Provisions:
    1. Authorize IRS to enter   iaeio/a DOE.      11      30      14       5   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)        61        63
     into installment
     agreements that provide
     for partial payment.
    2. Deposits to stop the     dma DOE.....      19      76      47      -4      -4      -4      -4      -5      -5      -5      -6       130       104
     running of interests on
     potential underpayments.
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total of Miscellaneous  ............      30     106      61       1      -4      -4      -4      -5      -5      -5      -6       191       167
         Revenue Offset
         Provisions.
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total.................  ............      30      20      36     -49     -20      -6      -4      -5      -5      -5      -6        12       -12
Increase in Outlays Due to      ppa 12/31/01  ......      26       8      17       6       1  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......        58        58
 refundable Income Tax Credit
 for 70% of the Cost of the
 Purchase of Qualified Health
 Insurance by Persons Who are
 Certain Steelworker Retirees.
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total revenue effect    ............      30      46      44     -32     -14      -5      -4      -5      -5      -5      -6        70        46
         (excludes outlay
         effect of refundable
         steelworker health
         insurance credit).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Gain of less than $500,000.
 
Legend for ``Effective'' column: dma=distributions made after; DOE=date of enactment; iaeio/a=installment agreements entered into on or after;
  ppa=premiums paid after.
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Joint Committee on Taxation.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. How much time is remaining on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has 2 minutes 50 
seconds.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield myself the remainder of that time.
  Madam President, for several years we have been debating what to do 
about the millions of people without health insurance coverage and 
about prescription drug coverage for seniors under Medicare. We may 
decide that steel retirees fit into our deliberations on the uninsured. 
We could otherwise decide as well. But we at least ought to be debating 
the issues of this legislation and their implication on the uninsured 
in regard to those bigger issues and not on this legislation.
  Bear in mind that there is another irony with the steel legacy cost 
proposal. Some very large steel companies, LTV and Bethlehem as 
examples, went bankrupt in part because the 1992 energy tax bill 
mandated them to pay retiree health care obligations for former coal 
employees under the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act. Over the 
past 10 years, these now-bankrupt steel companies have spent hundreds 
of millions of dollars paying for the irresponsible health care 
promises of the Bituminous Coal Operators Association and the United 
Mine Workers. Think about that.
  The shifting of health retiree costs is a vicious circle. This 
amendment expands the trade adjustment health insurance assistance to 
steelworkers whose companies permanently closed operations while in 
bankruptcy. Think about who ends up then paying for it. It is the rest 
of America. It is the taxpayers, from the single-mother waitress with 
children who does not have health care for those children and herself; 
it is the white-collar worker in Silicon Valley who does not have 
health care; it is the Midwestern farmer who pays for his family's 
health care out of his own pocket as a self-employed person; it is the 
other retirees who pay tax on their Social Security benefits.
  This amendment then creates a double standard. There is one standard, 
guaranteed health care for one class of folks, retired steelworkers for 
a few companies. Then there is another standard for everyone else. Is 
that fair? Does that make sense?
  This bizarre proposal is compounded further by the double standard it 
creates for steel industry retirees. That is right. What we have is a 
rifleshot for a couple of companies. I have been one who has fought 
rifleshots in the Tax Code. Well, my fellow Senators have a rifleshot 
in front of them, and I hope we can stop it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). The time of the 
Senator has expired.


                             cloture motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Chair lays 
before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will 
read.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

  We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of 
rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move to bring to 
a close the debate on the Rockefeller amendment No. 3433:
         Jay Rockefeller, Paul Wellstone, Barbara Mikulski, 
           Charles Schumer, Edward Kennedy, Joseph Lieberman, 
           Richard J. Durbin, John F. Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Harry 
           Reid, Tom Daschle, Christopher J. Dodd, Thomas R. 
           Carper, Paul Sarbanes, Jon Corzine, Patrick Leahy, 
           Debbie Stabenow.


[[Page S4591]]


  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on amendment No. 3433 to H.R. 3009, an act to extend the 
Andean Trade Preference Act to grant additional trade benefits under 
that act, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), and the Senator 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) are necessarily absent.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 56, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 117 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

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

                                NAYS--40

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Kyl
     Lott
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Miller
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 56; the nays are 
40. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The Senator from Nevada.


                      Amendment No. 3433 Withdrawn

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I withdraw amendment No. 3433.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. GREGG. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The clerk will continue 
calling the roll.
  The legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I call for the regular order.


                           Amendment No. 3406

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 3406, offered by the Senator 
from Virginia, is the pending business.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I inquire of my good friend from Virginia 
if he is willing to enter into a time agreement on this amendment of, 
say, 10 minutes.
  Mr. ALLEN. I will agree to that.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I ask----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection has been heard.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, who has the floor now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana has the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to table the Allen amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second on the motion to 
table? At the moment, there is not a sufficient second. A motion to 
table has been made.
  The clerk will call the roll to ascertain the presence of a quorum.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll and the following 
Senators entered the Chamber and answered to their names:

                             [Quorum No. 2]

     Allen
     Baucus
     Carnahan
     Dorgan
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Nelson (FL)
     Reid
     Roberts
     Snowe
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). A quorum is not present.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I move that the Sergeant at Arms be 
instructed to request the presence of absent Senators, and I ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Reed) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Thompson), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), the Senator 
from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Inhofe) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring the vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 35, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 118 Leg.]

                                YEAS--58

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--35

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Hutchison
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Harkin
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Kerry
     Reed
     Thompson
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is present.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
motion to table the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that if a point 
of order lies against the Allen amendment, the motion to table be 
withdrawn, and the Senate vote at 2:15 on the Allen motion to waive the 
Budget Act with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor.

                          ____________________