[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7694-7705]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

   NOMINATION OF RONALD KIRK TO BE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Ronald Kirk, of Texas, 
to be U.S. Trade Representative.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 90 
minutes of debate on the nomination, with the majority controlling 30 
minutes and the Republicans controlling 60 minutes.
  The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as you noted, we will consider the 
nomination of Mr. Ron Kirk as the next U.S. Trade Representative.
  With some reluctance, I will vote to confirm Mr. Kirk's nomination. I 
think it is pretty obvious Mr. Kirk has been less than forthcoming on a 
number of trade issues that affect this country, and some of the 
positions he has articulated are very dangerous for this Nation's 
future. I have come to this floor on numerous occasions and argued 
against the provisions that have been signed into law in omnibus bills 
recently, one of them ``Buy American,'' the other, of course, the 
latest being the barring of Mexican trucks into the United States of 
America.
  The signal that sends to the world is that the United States is on a 
path of protectionism. That shows at least a majority of Members of 
this body have ignored the lessons of history. That lesson, obviously, 
we learned in the Great Depression, when isolationism

[[Page 7695]]

and protectionism turned our economy from a deep recession to the worst 
depression of modern times. That is what protectionism and isolationism 
does.
  So we now have a predictable result of killing the program which 
would allow, in keeping with the North American Free Trade Agreement, a 
solemn treaty signed by then-President Clinton, that Mexican trucks 
would be allowed into the United States.
  Before I go much further, though, I wished to comment on the issue 
that is consuming the American people and the Congress today; that is, 
the AIG bonuses paid to executives. The simple lesson is, if we had not 
bailed out AIG, we would not be worried about the bonuses. I spoke out 
against the bailout of AIG at the time when it was first proposed when 
AIG was in trouble.
  I, along with every other American, share anger and obvious 
displeasure that these bonuses were given to executives who obviously 
did not deserve them. But we should not have bailed out AIG. We should 
have let them fail and reorganize.
  I would also like to point out that another area of the bailout that 
Americans should be equally disturbed about is the $20 billion that 
went to foreign banks. American taxpayers are paying now $20 billion to 
bail out foreign banks. Have we not enough trouble here at home and 
enough areas of the country that need Government assistance than to 
send $20 billion to foreign banks?
  There is an obvious need for increased transparency, increased 
oversight, and far more careful stewardship of American tax dollars. 
The numbers we are talking about are, indeed, staggering. I would point 
out, again, we are committing generational theft by these kinds of 
expenditures of American taxpayers' dollars and mortgaging our children 
and grandchildren's future.
  The direction of our trade policy has hardly been more important in 
recent years, given the enormous economic challenges we are facing 
today, with unemployment rising, consumer confidence dropping, and our 
growth rate stagnating, at best.
  American exports. American exports have been one of the few bright 
spots in a terrible economic situation. Until last quarter, the export 
sector of our economy grew at a faster rate than other sectors during 
the past several years. In the face of this fact, and mindful of 
history lessons, Congress and the administration should be working to 
break down remaining barriers to trade.
  However, we are doing the opposite. Since the beginning of this year, 
Congress and the administration have taken several steps designed to 
choke off access to the U.S. market which invites retaliation from our 
foreign trading partners.
  American business and workers will suffer as the result of these ill-
considered moves. Last month, as I mentioned, Congress adopted and the 
President signed into law--again, one of the consequences of these 
omnibus bills that are thousands of pages, that nobody knows what is 
included, they are designed to be a ``stimulus'' or ``spending bill,'' 
and we stuff policy provisions in them, which people may not know about 
for weeks or even months.
  We find out that these are egregious in the case of ``Buy American'' 
and in the case of the American trucks. Both of them send a signal to 
the world that America is going down the path of protectionism.
  The results, as far as Mexico is concerned, are unfortunate, very 
unfortunate, but predictable. The reaction of our friends and allies 
throughout the world to the ``Buy American'' provisions is predictable. 
They are angry and they are upset. I cannot say I blame them.
  Now, the ``Buy American'' provision required funds appropriated in 
that bill--this is a policy change, remember, adopted in a ``stimulus 
package,'' that we purchase only American-made steel, iron, and 
manufactured goods.
  As we debated this provision, many of our closest partners expressed 
great concerns about the implications of this course of action. The 
Canadian Ambassador to the United States wrote:

       If Buy America becomes part of the stimulus legislation, 
     the United States will lose the moral authority to pressure 
     others not to introduce protectionist policies. A rush of 
     protectionist actions could create a downward spiral like the 
     world experienced in the 1930's.

  When then-Candidate Obama said he would ``unilaterally renegotiate'' 
the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Canadian response was: 
Yes, and if you do that, then we will sell our oil to China. Then, 
later, Candidate Obama changed his position to saying: Well, that 
wasn't exactly what he meant. Then, President Obama said: Now we are in 
favor of free trade. But yet President Obama did not veto either one of 
these bills, which sends a signal to the world that the United States 
has embarked on a protectionist path. He should have vetoed those 
bills, especially the one on Mexican trucks.
  A European Commission spokesman noted:

       We are particularly concerned about the signal that these 
     measures could send to the world at a time when all countries 
     are facing difficulty. Where America leads, many others tend 
     to follow.

  Others lent their own voices to those cautioning against a terribly 
ill-timed protectionist act.
  While some Senators may have taken comfort in last-minute language 
added to require that implementation of the ``Buy American'' provisions 
be consistent with our international obligations, I worry very much 
about the effect this and other steps will have on the global trading 
system. For decades the United States has led global efforts toward 
free and open trade and investment. We abandon this leadership at our 
peril.
  The ``Buy American'' provision was not the only step in the 
protectionist direction. There have been other protectionist measures, 
and we are already seeing the fallout from such unwise decisions. Mr. 
Kirk agreed during his confirmation hearing:

       [I]f the United States raises barriers in our own market, 
     other countries are more likely to raise barriers against our 
     products.

  We have that evidence already. On Monday, the Mexican Government 
announced it will increase tariffs on 90 American agricultural and 
manufactured goods in direct retaliation for our recent decision to ban 
Mexican trucks from traveling beyond commercial zones. Although the 
Mexican Government is yet to specify the 90 different goods, it has 
announced that its decision would affect $2.4 billion worth of exports 
from 40 States. The Mexican Ambassador had an article in the Wall 
Street Journal this morning.
  I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record, along with 
an editorial from this morning from the Arizona Republic.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 18, 2009]

                     Congress Doesn't Respect Nafta

       Nobody can argue that Mexico hasn't worked tirelessly for 
     more than a decade to avoid a dispute with the United States 
     over Mexican long-haul trucks traveling through this country. 
     But free and fair trade hit another red light this past week.
       Back in 1995, the U.S. unilaterally blocked the 
     implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement's 
     cross-border trucking provisions, just as they were about to 
     enter into force. In response, and after three years of 
     constant engagement, Mexico had no alternative but to request 
     the establishment of an arbitration panel as allowed under 
     Nafta. A five-member panel, chaired by a Briton and including 
     two U.S. citizens, ruled unanimously in February 2001 that 
     Washington had violated the trucking provisions contained in 
     Nafta, authorizing Mexico to adopt retaliatory measures. Yet 
     once again, Mexico exercised restraint and sought a 
     resolution of this issue through further dialogue.
       Unfortunately, Mexico's forbearance only seemed to make 
     matters worse. In 2002, Congress introduced 22 additional 
     safety requirements that Mexican trucks would have to meet, a 
     measure that was clearly discriminatory as these requirements 
     were not applied to U.S. and Canadian carriers operating in 
     the U.S. Mexico worked assiduously with the U.S. 
     administration to find a solution to this problem.
       Finally, in 2007 an agreement was reached that included the 
     implementation of a demonstration program in which up to 100 
     carriers from each nation would be allowed to participate. 
     This program was designed precisely to address the concerns 
     voiced by those opposed to cross-border trucking. The 
     demonstration program, launched in September 2007, was an 
     unmitigated success.

[[Page 7696]]

     During the 18 months that the program was in operation, 26 
     carriers from Mexico (with 103 trucks) and 10 from the U.S. 
     (with 61 trucks) crossed the border over 45,000 times without 
     any significant incident or accident. Moreover, according to 
     reports of both the Department of Transportation's inspector 
     general and an independent evaluation panel, Mexico's 
     carriers participating in the program have a safety record 
     far better than that of all other carriers operating in the 
     U.S.
       The demonstration program also underscored the benefits of 
     free and fair cross-border trade, given the lower costs that 
     would result from ending the requirement that short-haul 
     trucks be used to transfer cargo at the border from the long-
     haul trucks of one country to those of the other. Thus, for 
     example, one participating carrier saved over $600,000 a year 
     by cutting trip times and fuel costs, while another saved an 
     estimated $188,000 in transfer fees in the nine months that 
     it participated in the demonstration program.
       These savings benefit consumers and enhance North American 
     competitiveness. Moreover, a streamlined system would also 
     cut pollution, since fewer and newer Mexican long-haul trucks 
     would replace smaller and older trucks that now huff and puff 
     their way to the border. Unfortunately, notwithstanding these 
     benefits to businesses and workers, and to the safety of our 
     roads and the health of our environment, a small but vocal 
     group has consistently blocked progress on this issue. It has 
     now finally managed to stop the demonstration program by 
     defunding it through the 2009 omnibus spending bill.
       In confronting this situation, the government of Mexico--
     after over a decade of dialogue and engagement in which it 
     has asked for nothing more than U.S. compliance with its 
     international commitments and with the rules of the game that 
     provide for a level playing field--has had no alternative but 
     to respond by raising tariffs on 90 U.S. products that 
     account for approximately $2.4 billion in trade.
       Today, opponents within Congress continue to allege 
     concerns related to the safety of America's roads--yet they 
     cancelled the very program designed to address such concerns, 
     and which had been producing positive results. After all, the 
     cross-border trucking program that was defunded had been 
     demonstrating not only compliance by Mexico's long-haul 
     trucks with U.S. regulations, but a superb and unmatched 
     record of safety. It is precisely because of our firm belief 
     in the importance of cross-border services that the 
     government of Mexico will continue, as a sign of good-faith 
     and notwithstanding the countermeasures announced early this 
     week, to allow U.S. carriers to provide trucking services 
     into Mexico under the now-defunct demonstration program 
     guidelines and criteria.
       Mexico is the U.S.'s second-largest buyer of exports. It 
     remains a steadfast supporter of free and fair trade, and 
     will continue to work actively and responsibly during the 
     coming weeks and months with Congress and the administration 
     to find a solution that will allow safe Mexican trucks onto 
     U.S. roads under Nafta rules.
                                  ____


               [From the Arizona Republic, Mar. 18, 2009]

              U.S. in the Wrong by Blocking Mexican Trucks

       America is picking a food fight with Mexico over trade. 
     Congress set it off by canceling a pilot program that allowed 
     Mexican trucks to operate on U.S. highways--a blatant 
     violation of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
       Mexico responded Monday by announcing that it will jack up 
     tariffs on 90 U.S. agricultural and manufactured products. 
     About $2.4 billion worth of exports from 40 states will be 
     affected.
       Under NAFTA, we agreed to give Mexican trucks access 
     beginning in 1995, increasing efficiency and lowering costs 
     for consumers.
       But U.S. trucking interests and unions have been trying to 
     block the move for years with scare stories about safety. 
     Actually, thousands of Mexican trucks, which were 
     grandfathered in, have operated safely here for years. The 
     pilot program set high standards for vehicles and drivers. 
     The real issue isn't safety but competition and profits.
       President Barack Obama, who was cool to NAFTA during the 
     campaign, must step up to ensure the United States finally 
     follows its treaty obligations. The White House says he is 
     working on a new version of the pilot program that responds 
     to congressional concerns. It needs to happen quickly.
       Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is sounding a timely warning 
     that this dispute could lead to more protectionist measures.
       Let the trucks roll.

  Mr. McCAIN. The Mexican Ambassador says, in part of his article:

       The U.S. Congress, which has now killed a modest and highly 
     successful U.S.-Mexico trucking demonstration program, has 
     sadly left my government no choice but to impose 
     countermeasures after years of restraint and goodwill.
       Then and now, this was never about the safety of American 
     roads or drivers; it was and has been about protectionism, 
     pure and simple.

  He is right. It is also a testimony to the influence of the Teamsters 
Union. Elections have consequences.
  He goes on to say:

       It is worth noting that this takes place shortly after 
     Mexico announced it would unilaterally reduce its industrial 
     tariffs from an average of 10.4% in 2008 to 4.3% by 2013, and 
     that it has underscored its commitment, along with its other 
     G-20 partners, to push back on protectionist pressures.

  What has been particularly frustrating in this long and uphill battle 
has been the fact that the Congress continues to move the goalposts.
  Importantly, he concludes:

       Mexico is the U.S.'s second largest buyer of exports. It 
     remains a steadfast supporter of free and fair trade, and 
     will continue to work actively and responsibly during the 
     coming weeks and months with Congress and the administration 
     to find a solution that will allow safe Mexican trucks onto 
     U.S. roads under Nafta rules.

  Again, NAFTA was signed by President Clinton 14 years ago. Part of 
that agreement was that Mexican trucks would be allowed into the United 
States. Study after study has concluded that Mexican trucks operate as 
safely as U.S. trucks do.
  Today, on goods America buys coming from Mexico, the truck, after 
crossing the border, if it is Mexican, has to stop. The goods are 
offloaded onto another truck, moved to another truck that is American-
owned and loaded onboard that truck. Meanwhile, there are 
CO2 emissions and the cost and expenses of the delay are 
passed on to the American consumer.
  I repeat, Mexico is the third largest trading partner of the United 
States, behind Canada and China, and the United States ranks first 
among Mexico's trading partners. United States trade with Mexico 
totaled $368 billion in 2008. We have close and growing ties between 
our two Governments. Right now there is an existential threat to our 
southern neighbor from drug cartels. The violence on the border is at 
unprecedented levels. Acts of cruelty and murder are taking place 
beyond belief. People are being beheaded. There is the assassination of 
police chiefs and others. The corruption is very high. Why should we 
care? One reason we should care is because of violence spilling over 
from the Mexican border into ours.
  The other reason is, there is between, according to estimates, $10 
and $13 billion worth of revenue in receipts from the sale of drugs in 
the United States. It is the United States that is creating the market 
that is creating the drug cartels and violence on the border that has 
ensued. The Mexican Government is trying--maybe for the first time in 
as serious a way as they are now--to bring under control these cartels. 
The corruption reaches to the highest level. The violence is incredibly 
high. We need to do what we can to help the Mexican Government bring 
these cartels under control and try to eradicate them because they do 
pose an existential threat. We cannot afford to have a government that 
is full of corruption and controlled by drug cartels on our southern 
border, not to mention the impact it has on illegal immigration.
  What did we do? We took steps in violation of our obligations under 
the North America Free Trade Agreement that will have precisely the 
opposite effect and have prompted retaliation that will only serve to 
harm American workers, consumers, and our Nation's relationship with 
Mexico.
  During these difficult economic times for many American businesses, 
the ability to sell products on the world market is essential to our 
economic recovery. The Financial Times wrote in an editorial published 
yesterday:

       The retaliatory duties are a legitimate response to a U.S. 
     violation of a trade deal . . . but this does not bode well 
     for bilateral relations just under two months into the Obama 
     administration.

  It goes on:

       We hope cooler heads prevail and prevent any deterioration 
     of the bilateral relationship. Both nations have too much at 
     stake--and trade as well as security issues.

  I could not agree more.
  The Arizona Republic published an editorial that reads:

       With the economy in tatters, it's no time to mince words: 
     The United States is in the

[[Page 7697]]

     wrong. Under NAFTA, we agreed to give Mexican trucks access 
     beginning in 1995, increasing efficiency and lowering costs 
     for consumers.

  The editorial continues:

       Around the world, countries are considering trade barriers 
     that could have disastrous consequences for the world 
     economy. The United States must put the brakes on trade 
     restrictions, not fuel them.

  I am aware there is a sizable block of public opinion that believes 
we should close our borders to everybody and everything, that somehow 
Mexican trucks are unacceptable, that legal immigration is something we 
ought to do away with. I understand all those arguments. But I also 
urge those who say that trade with Mexico is not important to 
understand the facts: They are our third largest trading partner; we 
have a trade surplus; it is important to have our relationship good as 
we help them battle the drug cartels; and, most importantly, 
protectionism and high tariffs led to the Great Depression.
  Congress passed NAFTA in 1993 and President Clinton signed it into 
law in 1994, which mandated the opening of our southern border to 
Mexican trucking operations to allow the free flow of goods and 
services between the two countries. Last year, language was slipped 
into a fiscal year 2008 spending bill that sought to strip funding for 
a pilot program with Mexico that would allow a limited number of 
Mexican trucks to enter the United States. Now the administration says 
it will try to create ``a new trucking project that will meet the 
legitimate concerns'' of Congress. I don't understand how the 
administration can create a new trucking project to comply with NAFTA, 
when Congress explicitly barred any money from being spent toward such 
activities. The President should not seek to create a new project to 
circumvent the terms of the legislative language. Rather, he should 
have vetoed it in the first place.
  The administration's eliminating the Mexican cross-border trucking 
program will harm millions of American consumers who could benefit from 
lower prices on many goods manufactured in Mexico and then distributed 
in the United States.
  According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, refusing entry 
into our country of Mexican trucks carrying Mexican-made goods adds 
$400 million to the price of Mexican imports which is, of course, 
passed on to the American consumer. Mr. Kirk has made some statements 
broadly supportive of international trade, but he has also made 
comments suggesting protectionism might not be so bad after all. During 
his confirmation hearing, Mr. Kirk stated:

       Not all Americans are winning from [trade] and our trading 
     partners are not always playing by the rules.

  He suggested the administration may abandon the free-trade agreement 
we have concluded with South Korea, one projected to increase the 
United States GDP by $10 to $12 billion. He said the pact ``simply 
isn't fair.'' He emphasized he does not have ``deal fever'' when it 
comes to trade agreements. Again, it is up in the air as to what the 
fate of the Colombia Free Trade Agreement would be, sending a clear 
signal that we would be punishing the Colombian Government for their 
assistance in trying to combat drug cartels.
  Our trading partners, including Canada and Mexico, don't seem 
interested in strengthening agreements that have served them and us 
well for years. Rather, they would like to see the United States 
fulfill its own trade obligations and look for further ways to open 
markets to the free flow of commerce. The free flow of commerce has 
been a founding principle of U.S. economic policy for many decades and 
a key factor in our rise to prosperity and greatness. It is for this 
reason I hope Mr. Kirk and his colleagues in the administration will 
reconsider their stance and help build, not damage, the consensus 
behind free trade. After all, we have seen a terribly destructive 
pattern unfold before.
  In 1930, as the United States and the world were entering what would 
be known in history as the Great Depression, two men, Mr. Smoot and Mr. 
Hawley, led the effort to enact protectionist legislation in the face 
of economic crisis. Their bill, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, raised 
duties on thousands of imported goods in a futile attempt to keep jobs 
at home. In the face of this legislation, 1,028 economists issued a 
statement to President Herbert Hoover, wherein they wrote:

       America is now facing the problem of unemployment.
       The proponents of higher tariffs would claim that an 
     increase in rates will give work to the idle. This is not 
     true. We cannot increase employment by restricting trade.

  Mr. Smoot, Mr. Hawley, and their colleagues paid no attention to this 
wise admonishment, and the Congress went ahead with protectionist 
legislation. In doing so, they sparked an international trade war as 
countries around the world retaliated, raising their own duties and 
restricting trade, and they helped turn a severe recession into the 
greatest depression in modern history.
  I do not intend to oppose the President's nominee for U.S. Trade 
Representative. I remain very concerned about the direction of our 
trade policies at a time of economic peril. I urge my colleagues and 
the administration to heed the lessons of economics and heed the 
lessons of history.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on 
confirmation of the nomination of Ron Kirk occur at 2 p.m. today, with 
the remaining provisions of the previous order governing the 
consideration of this nomination in effect; that upon resuming 
legislative session, the Senate then proceed to vote in relation to the 
following amendments in the order listed; further, with respect to H.R. 
146 and the provisions of the order governing vote sequences remaining 
in effect: Coburn amendment No. 680, Coburn amendment No. 679, Coburn 
amendment No. 675.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak for up to 8 minutes as in morning business and that 
the time not count against debate time on the Kirk nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Ending Stealth Bonuses

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss taxpayer-
funded bonuses. These bonuses are paid every year, often without any 
public discussion or a recorded vote by those with the authority to 
approve or stop them. The people giving themselves these bonuses have 
made sure they get them regardless of their performance.
  I am referring to the annual bonuses given to Members of Congress.
  There is some good news to report on this issue today. Thanks to the 
leadership of majority leader Harry Reid, we took an important step 
yesterday. Senator Reid moved legislation through the Senate that will 
end these annual stealth bonuses. I have introduced legislation similar 
to Senator Reid's bill for the past six Congresses, and I am delighted, 
because of Senator Reid's leadership, this proposal has finally passed 
the Senate.
  Congress has the power to raise its own pay. While some corporate 
executives apparently have this power as well, it is something most of 
our constituents cannot do. Because this is such a singular power, I 
think Congress ought to exercise it openly and subject to regular 
procedures, including debate, amendment, and, of course, a vote on the 
record.
  But current law allows Congress to avoid that public debate and vote. 
All that is necessary for Congress to get a pay raise is that they do 
nothing, that nothing be done to stop it. The annual bonus takes effect 
unless Congress acts.
  As I noted in a statement yesterday, that stealth bonus mechanism 
began with a change Congress enacted in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. 
In section 704 of that act, Members of Congress voted to make 
themselves entitled--entitled--to an annual raise equal to half a 
percentage point less than the employment cost index, which is one 
measure of inflation.

[[Page 7698]]

  On occasion, Congress has actually voted to deny itself a bonus, and 
the traditional vehicle for the pay raise vote is the Treasury 
appropriations bill. But that vehicle is not always made available to 
those who want a public debate and vote on the matter. As I have noted 
in the past, getting a vote on the annual congressional pay raise is a 
haphazard affair, at best, and it should not be that way. The burden 
should not be on those who seek a public debate and a recorded vote on 
the Member pay raise. On the contrary, Congress should have to act if 
it decides to award itself a hike in pay. This process of congressional 
bonuses without accountability must end.
  I joined with the junior Senator from Louisiana in offering an 
amendment to the Omnibus appropriations bill recently. That amendment 
received strong support--support which was all the more remarkable 
because many of the amendment's potential supporters felt constrained 
to oppose it in order to keep the underlying legislation free of 
amendments. Now, thanks to our majority leader, we have a real chance 
to end this system in fact.
  This issue is not a new question. It was something our Founders 
considered from the beginning of our Nation. In August of 1789, as part 
of the package of 12 amendments advocated by James Madison that 
included what has become our Bill of Rights, the House of 
Representatives passed an amendment to the Constitution providing that 
Congress could not raise its pay without an intervening election. On 
September 9, 1789, the Senate passed that amendment. In late September 
of 1789, Congress submitted the amendments to the States.
  Although the amendment on pay raises languished for two centuries, in 
the 1980s, a campaign began to ratify it. While I was a member of the 
Wisconsin State Senate, I was pleased to help add Wisconsin to the 
States ratifying the amendment. Then its approval by the Michigan 
legislature on May 7, 1992, gave it the needed approval by three-
fourths of the States.
  So the 27th amendment to the Constitution now states:

       No law, varying the compensation for the services of the 
     senators and representatives, shall take effect, until an 
     election of representatives shall have intervened.

  I honor that limitation. Throughout my 6-year term, I accept only the 
rate of pay Senators receive on the date on which I was sworn in as a 
Senator. I return to the Treasury any cost-of-living adjustments or 
bonuses during my term. I do not take a raise until my bosses, the 
people of Wisconsin, give me one at the ballot box. That is the spirit 
of the 27th amendment, and, at the very least, the stealth pay raises 
permitted under the current system certainly violate that spirit.
  This practice must end. I am so delighted to express my thanks to 
Majority Leader Reid. Because of him, we have a real chance of ending 
it.
  Today I am sending a letter to Speaker Pelosi asking that the other 
body take up and pass the Reid legislation to end the automatic 
congressional bonuses. Doing so would assure the American people that 
we are not only serious about going after the abusive bonuses paid to 
the executives of firms bailed out with taxpayer dollars, but we are 
also serious about ending a system that was devised to provide Members 
of Congress with bonuses without any accountability.
  Mr. President, I yield back whatever time I have remaining.
  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. 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 might ask, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Kirk nomination is before the Senate.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair.
  I would like to speak on the Kirk nomination.
  Mr. President, Ralph Waldo Emerson said:

       [T]he most advanced nations are always those who navigate 
     the most.

  Today, the Senate considers the nomination of Mayor Ron Kirk to be 
U.S. Trade Representative. As we consider the nomination, America is 
navigating a shifting economic landscape. And so are our trading 
partners.
  As financial systems weaken, protectionist sentiments strengthen. As 
markets crumble, import barriers rise. And as jobs disappear, trade 
violations emerge.
  Ron Kirk has been asked to navigate U.S. trade policy through these 
difficult waters. To ensure that America keeps moving forward, he must 
navigate the right course.
  Many feel our trade policy has veered off course. They argue the 
Government has not safeguarded our workers. They argue the Government 
has not enforced our trade agreements. They argue the Government has 
not dismantled barriers to our exports.
  I believe Mayor Kirk will chart the right course. He understands he 
must steady the tilting ship of public opinion. He will do so by 
rebuilding America's faith in the benefits of international trade. He 
will remain constantly on the lookout for America's workers. He will 
shine a spotlight on trade violations. He will vigilantly enforce our 
international agreements. He will speed our economic recovery by 
opening markets for American exports.
  Let us chart the right course on international trade. Let us rebuild 
America's faith in our trade policy. Let us confirm Ron Kirk to be the 
U.S. Trade Representative.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the nomination before the Senate is 
critically important in this time of economic upheaval.
  We need a U.S. Trade Representative to assert our rights, defend our 
interests, and negotiate new market opportunities for our exporters.
  Trade can and should play an important role in our economic recovery. 
President Obama recently acknowledged this in his trade policy agenda.
  If Mayor Kirk is confirmed today, I look forward to working with him 
to advance a progrowth trade agenda for the benefit of U.S. consumers 
and producers.
  We have a lot of work to do, some of which is left over from the last 
Congress. By that I am referring to our three pending trade agreements 
with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea.
  We also need to find a way to reinvigorate the Doha Development Round 
negotiations in the World Trade Organization.
  I appreciate Mayor Kirk's engagement and enthusiasm to assume the 
responsibilities of the U.S. Trade Representative.
  Based on his responses to my questions during the vetting process in 
the Finance Committee, there appear to be some policy areas in which 
our views converge.
  There are some other areas in which I continue to have concerns, 
particularly where his responses provided insufficient detail to 
determine whether we can have a convergence of views.
  But that said, if Mayor Kirk is confirmed, I believe that we will 
able to work together on a positive trade agenda.
  During the committee vetting process, several issues arose with 
respect to the nominee's tax returns.
  I am grateful for Mayor Kirk's cooperation with me, Chairman Baucus, 
and the Finance Committee staff.
  In the true spirit of transparency and cooperation, he responded to 
all questions about his taxes directly and honestly.
  He also agreed in communications with the staff to release 
information about his tax issues, and that information was put into the 
record of the committee proceedings.
  I believe that all nominees should be held to the same standard when 
it comes to compliance with the tax laws.
  Mayor Kirk was required to amend his returns and pay additional tax 
as a result of the vetting process.
  Each of the issues for which he amended his returns was considered by 
him and his preparer at the time the returns were prepared. However, 
upon further review of some of the calculations, he agreed that some of 
them

[[Page 7699]]

needed to be changed. Those issues are now resolved.
  In closing, Mayor Kirk is a strong nominee for the position of U.S. 
Trade Representative.
  He brings enthusiasm and energy to the table, as well as first-hand 
experience and understanding of the benefits of liberalized trade.
  I urge my colleagues to support his nomination.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about Ron Kirk, 
the nominee for whom we will vote in the next few minutes for U.S. 
Trade Representative. I wish to speak in strong support of Ron Kirk to 
serve as U.S. Trade Representative. I would have been here sooner, but 
as ranking member of the Committee on Commerce, I was holding a hearing 
with the chairman, Jay Rockefeller, on Governor Locke to be Secretary 
of Commerce, and that was my responsibility that I certainly had to 
meet.
  I will say that Governor Locke did a very good job before our 
Commerce Committee. We just, within the last hour, concluded that 
hearing. But I wanted to make sure that I am able to speak about Ron 
Kirk because, certainly, I know him. I have known him for many years. 
We both live in Dallas, and he and I enjoy a great relationship. I was 
in the Senate when Ron Kirk was the mayor of Dallas, and he did a 
wonderful job as mayor of our city. I worked with him as a Senator. I 
know he can get things done. He is very bright, very affable, really 
funny. He is the kind of person you want to sit next to in a very dull 
speech because he can make you laugh no matter how bad the summit or 
the speech or whatever the business of the day. He is a very rare, 
wonderful person.
  During his time in office, Mayor Kirk expanded Dallas's reach to the 
world through a range of trade missions, trying to show that Dallas was 
open for business, and he traveled on trade missions to assure that 
would happen. While he was mayor he sponsored a competition every year 
for small businesses to highlight those competing in foreign markets 
and invited the winner to go on his trade mission trips. I think it is 
important as a former small business owner myself that we show how you 
can export to foreign countries, no matter how small your business is, 
if you just know how to pursue it. Mayor Kirk tried to ensure that 
small businesses in Dallas, as well as our big businesses, were able to 
have a place at the table when he was on trade missions, showing what 
could be done with trade.
  Before becoming mayor of Dallas, Ron Kirk was secretary of state of 
Texas. He was an appointee of Gov. Ann Richards. He attended Austin 
College, graduating with a degree in political science and sociology in 
1976 and then went to the University of Texas Law School, which is also 
my alma mater. Upon receiving his J.D. in 1979, he practiced law until 
1981 when he went to work in the office of then Texas Senator Lloyd 
Bentsen who was my immediate predecessor in this Senate seat.
  On a personal note, Ron is married to Matrice Ellis Kirk. She, in her 
own right, is a professional woman, a leader in Dallas, another very 
bright, affable person who has made her own impression in Dallas as 
well. They have two daughters, Elizabeth Alexandria and Catherine 
Victoria.
  I know that Mayor Kirk's leadership and experience will make him a 
strong ambassador for U.S. trade policy. Last week in his testimony 
before the Senate Finance Committee, Mayor Kirk pledged that as U.S. 
Trade Representative, ``I will work to increase opportunities for 
American entrepreneurs in the global marketplace.''
  These economic opportunities are critical to America's prosperity. In 
2007, exports accounted for 40 percent of our economic growth.
  The next U.S. Trade Representative will face a series of challenges, 
including revitalizing the stalled WTO talks and managing the Doha 
Round, which is preoccupied with topics such as export subsidies, 
tariffs, copyright issues, and keeping markets open to U.S. goods. 
Equally important, the next U.S. Trade Representative will face the 
worst economic downturn in decades in America and in the world.
  As we face economic hardships, trade presents a tremendous 
opportunity to sustain and create jobs, expand economies, and stimulate 
growth. We must resist the temptation to close our borders and engage 
in protectionism, which always ends up harming our economy.
  History is not kind to those who raise trade barriers during a 
recession. In 1930, President Hoover made the mistake of signing the 
Smoot-Hawley tariff, which dramatically increased the cost of imports 
and turned a serious recession into the Great Depression. We can't 
allow that to happen again. My heavens, if we know anything, it is that 
we should learn from history. The past is prologue.
  I believe trade policy can play a leading role in getting the U.S. 
economy and the global economy back on track.
  Currently, the United States has free-trade agreements in effect with 
14 countries: Canada, Mexico, Israel, Jordan, Chile, Singapore, 
Australia, Morocco, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, 
Honduras, Nicaragua, and Bahrain. However, we still have free-trade 
agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea that await 
congressional approval.
  The next U.S. Trade Representative must work with Congress to 
implement those trade agreements and ensure that American exports enter 
the global market on a level playing field. I am pleased that in his 
testimony before the Senate Finance Committee, Mayor Kirk committed to 
work with Congress to develop ``benchmarks'' that will allow these 
accords to move forward.
  The Colombian Free Trade Agreement in particular will be tremendously 
beneficial to the United States, both economically and diplomatically. 
This accord would remove tariffs on the $8.6 billion of U.S. 
agricultural exports to Colombia every year.
  While America's economic growth is a primary objective of free-trade 
agreements, they also serve the broader purpose of bolstering our 
foreign policy.
  At a time when Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez is trying to undermine 
U.S. security interests in Latin America, we must seek trade 
partnerships with allies such as Colombia.
  As the Washington Post said in an editorial: ``A vote for the 
Colombia deal would show Latin America that a staunch U.S. ally will be 
rewarded for improving its human rights record and resisting the anti-
American populism of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.''
  By helping Colombia and other countries thrive under the free market, 
we will help them become less vulnerable to Chavez's petrodollars.
  I am hopeful that Mayor Kirk will take the necessary steps to ensure 
that the Colombian Free Trade Agreement is approved.
  Let me say that I think probably the first issue the U.S. Trade 
Representative will have to focus on and solve is with Mexico. This 
week Mexico threw up tariffs on 90 products that are imported to Mexico 
from the United States. Most of these are agricultural products. It 
will hurt our agriculture businesses if we have a trade war with 
Mexico; if we have tariffs that increase the price of American goods 
into Mexico. We all know this must be solved.
  I will say that the person who understands this best is Ron Kirk. Ron 
Kirk, obviously, lives in Texas. He knows how important free trade is 
with Mexico. Mexico is Texas's largest trading partner. We export to 
Mexico, and he has been there. So he understands that this is a high 
priority for all of our States exporting into Mexico and that we must 
solve the trucking issue so that Mexico understands that there will be 
parity across the border and that Mexican trucks, like American trucks, 
will have the same safety standards and that they will have an ability 
to be inspected. He can solve this if we will confirm him today and let 
him start on this very important problem.
  Throughout his career, Mayor Kirk has shown the character and 
leadership skills to bring people together on behalf of a good cause. 
For that reason, I am very confident he will make a great U.S. Trade 
Representative. He will seek exports of American goods all

[[Page 7700]]

over the world. He will seek free and fair trade. That is very 
important--we don't want other countries to throw up barriers to our 
entry into their country--and he will do the right thing. I know he is 
a good negotiator. I know he will be a good representative of the 
United States in this very important position.
  I urge my colleagues to support his nomination. I am pleased we are 
voting on him soon so that he can hit the ground running on the Doha 
Round and the many issues that are facing our country in this time of 
economic stress--when the last thing we should be doing is throwing up 
barriers to trade and exports from our country into other countries, 
where good trade makes good neighbors and partners.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I support the nomination of Ron Kirk to 
be our trade representative, despite my concerns with his position on 
trade policy. The tax matters that came to light during Mr. Kirk's 
vetting are not disqualifying, and because I am inclined to defer to 
any President on the choice of his closest advisers, I decided to 
support this nomination.
  Having said that, I very much hope the President and his new trade 
representative will carefully review our current trade policies, and 
the impact they have had on the lives of millions of Americans. The 
trade policies handed over to this administration are as fundamentally 
flawed and damaging to our economy as the fiscal disaster and financial 
market crisis they inherited.
  The trade policies of the last two decades, under both Republican and 
Democratic administrations, and supported by both Republican and 
Democratic controlled Congresses, have undermined environmental 
protections, food safety and public health protections, subverted our 
democratic institutions, and helped ship millions of family-supporting 
decent paying jobs overseas. They have greatly disadvantaged thousands 
of small businesses in my home State of Wisconsin, exposed consumers to 
health risks, and decimated communities. They have accelerated the very 
worst aspects of globalization, and have not done nearly enough to 
advance its potential benefits.
  Mr. President, I wish Mr. Kirk all the best in his new position, and 
hope he and the President will take a fresh look at our trade policy. 
As I noted earlier, the mess they have inherited is as big a problem as 
any presented to the new administration, and it deserves our full 
attention.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Mayor Ron 
Kirk on his nomination to serve as President Obama's U.S. trade 
representative. I am proud to support the confirmation of my fellow 
Texan.
  Following World War II, the United States recognized a need to engage 
foreign nations and harmonize global economic trade. President Kennedy 
recognized the value in placing a single chief U.S. trade negotiator in 
charge of these responsibilities. Later, President Ford elevated this 
important position to Cabinet rank. Since then, Congress has worked 
with many administrations to strengthen the ability of the U.S. trade 
representative to enforce existing trade agreements and open new 
markets for American workers, farmers, and consumers.
  Mayor Kirk would lead the office of U.S. trade representative during 
the most challenging global financial crisis in history. The World Bank 
predicts that the global economy will shrink this year for the first 
time in more than six decades. People in many nations are suffering, 
and calls for new trade barriers grow louder. However, the U.S. trade 
representative must speak clearly and calmly against protectionism. He 
must show how open markets can renew global prosperity and lift 
millions in the developing world out of poverty.
  I believe President Obama chose the right man for this job. As mayor 
of Dallas, Ron Kirk saw how open markets create new opportunities for 
our people. His trade missions to other nations encouraged new export 
growth. He engaged and recruited foreign investors thereby attracting 
new jobs into the city. And he recognized that the North American Free 
Trade Agreement would bring additional export-related jobs to the 
region. While many roundly criticized that accord, Mayor Kirk put it to 
work for the residents of Dallas. His leadership in the late 1990s 
helped reenergize the local economy. By 2007, the Dallas-Fort Worth 
area was exporting more than $22 billion of goods and services to 
foreign markets.
  Mayor Kirk's confirmation will fill an important void in President 
Obama's Cabinet. Mayor Kirk has demonstrated that he will warn against 
protectionism. This voice is needed in the Cabinet.
  Congress recently voted to suspend the cross-border transportation 
pilot program occurring at the southern border of my State of Texas. 
This shortsighted cancellation was met immediately with news that the 
government of Mexico will retaliate by levying new tariffs on U.S. made 
products.
  This unfortunate situation was avoidable had my colleagues heeded 
warnings of the retaliation that this policy change would incur upon 
our economy. These tariffs amount to a $2.4 billion tax increase on 
American made products, and one economist estimates a loss of 
approximately 40,000 jobs.
  At a time when Congress should be working to expand markets for our 
goods and create jobs in the United States, Congress is instead 
provoking the ire of the customers who buy American products and 
services. Our workers and our consumers deserve a trade ambassador that 
will ensure economic policy is rooted in the best interest of the 
economy rather than political payback.
  The President has three economic remedies available immediately. The 
pending trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and Korea will create 
jobs in the United States. Consumers in these countries have a 
voracious appetite for American goods and services. My State of Texas 
is the top exporter to both Colombia and Panama and the second leading 
exporter to Korea. These destinations represented a $9.5 billion market 
for Texas-made goods and services in 2008.
  The hard work is over; these agreements have been negotiated and 
signed. I urge the administration to work with Congress and pass these 
beneficial accords.
  Mayor Kirk is not the first choice of those who fail to recognize the 
benefits of free trade, but he's the first choice of the President--and 
a good choice for American exporters and consumers. The continuing 
global financial crisis demands a strong leader at USTR--and Mayor Kirk 
will fill this role well.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote today to confirm Ronald Kirk to 
be U.S. Trade Representative. Although I have had serious concerns 
about our trade policies in the past, I am hopeful this administration 
will deal differently with trade.
  I am reassured by some of the things that Mr. Kirk said at his 
confirmation hearing. For instance, Mr. Kirk said he will put an 
emphasis on workers and the environment, something that his 
predecessors failed to do. He also has acknowledged that the pending 
U.S.-South Korea trade deal negotiated by the Bush administration ``. . 
. just simply isn't fair.'' This acknowledgement is important because 
the U.S.-South Korea trade agreement as currently written is harmful to 
the U.S. auto industry and its workers and should not be pursued in its 
present form.
  When it comes to automotive trade between the United States and 
Korea, the numbers speak for themselves. While Americans buy more than 
770,000 Korean vehicles each year, fewer than 6,300 American autos are 
sold in Korea. Despite two bilateral memoranda of understanding in 1995 
and 1998, Korea continues to use ever-changing standards to restrict 
auto imports. There is nothing in the pending agreement that guarantees 
Korea will open its market to U.S. automobiles even though it commits 
the U.S. to further opening its already open market to Korean vehicles. 
We should open our auto market further only after U.S. autos have 
gained measurable access to the Korean market but that is not how the 
agreement is currently written.
  At his confirmation hearing Mr. Kirk agreed the U.S.-South Korea free 
trade

[[Page 7701]]

agreement wasn't fair and said, ``if we don't get that right we'll be 
prepared to step away from that.'' He also said, ``I do not come to 
this job with `deal fever.' We will not do trade deals just for the 
sake of doing deals.''
  I am pleased to hear these remarks because frankly some of the trade 
agreements the U.S. has entered into have not been in the best 
interests of the United States. The North American Free Trade 
Agreement, NAFTA, is a good example. NAFTA contained a number of unfair 
provisions that are discriminatory to Michigan workers and companies. 
For example, it restricted U.S.-made auto parts from entering Mexico 
for a decade and American used car exports for 25 years. Furthermore, 
the U.S. maintained small but stable trade deficits with Canada and 
Mexico in the 1980s and early 1990s. After NAFTA took effect in 1994, 
the U.S. developed large and rapidly growing deficits with Canada and 
Mexico. Since jobs are created by exports but displaced by imports, job 
losses occurred. The Economic Policy Institute found that total U.S. 
job displacement from NAFTA over 12 years was 1 million jobs.
  Our trade policy should focus on opening markets in nations such as 
China, Japan, the European Union, and South Korea, where the most 
egregious trade barriers block the sale of U.S. goods and services and 
where we have the potential to export a larger quantity of goods and 
services. Mr. Kirk has promised to pry open foreign markets and enforce 
existing trade rules. I support his confirmation in the hope that he 
will.
  I have not been satisfied with America's trade policy over the past 
30 years. I believe in free trade, but I believe that with free trade 
we must have fair trade. The U.S. market is the most open in the world, 
but our policy has failed to insist that foreign markets be equally 
open to American products. We sorely need a new and just approach to 
trade.
  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. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
unanimous consent that the time be charged equally against both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be 
rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. President. I understand that we are on 
the Kirk nomination; however, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the 
lands bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Coburn Amendments

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the Senate will have before it a 
series of amendments to the lands bill made by Senator Coburn. I rise 
to oppose specifically two of these amendments, amendment No. 683 and 
amendment No. 675, and I do so on behalf of myself and my friend and 
colleague from California, Senator Boxer.
  These amendments would essentially throw out a legal settlement 
agreement concerning the restoration of the San Joaquin River. The 
settlement agreement ends 18 years of costly litigation. It is the 
product of 4 years of negotiation by the Bush administration, the State 
of California, dozens of water agencies, the Friant water users--it 
affects Friant, and Friant is a Division of the Central Valley Project 
and 15,000 farmers draw their water from this Division; it is big, it 
is important, it is critical--and by environmental and fishing groups.
  This was a suit brought by the Natural Resources Defense Council 
against the Federal Government saying that what was happening at Friant 
Dam was not sufficient in the release of water to protect the salmon.
  I wish to have printed in the Record at the end of my remarks a 
letter by the Governor of the State of California, Arnold 
Schwarzenegger, supporting the settlement agreement, and a letter from 
the U.S. Department of Justice supporting the settlement agreement. I 
also commend to my colleagues a Congressional Research Service 
Memorandum entitled ``Institutional and Economic Context of the San 
Joaquin River Restoration Settlement,'' spelling out the institutional 
and economic context of this settlement agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much.
  So we have broad and strong support for the settlement agreement. 
Now, the question is, Why do we have it? The reason we have it is 
because it is my understanding that the Government has lost the case, 
and the result is that with or without the settlement, a Federal court 
will require restoration of the San Joaquin River. According to all of 
the parties, the court could--and we believe would--order a huge 
release of water from Friant Dam, negatively impacting the 15,000 farms 
in the Friant Division of the Central Valley Project.
  In contrast, the settlement agreement allows orderly restoration of 
the river, with minimized impacts to irrigated agricultural and 
municipal water users. It provides negotiated flood control and other 
protections for private landowners. It represents a sensible and hard-
fought consensus solution. I know, because these parties came to me and 
asked me if I would sit down with all of the parties and try to put 
together this settlement agreement, and we did, in fact, do this. It is 
virtually supported by all of these elements.
  Also, the settlement would be far less costly to the taxpayers than 
returning to court and having the end result of having a Federal judge 
manage the river. That is what the alternative is. Here is why: The 
settlement provides almost $400 million in non-Federal funds, so what 
would have had to have been funded by the Federal taxpayers will be 
lowered. Effectively, the costs are lowered to Federal taxpayers. The 
affected water districts have agreed to help fund the settlement with 
approximately $200 million. The State of California will provide 
another $200 million. If the Coburn amendment is successful and this is 
dropped from the bill, the Federal Government will have to pay an 
additional $400 million and face the fact that the judge could well 
order a huge release of water, not staggered to any particular time, in 
no orderly manner, which could have tremendous adverse impacts on the 
farming community.
  The settlement also minimizes economic costs to the region by 
providing water supply certainty for users, but without the settlement 
water users in Friant could face more severe water losses and 
potentially millions of dollars of lost income and lost jobs. As I say, 
this is 15,000 separate farming entities, so that is unacceptable.
  Critics have argued that this provision is wasteful spending and that 
it would cost millions of dollars for every fish restored. But the 
facts prove them wrong. To get the number the critics use, they assume 
that only 500 fish will ever be restored; that is, salmon, instead of 
the 30,000 salmon that will eventually return to the river each year as 
a self-sustaining fishery. They ignore all the other benefits of the 
settlement.
  According to the Congressional Research Service analysis I have 
referenced, it is ``misleading'' to disregard the ``full array of 
likely project costs and benefits,'' including ``the values that 
Californians and U.S. citizens place on improvements in environmental 
quality and restored runs of salmon.''
  The bottom line: The settlement offers the best possible solution to 
a longstanding water fight in my State. I do not believe there is 
anything wasteful about it. Remember, this suit has gone on for 18 
years. I have talked with every one of the parties. They have all

[[Page 7702]]

come together asking for a settlement agreement, including the Federal 
Government, the State of California, and actually the environmental 
group that sued, the NRDC, because they believe that if left to the 
judge, the action might be very adverse in terms of large amounts of 
water, rather than being staggered and done in a more sensible way, 
would be detrimental to the Friant farmers as well as, quite possibly, 
to the fish.
  The other problematic amendment offered by Senator Coburn is 
amendment No. 675 which would remove the Government's eminent domain 
authority for the public lands omnibus bill, including the San Joaquin 
River settlement title of the lands bill.
  Now, to be candid, none of us like the use of eminent domain. In the 
9 years I was mayor, I refused to use eminent domain in San Francisco 
and, in fact, never did. But Senator Coburn's amendment ignores the 
basic reality that the use of eminent domain is sometimes necessary to 
carry out western water projects that are vital for an entire region 
because the water comes from one place, the State is vast, and it has 
to be moved to other places, and the public benefit of moving that 
water is enormous in the seventh largest economy on Earth.
  These water projects need to have the use of eminent domain as a last 
resort for building water projects and flood channels on a willing 
seller-willing buyer basis. Otherwise, the Government clearly is not 
going to be able to build water conduits, water projects, and flood 
control elements where they are most needed. That may be different in 
small States, but in huge States such as California, where the water 
comes primarily either from the very north of the State, the Sierra 
Nevada mountain range, or the Colorado River--where we are being weaned 
off of the Colorado River, and have an agreement to dramatically cut 
our take of water from the Colorado River--we have to have the 
conveyances to move the water around the State.
  Private landowners also receive the benefit of upgraded flood 
protections and bypasses around key diversion points, so that fish are 
not diverted along with irrigation supplies. This is a very sensitive, 
very problematic area. It has taken a lot of work to know how to do 
this. The Federal Government could not build these flood and bypass 
measures to benefit third party landowners without the ability to 
acquire land through eminent domain. That is just a fact.
  There is a great need for water projects in my State. If we don't 
move, I believe California will end up a desert State. We are faced 
with high wildfire potential, with warming climates, and reduced water. 
We are in the third year of a drought.
  Mr. President, you might be interested in knowing that for the big 
Central Valley of California, which makes California the No. 1 
agricultural producer in America, most of that valley's water 
allocation from the Central Valley Project for this year is zero, which 
means fallowing, which means cutting out trees and crops. So we are in 
a very sensitive situation.
  I urge the Senate to vote no on these Coburn amendments. I think it 
is very easy to come in and second-guess a situation and not know 
anything about 18 years of litigation and the fact that the Government 
is going to lose the case and having to try to work out a settlement, 
which gets the best for all of the parties concerned. I believe we have 
done it, and it has taken hours and hours of negotiation.
  This has been approved by this body once. To remove the bill and the 
eminent domain authority from the lands bill would be tragic. Again, 
the Federal Government would have to pick up the costs the State of 
California is willing to pay under this settlement--$200 million--and 
the cost these water contractors are willing to provide--$200 million--
and do the whole job itself, which is going to cost an additional $400 
million.
  These amendments are in no way, shape, or form, cost effective, and 
they will hamstring California's effort to solve what is an egregious 
problem, and that is an increasingly drying State, which is in drought 
almost on a perpetual basis and is trying to solve its problems.
  On behalf of Senator Boxer and I, I urge a ``no'' vote on both of 
these amendments.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my time not count against 
the time allocated for the Kirk nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.

                               Exhibit 1


                                                State Capitol,

                                      Sacramento, CA, May 5, 2008.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: As Congress again considers 
     legislation needed to implement the Settlement Agreement 
     reached to restore the San Joaquin River, I write to 
     reiterate my support of your leadership in this matter and to 
     urge Congress to act now to take advantage of this historic 
     opportunity. Restoring the San Joaquin River will provide 
     vital benefits to the environment, to the people of the San 
     Joaquin Valley, and to all Californians. I remain confident 
     that this settlement can be implemented to provide these 
     important benefits while minimizing impacts to the Friant 
     water users and preserving the regional economy.
       The state of California has already committed substantial 
     funding to support the settlement effort. In November 2006, 
     California voters approved Proposition 84, the Water Quality, 
     Safety and Supply, Flood Control, Natural Resource Protection 
     Bond, which earmarks $100 million to support San Joaquin 
     River restoration. Other bond funds are available to provide 
     flood management improvements and to support regional water 
     supply reliability projects. Moreover, I have directed my 
     Administration to pursue all available opportunities to 
     contribute to the dual restoration and water management goals 
     of the Settlement Agreement.
       Thank you again for your leadership to secure the passage 
     of the necessary legislation to advance the restoration of 
     the San Joaquin River. Please know that my Administration 
     remains committed to this important effort and we look 
     forward to continuing our work with the federal government on 
     this significant restoration program.
           Sincerely,
                                            Arnold Schwarzenegger,
     Governor.
                                  ____

                                            Department of Justice,


                                Office of Legislative Affairs,

                                 Washington, DC, November 7, 2007.
     Hon. Nick J. Rahall II,
     Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Department of Justice (DOJ) strongly 
     supports H.R. 4074, the San Joaquin River Restoration 
     Settlement Act (originally introduced by Congressman 
     Radanovich as H.R. 24). This bill provides necessary 
     authorization and funding to carry out the terms of the San 
     Joaquin River Settlement. The purpose of the settlement is to 
     fully restore the San Joaquin River and to mitigate the 
     impact of water losses on water districts in the Friant 
     Division of the Central Valley Project who have long-term 
     contractual rights and obligations with the Bureau of 
     Reclamation. This settlement not only resolves litigation 
     over the operation of the Bureau of Reclamation's Friant Dam 
     east of Fresno, California, it provides a framework for the 
     restoration of the San Joaquin River and its fishery in a way 
     that protects the sustainability of farming in the Friant 
     Division.
       On October 23, 2006, the United States District Court for 
     the Eastern District of California approved this settlement, 
     ending eighteen years of litigation, Natural Resources 
     Defense Council, et al. v. Kirk Rodgers, et al. The 
     Administration previously announced its support for 
     legislation implementing this settlement in testimony before 
     your Committee on March 1, 2007, by Jason Peltier, Principal 
     Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science for the U.S. 
     Department of the Interior. The State of California has 
     pledged its support for the Settlement in the amount of $200 
     million.
       Enactment of H.R. 4074 is essential to the implementation 
     of this historic, court-approved settlement. Without this 
     legislation, the Secretary of the Interior lacks sufficient 
     authority to implement the actions in the settlement, 
     Implementation of the San Joaquin River Settlement will avoid 
     the high cost and uncertainty that will result from a return 
     to litigation if the settlement is not implemented.
       Thank you for the consideration of our views. Please do not 
     hesitate to contact this office if we can be of further 
     assistance in this matter. The Office of Management and 
     Budget has advised that there is no objection to the 
     submission of this letter from the standpoint of the 
     Administration's program.
           Sincerely,

                                         Brian A. Benczkowski,

                                       Principal Deputy Assistant,
                                                 Attorney General.


[[Page 7703]]

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and 
ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be charged 
equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. 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. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               The Budget

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, today I wish to talk about this 
administration's proposed budget. I believe the President's proposed 
budget fails the American people. It fails small businesses, and it 
fails our economic future.
  To me, this budget spends too much on bailouts and on wasteful 
Government programs. It raises the cost of energy, and it costs 
American jobs.
  The spending in this budget is so massive that independent estimates 
say they are going to need another quarter million people--250,000 more 
Federal Washington bureaucratic workers--just to spend all the money.
  Middle-class families and small businesses all across this country 
are taking notice. These are the people who are making the financial 
sacrifices every day to pay for these huge Government expenses. Yet 
Washington continues to spend trillions in taxpayers' dollars on 
bailouts and big Government programs.
  This budget spends too much, it taxes too much, and it borrows too 
much.
  This budget contains the largest tax increase in the history of our 
country. We need to help American industry promote growth and create 
jobs. I will tell you that raising taxes makes matters worse, 
especially in an economic downturn.
  The President's plan takes money from small businesses and families 
in my home State of Wyoming. The President's budget will devastate the 
small businesses of America. The budget even limits itemized deductions 
for people who give money to charities. This effectively raises our 
Nation's top tax rate to 42 percent.
  Our Treasury Secretary Geithner says the proposed changes in the tax 
rates would apply to only 2 or 3 percent of small business owners. But 
the reality is, those tax increases are going to hit hardest those 
small businesses which create the most jobs in our Nation.
  Small businesses created a majority of new jobs in America over the 
last 10 years. Small businesses are responsible for 70 percent of the 
job creation in this Nation.
  These jobs are being created by businesses similar to those that are 
now threatened by the administration's proposed tax increases. When we 
consider that the administration talks about a goal of job creation, 
why is this administration proposing a budget with costly tax hikes on 
those very engines that create the jobs in this Nation?
  They say: We are going to delay the tax increases until 2010. That 
doesn't make those tax increases hurt any less. Small business owners 
plan ahead. They plan well in advance. They will not hire someone today 
if they know they are going to be forced to lay that person off in less 
than 2 years.
  I want to talk a little bit about electric bills.
  Electric bills and the cost of everything manufactured in America is 
going to skyrocket under this proposed budget. Under the Obama budget, 
gasoline prices are likely to go up as much as 145 percent.
  The President from Duke Energy says the plan could increase energy 
prices for American households by as much as 40 percent.
  People need to know under this plan, anything that emits carbon is 
going to be more expensive. This means the plastics we use, the cars we 
drive, the homes we heat--they are all going to be more expensive. 
Every time you flip the light switch, you are going to be paying much 
more.
  The very building blocks of our Nation will be dramatically taxed. 
American families will experience a dramatic shift down the economic 
ladder.
  Folks who are struggling to get by in my home State of Wyoming and 
all across America will fall through the cracks in this budget. It is 
wrong. It is time this administration leveled with the American people 
about the hidden details in this budget plan.
  The President is proposing we spend scarce resources transferring 
income rather than promoting growth.
  According to the President's climate proposal, taxes on carbon are 
projected to total over $78 billion in 2012 and at least $646 billion 
over the next 10 years. Of that money, he proposes to spend $1 out of 
every $5--only $1 of every $5--on clean energy technologies. The other 
$4 of every $5 are going to go to bigger Government programs.
  According to the President's budget document, his climate change 
proposal is more expensive than the $646 billion he has suggested. He 
is hiding the true cost to the economy of his cap-and-trade scheme.
  The President is also abandoning what I call 24-hour power. Under his 
cap-and-trade scheme, that is power that runs the factories and 
American homes 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It is the power we need 
when renewable energy is not there--when the Sun is not shining or the 
wind is not blowing. We need all the energy. We need the coal. We need 
the nuclear. We need the natural gas. We need the hydropower. All are 
proven and affordable energy solutions. Those are the kinds of things 
that will help keep electric bills low.
  If you eliminate these, you are automatically taxing all Americans 
with high energy bills--that is what you are doing--and that means 
making the cost of running a business more expensive. That means 
heating homes all across America will be much more expensive.
  They have done some estimates, and they have estimated that the 
President's new energy tax will cost every household in America an 
additional $250--not each year but $250 each month.
  Frankly, that is a tax increase that most American people cannot 
afford, and, frankly, I don't understand why the President is asking 
them to pay it.
  In reality, the President's cap-and-trade scheme is another bailout, 
a trillion-dollar climate bailout.
  This budget spends too much, it taxes too much, and it borrows too 
much.
  This budget costs too much in dollars, and it costs too much in jobs. 
This budget hurts small businesses, and it hurts American families 
alike.
  This budget provides for the largest tax increase in history to fund 
a trillion-dollar climate bailout. It is unfortunate that we are aiming 
and targeting small businesses because they are the very foundation of 
job creation in this country. It is unfortunate that this is the 
starting point of the debate of how to get our economy moving again.
  The American people expect better. The American people demand better. 
The American people deserve better.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time remains on the Democratic 
side on the nomination for USTR?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remains 16 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I intend to speak for 10 of the 16 
minutes. I will reserve the 6 minutes for others.
  Mr. President, we are dealing with the nomination of Mr. Kirk to be 
trade ambassador, the head of the trade office in our Government. I 
intend to support his nomination, but I wanted to come to the floor to 
take the opportunity to say that ambassador after

[[Page 7704]]

ambassador after ambassador has left that trade office with large and 
growing trade deficits that I think weaken and undermine our country. 
And I want to make certain Mr. Kirk and others know what I think is the 
urgency to address these significant trade deficits.
  We are a country that is consuming 3 percent more than we produce. No 
country can do that for a very long period of time. We are buying more 
from abroad than we are selling abroad--$2 billion every single day. We 
import $2 billion every day more than we export.
  We are facing a very severe financial crisis in this country now. At 
least one of the causes of that crisis, which is never discussed by 
anybody, is an unbelievable trade deficit.
  Our merchandise trade deficit last year was $800 billion. You can 
take a look at what has happened in recent years. These red lines 
represent the deep hole of trade deficits. That is money we owe to 
other countries because we are buying more from them than we are 
selling to them.
  Now, I am for trade, and plenty of it, but I insist it be fair, and I 
also believe there are mutual responsibilities of trading partners. The 
trade deficit, for example--in the $800 billion merchandise trade 
deficit we have--with China is $256 billion. Think of that: $256 
billion in a year. And we have very serious trade problems with China 
with respect to the issue of counterfeiting and piracy.
  Part of what we are producing in this country these days is 
intellectual property--computer programming and software, various types 
of music and movies, and all kinds of inventions. Our intellectual 
property is being pirated and counterfeited on street corners all 
across China. And it is not as if China doesn't know how to deal with 
that. When China held the Olympics, they knew how to deal with their 
logo. There was an Olympic logo for the Chinese Olympics which belonged 
to the Government of China. All of a sudden, that had value, and they 
decided to protect that. People started showing up on street corners in 
China selling mugs and banners with the Chinese Olympic logo, and they 
shut them down just like that. They stopped it just like that because 
that belonged to the Government of China. Well, what about all the 
intellectual property that is pirated and counterfeited and reverse-
engineered in China that is sold on their street corners in violation 
of everything, which helps result in this $256 billion trade deficit 
with China? That is something our U.S. trade ambassador has to 
confront.
  Let me give an example--and this is just one; I could give a dozen--
of part of our problem. We have a trade deficit with South Korea. 
Ninety-eight percent of the cars on the streets of South Korea are made 
in South Korea because that is what they want. They do not want foreign 
cars in South Korea. Our country signed two separate trade deals with 
Korea in the 1990s, which supposedly meant that Korea would open up 
their auto market. Those agreements are apparently not worth the paper 
they were written on. So Korea sent us 770,000 vehicles last year--
770,000 Korean-made vehicles. Those are Korean jobs--vehicles made in 
Korea, sold in the United States. Yet we are able to sell 6,000 
American vehicles in Korea. Now, think of that: 770,000 cars coming our 
way, and we get to sell 6,000 there. Why? Because the Korean Government 
doesn't want American cars on their roads. They want one-way trade, 
which I think results in unfairness to our country, lack of jobs in our 
country, and a growing trade deficit in our country that undermines our 
economy.
  The same is true with respect to China. For example, we negotiated a 
bilateral trade agreement with China. Only much later did we learn the 
ingredients of that agreement. China is now creating a significant 
automobile export industry, and we will begin seeing Chinese cars on 
American streets in the not too distant future. They are gearing up for 
a very robust automobile export industry. Here is what our country 
agreed with in a bilateral agreement with China. We agreed that any 
American cars sold in China after a phase-in could have a 25-percent 
tariff imposed by the Chinese. Any Chinese cars sold in America would 
have a 2\1/2\-percent tariff. Think of the absurdity of that. A country 
with which we have a $200 billion trade deficit--last year, $260 
billion--and we said: It is okay for you to impose a tariff that is 10 
times higher on U.S.-made automobiles sold in your country than we will 
impose on your automobiles sold in our country. That is the kind of 
ignorance, in my judgment, and unfair trade provisions that result in 
our having an $800 billion merchandise trade deficit.
  Now, Warren Buffett has said--and Warren Buffett is a bright guy, and 
I like him, I have known him for a long while--this is unsustainable. 
You can't run these kinds of trade deficits year after year. It is 
unsustainable. Why? Because when we buy $800 billion more from other 
countries than we sell to them, it means they end up with our money or 
a debt, and that debt will be repaid with a lower standard of living in 
our country.
  My point is that the financial crisis in this country is caused by a 
lot of things, at least one of which is an unbelievable growing trade 
deficit that has gone on and festered for a long while, and no 
administration has done much about it. Oh, the last administration, I 
think the last time they took action was against Europe, and they 
announced with big fanfare that they were going to impose tariffs on 
Roquefort cheese, truffles, and goose liver. That will scare the devil 
out of some country--Roquefort cheese, truffles, and goose liver. We 
not only negotiate bad trade agreements, but then we fail to enforce 
them. And when we do enforce them, we don't enforce them with any 
vigor.
  Mr. President, I know there has been discussion in the last couple of 
days about trade with Mexico. Mexico had a $66 billion surplus--or we a 
deficit with them--last year. We have had a nearly \1/2\ trillion 
dollar trade deficit with Mexico in the last 10 years alone, and Mexico 
is accusing us of unfair trade? I am sorry. We have a \1/2\ trillion 
dollar deficit with Mexico in trade relationship in 10 years, and they 
believe we are unfair?
  The recent action by Mexico against the United States is due to the 
fact that a large bipartisan majority of both Chambers of Congress 
objected to a Mexican long-haul trucking pilot program that the Bush 
Administration wanted to establish. The inspector general of the 
Transportation Department had said that in Mexico there is no central 
repository of drivers' records, no central repository of accident 
reports, and no central repository of vehicle inspections. We don't 
have an equivalent system. Well, there is nothing in a trade agreement 
that requires us to diminish safety on our roads. When we have 
equivalent systems or when we have conditions in both countries that 
are equivalent, you will hear no complaint from me about any pilot 
program of this type, but that is not the case today.
  Just as an aside, at a hearing I held last year, we were told that 
one of the rules for the cross-border trucking program was that the 
drivers who were coming in with the big trucks were going to be 
required to be fluent in English. One way they would determine whether 
they were fluent in English is they would hold up a highway sign, such 
as a stop sign, to the driver and ask him: What is this sign? And if 
the driver replied, ``Alto,'' which means ``stop'' in Spanish, they 
would declare that driver fluent in English. Look, this made no sense 
at all. Let's make sure we protect the safety on America's roads. I 
have no problem with cross-border trucking as soon as we have 
equivalent standards. That is not now the case.
  But my larger point with Mexico, as with other countries, is that we 
have a large and growing trade deficit--$66 billion last year with 
Mexico; \1/2\ trillion dollars in 10 years. This country can't continue 
that. We have to have fair trade with other countries and fair trade 
agreements. And when we do, it seems to me we should be aggressive in 
trying to sell worldwide. We are good at this. We can prevail. We don't 
have to have an $800 billion deficit that threatens our country's 
economy. No

[[Page 7705]]

one talks about it much, but the fact is, this enormous deficit 
undermines the strength of the American economy. It sucks jobs out of 
our country and moves them overseas in search of cheap labor. We can do 
better than that.
  I intend to support Ron Kirk. I think he will be a good choice. 
However, I hope this trade ambassador understands that while our 
country stands for trade and our country stands for open markets, we 
ought to, for a change, also stand for fair trade agreements and we 
ought to stand for balance in trade and get rid of an $800 billion-a-
year deficit in which we end up owing other countries a substantial 
amount of our future. It makes no sense to me.
  So I am for trade, and plenty of it, but let's try to get it right 
for a change, to strengthen this country and put this country on the 
right track.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and 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. COBURN. 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. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back all 
time on the Kirk nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 146 be 
the pending business.

                          ____________________