[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 68 (Thursday, May 23, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4793-S4818]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE EXPANSION ACT--Continued
Mr. REID. What is the order before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The last 10 minutes of debate are reserved by
the Senator from West Virginia.
The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Amendment No. 3527
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, what is the question before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 3527 by the Senator from South
Carolina to amendment No. 3447 offered by the Senator from West
Virginia.
[[Page S4794]]
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, the purpose of my amendment is because we
are on the verge of passing fast-track legislation that would tie the
hands of Senators who wish to amend trade agreements that come before
Congress. It is imperative that we as members of the legislative branch
become more active in the negotiation of those agreements. We must
establish the means for Senators and Representatives to be consulted on
trade negotiations in order to allow them to advise the administration
on how to best protect the interests of their constituents.
Based upon the trade act of 1974, members of the Senate Finance
Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee are able to serve as
congressional advisers for trade policy. Members of those committees
can also exercise oversight on the implementation of trade agreements.
But the rest of the Members of the Senate and the House are left out in
the cold when it comes to being able to sit in on important trade
negotiations and being consulted on the contents of a trade agreement
before it is sent to Congress for approval.
My amendment corrects this situation by enlarging the congressional
oversight group so that the group would be comprised of 11 Senators and
11 Representatives who do not serve on the Finance Committee or the
Ways and Means Committee. The congressional oversight group can then
serve with the members of the committee of jurisdiction to advise
negotiators in the executive branch on how to craft a trade agreement
that promotes fair trade practices and protects the interests of our
constituents.
My amendment does not take any powers away from the committees of
jurisdiction. To the contrary, the amendment contains specific language
that directs the cochairman of the congressional oversight group to
open their meetings and to share all information with members of the
Finance Committee and the Ways and Means Committee.
These committees and the congressional oversight group should work
together to promote consultation between the executive and legislative
branches on trade agreements. I do trust the Finance Committee to
consult with other Senators on the contents of trade agreements, but as
Ronald Reagan once said, ``Trust but verify.''
Let the committees of jurisdiction do their work, but let us also
allow a broader membership of the House and Senate to participate in
the consultations on trade agreements. The particular needs of our
individual States may not be apparent to members of the Finance
Committee.
Incidentally, Madam President, proponents of the fast-track bill have
argued that we need to pass this legislation to allow the President to
negotiate trade agreements. But the President already has the power to
negotiate agreements with foreign countries. We do not need legislation
to give the President his inherent powers.
What fast track really does, however, is to cut out the Senate and
the House of Representatives from proposing amendments to trade
agreements. If Congress cannot amend trade agreements, it is all the
more important for Members of Congress to become more involved in the
negotiating process by broadening the membership of the congressional
oversight group, as my amendment does. Congress may have a better
chance at influencing prospective trade agreements to take into account
the interests of our constituents. I urge my colleagues to vote for the
amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I advised my colleague from West
Virginia several hours ago that I was going to move to table his
amendment.
I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, one, I didn't want to speak against the
amendment of my friend and colleague and move to table it without him
having a chance to make his presentation.
I happen to be a member of the Finance Committee, and the Finance
Committee does have principal jurisdiction over trade. If we are going
to have a trade advisory committee that would advise the administration
and is composed of members appointed by the Senate President pro
tempore, with the advice of the leaders, as proposed in this amendment,
it also says to exclude members of the Finance Committee. I cannot
imagine doing that. It sets up a separate committee, but we have a
committee of jurisdiction that deals with trade. Now it says we are
going to have a separate committee that will do the same thing. We
don't do that in Appropriations or in the Judiciary Committee or Energy
or in any other committee.
I think the committee process needs to work. This is as if to say
let's have a duplicate committee outside of the Finance Committee. I
think it is a serious mistake, a bad precedent. Maybe we should have
two committees for everything, and if somebody doesn't like what comes
out of the original committee, we can go to the other committee. I
cannot imagine legislation that says let's have a separate committee
and exclude members of the Finance Committee. I urge my colleagues to
support a motion to table the amendment.
I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 32, as follows:
(Rollcall Vote No. 125 Leg.)
YEAS--66
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Domenici
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--32
Akaka
Boxer
Byrd
Carnahan
Cleland
Clinton
Corzine
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Hollings
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Mikulski
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Helms
Inouye
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
Mr. DASCHLE. I ask that the following votes be limited to 10 minutes
each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I call for regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question recurs on amendment No. 3448.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, there is no time under the rule for Senators
to speak before their amendment is called up. I ask unanimous consent
that Senator Byrd, who has two amendments, be given 5 minutes on each
of those
[[Page S4795]]
amendments; and following that, we have 2 minutes, equally divided, on
each amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object, let me see if I
understand. For this amendment, we are saying 5 minutes on each side,
and all subsequent amendments 2 minutes on each side.
Mr. REID. One minute on each side.
Mr. NICKLES. I won't object.
Mr. BUNNING. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is noted.
Mr. BYRD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I renew the unanimous consent request. I renew my unanimous
consent request as amended by the Senator from Oklahoma.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. Conversations
will be taken off the floor so the Senator can be heard.
Amendment No. 3448
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this bill prevents the Senate from enacting
a resolution of disapproval----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend.
The Senate will be in order. Conversations will be taken off the
floor. May we have quiet in the Chamber so the Senator can be heard.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this bill prevents the Senate from enacting
a resolution of disapproval against a trade agreement that it finds
objectionable, unless the Finance Committee chooses to report such a
resolution to the full Senate. A resolution of disapproval enacted by
the Senate would withdraw the application of fast track procedures to
any bill the President submits to the Congress to implement a trade
agreement.
Although, at first glance, the bill before us appears to permit a
Senator to introduce a resolution of disapproval rejecting fast track
procedures applied to a trade agreement that is brought back to the
Senate by the President, the reality is that such a resolution most
probably would never come to the floor of the Senate for a vote.
This is because the bill states that, once a resolution of
disapproval is introduced and referred to the Senate Finance Committee,
it will not be in order for the full Senate to consider the resolution
if it has not been reported by the committee. In other words, a
disapproval resolution cannot be forced to the floor through a
discharge of the Senate Finance Committee. The way this bill is
currently written, if a resolution of disapproval is not reported out
of the Senate Finance Committee, it might as well never have been
introduced. The resolution may simply lie there until it dies.
This means that, so long as the Senate Finance Committee endorses the
President's agreement, the views of the rest of the Senate are
irrelevant. Enacting fast-track in this bill prevents the Senate from
exercising its Constitutional responsibility to reject or modify trade
agreement that are not in the best interests of the American people.
It is imperative that every Senator retain his or her right to
introduce a resolution of disapproval that can be considered in the
light of day by the full Senate. To this end, my amendments require
that, upon introduction, any resolution of disapproval--including an
extension resolution of disapproval--will be referred not only to the
Senate Committee on Finance, but also to the Senate Committee on Rules
and Administration. The Rules Committee is essential to this process,
because it is charged with making the rules and procedures that govern
this institution, and its expertise is essential to our enforcement of
commitments undertaken by our trading partners in the trade agreements
negotiated by the President.
Under these amendments, each of these committees will be required to
report the resolution of disapproval that has been referred to it
within 10 days of the date of its introduction and, if either of these
committees fails to report the resolution of disapproval within that
time, either of these committees shall automatically be discharged from
further consideration of the resolution. The resolution shall then be
placed directly on the Senate calendar. Once the disapproval resolution
is placed on the Senate calendar, any Senator may make a motion to
proceed to consider that resolution, and the motion to consider the
resolution shall not be debatable.
If enacted as currently written this bill would effectively cut a
majority of Senators out of the trade regulation process, preventing
them from correcting sweeping changes in trade law that could unfairly
affect the lives of their constituents who rely on the Senate to
protect their interests.
I can't support surrendering the rights and prerogatives, the duties
and responsibilities of the Senate to any President, Democrat or
Republican. We in the Congress have an obligation to strike down trade
agreements that adversely affect the American people. But it is
impossible for us to do so if we do not provide ourselves the
opportunity to adequately review, debate, amend, or reject their
provisions as we are rightly empowered to do under the Constitution of
the United States. These amendments ensure that we retain the power to
modify or reject trade agreements that are not in the best interests of
the United States and, in so doing, protect the economic well-being of
the Nation and of the people we represent.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I strongly oppose this amendment. It
does away with the very purpose of this legislation before us, and that
is to give the President credibility at the negotiating table and to
have a process by which Congress will consider the results of
negotiation. So it strikes at the disapproval resolution process. This
amendment adds language, then, directing the procedural disapproval
resolutions be referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
The effect of the amendment on trade promotion authority is threefold.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend.
Senators kindly take conversations off the floor so the Senator can
be heard. The Senator has a right to be heard.
Mr. GRASSLEY. First, it wrests control over consideration of
procedural disapproval resolutions from the Finance Committee and gives
it to the Committee on Rules and Administration; second, to make
procedural disapproval resolutions open for debate with automatic
discharge from committee of jurisdiction; third, to provide for an
unlimited number of procedural disapproval resolutions to be considered
during any given session of Congress.
The intent is clear. It is an attempt to weaken trade promotion
authority and create multiple and unlimited opportunities to derail
trade promotion authority procedures during any given session of
Congress. If the amendment is agreed to, a single Senator can put
forward a resolution which would stop a particular trade negotiation in
its tracks. We all know there are some Senators who do not like trade
promotion authority and do not even like international trade. Should
this amendment be agreed to, you can be assured that the Senate will be
considering multiple procedural disapproval resolutions during any
Congress.
Let us be clear. This amendment is designed to weaken trade promotion
authority procedures, procedures which have effectively worked for over
50 years in advancing international trade interests. It really comes
down to this: Either you believe in the proven effectiveness of the
trade promotion authority procedures or you do not. If you do, then I
strongly urge you to oppose this clever yet potentially devastating
amendment.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
[[Page S4796]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, all Senators should be aware that we have
10-minute votes scheduled. The leaders have both indicated they would
like the votes to be completed shortly after the 10-minute time.
Everyone should be aware of that or they will not be counted.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to table.
Mr. NICKLES. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is 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 Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms) is necessarily absent
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 32, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 126 Leg.]
YEAS--66
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cantwell
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kohl
Kyl
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--32
Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Boxer
Byrd
Carnahan
Carper
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Hollings
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Mikulski
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--2
Helms
Inouye
The motion was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3449 Withdrawn
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
West Virginia is recognized. There are 10 minutes of debate on the
amendment, evenly divided.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
second amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Amendment No. 3451
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, what is the regular order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is amendment No. 3451
offered by the Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BAUCUS. I am sorry, amendment number?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 3451 offered by the Senator from
West Virginia.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the amendment
is not germane.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained, and the
amendment falls.
The Senator from West Virginia.
Amendments Nos. 3452 and 3453 Withdrawn
Mr. BYRD. Do I have some remaining amendments?
Mr. BAUCUS. Yes.
Mr. BYRD. I thought I had withdrawn them. If I have not, I ask
unanimous consent that I may withdraw them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Montana.
Amendment No. 3458, As Modified
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Durbin
amendment No. 3458 be modified with the text of amendment No. 3505, and
that the amendment be considered and agreed to, and the motion to
reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening action or
debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3458), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:
After section 3201, insert the following:
SEC. 3204. DUTY SUSPENSION ON WOOL.
(a) Extension of Temporary Duty Reductions.--
(1) Heading 9902.51.11.--Heading 9902.51.11 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by
striking ``2003'' and inserting ``2005''.
(2) Heading 9902.51.12.--Heading 9902.51.12 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended--
(A) by striking ``2003'' and inserting ``2005''; and
(B) by striking ``6%'' and inserting ``Free''.
(3) Heading 9902.51.13.--Heading 9902.51.13 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by
striking ``2003'' and inserting ``2005''.
(4) Heading 9902.51.14.--Heading 9902.51.14 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by
striking ``2003'' and inserting ``2005''.
(b) Limitation on Quantity of Imports.--
(1) Note 15.--U.S. Note 15 to subchapter II of chapter 99
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is
amended--
(A) by striking ``from January 1 to December 31 of each
year, inclusive''; and
(B) by striking ``, or such other'' and inserting the
following: ``in calendar year 2001, 3,500,000 square meter
equivalents in calendar year 2002, and 4,500,000 square meter
equivalents in calendar year 2003 and each calendar year
thereafter, or such greater''.
(2) Note 16.--U.S. Note 16 to subchapter II of chapter 99
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is
amended--
(A) by striking ``from January 1 to December 31 of each
year, inclusive''; and
(B) by striking ``, or such other'' and inserting the
following: ``in calendar year 2001, 2,500,000 square meter
equivalents in calendar year 2002, and 3,500,000 square meter
equivalents in calendar year 2003 and each calendar year
thereafter, or such greater''.
(c) Extension of Duty Refunds and Wool Research Trust
Fund.--
(1) In general.--The United States Customs Service shall
pay each manufacturer that receives a payment under section
505 of the Trade and Development Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-
200) for calendar year 2002, and that provides an affidavit
that it remains a manufacturer in the United States as of
January 1 of the year of the payment, 2 additional payments,
each payment equal to the payment received for calendar year
2002 as follows:
(A) The first payment to be made after January 1, 2004, but
on or before April 15, 2004.
(B) The second payment to be made after January 1, 2005,
but on or before April 15, 2005.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 506(f) of the Trade and
Development Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-200) is amended by
striking ``2004'' and inserting ``2006''.
(3) Authorization.--There is authorized to be appropriated
and is appropriated out of amounts in the general fund of the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out the provisions of this subsection.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection
(a)(2)(B) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse for consumption, on or after January 1, 2002.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Amendment No. 3461
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, once again, will the Chair please state
the regular order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 3461 offered by the Senator from
New Jersey.
Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair.
Under the agreement, there is 1 minute equally divided?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes equally divided.
The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, this amendment is offered by myself and
Senator Dodd and others. It is an important and simple request for our
trade negotiators to respect the role of Congress and elected State and
local officials to determine the nature and scope of significant public
services.
Regardless of my colleagues' view on TPA, it is one thing to delegate
congressional authority on trade negotiations, but it is a serious leap
beyond that to delegate constitutional responsibilities of elected
officials when it comes to determining what public services should be
privatized.
This amendment would establish as a principal negotiating objective
that
[[Page S4797]]
trade agreements should not include a commitment by the United States
to privatize significant public services, such as Social Security,
national security, public health and safety, and education.
This is simple and straightforward. We should not be turning over, to
the delegation of unelected trade negotiators, determinations about
issues such as Social Security and national security. That should be
determined here, with debate on the floor of the Senate and the House
of Representatives, and by duly elected officials. Straightforward,
simple.
Mr. President, as I have explained, my amendment establishes as a
negotiating objective that trade agreements exclude commitments by the
Untied States to privatize significant public services. The amendment
specifies four types of public services that represent core functions
of Government and that are specifically protected. These include
national security, Social Security, public health and safety, and
education.
I want to make clear for the record, however, that these four areas
are not the only types of public services that would be protected by my
amendment. Since this legislation establishes only broad negotiating
objectives, not highly detailed requirements, I have not listed each
and every affected public service with great specificity. However, it
is my intention that the amendment would apply to a wide range of
public services. These include, for example, public transportation,
public utilities, the Untied States Postal Service, and law
enforcement, as well as other significant public services provided at
the federal, state and local levels.
For a public service to be protected under the amendment, it would
have to be ``significant.'' This is designed to ensure that the
amendment not be interpreted too broadly to apply to even small and
relatively marginal types of services. For example, if a local
government decides to maintain a small snack bar at a local pool, I
would not conclude that this is a significant public service that could
not be opened to private competition. However, the provision of water
or sewer services, which are provided on large scales by a substantial
number of municipalities, and are important for the protection of
public health, would be covered.
In any case, again note that the amendment deals only with trade
negotiating objectives. It would not completely tie negotiators' hands
or trigger any lawsuits. It simply says that our objective should be to
leave the provision of significant public services as a decision for
elected officials, not distant, unelected trade bureaucrats.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment. And what
troubles me most about the amendment is that it unnecessarily carves
out privatization of particular service sectors from negotiations.
These service categories include national security, Social Security,
public health and safety, and education, as well as other significant
public services.
This language is so broad that it could be used by our trading
partners to close off market access to U.S. service exports. This
situation could be especially troublesome in the telecommunications
sector where many of our trading partners maintain government-owned
telecom companies.
Including this language, which is very sweeping, in the trade
promotion authority bill could severely undermine our ability to open
these markets. That is why I ask my colleagues to reject the amendment.
Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), and the Senator from
Alabama (Mr. Shelby) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). Are there any other
Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 47, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 127 Leg.]
YEAS--49
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Smith (NH)
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--47
Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--4
Brownback
Helms
Inouye
Shelby
The motion was agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 3463, 3464 And 3465 Withdrawn
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Hollings, I withdraw
amendments Nos. 3463, 3464, 3465.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are
withdrawn.
Mr. BAUCUS. Thank you, Mr. President. What is the regular order?
Amendment No. 3470
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 3470 by the Senator from
Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu.
The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I want to begin by thanking the chairman
and ranking member of this committee. I do support the underlying bill.
I have tried to be helpful through this process in passing this bill.
However, there are maritime workers in our Nation who have been
adversely affected because of a recent ruling. They are not entitled to
benefits under this bill. Instead of picking up employment checks, or
paychecks, they will be picking up unemployment checks, unless this
amendment passes. So for port communities such as New Orleans and
Houston and New Jersey and New York and Seattle, where maritime workers
could qualify, this amendment will help. It only costs $10 million. It
lasts for only 3 years. Out of an $8 billion bill, our maritime workers
deserve some help. They have earned it; they deserve it. That is what
my amendment does.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the Landrieu
amendment No. 3470 violates section 311(a)(2)(B) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive the applicable section of the
act for the purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas
and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is 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 Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) and the Senator from
Kansas (Mr. Brownback) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 46, as follows:
[[Page S4798]]
[Rollcall Vote No. 128 Leg.]
YEAS--50
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Hutchison
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--46
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Sessions
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--4
Brownback
Helms
Inouye
Shelby
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are
46. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained, and the amendment falls.
The Senator from Montana.
Amendment No. 3521
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I do not see Senator Jeffords. On behalf
of Senator Jeffords, I offer amendment No. 3521.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I do not think there is any objection to
this amendment. This is in proper order, and I ask for it to be
accepted.
Mr. BAUCUS. I urge adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to amendment No. 3521.
The amendment (No. 3521) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3467
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it is my understanding the next amendment
is No. 3467 by Senator Wellstone.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am a first-generation American. My
father fled persecution from Russia, and I am always most proud of our
country when we promote human rights.
This is an amendment that simply says surely one of our objectives
should be to promote human rights and democracy, and we call on our
trading partners to strive to meet these human rights standards.
There are somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 governments in the
world today that systematically practice torture. At the very minimum,
we can at least say one of our objectives in trade policy will be to
promote human rights and democracy. That is all this amendment does. I
think it means our country leads with our own values. I think it is
important we make that statement, and I hope there will be a strong
vote in favor of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Opportunity is the greatest of human rights anywhere in
the world. Trade is all about opportunity, so this whole bill is all
about human rights. This amendment upsets a carefully crafted
bipartisan compromise dealing with these complex relationships between
international trade, workers' rights, and the environment, and it does
so by undermining the fundamental purpose and proven effectiveness of
our trade promotion authority.
This amendment offers vague new standards stating that the countries
should strive to protect ``internationally recognized civil, political,
and human rights,'' without even defining those rights. It sets our
negotiators up for failure and jeopardizes this bill.
If we really want to promote democracy and human rights abroad, then
we should all oppose this amendment and pass the bill because history
shows that time and again open markets help foster a more open
political system and the human rights that go with it. Mexico is an
example. There is Taiwan and South Korea, all sorts of examples of
human rights being better today than they were 50 years ago, all
because of more open markets and international trade.
I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, following the vote on the Wellstone
amendment, we will immediately go to a vote on the substitute that is
now before the Senate. I ask if that needs a rollcall vote because we
are going to have to vote on the bill itself, so I do not know if we
need to vote twice. I again ask, do we need a rollcall vote? I ask
Senators to make that decision during the time we are voting on the
Wellstone amendment. It would seem to me this would be a good time to
voice vote that and wait until there is final passage on the bill
itself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, earlier today
I saw some language that indicated that the committee, in an
amendment--I assume it was going to be included in the managers'
amendment, or under the rubric of ``technical amendments''--was making
direct appropriations. I ask the manager of the bill right here and
now, is there any amendment in either the technical amendments or the
managers' amendment that purports to make a direct appropriation?
Mr. BAUCUS. I inform the chairman of the Appropriations Committee,
the answer is no, there is not.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I have the list in front of me. As I recall discussions
of this list, I don't remember anything that has any appropriations in
it whatsoever and it is not our intent to appropriate money in these
amendments.
Mr. BAUCUS. If I might further respond to my good friend from West
Virginia, I have just been informed we don't believe there are any such
provisions, but we are scrubbing it right now to make sure. We don't
believe, at this point.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I think we ought to have a quorum call so we
can take a good look and be absolutely sure.
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. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Vote on Amendment No. 3467
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Wellstone
amendment.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I want a vote.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. BAUCUS. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second on the motion to
table? There is a sufficient second. The question is on agreeing to the
motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) and
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), are necessarily absent.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), and the Senator from
Kansas (Mr. Brownback), are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 53, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 129 Leg.]
YEAS--42
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
[[Page S4799]]
Miller
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Smith (NH)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--53
Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Hutchinson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Torricelli
Voinovich
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--5
Brownback
Helms
Inouye
Lieberman
Shelby
The motion was rejected.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask to vitiate the yeas and nays on
the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3467.
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3467) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding we are now at the
point where we could vote on the substitute; is that right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. REID. It is my understanding the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee has met with the chairman and ranking member of the Finance
Committee and they have worked out the problem that existed. Is my
understanding correct?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may I respond?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. The language is being changed so it makes a reference to an
authorization, not to an appropriation. It earlier made appropriations
in this bill. That was not the intent, Mr. Baucus has assured me. That
change has been made now, and the full understanding between the
chairman of the Finance Committee and myself and the ranking member of
the Finance Committee is that there was no intent to make an
appropriation. Therefore, I have no objection to the request by the
majority whip.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send a technical amendment to the desk
amendment and ask unanimous consent that it be agreed to, and that the
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
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. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3548 to Amendment No. 3401
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if I may have the attention of Senators,
several references to appropriations have been found in the language.
But I am constrained to believe, on the assurances of the distinguished
chairman of the Finance Committee and the ranking member, that these
were inadvertences. So we have stricken several of them.
Just to make doubly sure that this bill does not make any
appropriations, I offer the following amendment, which, is agreed to,
would save a lot of time:
At the end, add the following:
``Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no
direct appropriation may be made under this Act.''
I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3548) was agreed to.
Mr. BYRD. I thank all Senators.
u.s. trade laws
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, last year, nearly two-thirds of the Senate
sent a letter to President Bush emphasizing that new trade agreements
must not weaken trade remedy laws such as antidumping and
countervailing duty law.
The fast track bill we are considering today reemphasizes that point.
Section 2(c)(9) of the bill instructs the President to preserve, in all
trade negotiations, the ability of the United States to enforce
rigorously its trade remedy laws and to avoid any agreement that would
require weakening of the current U.S. antidumping, countervailing duty
and safeguard remedies.
Today, I would like to make two key points about this provision.
First, the Committee on Finance regards strict adherence to the section
2(c)(9) directive as critical in advancing the economic interests of
the United States in future trade agreements. The bill's language here
is unambiguous in the sense that, rather than establishing preservation
of our trade remedy laws as simply a ``negotiating objective,'' it
bluntly states that the President ``shall'' preserve those laws.
Second, the negotiating instruction encompasses any weakening of the
existing remedies, whether at the level of statute, regulation or
agency practice. This means that the President ``shall'' reject any new
international rule or obligation whose acceptance would lead to relief
under our existing trade laws becoming more difficult, uncertain, or
costly for domestic industries to achieve and maintain over time.
I am very concerned about the Administration's decision in Doha last
year to put U.S. trade laws on the negotiating table. Many of our
trading partners have only one goal to weaken our trade laws so they
can gain an unfair competitive advantage. A number of WTO Members have
put forward some specific proposals. I want to highlight today a few
examples of new international obligations that have been proposed by
WTO Members, and that would obviously result in a weakening of U.S.
trade laws, including: One, a ``public interest'' rule politicizing and
encumbering the administrative processes under which these laws are
currently applied; two, a requirement to exempt from trade remedy
measures items alleged to be in ``short supply'' in the domestic
market; three, a so-called ``lesser duty'' rule limiting antidumping
and countervailing duties to some amount less than the calculated
margin of dumping or subsidy, such as the amount supposedly necessary
to offset the injury; and four, any extension of faulty dispute
resolution models such as Chapter 19 of the NAFTA.
Mr. President, there are other examples, but these are some of the
key concerns that I have and I know many of my colleagues share. I also
want to emphasize that this is very much a bipartisan issue. Members on
both sides of the aisle feel strongly about protecting U.S. trade laws.
And along those lines, I believe my good friend and ally in protecting
U.S. trade laws, would like to express some of his concerns about this
issue.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I certainly share the Senator's concern regarding
the potential for new trade agreements to weaken U.S. trade remedy
laws, in particular the antidumping and countervailing duty laws. These
essential laws level the playing field on which our firms and workers
compete internationally, and serve the crucial function of offsetting
and deterring some of the most harmful unfair trade practices affecting
international trade today.
The steady leadership the Senator has provided on this issue has been
admirable, and I certainly hope the message has gotten through. It
would be a serious mistake indeed to think that an agreement or package
of agreements can be successfully presented to
[[Page S4800]]
Congress for approval, under fast-track rules or otherwise, if it
includes any weakening changes to our trade remedy laws.
I believe the Senator has accurately captured the general definition
of a ``weakening'' change, and I agree fully with the examples he has
laid out. I want to ask about some other proposals which have already
surfaced at this early stage of the WTO negotiations, and which in my
view must be rejected under the standard set out in section 2(c)(9).
These proposals include:
One, changes to the rules for ``sunset'' reviews of antidumping and
CVD measures which would make it more difficult to keep relief in
place; two, additional constraints or criteria for dumping
calculations, in areas where current WTO rules and U.S. law vest
discretion in the administering authority; and, three, special rules
and standards that would make it easier for a particular group of
countries, such as developing countries, to utilize injurious dumping
or subsidies as a means of promoting their own industries at our
expense.
Am I correct in my view that accepting any such changes, as some
trading partners have requested, would weaken our existing trade
remedies?
Mr. BAUCUS. Yes, those are certainly changes that would weaken our
current remedies, and which would fail the test set out in section
2(c)(9). I also understand that my colleague and friend, Senator
Rockefeller, who has worked very closely with me on the defense of our
trade remedy laws over the years, has some points to add concerning
section 2(c)(9).
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I also wish to clarify with my colleagues that
section 2(c)(9) is a ``no weakening'' provision, and not a ``no net
weakening'' provision. In other words, the President is directed to
reject any new international obligation whose acceptance would impair
our current trade remedies in the way you have described--by making
relief costlier, more uncertain, or otherwise harder to achieve and
maintain over time. An agreement that includes such changes must be
rejected, and it is no answer--insofar as section 2(c)(9) and the
intent of the Congress is concerned--to contend that the agreement in
question also includes some ``strengthening'' provisions.
That would include any revisions that intended to ``strengthen'' the
disciplines governing other countries' trade laws, including those in
the developing world.
I personally believe that until the United States has a documented
record of challenging those foreign trade laws at the WTO--and for some
inexplicable reason we do not--there is no justification for saying
existing WTO rules are not sufficient to ensure due process and
transparency in foreign trade laws.
Additionally, I think it is important to clarify that this
negotiating directive does not preclude U.S. negotiators from
addressing the very serious shortcomings that have become apparent in
the operation of the WTO dispute settlement system. As explained in the
Finance Committee's report on the TPA measure, in a series of decisions
involving trade remedy measures, the WTO Appellate Body and lower
dispute settlement panels have fabricated U.S. obligations which our
negotiators never accepted and have blatantly disregarded the
discretion which the Uruguay Round negotiators intended for national
investigating authorities to retain.
These WTO tribunals have violated their mandate not to increase or
reduce the rights and obligations of WTO Members; have imposed their
preferences and interpretations, and those of a biased WTO Secretariat,
on the United States and on other WTO Members; and have issued
decisions with no basis in the legal texts they supposedly were
interpreting.
I believe this may be because other countries have been far more
aggressive about challenging our trade laws at the WTO than we have
been in challenging theirs. The effect has been to upset the careful
balance achieved in the Uruguay Round by adding new, and wholly
unwarranted, constraints on the use of trade remedies.
Before we vote on the bill, am I correct in understanding that
section 2(c)(9) does not preclude a forceful U.S. agenda to address the
problems plaguing WTO dispute settlement?
Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator is perfectly correct. I might add that the
TPA bill includes several additional provisions designed to ensure a
forceful U.S. response to the WTO dispute settlement problem, and
section 2(c)(9) presents no barrier whatsoever in that regard.
livestock and meat products as perishable and cyclical products
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to enter into a colloquy regarding
the coverage of trade promotion authority. My understanding is that TPA
includes special provisions regarding perishable and cyclical products.
It is my understanding that this language would clearly cover livestock
and fresh meat products as they are perishable and cyclical
agricultural products.
I believe that the language and the coverage are clear, but want to
make sure that our negotiators are well aware of our intent and
coverage of this legislation and the expectations we have for inclusion
in future trade agreements.
Reasonable people know that fresh meat is perishable, but many people
may not be aware that livestock can be perishable as well. Cattle ready
for slaughter, for example, must be processed within two to three weeks
of reaching their optimal weight. Once above the optimal weight, cattle
gain fat and not muscle. With this quality loss, livestock producers
suffer drastic price discounts that can wipe out their profits. Clearly
meat production and livestock are also cyclical. Again, taking cattle
as an example, the price follows a 10-year-cattle-cycle--the expansion
and contraction of the nation's cattle herd have historically affected
cattle prices.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise in support of my colleague's
interpretation. It seems quite clear to me. This is important to the
meat and livestock industry. For example, TPA addresses eliminating the
practices of foreign governments that adversely affect the trade of
perishable and cyclical products, and the elimination of such practices
in the livestock and meat sector would be to the advantage of U.S.
producers. No reasonable person would suggest that the definition of
perishable and cyclical agricultural products would fail to cover
livestock and meat production.
TPA also calls for improving import relief mechanisms to recognize
the special characteristics of perishable and cyclical products, which
would include livestock and meat. Such improvements to import relief
mechanisms could include faster and more effective time frames for
imposing import relief measures as well as improved means of
determining industry support in import relief investigations. Along the
same lines, TPA provides that U.S. import relief measures for
perishable and cyclical agricultural products should be as accessible
and timely as those of other countries.
TPA also states that the U.S. Trade Representatives, prior to
commencing negotiations concerning agriculture, shall work to develop a
position on perishable and seasonal products that will lead to an
international consensus on the treatment of these products in dumping
and safeguard investigations ``and in any other relevant areas.'' I
understand that livestock and meat production would be included in
these negotiations as they are clearly covered under the definition of
perishable and cyclical agricultural products.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their comments
and I agree completely with them that the definition of perishable and
cyclical agricultural products includes livestock and meat production.
It is clear to me that there can be no other reading of the legislation
and I believe that our colleagues intended for these products to be
covered. We expect our negotiators, to include these products under
these provisions.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I also agree with my colleagues, views on
this important issue. The intention of the members on this matter is
clear: The definition of perishable and cyclical agricultural products
includes livestock and meat production.
Enforcement of Proper Labeling of Basa Fish
Mrs. LINCOLN. Every authorization of fast-track authority since the
Trade Act of 1974 has been accompanied by a strong confirmation of
Congressional
[[Page S4801]]
intent that U.S. law will be vigorously enforced to ensure that the
increased trade enabled by agreements reached under the negotiating
authority is fair.
This year, Congress has responded to a failure to enforce existing
law by twice enacting provisions to ensure that imported species of
fish are not illegally passed off in the U.S. market as ``catfish.''
The Food and Drug Administration has consistently authorized only North
American Freshwater Catfish to be marketed as ``catfish'' in the United
States, a practice that has existed commercially for over thirty years.
U.S. law now prevents other species from using the term catfish in
labeling or advertising. Let me be clear, the vast majority of this
imported species of fish has never, and I repeat, never, reached
American consumers under any legal name. It has reached the consumer in
significant quantities only being misbranded as ``catfish.''
Congress most recently addressed this illegal misbranding in the farm
bill, known officially as the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002, which was signed by the president last week. The fraud of
misbranding seafood is referred to as ``economic adulteration.'' Under
U.S. law, economic adulteration is illegal at every level of commerce.
Misbranding at the time of importation, or changing a legal name after
importation, is a violation of U.S. law. These laws have simply not
been enforced. The relevant provision in the 2002 farm bill now makes
it clear that false labeling or advertising of another species of fish
as ``catfish'' is illegal. There is also an original provision in the
2002 farm bill that applies to seafood, including the species that have
been misbranded as ``catfish.'' These provisions of law are a clear
expression of congressional intent that applicable law must be
vigorously enforced.
This is a necessary condition to the success of open trade.
I would like to confirm that in granting Trade Promotion Authority
for trade agreements, Congress intends that: Government agencies with
relevant enforcement authority will exercise their authority sua sponte
to prevent the illegal practices that have plagued our catfish
industry; effective enforcement action will be undertaken at all levels
of trade to prevent the economic adulteration that has adversely
affected U.S. catfish farmers and the consuming public; and enforcement
action will include addressing violations of law with respect to
misbranding and other improper labeling, Customs marks of origin,
including misbranding that indirectly indicates a false origin, false
or misleading representations in advertising and other practices.
We recognize that problems occur when our markets are open. However,
our enforcement authorities must address those problems quickly and
effectively in order to ensure that the increased competition from
imports into our market is on fair terms. It is only fair competition
that provides the benefits we seek for our economy, and that helps our
producers remain internationally competitive.
Mr. BAUCUS. I can confirm the Senator's understanding, and I would
like to express my personal support with respect to preventing the
unfair practices that have threatened our U.S. catfish industry. Our
clear intent is that U.S. law be fully enforced, not only as it
concerns our catfish farmers but all U.S. producers, to ensure that
trade is fair.
Certification of Trade-Affected Industries
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to talk with
Senator Grassley about the trade adjustment assistance bill and the
important amendments that have been offered by Senators Bayh and
Edwards.
These amendments would provide automatic certification for trade-
affected industries. I believe that the Secretary of Labor already has
the discretion to certify particular industries under the TAA program.
And I believe that she would have the discretion under the TAA bill we
are now considering.
Mr. GRASSLEY. As the Senator knows, I support the trade adjustment
assistance program, and recognize that--beyond some individual
companies and workers--there are also particular industries that face
dislocation as a result of trade. The recent finding by the
International Trade Commission regarding the steel industry further
emphasizes this point. In that vein, there appears to be a need for
further coordination between ITC determinations and Federal assistance
given to workers impacted by trade.
Mr. BAUCUS. This is an important issue. As a Senator Edwards has
spoken about many times, the textile industry has been adversely
affected by increased imports and by companies shifting production
overseas.
And the steel industry, as Senator Bayh has emphasized, suffers from
a flood of unfairly trade imports. Indeed, many steel products are
covered by the President's recent decision to impose restrictions under
our safeguard laws.
So in this case, the ITC has already made a finding of trade-related
injury. I would encourage the Secretary of Labor to expeditiously
implement procedures regarding industry-wide certification.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I agree there needs to be a stronger tie between ITC
findings and worker assistance--specifically Trade Adjustment
Assistance. It is my understanding that the ITC is currently required
to notify the Secretary of Labor of any affirmative injury
determination, and that the Secretary must give expedited consideration
to petitions for TAA certification by workers in the domestic industry.
Mr. BAUCUS. In closing, let me add that I appreciate the help of you
and your staff in working to reach a bipartisan compromise on this
package. I hope we can continue to move together in a bipartisan
fashion.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I am also pleased that we were able to come to
agreement on a bipartisan trade package. It was the right thing to do
for our nation's farmers, workers, and companies.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of an amendment
which recognizes the importance of the automotive industry to the U.S.
economy and to our international trade agreements. The auto industry is
a cornerstone of the U.S. economy, directly or indirectly supporting
one out of every 15 jobs in America. Auto manufacturing and related
industries account for 6.5 million jobs nationwide, nearly a quarter
million of which are in my home state of Ohio. Ohio boasts the 2nd
highest auto industry employment in the country, and that industry
represents $22.6 billion in wages and benefits for Ohioans.
Furthermore, the production assembly line that characterizes the modern
automobile industry was invented in the American Midwest and is now
used in factories across the globe.
Currently, the U.S. automotive market is the most open and
competitive in the world. Our allies in Europe and our trading partners
in developing nations alike have free access to American markets and
consumers. Unfortunately, that is not true for American auto
manufacturers. United States companies face significant pre-meditated
trade barriers in the same countries that enjoy free trade and exports
to the United States. In fact, the automotive industry trade deficit
has accounted for one-third of the total U.S. trade deficit since 1992.
These results do not represent the intent or spirit of the free trade
agreements signed in recent years, such as NAFTA and GATT, and the time
has come to remove the barriers to free and open trade for American
automobile manufacturers.
I know firsthand how difficult it is to open trade for American auto
manufacturers. I vividly recall the free trade mission that I led in
1997 to South Korea. I spent two days with top government leaders and
private sector groups urging them to open their markets to non-Korean
made automobiles. Quite frankly, although they listened, I felt I was
talking to a brick wall and received absolutely no satisfaction
whatsoever. On the contrary, the Korean officials were proud to report
that their imports doubled yet the actual number of those imports was a
mere fraction of Korea's total auto sales.
That was 1997 and today--May 22, 2002--5 years later there has been
no progress since I visited. Mr. President, I would have hoped that
things would have improved. Last year, South Korea exported more than
1.5 million vehicles to the world, while importing only 7,747. Also
last year, South Korea exported more than 618,000 vehicles to the U.S.,
while importing a mere 2,854 from
[[Page S4802]]
the U.S. In fact, South Korea sells more cars in the U.S. per day than
U.S. manufacturers sell in South Korea all year.
In addition to unfair trade regulations, the Korean authorities use
another barrier to prevent their citizens from buying American cars:
intimidation. According to auto industry sources, Koreans caught
driving American-made cars can anticipate such punitive measures as
getting pulled over by the police, being subject to more parking
violations, and even experiencing more frequent and severe tax audits
than their neighbors who drive Korean-made automobiles. Why would any
Korean citizen choose to drive an American vehicle when faced with
consequences like these?
Currently, the Baucus-Grassley TPA bill includes 14 major objectives
for U.S. trade negotiators. The first of these objectives is to expand
competitive market opportunities for U.S. exports in foreign markets by
reducing or eliminating tariff and nontariff barriers that prevent U.S.
goods from entering these markets. Our amendment states that as trade
agreements are negotiated in the future, U.S. trade negotiators should
specifically aim to open up export markets for U.S. automakers and
vehicle parts manufacturers.
Opening up export markets for U.S. automakers and parts manufacturers
is critical, because in the future, the majority of growth in these
industries will not be in the U.S., but in the developing nations of
Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. Our amendment will tell trade
negotiators that they need to make sure that U.S. automakers are in a
position to compete fairly in these high-growth markets.
Today, sales of new passenger vehicles account for nearly 4 percent
of total U.S. GDP. Clearly, the automotive industry is important to the
economic growth and stability of our economy and we must take action to
protect and strengthen an industry so vital to our nation.
Our amendment will make a difference for American manufacturers,
consumers and our economy as a whole. Without it, one of America's most
important manufacturing industries could soon take second place to
foreign competitors. Opening new markets for our products helps create
jobs and stimulate our economy, both of which are especially important
as we seek to move out of recession. I urge my colleagues to join in
this growth and vote for this amendment.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the trade
promotion authority bill.
I am glad that we are finally debating this legislation. For years,
the Senate has given lip service to the need for TPA. It's about time
we got down to it.
I believe in free and fair trade, and I believe that TPA is crucial
to our nation's economic future, and it has the potential to benefit
the United States greatly. Trade creates better jobs. It creates
economic opportunity. And while some people see free trade as a zero-
sum game where there are winners and losers, they're wrong. Healthy
trade makes winners out of everyone and enables nations to make the
best use of their resources. Strong, vibrant trade provides a rising
tide that lifts all boats.
We understand this in Kentucky. Last year, we sold over 48.8 billion
worth of exports in more than 100 nations abroad. This includes over $1
billion in agricultural products. Mr. President, this provided a real
and meaningful boost to our local economy.
Best of all, countries that trade together do not fight and are less
likely to work against each other. Instead, trade helps bring nations
together in working toward a common goal of mutual economic benefit
instead of armed conflict. In the wake of September 11th, this is more
important than ever.
The United States needs Trade Promotion Authority. It expired almost
eight years ago, and our trade policy has been adrift since them. If
America is going to continue as the world's economic superpower, and to
remain fully engaged in the international marketplace, we need to give
President Bush the ability to effectively negotiate trade agreements
with other nations.
Currently, the United States only has three preferential trade
compacts; the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and
Mexico; a free trade agreement with Israel; and, our trade agreement
with Jordan. But in recent years our trading partners around the world
have at last count entered into almost 150 preferential trade compacts.
These are missed opportunities for us. Other nations are talking and
negotiating. They are enacting treaties to help their economies and
their peoples. But, we are being left behind.
Passing a good, clean TPA bill would give us a chance at getting in
on the action. It would lead to better paying jobs for our workers, and
give them the opportunity to prove once again that they are the best
and most productive in the entire world. Only by passing TPA and
entering into new and better compacts will we be able to knock down
discriminatory, unfair trade barriers and to increase the flow of goods
and services we can sell abroad.
If we want a seat at the negotiating table. If we want to offer more
economic opportunity to American workers, we have to pass TPA. If we
don't, we will literally be missing the boat.
Until we pass TPA, other nations are going to be very hesitant about
entering into compacts with us. No other country is going to want to
negotiate with a President who then has to submit a treaty to a
Congress which has the power to nitpick every single line of an
agreement to death. Trade treaties are complex, interwoven agreements.
Each individual bit is not perfect. But taken together as a whole, they
typically promote our national interest.
I am sure that if every Member of Congress has their way, they would
rewrite line by line provisions in each of the major treaties we have
passed in recent years. That sort of politicking might play well to
individual constituencies back home, but it doesn't serve the larger
economic interest of America.
To my colleagues who don't like TPA and think that it is an unwise
delegation of congressional authority, I have to disagree with them.
Passing this bill still gives every single member of Congress the right
to support or oppose a treaty they don't like. Under TPA, I have voted
for treaties I like, and against treaties I don't like. It might not be
the perfect way to legislate, but it is effective and fair.
Every President since Gerald Ford has had TPA. I supported TPA--or
``fast track'' or whatever you want to call it--for President Reagan. I
supported it for the last President Bush. I supported it for President
Clinton. And I support if for our current President. I voted for it the
last time I had the opportunity, in 1998 when it came to the floor and
lost in the other body.
And I support TPA now.
Like I said before, TPA is not perfect, but it's effective. And the
bill in front of us today is not perfect.
I have supported amendments to help steel workers and textile workers
that failed on the floor. I wish they hadn't. In Kentucky, we have a
good steel industry, and I want to nourish it along. It's been hard hit
in the last few years by the dumping in the United States of cheap
foreign steel that has unfairly and illegally cut the legs out from
under our domestic producers.
In south-central Kentucky, many of my constituents who used to work
in the textile mills have been left high and dry when companies moved
abroad in the wake of NAFTA, by the way an agreement that I opposed
under the old fast-track rules.
I would like to do more in this bill for them. Workers in those
industries need our help. They show that all trade agreements aren't
perfect.
We are at least including some meaningful trade adjustment assistance
in the package to help those who are forced to transition to different
jobs because of trade. Expanded trade usually leads to better jobs for
workers. But they often need smart, effective assistance to make the
change to new occupations. I support trade adjustment assistance to
help them. The last time Congress considered TAA provisions was in 1998
when the other body looked at this issue. I was a member then, and I
voted for $1 billion in trade adjustment assistance for dislocated
workers. Fortunately, this type of assistance often helps workers move
more quickly back into the workforce.
I support the training and education provisions in this legislation.
They will help. Will they be enough? I don't know.
As for the rest of the TAA package, I believe there are some problems
with
[[Page S4803]]
the structuring of the new health and wage benefits that I would like
to see cleaned up in conference.
After years of budget surpluses, we are back to looking square in the
face of a budget deficit in 2002 and beyond. Now the pending
legislation proposes to add potentially billions in new entitlement
spending to the deficit each year. A budget crunch is not the time to
guarantee new entitlements no matter how well intentioned they are.
By passing this legislation before us now, we would be cutting off
our nose to spite our face, encouraging free trade and more economic
activity on the one hand, and growing the federal budget deficit by
leaps and bounds on the other hand. That doesn't make economic sense,
and that sort of contradiction would eventually catch up to us and lead
to even bigger problems.
Also, if you read the fine print of the health and wage sections, I
think you will find that it is so complicated that it might not even
work. I am afraid that it might offer a false promise of assistance to
workers who need help the most.
For instance, the wage supplemental provision would require the
federal government to pay up to $5,000 for up to two years to workers
over 50 years old if they lose their jobs due to trade activity and
they take a lower paying job.
I am afraid that this proposal would actually discourage workers from
taking similar paying or higher paying jobs. It just doesn't make sense
to me to encourage people not to work. Instead of this approach, it
would help more if we ploughed this money back into education and
retraining.
Everyone knows the old saying about providing a man a fish so he can
eat today or teaching him how to fish so he can feed himself forever. I
think that applies here.
We also have to ask how well will these new entitlements be managed
and who will do it. Who's going to be in charge of determining whether
or not a worker lost their job because of trade? What agency is going
to manage the nuts and bolts of this potentially gigantic program? How
will the IRS respond to the administration if another health tax credit
is being dumped on its plate? There are just too many unanswered
questions.
In the end, I am afraid we might not be able to keep many of the
promises my colleagues want to make under the Trade Adjustment
Assistance section. For many workers who are struggling now, that would
be the cruelest thing we could do to them.
The TAA provisions still pose many unanswered questions, and I hope
that we will first focus on the areas that have worked before--job
training and education--before going off into new entitlement programs
that might not really work and actually serve to undermine the larger
goals of the overall legislation.
In conclusion, this isn't a perfect bill. I, like all of my
colleagues, would write it differently. But is a good effort on an
important subject that America must address if we are going to secure
our economic future. As I noted earlier, it's been four years since
either body voted on TPA, and the failure of the House to pass a bill
in 1998 has led to years of delay. We cannot let that happen again. We
have to vote to pass this bill.
I am not willing to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and I
urge support for the legislation.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Dayton-
Craig amendment. This amendment reduces Trade Promotion Authority to
something that exists in name only. With all due respect to the
sponsors of this amendment, it is a backdoor attempt to gut this bill
and still allow people to say they voted for free trade. It would have
a chilling effect on international trade negotiations.
Supporters of the Dayton-Craig amendment claim that unless you
support their amendment then you do not support upholding U.S. trade
laws. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I stand before you as a strong free trader who is a proponent of
vigorous enforcement of our country's trade laws. I supported NAFTA and
GATT as Governor and PNTR for China as a Senator. I've seen Ohio
benefit from NAFTA with a net increase of approximately 55,000 jobs and
I've seen it also lose out as a result of our President not having
Trade Promotion Authority.
At the same time, no one cares more about making sure our trade laws
are followed. Ohio has lost tens of thousands of steelworker jobs as a
result of foreign steel dumping, which led me to urge the President to
use Section 201 authority to help provide relief to our nation's steel
industry. He did so and our steel industry now has a breather to
reconstitute itself and regain its competitive footing.
I also have been a committed advocate of strengthening enforcement of
our trade laws by addressing the human capital needs in the Commerce
Department's international trade divisions. I recently held a hearing
in which I pushed Undersecretary for International Trade Grant Aldonis
on the need to address these very concerns.
In little more than a year in office this Administration has already
demonstrated its commitment to U.S trade laws. In a letter to Congress
this week, Commerce Secretary Don Evans, Agriculture Secretary Ann
Veneman and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick point out:
We have been committed not just to preserving U.S. trade
laws, but more importantly, to using them. The Administration
initiated an historic Section 201 investigation that led to
the imposition of wide-ranging safeguards for the steel
industry. The Administration's willingness to enforce
vigorously our trade laws, in Canadian lumber and other
cases, sends the clearest signal of our interest in defending
these laws in the WTO.
Our trade laws are part of the overall trade equation that enhances
American competitiveness by helping to guarantee new access to world
markets. They require the approval of Congress before any changes are
made. To buy the argument that opposition to this amendment equates to
relinquishing control of our trade laws is to believe that Congress is
simply going to give up its legislative duty to the executive branch.
That is not going to happen. The argument is simply groundless and
without merit.
Additionally, logic dictates that no trade negotiator is going to
agree to something which will automatically be rejected by Congress.
The congressional observers guarantee that Congress is aware of what is
being negotiated as it is happening. Congress has the final say in
approving trade deals with its final vote and if I am confident of
anything it is that this body is willing to hold up any and all
legislation that gives a member even the most minor case of heartburn.
Trade Promotion Authority does not equate to gutting our trade laws.
This Administration has already proven itself to be a strong defender
of our trade laws and, regardless, Congress has the final say over
legislation, not the executive branch.
Furthermore, this amendment should be opposed because of the chilling
effect it will have on the negotiating process. Sufficient safeguards
already exist in the TPA legislation to guarantee the legitimate and
constitutional role of Congress as the final guardian of trade law.
This amendment goes beyond that, however, with limits which would
essentially allow additional and superfluous votes to hold hostage
international trade negotiations.
As a manager, I would never assign a task to someone without also
empowering them with the tools and authority to get the job done.
Dayton-Craig takes those tools away. Its effect wouldn't be felt
somewhere down the road, it would have an impact now, today. The very
fact that this amendment has been offered has had an impact already on
our trading partners, I am sure.
Again, Ambassador Zoellick writes that:
The rest of the world will determine that the U.S. Congress
has ruled out even discussion of a major topic. Other
countries will refuse to discuss their own sensitive
subjects, unraveling the entire trade negotiation to the
detriment of U.S. workers, farmers and consumers.
Without the ability to engage our trading partners effectively on
their own trade laws, we cannot hope to see other countries raise their
laws to U.S. standards. Our country's exports are frequently targeted
by foreign trade interests for action. Between 1995 and 2000, our
exports were targeted for action in foreign countries 81 times. Other
governments do not necessarily
[[Page S4804]]
share our commitment to fair and open procedures, such as those
conducted by our International Trade Commission.
To prevent unfair trade actions against our exporters, we must have
the leverage to engage them constructively. This amendment strips us of
that ability, which is one reason 79 agricultural groups urge us to
reject the Dayton-Craig amendment.
If anyone is opposed to free trade, I urge them to vote their
conscience. While I disagree with them, I respect their position, but
don't pretend to be for free trade and then call for an amendment which
guts the ability of our President to negotiate the agreements that make
free trade a reality.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, it had been my hope that the Senate would
vote today on my amendment to the Baucus substitute amendment No. 3401
to the trade bill, H.R. 3009. Sadly, that will not be the case because
of procedural roadblocks that foreshadow the kinds of obstacles that
passage of the underlying bill will raise when we consider future trade
agreements in the Senate.
My amendment is about fairness for secondary workers who I believe
are being treated unfairly. This is why I voted against cloture for the
underlying substitute, and one of the reasons why I will vote against
the bill on final passage.
Nonetheless, I want to take a few moments to point out the plight of
secondary workers, and urge my colleagues to pay close attention to the
issue as it continues to develop after we pass this bill later today.
Several things have been said on the Senate floor about trade
adjustment assistance, TAA, and secondary workers during the length of
this discourse on trade, and I think it is important to go back and
highlight some of them and reiterate what the truth is in this debate.
Most importantly, I think it is imperative that we realize that
however many jobs we may create through export-related activities, we
may lose many more due to the impact of imports. The choice before us
is, how do we treat those workers adversely impacted by trade
agreements in the future? Is it not fair to try to change the rules
governing our trade policy to make a more fair and equitable
distribution of benefits to those harmed?
If my colleagues believe that is the case for some workers, as
demonstrated by the support for TAA in NAFTA and the reauthorization of
the program in the legislation before us, then it should be the case
for all workers. It continues that this should mean that TAA is
available for a particular worker whether they are employed by a
factory that is directly shut down by trade, or if they work for a
company that supplied parts to that first factory, only if that
particular worker has become unemployed due to the effects of trade.
I mentioned in my earlier remarks that the TAA Program has been a
successful one since its inception, and I want to reiterate that. In
fact, since April 1975 through December 2001, almost 3 million workers
were certified as TAA eligible. However, almost 2.5 million workers
were also denied certification. This demonstrates the demand for this
important program, but also reflects the fact that it is a difficult
process--something that would not be altered should we allow secondary
workers to be a part of it.
Another point I would like to reiterate from my earlier remarks is
the fact that since the ratification of NAFTA, TAA has applied to
secondary workers that lose their jobs as a result of the NAFTA trade
agreement. In fact, a total of almost 700,000 workers applied for
NAFTA-TAA certification from January 1994 through December 2001, and
over 400,000 were granted certification.
Although the exact numbers of how many of those beneficiaries were
secondary workers are unknown, the fact remains that they have the
right to apply for eligibility. Unfortunately, under the pending bill,
secondary workers whose jobs have been lost due to a possible trade
agreement with Chile, or Singapore, or any other country, will not be
eligible to even apply for certification under TAA.
Now let me relay some facts about secondary workers and TAA. A GAO
report from October 2000 estimated that there could be from 34,000 to
211,000 secondary workers annually who could potentially apply for TAA
benefits. This reflects the depth and reach of trade's effects on the
livelihoods of American workers.
Another GAO report from July 2001 showed that $494 million was
expended on re-training for about 170,000 workers under TAA. This
breaks down to less than $3,000 per worker. I think many would agree
that is a small sum comparatively speaking, particularly when one
considers the amount of training or schooling an individual can gain
from that amount of money.
It is precisely these kinds of workers that so need this type of
investment in training and schooling. The GAO reports I earlier
referenced cited the fact that about 80 percent of workers using TAA
benefits in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 had a high school education or
less, compared to 42 percent in the labor force as a whole.
In other words, this is a modest increase in funds for TAA benefits
that will go a long way toward a worker's developments of new skills,
and reentry into the workforce to be a productive citizen once again.
It is not an excuse to claim that the Department of Labor does not
have adequate resources and staffing to deal with an expansion of the
TAA Program to secondary workers. First of all, the Department has the
experience in dealing with this issue, since it already decides on
certification for secondary workers under NAFTA. Second, I believe we
have a responsibility to add funding for the Department of Labor in
order for it to be able to deal with a potentially larger increase in
its workload.
This issue is part of our choice here--do we discount these workers
who have added to the economy, who pay taxes, and who provide for their
family, just because they do not happen to be directly employed by a
particular firm that was shut down by trade? Again, this is unfair
treatment to a segment of our population that deserves our help.
I thank the Chair.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to join the debate over trade
promotion authority legislation before the Senate.
I am in my 10th year as a member of the U.S. Senate and I have
consistently voted for measures to open new markets to our exporters
and our workers.
Today, I will vote for trade promotion authority, or TPA. New export
opportunities for Washington State will support economic recovery and
expansion.
Washington State is the most trade-dependent State in the country.
International trade matters tremendously to each and every region of my
State and to every sector of our economy. Trade matters to my State in
good and bad economic times. We are an export State. We have a trade
surplus. We are also a port State and gateway to Asia and the world.
My constituents benefit from trade at every point. We grow the
commodities. We move containers and cargo from ships to rail to
destinations throughout the country. We manufacture, build, design,
develop, finance and insure goods and services traded globally each and
every day. Trade jobs--estimated to be one in three jobs in Washington
State--are good family wage jobs in my State.
Importantly, this legislation also significantly expands trade
adjustment assistance. I have always supported trade adjustment
assistance. I commend the Finance Committee, the Democratic leader and
the bipartisan work which led to the expanded TAA package in this
legislation.
I was a cosponsor of S. 1209, the Trade Adjustment Assistance for
Workers, Farmers, Fisherman, Communities and Firms Act of 2002. The TAA
language in this legislation is really a product of S. 1209 and the
bipartisan work of many in the Senate to expand TAA.
More workers will be eligible for trade adjustment assistance. Some
workers from secondary industries will be covered for the first time
under the Senate TPA bill.
The Senate legislation provides community assistance, particularly to
rural communities, who see significant job loss related to trade.
Communities will have the opportunity to seek grant assistance to
implement economic diversification plans.
Farmers and fishermen will also be eligible for TAA assistance.
[[Page S4805]]
Importantly, the Senate bill provides new health benefits to
displaced workers. A new 70 percent up-front, refundable tax credit for
COBRA coverage will enable many workers and their families to keep
their health insurance.
The Senate has considered a number of important amendments and issues
in this debate over trade promotion authority. I voted for a number of
important message amendments. I encourage the administration as it
eventually moves forward with trade talks to give serious consideration
to the expressed will of the Senate.
I expect a significant bipartisan vote for trade promotion authority
today. Then the legislation must go to conference with legislation
adopted by the House of Representatives. The House TPA bill is very
different from the Senate bill. Conference committees require
compromise, and I anticipate changes to the Senate-passed version.
Regardless of the conference committee outcome, the administration
should not disregard the Senate TPA debate. The Senate addressed some
very difficult issues. In future trade talks, the administration will
be called upon to address issues like those raised on the Senate floor.
Some in this body will judge trade agreements submitted to the Congress
on these issues. The administration now knows a great deal about the
concerns of the Congress. There will be fewer surprises for either the
Congress or the administration as the future negotiations occur thanks
in part to the Senate debate.
I want to be very clear about my expectations for the upcoming TPA
conference committee. I strongly believe any agreement between the
House and the Senate must include the Senate trade adjustment
assistance package.
It is tremendously important to me that we do all we can to boost
jobs and create jobs that rely on international trade. Expanded trade
is a recipe for economic growth in Washington State. That is why I will
vote for trade promotion authority and advocate for my State's many
trade interests with the President and this administration.
At the same time, I know that every worker, every industry, every
community does not share the benefits of expanded trade equally. Where
dislocation and hardship occurs, as a result of international trade,
our government should play an activist role in helping workers and
communities through these changing and challenging economic times.
The Congress has an opportunity to do both on this legislation. We
can move forward to create and protect trade jobs. And we can do the
right thing in helping workers and communities combat unfair foreign
trade practices and the changes in the global economy.
TPA, or fast track, has been granted to every administration since
President Gerald Ford was in office. Congress has granted this
authority to Democratic and Republican Presidents. Granting this
authority which I will support does not obligate any Senator to support
an agreement. And I will certainly scrutinize any agreement submitted
to the Congress by the President under TPA.
My vote for trade promotion authority is a vote to open markets to
U.S. exporters and their workers. It is a vote for equitable and
reciprocal access to foreign markets. The U.S. marketplace is the
world's largest market, and our market is open with few restrictions to
the world. I want to see the President go abroad on behalf of the
American people with the goal of opening markets and supporting U.S.
workers.
My vote for trade promotion authority is a call on the President and
the administration to strengthen the international trade system and
particularly, to strengthen the dispute settlement process for trade
disputes. The Senate legislation contains important transparency
guidance to the administration calling for public access to WTO and
other international trade proceedings.
My vote for trade promotion authority represents my continued belief
that environmental protection and worker rights are legitimate trade
issues. These issues must be included in trade negotiations if the
Congress is to continue to have bipartisan support for international
trade initiatives.
The Senate legislation contains a number of negotiating objectives of
great importance to Washington. The legislation directs U.S.
negotiators to seek a revision of WTO rules that disadvantage the U.S.
in tax cases like foreign sales corporations which benefit U.S.
exporters. Additionally, the Senate bill provides guidance to the
administration in a number of important Washington state industries
like agriculture and high-technology.
Of great importance to me and to Washington State is the Senate
language on trade in commercial aircraft. This legislation directs U.S.
negotiators to address the use of unfair subsidies and non-tariff
barriers by Airbus. I continue to believe Airbus manipulates the
commercial aircraft market through subsidies and an assortment of non-
competitive practices. I have met with the U.S. Trade Representative
regarding Airbus. I fully support the language in this bill to address
unfair trade practices in commercial aircraft.
I will vote for passage for this legislation, and I encourage my
colleagues to send a strong message of support for trade and economic
expansion.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong
concerns about the trade difficulties suffered by our Nation's
asparagus growers, and to discuss an important amendment I attempted to
offer to the trade bill. Unfortunately, my amendment was blocked by
some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
I know that in many respects global trade holds great promise for
agriculture by opening new markets and building new demand for the
bountiful, nutritious food and fiber that is grown in America. But,
some commodities have been harmed by past trade agreements. That is an
important fact that should have been acknowledged and addressed during
the Senate's debate on trade agreements.
Under preferential treatment provided through the Andean Trade
Preferences Act (ATPA), Andean countries, like Peru, have been shipping
duty-free asparagus to the United States since 1992. The asparagus
market is extremely sensitive to these imports. Many of the growers in
my state forecast an end to domestic asparagus production if something
is not done soon to help. Last year alone, growers in Michigan lost
$2.9 million due to competing duty free asparagus imported from Peru.
I support the goal of the ATPA B to encourage economic growth in
Andean nations as an alternative to the production and export of
illegal, narcotic drugs to the United States B but not at the expense
of the entire domestic asparagus industry. Since enactment of ATPA,
shipments of fresh asparagus from one Andean nation, Peru, have
increased from 14.5 percent of total imports to 41.3 percent. Since
1992, shipments of frozen asparagus from Peru have increased from 3
percent of total imports to 71.4 percent.
I authored an amendment that would have helped to resolve this trade
situation and that would have provided some relief to domestic
asparagus growers. My amendment was cosponsored by Senators Levin,
Murray, Cantwell, Boxer, and Feinstein.
The amendment would have allowed preferential treatment of Andean
asparagus up to a certain point and then established a safeguard for
domestic growers. In sum, my amendment allowed Andean imports of duty
free asparagus up to 30 percent of the total imports of asparagus into
the U.S. per year. Once the 30 percent threshold was met, duty free
treatment would be suspended for the remainder of the calendar year.
This was a reasonable solution that would have helped both our
nation's asparagus growers and would have allowed imported Andean
asparagus to compete on a level playing field. It is unfortunate that
this amendment was not included in the trade bill. I intend to continue
to work on this issue and consider other programs, such as market loss
payments, that may provide some relief to the asparagus growers in my
state and across the nation.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of final passage of
this trade legislation. But I do so with the understanding and the hope
that a number of items in the bill now before us will, in the coming
weeks, be adequately addressed in conference with the House. I
therefore voice my support, but not unconditionally.
The first element of this legislation, which frankly should have been
passed
[[Page S4806]]
separately earlier this year on the basis of its nearly unanimous
support, is the extension and expansion of the Andean Trade Preference
Act (ATPA).
The Andean Trade Preference Act was conceived a decade ago as part of
a mutual effort between the United States and the Andean countries to
strengthen our economies, which in turn, would help us in the war
against drugs. In 10 years of existence, ATPA has become an essential
tool for the commercial interchange between the United States and the
Andean region. Approximately 140,000 new jobs have been created in the
Andean region over this time period, and the steady flow of investment
has helped to double two way trade between the United States and the
region. Furthermore, great strides have been made in the war against
drugs; important drug cartels were disbanded, and hundreds of cocaine
labs were destroyed.
Today, the Andean region faces a very critical moment. ATPA is
essential to guarantee sustainability of the achievements we have made
over the last decade, and to encourage further progress toward the
shared goal of negotiating the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).
I am very pleased that the Senate will act, albeit late, to extend this
critical trade act.
Before I dwell on the concerns I have with trade-promotion authority
portion of this bill, let me first speak to its strengths. Since trade-
promotion authority lapsed in 1994, America has stood on the sidelines
while other countries have brokered trade agreements that benefit their
workers, their businesses, and their economies. Soon after taking
office, President Bush called on Congress to grant him trade-promotion
authority to reassert America's leadership in promoting U.S. goods and
the expertise of our workforce to more markets. The need for expanded
markets dramatically intensified after our nation's economy underwent a
decline last March, and the events of September 11th forced so many
Americans out of their jobs.
Trade-promotion authority provides the President with the flexibility
he needs to negotiate strong international trade agreements on behalf
of U.S. workers and farmers while maintaining Congress' constitutional
role over U.S. trade policy. It represents a thoughtful approach to
addressing the complex relationship between international trade, worker
rights, and the environment without undermining the fundamental purpose
and proven effectiveness of trade-promotion authority procedures. The
bill before us will help us to achieve this goal. It not only sends a
message that we are serious about the principle of open markets, but it
will be a powerful example, to nations around the world, of what trade-
promotion authority can deliver: economic prosperity on a grand scale.
Specifically, it gives the administration the authority to negotiate
and bring back trade agreements to Congress that will reduce trade
barriers, especially those based on unsound science, relating to the
manufacturing, services, agriculture, intellectual property,
investment, and e-commerce industries. It helps to eliminate subsidies
that decrease market opportunities for U.S. agriculture, and unfairly
distort markets to the detriment of the United States. It preserves
U.S. sovereignty while enabling new trade agreements that will create
solid economic growth, higher-paying jobs for hard-working Americans,
improved efficiency and innovation, and increased availability of
attractively priced products in the U.S. market.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representatives is similarly directed to
vigorously enforce U.S. trade-remedy laws and avoid agreements which
lessen the effectiveness of U.S. antidumping or countervailing duty
laws. This bill contains negotiating objectives on investment to
increase transparency for the dispute settlement process, calling for
standards for expropriation and compensation that are consistent with
United States legal principles and practice in an effort to eliminate
frivolous claims. Perhaps most importantly, it expands and improves
consultations between the administration and Congress, before, during,
and after trade negotiations and in the development of an implementing
bill.
Also included in this legislation is language I authored to suspend
for a period of five years the 4.9 percent tariff on steam generators
for nuclear facilities. These generators are not manufactured in the
United States. Tariffs should never be imposed on products that are not
domestically manufactured, especially those products that are critical
for maintaining the U.S. domestic supply of energy.
This tariff amounts to a ``tax'' of approximately $1.5 million per
generator on consumers of electricity in those states where utilities
will have to import from overseas to meet the immediate need to replace
aging steam generators, which cost would be passed on to ratepayers. In
the case of the Palo Verde, Arizona plant--the nation's largest nuclear
power facility in terms of production--the additional cost, due to the
tariff, is over $8.2 million for the six generators that it will need
to import.
Failure to suspend this tariff will unfairly result in higher energy
prices for consumers, as the utility companies will almost certainly
pass on this tax to its customers.
This bill also includes the Kyl Customs Border Security Act
amendment, added unanimously by the Senate Finance Committee in
December 2001, which will provide significant authority to help
facilitate legitimate trade, reduce illegal drug and contraband
trafficking and eliminate threats of terrorism.
The Kyl amendment authorizes funding to increase the very tools by
which the Customs Service facilities cross-border trade, and fights
terrorism and narcotics trafficking. Under the amendments, Customs on
the Southwest border will receive funding for high-technology
equipment, including container inspection equipment, automated
targeting systems and surveillance systems, all of which will help to
stop terrorism and illegal drug trafficking. The northern border is
also authorized to receive similar valuable equipment, as are out Gulf
Coast seaports.
The Kyl amendment also mandates that cargo and passenger manifests be
provided in advance to Customs, whether such cargo or passengers enter
by land, air or sea. I have learned that this provision is Commissioner
Bonner's number one anti-terrorism legislative priority. Advanced
electronic manifest data delivered to Customs is absolutely necessary
for the agency to identify individuals and cargo that should not enter
the United States. The amendment also authorizes funding for personnel,
technology and for Customs' new computer system, ACE, Automated
Commercial Environment, to bring the agency's tracking of business and
their goods entering the country into the 21st century.
Under the Kyl amendment, the U.S. Customs Service itself, for the
first time in over a decade, will also be reauthorized. As our nation's
oldest law enforcement agency, this is particularly important.
Finally, the Kyl amendment will close longstanding outbound smuggling
threats by clarifying that the Customs Service is authorized to search
outbound international mail. I strongly believe that this section of
the amendment is integral to our efforts to combat money laundering,
technology export violations, and terrorist funding crimes.
Currently, inbound mail, and most everything else leaving the
country--cargo containers, luggage, boxes, individual persons--and
stamped mail on a person--is searchable by the Customs Service. The
Customs Service is only precluded from searching outbound mail.
Smugglers may send drugs, finance terrorism, or send explosives on
aircraft by simply mailing their contraband or money out of the
country. My amendment, added to the trade adjustment assistance bill
during that bill's consideration in the Finance Committee, would
authorize the search of all first class mail by Customs, as long as the
Customs Service has reasonable suspicion about such mail. The amendment
also clarifies, through codification, that all mail besides that
considered first-class--referred to as ``mail not sealed against
inspection--can be searched without reasonable suspicion. Under this
provision, none of the mail that is allowed to be searched is allowed
to be read without a warrant.
During floor consideration of this trade package, Senator Jon Corzine
[[Page S4807]]
raised objections to the outbound mail provision. Although I fully
support the original outbound mail provision, and will support such
provision in conference, I appreciate the efforts of Senator Corzine
and his staff to work with me and my staff toward resolution in this
particular debate. Substitute language has been accepted by the Senate,
to replace my original language, that would exempt first-class mail
with a weight of under 16 ounces from the reasonable search authority
that we are attempting to authorize for the Customs Service. In
addition, under this new language, a requirement has been placed
requiring the State Department to issue a report about whether or not
the ``in-transit'' mail authority provision, which will allow
appropriate searches of international mail destined for a third country
but which travels through the United States on its way, is consistent
with international law.
Less than three weeks ago the Congress passed, and the President
signed into law, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform
Act, which will provide all areas of the Justice Department and the
State Department with personnel and resources to fight the war on
terrorism. In that bill, an interoperable data sharing system will aid
all federal law enforcement to better track and identify would-be
terrorists. Because of jurisdictional concerns about customs, that
vitally important bill does not include resources for the Customs
Service. That is why it is so important that this bill include such
funding. The Kyl Customs Border Security Act does so and is an integral
part of my decision to support the overall package.
Many have spoken about how trade-promotion authority will help the
United States. I want to speak for a moment about how trade-promotion
authority will help my home state of Arizona specifically. This bill
will open new markets worldwide to Arizona goods and services. That, in
turn, will boost local communities' economies, provide job security for
the hundreds of thousands of Arizonans whose work depends on exports--
the backbone of the Arizona economy.
One out of every five manufacturing job in Arizona is tied to
exports. An estimated 70,400 Arizona jobs support the manufactured-
goods-for-export industry directly. Wages of workers in jobs supported
by exports are 13 to 18 percent higher than the national average.
Roughly 5,060 Arizona citizens hold jobs related to agriculture
exports. Arizona exported $333 million in agriculture in 1999. And last
year, Arizona sold more than $10 billion worth of exports to nearly 200
foreign markets, and produced and exported more than $9.4 billion worth
of manufactured items such as computers, electronics, machinery,
transportation equipment, fabricated metal products and appliances.
Arizona relies on its exports with export sales of nearly $2,000 for
every state resident. Clearly, trade-promotion authority only brings
more good news to Arizona's entrepreneurs and small businesses.
But as I mentioned above, there is much that needs to be done before
we can deliver this good news. Let me briefly elaborate on my specific
concerns that will need to be addressed in conference. First, it is
imperative that we remove the so-called ``Dayton-Craig'' language that
would permit the raising of a point of order if the implementing
legislation negotiated under trade-promotion authority amends U.S.
trade remedies law, however technical or even beneficial the change.
This language, if kept in the final legislation, will unravel
successful trade negotiations, and it is wholly unnecessary to add it
on top of language already included and explicitly states in the bill,
i.e., the directive to ``preserve the ability of the United States to
enforce rigorously its trade laws'' and ``avoid agreements that lessen
the effectiveness of domestic and international disciplines on unfair
trade.''
I am also disappointed by the multitude and details of the trade
adjustment assistance (TAA) provisions in this legislation. I firmly
believe that, rather than enacting a whole host of new entitlements,
the best assistance we can provide to unemployed (or displaced) workers
is enhanced free trade, which will in turn provide greater job
opportunities. However, this legislation has become burdened with a
variety of new and expended entitlements that, while well-intentioned,
will only serve to distort the free-market and delay the inevitable
benefits of freer trade for our citizens.
One of thee provisions is a ``wage insurance'' entitlement, which
would provide up to a $5,000 subsidy for older TAA-certified workers
who are subsequently employed at lower-paying jobs. Aside from a
complete lack of data supporting the efficacy of such a proposal, this
provision would create significant disincentives for workers to forgo
needed training and/or a more intensive job search. Instead, it will
likely result in workers choosing lower paying and perhaps lower-
skilled jobs with the taxpayers liable for the difference.
Another provision in this legislation provides an advanceable,
refundable health insurance tax credit to TAA-certified workers. The
credit is set at an arbitrarily high percentage of the premiums' cost--
70 percent--and can only be used to subsidize the cost of company-based
COBRA or pooled health insurance policies. Additionally, it can not be
used for the purchase of individual market policies, which might better
suit the workers' health needs at a reduced cost. I believe that it is
unfair for American taxpayers, many of whom may not have health
insurance themselves, to provide such a generous health insurance
subsidy.
Despite the serious concerns I have expressed about these provisions,
I intend to vote in favor of this overall legislation at this time.
But, as I mentioned earlier, this is a qualified vote. Unless
substantial improvement is made to this legislation during conference,
I will not vote for the bill when it returns.
With few exceptions, I believe that the House-passed language on TPA,
TAA and ATPA is far superior to the Senate-passed language. And there
are some specific items that must be addressed in a House-Senate
conference before I can vote in favor of a final bill.
First, the conference report must maintain the 2002-2006 suspension
of 4.9 percent tariff on steam generators for nuclear power facilities.
Second, the conference report must remove the so-called ``Dayton-
Craig'' language.
Third, it must either eliminate or substantially improve the language
creating a ``wage insurance'' program for TAA-certified workers age 50
and older.
Fourth, the conference report must also make significant improvements
to the health insurance tax credit for TAA-certified workers.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on addressing these
concerns, and I hope to be able to vote for final passage of this
important legislation.
As a matter of principle on the one hand, and of sound economic
policy on the other, I believe that we must grant the President trade-
promotion authority. And, as has been stated by many of my colleagues,
we must be careful to ensure that the final language of the bill
preserves this authority. So while I believe that this bipartisan
effort represents a strong vote in favor of trade-promotion authority,
I caution that there is still work to be done before it can be sent to
the White House.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, when fighting for American working men and
women, most members of Congress want to go into the ring with both arms
swinging. That is why I am at a loss to understand why some members of
Congress are willing to tie one hand behind their back when it comes to
trade. The way I see it, fast track ties one hand behind our collective
back when trade agreements come before the Congress.
I have some serious concerns with the Baucus-Grassley fast track
legislation being considered by the Senate. Granting the President
broad fast-track authority to negotiate trade agreements means Congress
must adopt a law to implement any trade agreement on a straight up of
down vote, without the ability to offer amendments. I believe in free
trade. I support the Jordan Free Trade Agreement, the Vietnam Free
Trade Agreement and granting China PNTR. But I am reluctant to give up
the Congressional right to amend trade legislation, sight unseen. When
we do that, we are throwing away on of the most effective tools in
forcing fairer trade practices.
We should negotiate trade agreements to protect human rights as well
[[Page S4808]]
as labor and environmental standards. The Senate should have acted to
ensure that these and other provisions addressing fairness in trade
practices are included in future trade agreements. The Baucus-Grassley
approach doesn't provide us with the means to do that and in fact fall
far short of achieving these goals.
America's trade policy over the past 30 years has helped create a
one-way street. The U.S. market is one of the most open in the world,
yet we have failed to achieve foreign markets being equally open to
American products. Some of the trade agreements the U.S. has entered
into have fallen far short of opening foreign markets. To ensure free
and fair trade will be achieved in any future trade agreement, Congress
must not give up its ability to amend the legislation implementing the
agreement.
I have fought hard to strengthen U.S. trade laws to help open foreign
markets to American and Michigan products such as automobiles, auto
parts, communications equipment, cherries, apples, and wood products.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), enacted January 1,
1994, is a good example of a trade agreement negotiated under ``fast
track'' authority. It contained provisions allowing Mexico to protect
its auto industry and discriminate against U.S. manufactured
automobiles used cars and auto parts for up to 25 years. It allowed
Mexico to require auto manufacturers assembling vehicles in Mexico to
purchase 36 percent of their parts from Mexican parts manufacturers. It
also allowed for 25 more years the Mexican law against selling American
used cars in Mexico, a highly discriminatory provision against U.S.
autos.
When NAFTA was presented to Congress, it was an agreement which
discriminated against some of the principle products that are made in
Michigan. I surely could not vote for the bill the way it was written,
nor could I try to amend the bill because the fast-track authority the
President had at that time prohibited implementing legislation from
being amended. Consequently, after NAFTA was enacted, the U.S. went
from a trade surplus of $1.7 billion in 1993 to a trade deficit of $25
billion with Mexico in 2000. Over the same period, our trade deficit
increased from $11 billion to $44.9 billion with Canada. Since NAFTA
was enacted, the automotive trade deficit with Mexico has reached $23
billion.
Moroever, between January, 1994 and early May 2002, the Department of
Labor certified over 400,000 workers as having suffered job losses as a
result of increased imports from or plant relocations to Mexico or
Canada. These job losses occurred all over the country as well as from
around the State of Michigan. For example, 27 employees from the Blue
Water Fiber company in Port Huron who produced pulp for paper lost
their jobs as a result of NAFTA imports. 129 employees of Alcoe
Fujikura Limited in Owosso who made electronic radio equipment lost
their jobs to Mexico. 1,133 employees of the Copper Range Mine in the
UP lost their jobs when operations were moved to Canada. 300 employees
of Eagle Ottawa Leather in Grand Haven who made leather for automobile
interiors lost their jobs when their jobs moved to Mexico. The list of
NAFTA-TAA certified jobs losses goes on and on. These are not job
losses from a level playing field. These are losses from a sloping
field tilted against us.
We have lost too many manufacturing jobs because our trade policies
have been so weak over the decades. I've always believed that when
countries raise barriers to our products that we ought to treat them no
better than they treat us. Fast track authority makes it more difficult
for Congress to insist on fair treatment for American products and
equal access to foreign markets.
Calling NAFTA a free trade agreement was disingenuous. NAFTA
protected Mexican industries and it also gave special treatment to
certain industries. For example, leather products and footwear got the
longest U.S. tariff phase out--15 years--and it include safeguard
provisions against import surges in these sectors. Agricultural
Commodities/Fruits and Vegetables including sugar, cotton, dairy,
peanuts, oranges, also got a 15-year U.S. tariff phase out, a quota
system, and the reimposition of a higher duty if imports exceed agreed-
upon quota levels. It is clear that those who are represented at the
negotiating table are able to strike favorable deals to protect certain
industries and products. That is not free trade.
NAFTA was not the only trade agreement that included specially
tailored provisions for certain products. The trade bill we are being
asked to vote on contains special provisions to protect textiles,
citrus and some other speciality agriculture commodities.
The Andean Trade Preferences Act also protects certain industries.
ATPA expands duty free access to Andean nations for some previously
excluded categories of products but there are significant exclusions or
special rules that continue to protect them. The exclusions in the
Senate ATPA bill include: most footwear; textiles and apparel are
included but are subject to a number of special rules and limitations
such as requiring that certain apparel products be sewn with U.S.
thread in order to receive duty-free access, requiring the use of a
certain spandex product made exclusively by the DuPont company,
requiring the use of U.S. yarn throughout in order to qualify for duty-
free access; and canned tuna is included but the Senate bill allows
duty free treatment for very limited quantities of cannot tuna to be
imported and subject to a very restricted rule of origin.
These are special protections being granted to specific industry
sectors. Why are these products be treated in a privileged manner over
other important U.S.-made or grown products? This is not free trade.
I believe that writing labor and environmental standards into trade
agreements is an important way to ensure that free trade is fair trade.
Regrettably, this legislation does not go far enough to assure
international labor and environmental standards will be present in
trade agreements. We need trade agreements with enforceable labor and
environmental provisions but this bill does not provide it.
This is unfortunate given the U.S. Senate is already on record
supporting strong labor and environmental standards in trade
agreements. The Senate passed the Jordan Free Trade Agreement on
September 21, 2001. The Jordan agreement broke new ground in its
treatment of labor and environmental standards in trade agreements. For
the first time, it required that the parties to the agreement reflect
the core internationally recognized labor rights in their own domestic
labor laws.
The bill the Senate is considering today does not require countries
to implement the core ILO labor standards. It only requires them to
enforce their existing labor laws, however weak they may be. It also
specifically states that the U.S. may not retaliate against a trading
partner that lowers or weakens its labor or environmental laws.
This language undercuts our ability to negotiate strong labor and
environmental standards in future trade agreements because our trading
partners know we can not enforce what we negotiate through the use of
sanctions and the dispute settlement process.
American workers already compete against workers from countries where
wages are significantly lower than in the United States. They should
not have to compete against countries that gain an unfair comparative
advantage because they pollute their air and water and fail to allow
their workers to exercise rights that are fundamental. The United
States enacted environmental standards that protect our air and water.
We have enacted labor standards that allow for collective bargaining
and the right to organize, that prohibit the use of child labor and
provide protections for workers in the work place. These are desirable
standards that we worked hard to get. Why should we force American
workers to compete against countries with no such standards or
protection for its workers?
There are many ways to improve this fast track legislation to address
some of the concerns I've outlined. I supported many of these efforts.
For Congress to give up its role under the Constitution without those
protections is to fail to learn from our past mistakes. To do so means
we have willingly tied one hand behind our back in the fight for free
and fair trade. That is something I am simply unwilling to do.
[[Page S4809]]
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to detail some of the
benefits of trade promotion authority to American agriculture.
Our President, regardless of party, has not had trade negotiating
authority since 1994. While other countries have been busy negotiating
trade agreements, the world's superpower has been sitting on the
sidelines. Today, over 150 trade agreements exist worldwide; the United
States is party to only three. This disparity must be remedied, but
without trade promotion authority, U.S. exporters and our nation's
farmers may be left stuck in the mud. The question is not whether the
U.S. should have free trade or no free trade. The question is, will the
U.S. participate in the world economy or will we be left behind?
TPA is critical to the administration's credibility at the
negotiating table. Without TPA, our negotiators may not even get a seat
at the table, much less have the opportunity to negotiate vigorously
for our national interest. With 96 percent of consumers living outside
the United States, the absence of negotiating authority is a price we
cannot afford to pay.
One third of U.S. farm acres is planted for export, 25 percent of
gross farm income is export dependent, and over 12 million U.S. jobs
depend on exports. Nearly 100 commodity and agricultural groups and a
bipartisan group of ten former U.S. Secretaries of Agriculture support
Trade Promotion Authority.
Where would American agriculture be without international trade? Last
year, U.S. agricultural exports totaled $51 billion. This year, federal
officials expect this number to grow to $53.5 billion, an agricultural
trade surplus of $14.5 billion. Can we find an additional $14.5 billion
a year in the federal budget to offset these losses?
According to the USDA, U.S. agriculture is 2\1/2\ times more trade
dependent than the general economy. American agriculture needs trade
promotion authority to reduce worldwide tariffs. While the average
tariff assessed by the United States on agricultural products is less
than 5 percent, the average agricultural tariff assessed by other
countries exceeds 60 percent.
As a Senator from Illinois, I represent a big agricultural state with
total cash farm receipts totaling $7 billion in the year 2000. With a
42 percent reliance on agricultural exports, Illinois ranks sixth with
agricultural exports of $3 billion. My State's top agricultural exports
include--soybeans and soybean products at $1.1 billion, feed grains and
feed grain products at $946 million, live animals and red meats at $277
million, and wheat and wheat products at $124 million. When it comes to
Illinois agriculture, open markets and trade promotion authority are of
tantamount importance.
Illinois is the largest soybean producing state in the nation. Under
the Uruguay Round, South Korea is required to reduce its tariffs on
soybean oil by 14.5 percent from 1995 to 2004. USDA has reported that
this ``tariff reduction has supported a threefold increase in export
volume.''
Illinois is also the fourth largest pork producing State in the
Nation. Since the Uruguay Round agreement went into effect, U.S. pork
exports have increased by almost 90 percent in volume and approximately
80 percent in value from 1994 levels.
Additionally, Illinois ranks second in corn production. While Brazil,
Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay can trade corn with Argentina duty free,
U.S. corn is assessed an eleven percent import tax.
Voting against fast-track authority means you endorse the status quo
of high tariffs and limited access for U.S. goods, while voting for
fast-track gives the administration the tools needed to remedy some of
these egregious inequities.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the legislation that we are about to pass
is the most difficult bill that the Senate has considered this year.
Like nothing else that we have seen this year, trade promotion
authority has put some of my most deeply-held beliefs in conflict with
each other.
TPA does two things. First, it makes a broad statement about the
importance of international trade. Accurate or not, there is a belief
in this city that you must support TPA to demonstrate your unflinching
support for greater opportunity for U.S. businesses abroad. The
Washington view is that you must support TPA if you believe that
political liberalization comes from economic liberalization.
The facts suggest that, certainly, lowering barriers to trade in the
world is good for U.S. businesses and good for the U.S. economy.
Businesses in Massachusetts sold more than $19.7 billion worth of goods
to more than 200 foreign markets last year. That is more than $3,000
worth of goods sold abroad for every resident. And, while we tend to
think of international trade as being the playground of big business,
almost 75 percent of my State's exporting businesses are small
businesses. Of larger businesses which have overseas subsidiaries,
almost three-fourths of profits earned abroad are returned to parent
companies in the United States. That means more jobs and higher wages
at home. Today, one-tenth of all jobs in this country are directly
related to our ability to export goods and services. When you consider
multiplying effects, that number rises to nearly one-third. So there
are clear benefits at home to increasing America's access to markets
abroad.
I also believe that trade and trade agreements have a role to play in
helping us achieve our foreign policy goals. The direct American
investment that comes to foreign countries as a result of free trade
agreements can reduce corruption and promote strong democratic
institutions, like an independent judiciary and vibrant non-
governmental organizations. And by making other countries stakeholders
in a rules-based system of trade, we can diminish the possibility of
trade disputes escalating into open conflict.
I do support improving Americans' access to foreign markets, and I
firmly believe in the power of open markets to create open societies.
And so, reluctantly, I will support this bill.
I say ``reluctantly'' because I do not believe that the TPA equation
is balanced. Granting TPA to any President requires a significant
amount of trust. Granting TPA means that you trust the President to
negotiate trade deals that are consistent with our American values.
The statistics I just recited show that trade is good for the
economy. And, certainly, economic development is one important element
of those values. But I am afraid that, in recent years, some of our
other core beliefs have not been a part of the national debate over
trade.
When the President negotiate agreements that will lower tariffs and
other barriers to trade, it is, in my judgment, equally important that
he make sure that our Nation's strong environmental and labor laws are
upheld. It is equally important too that he ensure that we have a forum
to export our views on these issues to the nations with whom we engage
in expanded commerce.
I do not mean to suggest that we can simply direct other countries to
develop environmental laws or labor laws that equal our own. True
reform in developing nations, be it the development of democratic
infrastructure, or the growth of a vibrant labor movement, cannot
simply be exported from the United States. These concepts must come to
fruition through the will of the people.
However, no one disputes that the United States has a significant
role to play in helping other countries breathe the air of political
freedom. So, too, should the United States play a leading role in
helping developing countries breathe clean air and help create programs
that provide workers with a safe workplace and the chance to earn a
decent wage.
Unfortunately, it is clear that, despite the best intentions of NAFTA
and in developing the World Trade Organization, labor and environmental
issues have not been treated at the same level in our trade policy as
investment rights or intellectual property rights. That is
disappointing.
I regret that this President's track record on domestic labor issues
and domestic environmental issues does not fill me with confidence that
our Nation's trade policy will be a tool used to help other nations
improve their political, environmental and social climates. At every
turn, he has sought to diminish the gains of the labor movement and
roll-back environmental regulations in his own country. I surely hope
that this is not the message that
[[Page S4810]]
he intends to carry with him as he negotiates free trade agreements
with Chile, Singapore and others.
Some of us in this body have put forth amendments which we believe
could have helped us to trust the President more. These amendments
would have elevated labor and environmental protections to the same
level of intellectual property protections, or, as my amendment would
have, guaranteed that future trade agreements would not corrode
American legal principles and Constitutional rights. All but one of
these were unsuccessful.
The defeat of these amendments leave us with no safeguards for
legitimate public health and safety laws. We have no assurances that
other nations with whom we forge agreements under this bill will honor
their existing labor or environmental laws. We have no reason to
suspect that the President will be a forceful advocate for some of our
country's most cherished beliefs: that clean air, clean water and
preservation of the outdoors are worth fighting for; that workers
should have the right to organize; and that U.S. sovereignty must be
protected.
In spite of these glaring weaknesses, I intend to support this bill.
That is how strongly I believe in the principle of free trade, and the
belief that we can help other countries improve their political
environment by embracing them, not isolating them. But I would caution
this President and others that we need to pay much more attention to
some of these other trade issues, issues that have been on the margins
of trade policy for too long. If we do not heed these warnings, then
that fragile coalition that holds supporters of free and fair trade
together will crumble, as it nearly did in the House and nearly did
here in the Senate.
I would like to make one final point about this legislation. The bill
that we will pass shortly contains an enormous improvement in the trade
adjustment assistance program. This is much-needed. In the long-run,
more international trade means more opportunity and jobs for Americans.
In the short-term, however, it creates changes in communities. Some
people lose jobs. Factories, the lifeblood of some towns and cities,
close. Eventually, new employment opportunities are created. But it is
imperative that we have a way to ease that transition. This TAA package
does just that. For the first time, we are subsidizing health care for
laid-off workers. That is a remarkable step forward. We are attempting
something new by creating a wage insurance program to make sure that
older workers do not suffer sudden and destabilizing pay reductions.
These are critical expansions of TAA, and they could not be more timely
for some of my constituents.
In Northampton, MA, the Techalloy plant that processes wire rod steel
will close on July 1. They've been hurt by the President's decision to
impose 15 percent duties on raw wire rod steel from abroad. Now, I know
that the 42 workers currently at the Techalloy plant would much rather
have a job than TAA benefits. They want to work. It's not the same as
maintaining their job, but this new package will help these folks stay
on their feet while they seek new employment.
The TAA package that we will approve is welcome, and I am proud to
support this provision. I particularly want to thank Chairman Baucus,
Senator Grassley, and Senator Bingaman for all of their hard work in
helping shape this reauthorization of the TAA program.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the trade bill.
I oppose this trade bill because it seeks trade that is more free than
fair. It sends a very mixed message to America's working men and women
and their families.
The good news is that the bill includes a real expansion of trade
adjustment assistance benefits for Americans who lose their jobs as a
result of trade agreements. The House trade bill doesn't provide these
trade adjustment assistance benefits. I am proud to be a cosponsor of
the TAA bill and I commend Senators Bingaman and Daschle for their
leadership to help workers harmed by trade.
The Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers, Farmers, Communities,
and Firms Act strengthens the existing TAA program. It broadens
eligibility to cover workers who lose their jobs due to increased
imports, even if they don't directly work for a company that closes
down due to trade. It extends benefits to laid-off workers from 52
weeks to 78 weeks and increases job training funds. This bill also
helps communities adjust, because when a factory shuts down, it isn't
just the workers at the plant who are affected.
Healthcare is a critical addition to the TAA program. People who lose
their jobs can't afford healthcare on their own. This bill will help
laid-off workers buy healthcare coverage by covering 70 percent of the
cost. I would have been happier with the 75 percent level in the
Committee-passed bill, but this is a very important step.
Wage insurance for older workers is another key addition to the TAA
program. Experienced workers, even with training in new skills, often
cannot get another job that pays them anything close to what they were
earning. This bill will supplement wages to help these workers get a
new start in a new job. That is the good news.
The bad news is that the bill includes a renewal of Fast Track
negotiating authority. That means more Americans will lose their jobs
in the name of free trade. More people will get TAA benefits, but more
people will need them.
Let me be very clear on one point. I support trade. I encourage
trade. Trade is very important to my state. Maryland workers can
compete successfully in a global marketplace, if they're given a level
playing field. That's why I support expansion of fair trade.
I oppose fast-track trade promotion authority now for the same
reasons I opposed fast track when a Democrat was in the White House.
I don't believe Congress should give away our right and
responsibility to fully consider trade agreements.
The Bush administration has the authority to negotiate trade
agreements. U.S. Trade Representative Bob Zoellick doesn't need fast
track. He went to Doha to start another round of multilateral trade
talks without fast track. He can negotiate a free trade agreement of
the Americas without fast track. Hundreds of trade agreements have been
reached and implemented without fast track.
What the Bush administration wants is to cut trade deals and limit
the power of Congress to review those deals. That is what fast track
really means.
Why is the role of Congress so important? To make sure the American
people get a good deal. I am ready to support trade agreements that are
good for America, agreements that are good for workers and good for the
environment. Congress should consider trade legislation--and
amendments--to it using the same procedures we use to consider other
international agreements and implementing legislation.
Proponents of trade agreements say it is inevitable that there will
be winnners and losers.
The problem is America's workers and their families always seem to be
the losers. They lose their jobs. They lose their healthcare. If they
keep their jobs or find new jobs, they lose the wage rates they have
earned.
American workers aren't the only losers.
American consumers also lose.
I am particularly concerned that we don't regulate and inspect the
safety of imported food the way USDA regulates and inspects domestic
food products. Our trading partners set their own meat inspection
standards. Shouldn't we use our trade policy as leverage to make our
food safer?
Workers and children around the world also lose.
We should use the leverage of our trade agreements to ensure fair
competition. That means workers in other countries should have the
right to organize into unions. Without the strength of collective
bargaining, their wages will always be below ours. They should also
have worker safety protection and retirement and healthcare benefits.
Children should be in school, learning the skills to be good citizens
and participants in the global economy. Instead, children as young as
six years old put in full days of work. More than 350 million children
under the age of 18 work, according to the International Labor
Organization. More alarming is the fact that over 111 million of them
are children between the ages of 5 and
[[Page S4811]]
14 engaged in ``hazardous work.'' And 5.7 million children are in
forced and bonded labor.
How can we enter into trade agreements with countries that do nothing
to protect their children? Is it fair for a 45-year-old on Maryland's
Eastern Shore to compete with a 12-year-old in Southern China?
Protecting against child labor and forced labor should be the core of
any trade agreement.
I am proud to have cosponsored and supported amendments on labor
rights, child labor, environmental protection, and other issues which I
firmly believe must be addressed in agreements to strengthen fair
trade.
I am particularly proud to have joined with colleagues on both sides
of the aisle in an effort to provide a safety net for steel retirees
who lose their healthcare coverage due to unfair trade. A clear
majority in the Senate supported that amendment. We were blocked
procedurally by Senators who support trade and are unwilling to address
its human consequences.
I have said before that I don't want to put American jobs on a Fast
Track to Mexico or a slow boat to China but that is exactly what is
happening as a result of NAFTA and China's admission to the World Trade
Organization. Black and Decker closed down a manufacturing plant on
Maryland's Eastern Shore because they could get cheaper labor abroad.
They literally moved those jobs to Mexico and China. I am glad the
expanded trade adjustment assistance will help these workers but they
shouldn't have lost their jobs in the first place.
I intend to stand up for American workers and consumers. I intend to
stand up for the right and responsibility of Congress to fully consider
trade agreements. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the trade
bill.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as we prepare to vote on this historic
trade package, our country is precariously positioned in the
international trade arena. Many of our friends and allies no longer see
the United States as a nation that champions global free trade, but
rather as a nation that increasingly fears foreign competition and
seeks to erect barriers to trade in order to protect domestic
industries and advance narrow political agendas. A series of short-
sighted, protectionist actions in recent years has jeopardized our
relationships with our most important trading partners.
Given our recent double standards on trade, it is not surprising that
the United States is quickly losing its credibility and leadership in
championing free trade principles around the world. Our staunchest
allies and most important trading partners are now doubting our
dedication to the free trade principles we have long championed.
Many of the nations that engage in the free exchange of commerce are
also our staunchest allies in the war on terrorism. Over the past eight
months, those countries have joined in our worthy cause, some making
substantial sacrifices to advance our shared values. During that time,
even as our allies have deployed their forces to stand alongside our
own in Central Asia, we have pursued protectionist policies on steel
and lumber, and passed into law a regressive, trade-distorting farm
bill. We are already fighting one war on a global scale. We cannot
simultaneously fight a trade war.
The United States simply cannot afford to follow the dangerous path
of protectionism. I hope that the passage of trade promotion authority,
TPA, and the Andean Trade Preference Expansion Act, both of which are
included in this package, will represent a turning point. Now is our
chance to put a stop to our short-sighted protectionism and recognize
that such behavior has consequences.
As the rest of the world negotiates free trade agreements without our
participation, the citizens of this country are losing out. Free trade
stimulates economic growth, creates higher paying jobs, reduces the
cost of goods and services, and promotes stability in regions of
strategic interest to the United States. Somehow, we seem to have lost
sight of these overarching goals.
The Doha round of World Trade Organization, WTO, negotiations provide
an opportunity for the United States to demonstrate to the countries of
the world our dedication to reducing barriers to trade on a global
scale. Passage of this bill will enable the Administration to negotiate
the best possible agreements for America. Beyond the WTO, I look
forward to the completion of bilateral trade agreements with Singapore
and Chile, the opening of formal negotiations on new trade agreements
with nations like Australia, regional accords with the nations of
Central America, and ultimately, a Free Trade Agreement of the
Americas--a goal articulated by President George H.W. Bush fully a
decade ago, and one which we must recommit ourselves and our Latin
friends to achieving.
One of the most critical and time-sensitive components of this trade
package is the extension and expansion of the Andean Trade Preference
Act, ATPA. In 1991, ATPA was created to expand the economies of the
drug-plagued nations of the Andean region. By granting duty-free and
reduced-rate treatment to various products from Bolivia, Colombia,
Ecuador, and Peru, we hoped to strengthen the fragile economies of the
region, expand their export bases, and provide Andean farmers and
workers with legitimate employment outside of the drug trade. The
Andean Trade Preference Act has worked. It has created new industries
in the Andean region, and with them hundreds of thousands of jobs
outside the drug trade. As the region's leaders will attest, it is a
success story.
Regrettably, ATPA expired on December 4, inflicting immediate harm on
the region, because Congress had not taken timely action on legislation
to prevent its expiration. The House of Representatives passed an
extension and expansion of ATPA over six months ago. On February 15 the
President, citing national security concerns, took the unprecedented
step of extending a 90-day duty deferral of products under ATPA, giving
Congress time to pass an extension. That 90-day deferral expired last
week while the trade bill remained mired in partisan debate before the
Senate.
Our delay in extending and expanding ATPA impacts our national
security, stability in the hemisphere, and economic growth in Bolivia,
Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. These nations are on the front lines of the
war on drugs, their democracies threatened by criminals and terrorists,
their people suffering from economic deprivation. It is time we
realized the impact our actions and inactions have, not just on the
United States, but on the rest of the world as well. Our delayed action
has sent the very dangerous message that the United States is no longer
engaged in the region.
Our hemisphere is in serous trouble. Democracy and free markets are
tested by social instability, lack of economic opportunity, and the
violence wrought by drug traffickers and terrorist groups. From the
FARC and the ELN in Colombia to Hezbollah in Ecuador and elsewhere in
our hemisphere, terrorists take advantage of state failure and economic
underdevelopment to operate freely, and at grave risk to American
interests and those of our allies.
The Andean trade act is part of our active engagement in the region,
a gateway to economic opportunity and a symbol of America's commitment
to the democratic stability and security of our Andean partners. The
elected leaders of Ecuador, Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru know that
delivering economic opportunity to their people is the best means of
protecting democratic institutions and defeating terrorism and the drug
trade. They ask not for substantial American assistance, but for access
to the American market through free and open trade. This serves not
only their interests but our own.
Unlike other efforts which provide direct grants, loans, or military
assistance, ATPA costs the U.S. nothing. In fact, American workers and
consumers benefit from it through reduced prices on goods and services.
The U.S. International Trade Commission, ITC, has estimated that U.S.
consumers annually save over $20 million due to the benefits of ATPA.
In addition to cost savings, the Act also enhances American security.
By creating legitimate jobs outside the drug trade, bolstering state
institutions, and expanding national economies, terrorists and drug
traffickers will no longer find such easy refuge in the Andean region.
[[Page S4812]]
I regret that we had to consider three very important, and very
different, pieces of trade legislation in one package; I believe the
end product suffered as a result. Passing these bills in this manner
prevented us from adequately debating complicated and questionable
provisions. Indeed, this bill is far from perfect. I know that I am not
alone in expressing my concern over some of the provisions now
contained within this trade package, particularly those which are
clearly antithetical to the spirit of free trade.
The conferees certainly have their work cut out for them. Although
recent actions indicate that we may be taking steps backwards in
certain areas, it is incumbent upon the conferees to reaffirm the
principles of free trade, and to receive the strongest support from the
Administration for their efforts. We must all ensure that we do not
sacrifice free trade principles for a bill that is called ``free
trade,'' but does something else entirely. Even before Senate passage,
efforts in the other body are underway to weaken provisions contained
within this package. I hope that these efforts do not succeed.
That said, I believe this bill represents an opportunity to end
America's dispiriting slide backwards into protectionism. Passage of
this imperfect but important trade bill is a good start. It is time for
America to again lead the world on trade.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I thank Senators Baucus and Grassley for
working with me on my amendments to this legislation. They and their
staffs were very helpful.
There was one amendment that I filed to this bill that I had intended
to offer dealing with tax incentives to help communities affected by
trade. I did not offer it because I know that the leaders of the bill
as well as the leadership of the Senate all agreed that there would be
no tax amendments to this bill. However, I would like to speak about
the amendment very briefly, because I intend to look for future
opportunities to see it passed.
The amendment is designed to help communities devastated by foreign
trade get back on their feet by providing incentives for businesses to
locate in these areas.
Already, the Federal Government has policies to help communities in
trouble attract new business through tax incentives. The programs are
called Empowerment Zones and Renewal Communities.
Here is the problem: These designations do not help struggling rural
communities that have been hit with dramatic job losses only recently.
A decade ago, these communities were home to busy textile plants.
Today, they are being devastated as their major employers shut down and
thousands of jobs disappear. Many of the people in these communities
have lived in these towns for generations. They should not have to move
away just because the textile plant where they worked has closed down.
Retraining will help. I am pleased that my amendment to help improve
training programs was passed by the Senate last week, but that training
is not going to matter if there are not new jobs to take the place of
the ones they lost. We need to encourage investment in these trade-
affected areas so workers do not have to pack up their families and
move to the city just to get a new job.
That is what my proposal is about. It is modeled after Empowerment
Zones and Renewal Communities. We'd create new Economic Revitalization
Zones for areas hard-hit by trade. Economic Revitalization Zones, or
ERZs, would be areas that have experienced major job losses in a
critical industries as a result of trade agreements or shifts in
production. Communities would be eligible for designation as ERZs if
they are in a trade-affected state and a significant portion of their
employment base was dependent on an industry substantially affected by
trade. Benefits in ERZs would be similar to those in Renewal
Communities and Empowerment Zones.
Here are five examples:
One, a 20-percent wage credit for the first $15,000 of wages paid to
a zone resident who works in the zone;
Two, commercial revitalization tax incentives [write-offs for
companies that revitalize abandoned or dormant industrial property];
Three, increased write-offs for capital investments;
Four, authority to issue tax exempt bonds to promote business
development; and
Five, the New Market Tax Credit, which already provides incentives
for businesses to invest.
Economic revitalization zones would be a lifeline for communities
that are suffering from the negative effects of trade agreements. We
owe this to the hardworking families in these communities. As the
industries they've relied on for decades are destroyed, the least we
can do is to help them plan for the future.
I believe this is an important proposal. I look forward to working
with my colleagues who are on the Finance Committee to find other
opportunities to advance this important initiative.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I have a long-held interest in Latin
America, and, in my opinion, the renewal of the Andean Trade
Preferences Agreement is one of the most important actions this
Congress can take to promote economic growth, political stability, and
prosperity in the Andean region.
I have come to this floor many times in the past year to draw my
colleagues' attention to the fact that Latin America is a region in
crisis, that we ignore at our peril. I believe that it is imperative
that we remain engaged with our neighbors to the South lest our neglect
encourage even more instability in the region and foster conditions
ripe for terror, destruction, and the collapse of democratic
institutions. While I could speak for hours about the dangers posed by
the horrors of drought and famine in Central America, the Argentine
economic crisis, or the turmoil in Venezuela, I will limit my comments
today to the problems faced by the Andean region, and my belief that we
must have a multi-faceted approach to alleviating the crisis in the
region through military, humanitarian, and economic aid.
The Andean region is reeling from economic crises, natural disasters,
and the effects of the war against drugs. Peru, Ecuador, Colombia,
Venezuela, and Bolivia confront economic and social problems that
threaten the very fabric of Democracy in the region. Up till now, with
the possible exception of Venezuela, the governments of these countries
have done a good job of managing their problems in the face of near-
impossible odds. But, I believe, without consistent and steady U.S.
involvement, and a greater willingness of Ecuador, Bolivia, and Peru to
coordinate their efforts in drug eradication with Colombia, the
situations in these countries could become quickly unstable. We must
remain continuously engaged and stop the cycle of neglect by which
attention is focused on Latin America for short bursts of time, only to
recede when a crisis is over. We cannot allow the region to languish
and fester while we ignore warning signs.
I have spoken about Colombia numerous times on this floor, and, in
fact, just held a hearing on the Colombia situation in the Foreign
Relations Committee last month. I would like to take a moment to
restate some of my comments from that hearing and alert my colleagues
to some horrific statistics about the state of violence in Colombia.
Colombia's democracy is in crisis, and it didn't happen over night.
Colombia's civil society has been ripped apart for decades by violence
and corruption, and has long been characterized as having one of the
most violent societies in the Western Hemisphere. Historically,
Colombian civil leaders, judges and politicians have put their lives in
jeopardy simply by aspiring to positions of leadership and
responsibility. The introduction of illicit drug cultivation and
production has only heightened further this climate of violence.
Despite fears that must be pervasive in every Colombian's heart, tens
of thousands of men and women have still allowed their names to appear
on electoral ballots in election after election. These are truly
courageous people who deserve our respect and admiration.
Two years ago, I supported US efforts to become partners with the
Pastrana administration's efforts to address Colombia's problems. I
said at the time that I believed that it was critically important that
we act expeditiously on the Plan Colombia assistance package because
our credibility was at stake with respect to responding to a genuine
crisis in our own hemisphere. We also needed to make good on our pledge
to
[[Page S4813]]
come to the aid of President Pastrana and the people of Colombia in
their hour of crisis, a crisis that has profound implications for
institutions of democracy in Colombia and throughout the hemisphere.
No one I know claims that things have dramatically ``turned around''
in Colombia since the United States endorsed Plan Colombia and began
providing significant resources to support its implementation.
Narcotraffickers, in concert with right and left wing paramilitary
organizations, continue to make large portions of the country
ungovernable. Until recently their activities were restricted to
sparely populated rural areas of the country--places where government
order and services have never existed. Now, with the end of the FARC/
Government peace process and in an effort to disrupt upcoming
elections, the FARC is increasingly focused on urban areas, especially
critical economic infrastructure.
In the last 15 years, more than 200 bombs have exploded in Colombian
cities. The number of assassinations is egregious. More than 300,000
ordinary citizens, 4 presidential candidates, 200 judges and
investigators, one half of Colombia's Supreme Court, 1,200 police, and
151 journalists, have been murdered. Politicians such as Senator Martha
Daniels have been killed while trying to negotiate peace, and municipal
officials are constantly running for their lives. As if this were not
bad enough, Colombia also holds the world's kidnapping record, with
3,700 abductions last year alone. Among those abducted, 50 were
political candidates, such as Ingrid Betancourt, who is running for
President, and one was a governor.
The rebel groups in Colombia have declared war on democracy and on
the people of Colombia. According to recent news reports, on May 2 the
largest single massacre of civilians in the recorded history of the
conflict in Colombia took place. It began on May 1, in the village of
Bellavista, over 300 people sought refuge in St. Paul the Apostle
church from door-to-door fighting between left and right-wing
paramilitaries. But, in the violence-charged atmosphere of Colombia,
even the refuge of a holy place was not enough to protect the
townspeople of Bellavista. Shortly before noon on May 2nd, a bomb
thrown by leftist rebels of the FARC collapsed the roof of St. Paul the
Apostle, and 117 innocent civilians were killed--over a third of them
children.
I grieve for the families of the deceased, and want them to know that
their pain and sacrifice has not gone unnoticed in the United States.
The massacre of Bellavista is just yet another event in a series that
illustrates why the United States has a responsibility to remain
actively engaged in Colombia's struggle. We must help prevent
atrocities such as this massacre from ever happening again through a
combination of economic, humanitarian, and military aid. This
nonsensical murder of civilians in Colombia must stop, and it must stop
now. While we are doing all we can to help stop these killings through
Plan Colombia, the ripple effects of the region's crisis are felt by
all of Colombia's neighbors--Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Venezuela.
Colombia's problems have a profound impact on the stability and
security of the entire region.
The region's economy is in distress, causing significant unemployment
and hardship among the middle class. The economic situation in the
countryside is equally troublesome--a significant percentage of its
rural population is barely able to eke out a living--with millions
already displaced from their villages from economic necessity or fear
of civil conflict. Not surprisingly, these displaced persons have
become the innocent foot soldiers in the ever-expanding illicit coca
production that gets processed into cocaine and ultimately finds its
way into America's schools and neighborhoods.
United States financial assistance has been heavily focused on the
military component of Colombia's counter narcotic effort with lesser
amounts available for other programs such as alternative development
programs, protection of human rights workers, resettlement of displaced
persons, and judicial and military reforms. The United States can do
more to assist the region, particularly its economies by reauthorizing
and expanding the coverage of the Andean Trade Preference Agreement.
This would help the region work its way out of its current economic
recession by giving a boost to key domestic industries while creating
more jobs for average citizens--other than in the coca fields.
Since 2000, the United States has committed almost $2 billion to the
Andean region in support of Plan Colombia and the Andean Regional
Initiative. As I have stated, although I continue to support these
initiatives, they alone will not resolve the region's problems. We must
complement this assistance with extension of ATPA. By addressing the
economic needs of the area, as well as the military and humanitarian
needs we can begin to address the root causes of the narcotics industry
and violence, while assisting Colombia's neighbors in protecting their
nations from allowing the same problem to spread.
ATPA has been constructive in stimulating increased trade with
Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru, but there is still a lot of work
to be done. The full impact of ATPA has been somewhat lessened by the
exclusion of key economic sectors from the agreement. A more robust
ATPA is needed if we are truly going to make a difference with respect
to the lives of people in that region. Extension of the ATPA will offer
more opportunities to our Andean trading partners, while also enabling
us to further pursue our own national interests in the region. Poverty
and hopelessness are the incubators for lawlessness and civil strife.
The job creation and economic development that is part and parcel with
expanded trade opportunities are vital to enfranchising the middle
class in the political process and preventing rural residents from
turning to cocoa as a crop of desperation.
With the ATPA, we can encourage the growth of legitimate businesses
that will benefit producers and consumers in our country and within the
Andean pact. Since the ATPA was enacted in 1991, the primary goal of
the agreement has been to promote export diversification and broad-
based, sustainable economic development throughout the region. There is
evidence that this initiative has borne fruit. From 1992 to 2000, the
years of implementation of ATPA, total coca cultivation in Bolivia
declined by 68 percent, and in Peru by 74 percent. This decrease is the
result of aggressive eradication programs coupled with crop
substitution by farmers in the region who have then taken advantage of
ATPA provisions to market their products in the US. In so doing, ATPA
has done more than expand trade, it has strengthened America's War on
Drugs and the Andean region's fight against drugs and traffickers. The
renewal of the ATPA is a lifeline to Andean farmers and workers who
want to have legal employment but will do whatever they have to in the
absence of mainstream job opportunities to feed their families--
including the cultivation of illicit crops.
ATPA has accomplished all this without negative effects at home.
Between 1991 and 2000, Andean exports to the U.S. increased 124
percent. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, in 2000,
bilateral trade was valued at more than $18 billion and the Andean
Community was the 16th largest consumer of U.S. exports. In comparison,
the value of U.S. exports to the Andean Community was 1.3 times greater
than that which was exported to the Central American Common Market.
This is nearly twice as large as exports to Eastern Europe.
As we move forward to extend the ATPA, I realize that for some, the
issues of textile and tuna are delicate and contentious. I think that
it is important to note that the extension of trade preferences to tuna
in airtight containers would promote employment in the local
industries, and help depressed areas in the beneficiary countries
through higher value-added exports with a true potential and minimal
impact on U.S. industry. Unfortunately, the ATPA bill before the Senate
contains restrictions which would grant the duty free benefits to
imported canned tuna from the Andean countries, but limit the quantity
to 20 percent of the U.S. domestic canned tuna production in the
preceding calendar year. The quota that would be imposed makes the duty
free benefit virtually meaningless.
[[Page S4814]]
The principlal beneficiary of the tuna provision is Ecuador--a
government that has been extremely cooperative in our efforts to
implement first Plan Colombia and now the Andean Regional Initiative,
although controversial among Ecuadorans, the Government of Ecuador has
permitted to use the airfield at Manta as a forward operating location
for critical activities in our regional counter rug programs. They have
suffered from the spill over effects of Plan Colombia as guerrillas and
peasants have crossed into Ecuador's territories and sanctuary. The
Senate provisions falls far short of what Ecuador deserves in light of
all its support. In my view the House provision granting duty free
treatment to all imported canned tuna from the Andean countries is the
more appropriate response to Ecuador's friendship and support for U.S.
policies in the region. The argument that American Samoa will be harmed
by the granting of this preference is bogus. One of the major employers
in American Samoa, StarKist, has already indicated that it has no
intention of reducing employment there even if the most generous
version of the ATPA Tuna preference language is enacted into law.
Expanding the ATPA to include textiles and apparel would not have a
substantial negative impact on the U.S. economy. In 1999, textile/
apparel exports from Andean countries represented only 1.1 percent of
the total textile and apparel exports to the United States. On the
other hand, the United States is by far the largest market for Andean
apparel exports, buying between 38 percent and 61 percent of all Andean
apparel exports. In fact with the expansion of opportunities for Andean
textile and apparel imports come increased opportunities for US
fabrics, thread and even cotton exports to that region.
By extending ATPA, the United States is sending a clear signal that
we are going to continue the close and essential relationship we have
established with our partners in the Southern Hemisphere. Given the
extremely difficulties facing the region and the implication of those
difficulties on US interests working to make that relationship work is
very important. Taken together, these steps will generate jobs,
strengthen civil society, and deter illegal narcotics trade. All steps
strongly supported by the Congress and the American people.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for
trade promotion authority. My decision to support this bill has not
been an easy one. I respect the opinions of my colleagues who do not
support trade promotion authority and I share many of their concerns.
However, two issues have changed my thinking on this matter: the
necessity of trade promotion authority to conclude multilateral trade
deals and the substantive worker protection provisions contained in the
bill.
Therefore, I believe we must grant the President the trade promotion
authority to reclaim U.S. leadership in the global trade arena and
provide him the support he needs to conclude multilateral trade
agreements that will benefit California and the United States as a
whole. And, as this bill does, we must do so in a way that provides
protection and support for workers who may be displaced from their jobs
due to increased globalization.
I have long supported free trade. Like many of my colleagues, I
believe that expanding free trade and the exchange of goods, ideas, and
services across the global marketplace is vital to the success of
American industries, the creation of new jobs, and the economic well-
being of all Americans.
My home State of California, which ranks among the top economies in
the world and leads the country in exports, has greatly benefitted from
past free trade agreements and stands to gain even more from future
negotiations.
Now, I understand that many of my colleagues will point out that this
administration and its predecessor have concluded and signed trade
agreements since fast-track expired in 1994. No doubt this is true and
no doubt it will continue to be true.
Yet those agreements have been bilateral trade agreements. Many
bilateral agreements have been signed without fast track authority.
One recent and noteworthy example is the United States-Jordan Free
Trade Agreement. I voted for that agreement and I believe it is
important tool to advance the cause of peace and stability in the
Middle East.
But while the United States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement is
politically vital, economically it is rather small bilateral trade
between the two countries is approximately $600 million.
Multilateral negotiations, on the other hand, such as those aimed at
establishing a Free Trade Area of the Americas or the Doha round of
global trade talks, involve far more countries, far more negotiators,
and far more billions of dollars worth of trade.
As former Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Richard Fisher told me,
our trade negotiators need fast track to tackle the difficult, complex,
and diverse issues that inevitably arise in multilateral talks and get
our partners to put the best deal on the table. Without it, we simpliy
can't close out these deals.
If our partners know that they will have to negotiate with Congress
after negotiating with the administration, the most sensitive issues,
and the keys to unlocking new and expanding markets, will be taken off
the agenda.
Imagine if you were a party to a multilateral trade negotiation and
you knew that a final agreement would be open to amendment by the U.S.
Congress. You would never agree to put your best offer on the table and
you would never agree to sign any agreement if you thought that the
deal you negotiated--one that would provide multiple benefits to both
sides--would be change.
So, fast track becomes an imperative, if multilateral agreements are
to be negotiated successfully.
But we must also remember that some workers and some firms do suffer
as a result of increased trade and we have an obligation not to leave
them behind as global trade moves forward.
So protection for workers is important and vital to any trade
promotion authority bill.
Consequently, I support the robust and expanded trade adjustment
assistance package that will assist those workers in their time of need
and help them find new jobs. Since 1962, trade adjustment assistance
has been a bridge between the global economy and the local economy.
Let their be no doubt that this bill is a step forward for American
workers. It provides assistance, training, and support for workers as
they move into a new career. Specifically, the bill expands eligibility
for benefits to secondary workers such as suppliers and downstream
producers who lose their jobs or may lose their jobs due to a loss of
business with a firm whose workers are TAA certified; extends income
support from 52 to 78 weeks; provides a 70 percent advanceable,
refundable tax credit to help TAA workers make COBRA payments;
increases assistance for job relocation and job searches; increases the
training budget to $300 million; establishes a wage insurance program
to provide support to older workers who lose their job due to trade and
are forced to take a lesser paying job; establishes trade adjustment
assistance programs for farmers, fisherman, and communities affected by
trade, and finally; establishes a training program through the Small
Business Administration for TAA-certified workers on how to start their
own business.
Finally, let me turn now to my role as a Senator from the State of
California. California is like no other State. It is the fifth largest
economic engine in the world with a $1.33 trillion economy. From high
tech to agriculture, California is a leader in the U.S. and the global
market, and it has greatly benefitted from free trade initiatives.
In 2001, 14.6 percent of U.S. exports came from California, totaling
$106.8 billion, tops in the Nation. Exports support more than one
million jobs for Californians.
Yet if California is to maintain its status as a global economic
leader, our businesses and working people must have access to new and
expanding markets around the world. Trade promotion authority, as I
have indicated, is an important tool in that effort.
Global trade is with us. We simply can not ignore that fact. Turning
inward, building barriers, and shutting out the outside world is not
realistic. We must deal with globalization and we must deal with it in
a way that enhances the ability of American exports
[[Page S4815]]
to reach new and expanding markets, while at the same time promoting
respect for labor rights and the environment and ensuring that no
worker is left behind.
Trade promotion authority is the best vehicle for Congress and the
administration, working as partners, to build an effective trade agenda
that advances U.S. interests at home and abroad.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this legislation which has passed the
Senate today is a great bipartisan success. I am thankful to my
colleagues for their support and willingness to work together in order
to do this for the workers, farmers and companies of this country.
I would first like to thank Senators Gramm and Breaux and their staff
for helping to make this final vote possible. If it were not for their
help in brokering a deal, we may not have reached this point today.
I would also like to thank Senator Baucus and his excellent staff for
all the hard work and dedication which has gone into this bill over the
past year. I want to specifically thank Mike Evans and John Angell as
well as the trade staff--Greg Mastel, Tim Punke, Ted Posner, Angela
Marshall-Hoffman, Shara Aranoff, and Andy Harig. I appreciate their
willingness to work with my staff to accomplish so much.
I would also like to thank Polly Craighill of the Office of Senate
Legislative Counsel, for her hard work, and great expertise in drafting
this bill.
Finally, I would like to thank my staff, beginning with my Finance
Committee staff director, Kolan Davis and my trade counsels Everett
Eissenstat and Richard Chriss, who have worked tirelessly to bring this
bill to fruition. I credit them with much of today's success. It was
their hard work, along with the help of Carrie Clark and Tiffany
McCullen-Atwell, that helped us to this point.
I look forward to a productive conference, and swift passage of the
conference report, so we can get this to the President's desk, and
enacted into law.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to
H.R. 3009, the Andean Trade Preference Act and the Baucus-Grassley
amendment granting the President trade promotion authority and renewing
the trade adjustment assistance.
While I do not support this particular bill, I am not opposed to
trade and recognize the great economic benefit it has brought to my
State. In South Carolina, many foreign firms have made substantial
investments in manufacturing facilities. These plants, and the workers
they employ, produce goods for domestic consumption and for export.
Also, numerous American firms export their products. The volume of
goods moving through the port of Charleston is an indication of the
importance of trade to South Carolina. Charleston is one of the busiest
seaports in America.
History has taught us that in order for countries to buy from us, we
must buy from them. Indeed, our continuing trade deficit shows just how
much of this we as Americans do. The problem is that too many of our
trading partners refuse to trade with us fairly. They want to export to
the American market, but they do not want to let our products into
their domestic markets. I would note that the United States Trade
Representative has published his 2002 National Trade Estimate Report on
Foreign Trade Barriers. In this annual report, numbering 455 pages, he
catalogs the barriers ``affecting U.S. exports of goods and services,
foreign direct investment by U.S. persons, and protection of
intellectual property rights.'' Clearly, this report indicates our
trade negotiators have much to do to get our trading partners to open
their markets to U.S. exports.
The United States has long been the leader in promoting trade. In
1994, the United States entered into the North American Free Trade
Agreement, NAFTA, and 1 year later became a charter member of the World
Trade Organization, WTO. NAFTA established a free trade area between
the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The WTO was an endeavor to
establish an international organization and procedures to reduce and
hopefully eliminate capricious and arbitrary barriers to trade.
NAFTA opened the doors to imports of textiles and apparel from
Mexico. While the potential for cheap textile and apparel imports was
greater under the WTO, the WTO contains an Agreement on Textiles and
Clothing, ATC, which would eliminate all quotas on textile and apparel
products beginning on January 1, 2005. The ATC provides the U.S.
textile and apparel industries with a ten-year transition period to
prepare for this elimination. However, this ATC adjustment phase has
been repeatedly breached by legislative actions such as the African
Growth and Opportunity Act, the Caribbean Basin Initiative, as well as
Executive Branch decisions permitting additional import quotas for
nations such as Pakistan and Turkey. Additionally, American textile and
apparel industries have been seriously harmed by substantial
transshipments of apparel. As a result, U.S. textile and apparel
industries are being subjected to more and more unfair international
competition without the full benefit of the transition period permitted
under the ATC.
Because of these unfortunate and short-sighted policies, almost
700,000 U.S. textile and apparel workers have lost their jobs. Nearly
55,000 jobs were lost in South Carolina with a devastating effect on my
State's economy. This is compounded by the thousands of jobs that have
been lost in Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia as well as
other States. These numbers do not include the lost jobs in the steel,
furniture, and other manufacturing industries. In addition there are
the job losses in secondary industries such as equipment makers,
service firms, and transportation enterprises. Finally, there are the
community job losses in the local businesses, including department and
grocery stores, pharmacies, and automobile dealerships, to just name a
few. The cost to local communities is staggering. While the toll on all
those who lose their jobs and their families is horrendous, it is even
worse on older workers who have little chance of finding meaningful
employment.
The underlying bill, H.R. 3009, the Andean Trade Preference Act,
ATPA, seeks to renew a program that provided preferential, mostly duty-
free, treatment of selected U.S. imports from Bolivia, Colombia,
Ecuador, and Peru that expired on December 4, 2001. The purpose of the
ATPA is to encourage growth of a more diversified Andean export base,
thereby promoting development and providing an incentive for Andean
farmers and other workers to pursue economic alternatives to the drug
trade. While this is a laudable goal, my objection is to those
provisions of this legislation that would give Andean textile and
apparel products the same preferences given to those from Mexico and
the Caribbean Basin. This action will further erode the quota
protection provisions guaranteed to the U.S. textile and apparel
industries under the ATC. These increases in textile and apparel
imports into the United States will further destabilize the American
textile and apparel industries during the critical ten-year transition
period and result in the loss of more American jobs.
This bill also reauthorizes Trade Promotion Authority. Trade
promotion authority allows the President to negotiate trade agreements
and submit them to the Congress for approval or defeat. No amendments
are allowed, therefore no improvements can be made to such agreements.
My concerns are that future trade negotiators will be more interested
in getting an agreement, any agreement, no matter what the cost to
American manufacturing, rather than protect the best interests of the
United States. The emphasis of American representatives in previous
trade talks has clearly been for free trade at the expense of fair
trade. The current state of U.S. manufacturing is evidence of this sad
fact. So granting the President TPA will result in the Congress being
presented with no alternative other than to vote for or against the
total agreement. I do not believe this is consistent with the
Constitutional responsibilities of the United States Congress.
Particularly troubling about this grant of TPA is that our trade
negotiators have, and continue to place in negotiation, U.S. trade
remedy laws. What we need, Mr. President, are not weaker trade remedy
laws but stronger ones. In addition, to the responsibility of
protecting U.S. workers and their employers, we have a strategic
defense
[[Page S4816]]
interest in promoting and strengthening American manufacturing as
opposed to letting it wither away. Again, what I am advocating is fair
trade not free trade.
Finally, included in the legislation is the renewal of Trade
Adjustment Assistance, TAA. I support TAA without reservation, and I
have in the past attempted to strengthen TAA by making the
certification process easier. I regret that this TAA renewal provision
is part of this legislation and was not considered separately.
In closing, I wish to state that I am for trade, fair trade. The sad
experience of our Nation with so-called ``free trade'' is that it
results in the loss of American manufacturing jobs. Unfortunately, this
legislation will pass the Senate and will undoubtedly be signed into
law by the President. I call upon the President and administration
officials to negotiate for fair trade. I hope in the future
negotiations are conducted which result in rules that do not
discriminate against American industry and agriculture, and which
require our trading partners to open their domestic markets to U.S.
products.
Because of the thousands of jobs that have been lost, not only in my
State of South Carolina but in the Nation as a whole, and because of
the jobs which will be lost in the future, I will vote against this
legislation.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have been astonished that the Senate--the
very institution in which Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, Henry Clay,
Robert Wagner, and Richard Russell once made important national policy,
even it it meant defying presidents--would sit back and humbly and
meekly allow the interests of the workers in their states to be
sacrificed upon the altar of the false promise of free trade.
These past few weeks, I have been even more disturbed that some would
allow their concerns and their opposition to fast-track authority to be
bought off with another false promise--the false promise of enhanced
trade adjustment assistance for workers impacted by trade.
I am not opposed to trade adjustment assistance in its intent and
purpose. Trade adjustment assistance provides an important service when
and where it is needed. But trade adjustment is not a panacea. Trade
adjustment assistance is not a substitute for a job. Trade adjustment
assistance is not a substitute for good trade policies. Trade
adjustment assistance should never, never, be considered as a
substitute for Congressional input into trade agreements, input that is
essential for members of this chamber to be able to protect and promote
the interests of our constituents.
My opposition to giving fast-track authority to the executive branch
is long-standing and unchanging. The Constitution obligates Congress to
regulate foreign commerce. This means, at the least, that Congress must
be an active participant in trade agreements, not a rubber stamp.
Trade impacts every citizen of our country. It cuts across nearly
every aspect of our lives and livehoods. The way of life and work for
millions of American workers, for tens of thousands of American
communities, are affected by the trade agreements. That is why trade
issues must be debated and shaped by the legislative representatives of
the people. It is the hardworking, responsible people back home who
will keenly feel the impact of our trade policies.
I was sent here to represent the interests of my State. I am going to
do that to the best of my ability and this includes promoting and
protecting the thousands of West Virginia workers whose lives are
affected by trade agreements.
It is difficult for me to understand why any member of this body of
either political party, would surrender our constitutional prerogative
to regulate trade to the executive branch.
The devil, as the saying goes, is in the details. And fast track is
asking the Congress of the United States to ignore the details, at
great peril to the workers of our States.
It is especially difficult to understand in this era when
globalization has rendered the industries and workers of our States
more and more vulnerable to the unfair, predatory trade practices of
foreign countries.
Our States are drowning under a flood of cheap foreign imports, and
it is not just manufacturing industries. Free trade with Mexico has led
to a flood of Mexican imports that devastated Florida's tomato industry
and forced thousands of agricultural layoffs. China is dumping garlic
on the United States and destroying the garlic industry in California.
Since 1994, when NAFTA created the free trade zone, North Carolina
has lost more than 125,500 jobs in the textile and apparel industries.
The Mississippi Business Journal reports that the garment industry in
Mississippi has virtually disappeared in the post-NAFTA era in that
State.
Last May, the New York Times told of the closing of a cotton factory
in Jacksonville, AL, and the devastating impact of that plant closing
on the town and its people. ``The good-paying textile jobs that built
many of the towns in the industrial South,'' the story reported, ``have
been vanishing for decades as manufacturers improve profits by moving
to countries where labor is cheaper. The North American Trade Agreement
. . . was a death knell for working people like the millers in
Jacksonville.''
The American trucking industry is being clobbered by unfair and
unregulated Mexican trucking.
The steel industry in Pennsylvania and West Virginia has been
absolutely devastated by the dumping of cheap foreign steel and of
foreign, government-subsidized imported steel. A few weeks ago,
President Bush pointed out that, ``Fifty years of foreign government
intervention in the global steel market has resulted in bankruptcies,
serious dislocation, and job loss.''
Estimates of job losses in the United States from NAFTA range from a
half-million to more than a million.
The impact of job dislocation is devastating communities across the
country. The impact of being displaced, that is, losing your job due to
a change in trade policy--that is, losing your job through no fault of
your own--is devastating both psychologically and financially to the
individual worker. For too many American workers, free trade has been
and continues to be a long and frightening slide to financial disaster.
Additionally, there is the risk of loss of health insurance. When one
does not have insurance and, therefore, cannot pay for proper
treatment, the result can be devastating.
Compound this with the loss of retirement security. When people lose
their jobs, they can no longer contribute to their retirement account.
Worse, they are too often forced to take out their retirement savings
in lump sum payments in order to make mortgage payments or to feed
their families, or to pay their health insurance, thus wiping out the
family's future economic security. Americans are living longer now.
Many of them fear that they will not to able to depend upon Social
Security for a decent retirement. They know that they will need these
supplemental retirement savings. But, when displaced, and forced to
drain their retirement accounts, that economic security is difficult to
make up, if not lost forever.
And, of course, there is the loss of income. In addition to the
obvious loss of income between jobs, there is the additional loss of
income when the displaced worker returns to lower-paying employment.
Workers who lose higher wage, industrial jobs are often forced to take
low-paying service jobs. Service jobs are notoriously lower paying jobs
that offer limited opportunities for advancement.
Studies of counties in Colorado, Missouri, and Mississippi have found
a declining standard of living for workers and their communities as
they moved from manufacturing to service jobs.
For many workers, the erosion in earnings after landing new
employment is telling. In the latter part of the 1990s, the weekly
earnings of all reemployed workers fell 5.7 percent on average. Workers
displaced from high-tenure jobs showed an average drop in earnings of
over 20 percent after they found new, full-time jobs.
Even workers who manage to retain their jobs feel the impact of trade
as the decline in American manufacturing has meant a declining standard
of living, not just for the affected workers and their families but
also for their communities and their States. With the rise of
international competition
[[Page S4817]]
and the shift to lower wage service jobs in the United States, real
wages have stagnated, making life much more difficult for all American
workers. Today, even with some recovery in real wages due to the rapid
growth in the economy in the 1990s, the average weekly wage is nearly
12 percent less than at its peak in the 1970s. As I said, the devil is
in the details, and these families see these details every day as they
work harder and run faster, only to continue falling further behind.
Is it any wonder that polls and surveys reveal that: 57 percent of
all working adults oppose giving President Bush fast-track authority;
78 percent of Americans believe that protecting American jobs should be
a top priority in deciding U.S. trade policy; and 68 percent of
Americans believe that trade details with low-wage countries such as
Mexico lead to lower wages for American workers.
Yet, I have sat back and watched in astonishment and shock as members
of Congress have auctioned off this important constitutional obligation
and the economic interests of their constituents for increased trade
adjustment assistance benefits.
Last year, the nonpartisan United States Trade Deficit Review
Commission pointed out that, ``workers adjustment assistance has often
been the last component of a package intended to increase Congressional
support for approving new trade agreements. As such, it has often been
viewed simply as an afterthough rather than as an integral component of
our trade policy.''
Trade adjustment assistance has become a labyrinth of rules and
regulations. When the Trade Deficit Review Commission surveyed the
states for ways to improve trade adjustment assistance training
programs, the state agencies came up with more than 80 different
recommendations.
Now, Congress is about to be bought off for the promise of enhanced
trade adjustment assistance; that is, more band-aids to cover a gaping
hemorrhaging of the livelihoods of American workers!
There is the promise of tax credits for health insurance--I am not
sure how important tax credits are to unemployed workers who have no
income.
There is the promise of more retraining, but I am concerned that we
may be retraining for jobs that will not be there.
There is the band-aid of wage insurance. I point out that Congress
tried this gimmick before with the 1988 Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act (OTCA), and it failed miserably. Two States were
selected to test the program. One state rejected the program because
they viewed it as too costly, bureaucratic and confusing. A single
State was not considered enough of a sample from which to test the
program, so the U.S. Department of Labor canceled the pilot program all
together.
The Trade Deficit Review Commission--the commission this Chamber
created to make recommendations for changes in trade policy--made the
important point that, for trade policy to be truly effective, trade
adjustment assistance ``must be a comprehensive safety met available to
all who need it.'' If trade adjustment assistance is to work, it must
be comprehensive, flexible, and, according to the Trade Deficit Review
Commission, it must be ``triggerless''--that is, it must provide
benefits to workers who lose their jobs whether it is due to trade
dislocation, technological changes, or other reasons.'' This means,
among other things, that there must not be distinctions between primary
or secondary workers. We must realize that trade impacts the community
as well as the individual. Everyone is impacted and affected.
Under the fast track legislation as it now stands, American truckers
are ineligible for Trade adjustment assistance benefits because they
are not considered ``worthy'' secondary workers.
In promoting the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the legislation that
also established trade adjustment assistance, President John F. Kennedy
declared: ``There is an obligation to render assistance to those who
suffer as a result of national trade policy.''
It is an obligation, not a lever. It is an obligation, not a bone to
be thrown to a Congress acting more like administration lap dogs than
the legislative representatives of the American people.
I repeat myself. Trade adjustment assistance is no substitute for a
job.
Trade adjustment assistance is no substitute for good trade policy,
and good trade policy will only come from open debate, and the amending
process--that is, the input from the members of this body who represent
the interests of the people of our states and the United States.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. It is my understanding that no one is requesting a vote on
the substitute or on cloture on the bill itself, and that the final
action before the Senate will be a vote on the bill itself. Hearing no
objection, Mr. President, I therefore ask unanimous consent that the
cloture vote be vitiated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the substitute amendment, as amended.
The amendment (No. 3401), in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the
amendments and third reading of the bill.
The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read a third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill pass?
Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
Mr. GRAMM. Is this final passage?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. This is final passage.
Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this will be the last vote of the
evening.
Mr. GRAMM. Let's stay.
Mr. DASCHLE. I move to reconsider that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), and the Senator from
Kansas (Mr. Brownback) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 30, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 130 Leg.]
YEAS--66
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Bunning
Burns
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Domenici
Edwards
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--30
Akaka
Boxer
Byrd
Campbell
Carnahan
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Feingold
Gregg
Hollings
Johnson
Kennedy
Leahy
Levin
Mikulski
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Stabenow
Thurmond
Torricelli
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--4
Brownback
Helms
Inouye
Shelby
The bill (H.R. 3009), as amended, was passed.
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished chairman
and ranking member of the Finance Committee for their outstanding work
on getting to this point. This has not been easy. We have spent a lot
of time. Obviously this is a very difficult measure. We have
accomplished it. It is something I think we can look back on
[[Page S4818]]
with great satisfaction and great pride. It would not have happened
were it not for the leadership of the Senators from Montana and Iowa.
I must say, even though he doesn't want me to--he is embarrassed and
gets frustrated when I do this--I thank the Senator from Nevada. As
with so many pieces of legislation, this simply would not have happened
without his masterful work on the Senate floor as well. I congratulate
him.
I thank all of the staff involved, my staff, Chuck Marr, and the
staff of the committee and others.
We now must turn to the schedule when we return.
There will be no further votes this evening, and we will not be in
session tomorrow.
____________________