国会记录：2002年5月2日（参议院）第S3795-S3832安第斯贸易优惠扩展ACT投票站主任。按照以前的订单，参议院现在恢复H.R. 3009，其店员将报告的审议。立法店员读取的助手如下：一，行为（H.R. 3009）延长安第斯贸易优惠法，给予更多的贸易利益根据该法令，以及用于其他目的。待定：达施勒修正号3386，在替代品的性质。多根修正案第3387（修正至3386号），保证了北美自由贸易协定下的投资者保护争端解决法庭的透明度。鲍卡斯先生。主席先生，昨天参议院开始辩论的2002年贸易法案这项立法包括三项法案报告参议院财政委员会去年排名：1号，短平快的扩展谈判权力 - 也被称为贸易促进权;2号，贸易调整援助计划和3号，财务委员会的安第斯贸易优惠法案，或ATPA版本的扩展和完善。随着辩论向前发展，我怀疑其他国际贸易事务也可以适当地连接到该法案。2002年的贸易法案将国际贸易立法的第一个重大改写14年。 If passed, it will be, as the National Journal has said, "a historic breakthrough." Why are we taking up a trade bill? What does this bill--and the expanded trade that will follow--mean for this country? Trade means jobs. Twelve million Americans--one out of every ten workers--depend on exports for their jobs. These are jobs that pay more--thousands of dollars more per year--than jobs unrelated to trade. Trade supports jobs in all sectors. We often think of trade as helping big multi- national companies. In fact, firms with fewer than 20 workers represent two-thirds of American exporters; and U.S. agriculture exports support more than 750,000 jobs. Trade also means choice. It means more affordable products and more variety for American families. It means that hard-earned paychecks go further. In many ways, new trade agreements are like a tax cut for working families. Studies have suggested that the average family of four sees annual benefits of between $1,300 and $2,000 because of the agreements we negotiated in the last decade. And according to a recent University of Michigan study, if we complete the next round of negotiations under the World Trade Organization, it could increase that benefit by as much as $2,500--per family, per year. But trade is about more than simple economics. When we trade with countries, we do not just export corn and cars, we export our ideas, we export our values. We export freedom, in a [[Page S3796]] sense. Trade between nations creates opportunities for both parties--it can help lift countries out of poverty, while strengthening our relationships around the world. I think Adlai Stevenson probably said it best 50 years ago: It is not possible for this nation to be at once politically internationalist and economically isolationist. Look at our agreement with Jordan as one example. It has a relatively small effect on our economy--our trade with Jordan is only about $600 million per year. But it has an important impact on Jordan's economy-- and it has cemented our relationship with a key Middle East ally. Similarly, part of this legislation provides trades benefits to Andean countries. The main benefit of this legislation will be to help move workers out of the illegal drug business, and into legitimate lines of work. It is not going to solve the problem entirely, but it will help. But to do that, they need more access to our market. So that is what's at stake in this debate. Let me turn to the bill itself. The most talked-about provision of this legislation, of course, is the extension of fast track trade negotiating authority to the President. At its core, the fast track grant in this legislation is very similar to the legislation that first granted fast track to President Ford in 1974. I am often asked why we need fast track--and why now? In essence, fast track is a contract between Congress and the administration. It allows the President to negotiate trade agreements with foreign trading partners with a guarantee that Congress will consider agreement as a single package--no amendments and a guarantee of an up-or-down vote by a date certain. In return, the president must pursue a number of negotiating objectives that Congress has outlined in the legislation. And he must make Congress a full partner in these negotiations, fully consulting with Members as the talks proceed. Now make no mistake, fast track is a significant grant of congressional power to the President. But it is excruciatingly difficult to negotiate the best possible multilateral trade agreements unless our trading partners know that Congress will vote on the agreement negotiated. Indeed, it was our experience in the 1970s--when the Europeans refused to negotiate with us after Congress failed to implement an agreement--that led to the creation of fast track. Without fast track, our trading partners learned that they could anticipate one round of negotiations with the President and a second with Congress. The reverse is not true. Other countries, because of their parliamentary forms of government, have a single legislative body where the majority of the legislative body is also the government, so we did not have that problem with them. Fast track also demonstrates that the President and Congress go into negotiations with clearly defined and unified objectives. Again, that is critical. If our trading partners are uncertain that the deal will stick, they won't put their best deal on the table. Is it possible to negotiate some agreements without fast track? It is certainly possible with simple bilateral agreements, as was the case with Jordan. But, while Jordan is a landmark agreement in many areas, it has to be put in context when talking about fast track procedure. The Jordan Agreement, as I noted earlier, was a relatively easy agreement. It involved only two countries and affects a very small amount of trade--roughly $600 million. Major multilateral agreements can affect many more countries and billions in trade. The FTAA is an agreement involving 34 countries; the WTO involves nearly 150. For these agreements, fast track remains a necessity. Even bilateral agreements will go much more smoothly with fast track. In the case of Chile, for example, we are still talking about a much more complex agreement than Jordan. It will affect approximately $6 billion in trade, ten times more than the Jordan Agreement. And improving the chances of agreements like Chile is vital to our economy. Let me give you one example. Canada has already signed free trade agreements with several countries, including Chile. That has an impact on U.S. competitiveness. As a result of the Canada-Chile agreement, Chile eliminated its tariffs on Canadian wheat. U.S. wheat exports to Chile, on the other hand, still face tariffs as high as 30 percent, making Canadian wheat much more attractive to Chilean buyers. We must negotiate these agreements if we are going to compete, and fast track will make it easier. People often note that we don't have fast track for treaties, such as nuclear arms treaties. That is true. And while these treaties are important, they are often less complex in the sense that they don't involve literally thousands of interrelating trade-offs and concessions as trade agreements do. I remember the last arms treaty that came before the Senate. There were two or three annexes in it but not all of the host of other complications involved in trade agreements. But let me turn to the bill itself, and specifically to the negotiating objectives on a number of topics. With regard to agriculture, a topic near and dear to many in this body, and certainly one of my highest priorities--the legislation directs the President to seek new markets for American agricultural products and to continue to work to lower the trade-distorting subsidies of our trading partners. That is vitally important for American agriculture. On a more traditional topic, the legislation also directs the President to continue to negotiate the reduction and elimination of tariffs, while recognizing the sensitivity of tariffs in a few sectors. The United States has already lowered its average tariff rate to about 3 percent. Generally, tariffs are similarly low in major developed countries. In a few important cases, however, such as Japanese tariffs on wood products, and Europe's tariffs on semiconductors, tariffs remain a significant trade barrier. And in many developing countries, tariffs remain at levels that stifle trade, in some cases 100 percent or more. The bill also directs the President to address some of the new issues, such as e-commerce. By acting to negotiate agreements now, before protectionism has taken root, hopefully trade in e-commerce can remain relatively free. Each of these objectives is critically important. However, most of the debate in the other body and in the press has focused not on the important issues I have listed, but on three trouble spots in trade negotiations: No. 1, labor rights and environmental issues in trade agreements; No. 2, protection of the right of the U.S. to promulgate environmental and other regulations in connection with so-called investor-state dispute settlement provisions, commonly know as "Chapter 11" provisions; and, No. 3, the integrity of US trade laws. Let me turn to those difficult issues now. First, labor rights and environmental protection issues: These issues have now firmly and irreversibly made their way on to the trade negotiating agenda. They are here. The world has changed. Those who continue to ignore that reality are simply burying their heads in the sand. The appropriate manner to address those issues, however, is not obvious, and it has been the subject of heated debate for more than a decade. The dispute over this issue has kept the Congress deadlocked on fast track for nearly a decade. Fortunately, U.S. trade negotiators have made some important progress. In negotiating a free trade agreement with Jordan, the United States brought labor rights and environmental protection into the core of the trade agreement. Two central approaches were taken on these issues. First, both parties agreed to strive for the labor standards articulated by the International Labor Organization, and for similar improvement in environmental protection. Second, both countries agreed to faithfully enforce their existing environmental and labor laws and not waive them to gain a trade advantage. That is in the agreement. In addition, both parties to the Jordan Agreement agreed to pursue a number of cooperative efforts to improve labor rights and environmental protection. In my opinion, these provisions of the Jordan Agreement provide a concrete demonstration of the way to [[Page S3797]] break the deadlock on labor rights and the environment. Last year, I encouraged some of my colleagues in the other body to pursue Jordan-like provisions as the basic model for a fast track bill. In drafting the fast track legislation, the House New Democrats and Republicans wisely agreed to use those provisions as a model for the language in the fast track legislation. In the Senate bill, we accepted the legislation on this topic and made clear in the report that the legislation fully adopts the Jordan standard on labor and environment matters. Unfortunately, some in the House opposed this language as not going far enough and urged legislation to force compliance with ILO labor standards. I support the ILO, and I believe the Jordan-based approach moves the trading regime in the right direction; that is, looking to the ILO for guidance on appropriate labor standards. With due respect, however, I believe that those who advanced this proposal and those who may later advance it in the Senate debate are simply going too far. The ILO standards are a starting point, but they were not meant to be used in this manner. It may be that through experimentation we can strengthen the linkages between trade agreements and the ILO. Indeed, that is the ultimate goal of this legislation. But trying to accomplish this in one fell swoop will only set back both agreements and the ILO. Quite frankly, whatever the intentions of the authors, proposals like this are likely to be fatal both to fast track and future trade negotiations. Another environment-related issue that has arisen in recent months pertains to investor-state dispute settlement, also known as "Chapter 11," in reference to the provisions of this topic in NAFTA. The genesis of Chapter 11 is the legitimate concern of some U.S. investors that other countries often do not provide adequate protections of their investments. Investors have had many experiences of being poorly treated and having little recourse to air their legitimate concerns. NAFTA's Chapter 11, and similar provisions in other agreements, are designed to address this problem. They define a basic set of investor rights under international law. The concepts are comparable to basic rights under U.S. law. They include the right to just compensation when the government takes your property, and the right to be treated fairly and equitably by the government. Significantly, Chapter 11 provides an alternative to local courts for the adjudication of complaints about a government's actions. Investors are allowed to challenge such actions before special arbitration panels. It is appropriate to pursue such provisions in trade agreements. But investor rights are not the only concern. Unfortunately, some of the complaints brought under chapter 11 have clearly been aimed at stifling legitimate regulations. The challenge by the Canadian company Methanex against a legitimate California regulation on a gasoline additive is the most visible case in point. Defenders of Chapter 11 note that most of these cases have not resulted in panel rulings against regulatory authorities. This is correct. But it is also part of the problem. Chapter 11 panels have demonstrated no ability to rapidly dismiss frivolous cases. This results in extended litigation on claims that should simply be thrown out, such as the Methanex case. These legitimate concerns must also be addressed. The bill before us today attempts to balance the needs of U.S. investors with the legitimate needs of regulatory agencies, and the concerns of environmental and public interest groups. The bill directs trade negotiators to seek provisions that keep Chapter 11-type standards in line with the standards articulated by U.S. courts on similar matters. It urges the creation of a mechanism to rapidly dispose of and deter frivolous cases. And it urges the creation of a unified appellate body to correct legal errors and ensure consistent interpretation of key provisions. I know some would like to go further in striking a new balance on investor-state issues. As the debate proceeds, I look forward to working with them on the issue. But I urge my colleagues to keep in mind there are several legitimate interests that need to be balanced; that if we go too far in one direction, it is going to upset the balance in another. But I very much want to work with Senators who have other amendments on this issue. The second difficult issue within fast track is how we ensure fair trade. After being involved in international trade policy for more than two decades, I am struck by how often the issues that shape congressional thinking on trade are not trade negotiations but rather are the administration's effort to enforce trade laws. Although the point is often lost, the United States is the most open market in the world. That has to be remembered. Our tariffs are quite low, and there are very few nontariff barriers to trade in the United States. There are some, but they are few. We do not wear white hats. We are not totally pure. Other countries do not wear dark hats. They are not Darth Vaders. But it is true the shade of gray of our hat is a lot lighter than the shade of gray of other countries; that is, we are more open compared to other countries. Despite complaints from some of our trading partners, the U.S. market is clearly far more open than that of our major trading partners, such as Japan and Europe--both of which cast stones at the United States from behind titanic barriers of their own to agricultural trade. To keep the playing field relatively equal and battle foreign protectionism in the form of subsidies and dumping--selling at cut- throat prices--the United States and most other developed countries maintain antidumping and countervailing duty laws. Another critical U.S. law is section 201. It aims to give industries that are seriously injured by import surges time to adapt. Section 201 was recently employed to good effect to provide the steel industry with that breathing room, but it has previously been used on a range of other products, from lamb meat to motorcycles. Indeed, that is why Harley-Davidson is doing well today. They were given a breather. Although the exact percentages can vary from year to year, over the last two decades, these laws collectively have applied duties to less than 1 percent of total imports; that is, our trade laws, when enforced, when in action, have applied duties to less than 1 percent of total imports. And they are completely consistent with U.S. obligations under the WTO--a point that must be remembered by all Americans who are a little concerned about some of these actions our Government, I think in most cases, legitimately takes to protect the United States of America because other countries' trade laws and barriers are so heinous by comparison and so unfair to Americans. Yet somehow the United States has lost the public relations war on this topic. Somehow our trading partners and importers have convinced some editorial writers that these laws are protectionist. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are not protectionist. Antidumping and countervailing duty laws combat trading practices that have been condemned for a century. Subsidies and dumping are too frequently used by foreign countries and companies to devastate U.S. industries. Consider the U.S. semiconductor industry in the mid-1980s and the U.S. lumber industry today. Rather than being protectionist, these laws are the remedy to protectionism. That dumping, those subsidies, are trade barriers. They are trade barriers. They are barriers to free trade. So our trade laws are meant to remedy that protectionism, remedy those trade barriers, by knocking down those trade barriers. That is what our trade laws do. It is a very important point for all of us to remember. On a political level, these laws also serve as a guarantee to U.S. industries and U.S. citizens. They say that trade will be fair as well as free, and that temporary relief is available if imports rise to unexpected levels. Without those critical reassurances, I suspect the already sagging public support for free trade would evaporate and new trade agreements would simply become impossible. Our trade laws help us, not hurt us, and help other countries, too. It keeps them honest and keeps them on their toes. To address this issue, the bill takes two important steps: First, it identifies [[Page S3798]] several recent dispute settlement panels under the WTO that have ruled against U.S. trade laws and limited their operation in unreasonable ways. These decisions clearly go beyond the obligations agreed to in the WTO and undermine the credibility of the world trading system. If they are not addressed, I suspect public support for trade will erode further. That is why our concerns regarding these cases are identified at the very outset of the bill as findings and why the administration is directed to develop a strategy to counter or reverse these decisions or lose fast track. This bill also directs negotiators not to negotiate new trade agreements that undermine U.S. trade laws. We cannot do that. I am, frankly, concerned that this administration has already put itself in a position in which U.S. trading partners will push hard to weaken U.S. trade laws in WTO negotiations. We cannot put ourselves in that situation. This issue is serious enough that I carefully weighed whether the benefits of new trade agreements are worth that risk. I went forward only because I believe there are strong majorities in both Houses of Congress to block efforts to weaken U.S. trade laws. I am concerned that additional steps on U.S. trade laws may go too far, but I hope the administration's trade negotiators take careful note of these directions; otherwise, they are headed for conflict with the Congress. Mr. President, that describes the fast-track portions of this bill. They are not perfect. Were it not for the need to address the concerns of Senators on the other side of the aisle, I would have gone further in several areas. There are also provisions I think are unnecessary. That, after all, is the nature of bipartisan compromise. In the end, though, the Finance Committee reported the fast-track bill by a vote of 18 to 3, indicating to me that we are close to finding that balance. One final point, especially for my friends on the left. This is the most progressive fast-track bill that Congress has ever moved to pass, by far. It is a vast improvement over past grants of fast track on many of the issues I have just highlighted. It is not perfect, but it is a good bill. I urge my colleagues not to allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. When I began my remarks, I noted that many people have asked a simple question: Why a trade bill? Why now? A big part of the reason is that we now have the unique opportunity to expand and approve trade adjustment assistance--not TPA, trade promotion authority, but trade adjustment assistance. Quite frankly, this would be impossible absent fast track. We can only do this in the context of a larger trade bill. So let me turn now to what I view as the most important part of this legislation--and certainly the part I am most proud of--trade adjustment assistance. Trade adjustment assistance, sometimes known as TAA, is a program with a simple but admirable objective: to assist workers injured by imports to adjust and find new jobs. It is that simple. This is an objective I suspect almost all Americans support. TAA was created back in 1962 as part of an effort to implement the results of the so-called Kennedy round agreement to expand world trade. That is its genesis, 1962. President Kennedy and the Congress agreed there were significant benefits to the country as a whole from expanded trade. They also recognized, however, that workers and firms would inevitably lose out to increased import competition. TAA was then created as part of the new social compact that obliged the Nation to attend to the legitimate needs of those who lose from trade as part of the price for enjoying the benefits from increased trade. Unfortunately, we have not always upheld the bargain in pursuing new trade agreements because, over the years, we have failed to provide adequate funding for TAA. We have scaled back some benefits. We have tightened eligibility requirements. We have neglected to recognize the need for expanded training and health care assistance. We have not kept up our part of the deal. This legislation aims to fulfill the bargain struck in 1962. It does not, as some voices have asserted, make TAA more attractive than having a job. That is just not accurate. I think anybody would rather have a job, that is clear. But in the end, TAA recipients must still get by on about $250 per week while receiving retraining for a new job. But it does make several important changes in the TAA program to make it more effective. First, it extends the period for which TAA pays out income support from 52 weeks to 74 weeks. It is extended. This allows TAA recipients to stay in the program long enough to complete training for new jobs. It also remedies a shortcoming in the current program that many observers, including the General Accounting Office, have pointed out. Second, this legislation expands eligibility for TAA benefits to so- called secondary workers. This has been a controversial provision, so I will explain it. Secondary workers are secondary only in the minds of some of the bureaucrats administering TAA. These are workers who have lost their jobs due to imports just as surely as those receiving TAA benefits now, but they have the misfortune of working for a company or a plant that supplies input products to a plant that closed or reduced production because of trade. They are so-called secondary workers. The shortcomings of current law are demonstrated in this example: If an auto plant must close down because of competition from Japanese imports, the workers at that plant would be covered by TAA. That is clear. The workers down the road, however--those who make windshield wipers or tires for the now closed plant--would be secondary workers and not covered. This is simply unjust, and it is why so many, including the GAO and the Trade Deficit Review Commission, which included two members of the Bush Cabinet, have advocated expanding TAA to cover secondary workers. When Congress passed the NAFTA in 1994, President Clinton agreed to expand TAA to secondary workers for imports from NAFTA countries. We also agreed to extend TAA when a U.S. manufacturing plant moves abroad to one of the NAFTA countries. These limited applications demonstrate that both provision on secondary workers and plant shifts are workable. They have been the law and are working. It was the expectation at the time that we passed NAFTA that these provisions would be expanded to all trade. As Mickey Kantor, who was USTR at the time, has said: At the time [that NAFTA was passed] it was everyone's expectation that these programs would be extended to non- NAFTA countries. And that makes sense--workers who lose their jobs because of imports from Europe, for example, are just as deserving of assistance as workers who lose their jobs because of imports from Canada. The legislation before the Senate harmonizes these programs. This is long overdue. Third, this legislation expands benefits for TAA workers. This legislation authorizes $300 million for training workers receiving TAA--nearly tripling the program. The legislation will also extend assistance in obtaining healthcare insurance to TAA recipients. Now, the call for extending healthcare insurance assistance has proven the most controversial aspect of this legislation. But it is important for all Senators to understand that this concept was originally advanced by the bipartisan Trade Deficit Review Commission--a group that had many prominent Republican members, including Ambassador Robert Zoellick, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and former USTR Carla Hills. They recommended health insurance benefits for dislocated workers. I would emphasize that the recommendation for transitional health insurance was supported unanimously by the Commission. In our bill, we have tried to find an appropriate middle ground. For workers who are eligible for COBRA, this bill would provide a 73 percent tax credit for those payments. For workers not eligible for COBRA, this bill would provide a 73 percent tax credit for the purchase of certain State-based group coverage options. The tax credits for both categories of workers would be fully advanceable and refundable. In addition, in recognition of the fact that it may take States some time to get these group-coverage [[Page S3799]] options up and running, we provide interim assistance through the NEG program. Fourth, this legislation also extends TAA programs specifically targeted to family farmers, ranchers, and fishermen. The legislation aims to correct some problems in the current legislation that have kept farmers and fishermen--who are typically self-employed--from benefitting from TAA. The provision on farmers is taken from legislation introduced by Senator Conrad and the ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley. The provisions on fishermen were prepared by Senator Snowe, who has contributed immensely to this legislation. Finally, this bill creates what amounts to a pilot program on wage insurance. Wage insurance is essentially an alternative approach to addressing worker adjustment. In essence, wage insurance provides a Government payment to older workers who lose their jobs because of trade and decide to take a lower paying job rather than go through training. The Government payment would run for up to two years and would make up half of the difference between the new wage and the old wage. The concept is that workers may actually be able to adjust more quickly if they move back into the workforce and learn new skills on the job. Experience suggests that the workers that do take a lower paying job are often able to make up much of the difference between the new wage and the old wage as they gain experience. There are those who would like to abandon traditional TAA entirely in favor of wage insurance. If this experiment succeeds, that may be just the course we decide to take in a few years. At this point, however, there are just too many questions to be answered to turn TAA entirely into a wage insurance program. That would not be right. One final point on cost. I should note--we often talk about the vast benefits of trade: more jobs, higher paying jobs, cheaper products. I indicated earlier that the average family of four sees annual benefits in the thousands of dollars. Yet I am sure that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will complain that TAA costs too much. But the reality is, it would cost the average family of four about $12. It is an inexpensive way to build support for trade. All told, this bill amounts to a major expansion and a historic re- tooling of TAA--a step that is long overdue. It attempts to adopt the positive experiences we have had with expanding TAA to secondary workers in the NAFTA, adopt the recommendations of the GAO and the Trade Deficit Review Commission, adopt good ideas from the academic world, and generally turn TAA into a program that truly works. I suspect when we look back on this legislation in 20 years it will be these provisions on TAA, which attempt to fulfill the promise made by President Kennedy nearly 40 years ago, that are found to be truly historically significant. Finally, this legislation also extends and expands the trade preferences given to the Andean countries--Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, and Eduador. The United States had extended these preferences to our friends in Andean America until they expired last year because we wanted to provide the citizens of those countries with an alternative to the illegal drug trade and to shore up our relationship with important allies. In the legislation we are considering today, the Finance Committee chose to expand ATPA to new products, such as textiles and apparel and canned tuna. I know these expansions are controversial, but they are critical to the beneficiary countries. Fighting the war on drugs is an uphill battle for these countries. It is tough. They cannot fight that battle unless legitimate, value-added sectors of their economies are encouraged and developed. This bill expands ATPA in a responsible way. The legislation also creates a petition process to give interested parties a channel for bringing to the administration's attention issues that may warrant limitation of a country's benefits. That could happen. This will ensure that the United States pays adequate attention to other issues in these relationships, such as labor rights and enforcement or arbitral awards. Finally, this legislation includes technical changes from the committee mark, including an exclusion of certain footwear products. Let me end by talking about the importance of trade in my home State of Montana. As in most States, trade plays a critical role in Montana's economy. From 1993 to 2000, Montana's exports grew by 126 percent--nearly double the 68 percent growth in total U.S. exports of goods. We have expanded proportionately faster than has the Nation. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, nearly 6,000 Montana jobs depend on exports of manufactured goods. And more than 730 companies, mostly small- and medium-sized businesses, export from Montana. Farmers and ranchers are also increasingly dependent on trade and continuing to open foreign markets. One in every three U.S. acres is planted for export--making U.S. farmers 2\1/2\ times more reliant on trade than the rest of the economy. Unfortunately, barriers to U.S. agriculture products remain extremely high. Agriculture tariffs average more than 60 percent worldwide. By comparison, average tariffs on industrial goods are less than 5 percent. Non-tariff trade barriers, like quotas, have all but vanished from trade in manufacturing, but these barriers remain common in agriculture. U.S. agriculture exports have suffered as a result of these barriers. Indeed, because agriculture is the most distorted sector of the global economy, it is also the sector most in need of trade liberalization. Some existing agreements have provided significant improvements. NAFTA--while far from perfect--has resulted in increased agriculture exports to Mexico and Canada. In 1993, the year that NAFTA was passed, Montana's agriculture exports to Mexico totaled $1.2 million. In 2000, that number had increased to nearly $4.7 million. Montana's agriculture exports to Canada have increased even more dramatically--from roughly $12 million in 1993 to $110 million in 2000. The U.S. must make agriculture a priority in future negotiations, and in fact, agriculture is the highest priority for new global trade negotiations under the WTO. Countries have agreed to work toward phasing out all export subsidies; make improvements in market access; and eliminate disguised trade barriers such as in the beef hormones dispute with the Europe Union. These negotiations can only help in leveling the playing field for American farmers and ranchers and open markets overseas since 60 percent of the tariffs are in agriculture and 5 percent are in manufacturing. Trade is clearly important for Montana's farmers, ranchers, and workers. Support for Montana ranchers and small businesses is important for our people. Yet support for trade in Montana--as in the rest of the Nation--I think has faded in recent years. Part of that is because people are more aware of the downside of trade rather than the upside of trade. When workers are laid off as a result of imports, that is highly publicized and widely noticed. Yet few people realize that trade agreements have provided, by some accounts, benefits to families worth thousands of dollars annually. We have not done enough in this country to help those workers displaced because of trade. That is why a comprehensive bill--one that includes both fast track and TAA is so important. This legislation is certainly controversial. As I have noted, fast track alone has proven so divisive that it has been deadlocked in the Congress for most of the decade. I know some of my distinguished colleagues--Senators Byrd and Hollings, for example--have both substantive and procedural concerns. I deeply respect their views, and I value their insight. They are very good people. We disagree, however, about trade. But their concerns are heard. I will address their concerns more fully as this debate continues. In the end, though, it can be said that everybody would like to see changes in this bill, in one direction or the other. But I believe strongly that this legislation represents a sound balance on all fronts. Forty years ago, President Kennedy asked Congress to grant him new trade negotiating authority. It was a much simpler bill, at a time when trade issues were more narrowly defined. But it was still quite controversial, for [[Page S3800]] many of the same reasons that trade remains controversial today. President Kennedy emphasized the importance of trade for our economy, for our workers, and for American leadership. Yet he recognized even then that trade also creates dislocation and that a new program, trade adjustment assistance, was needed to aid workers adversely affected by trade. President John F. Kennedy, urging support for his proposal, said this: At rare moments in the life of this Nation, an opportunity comes along to fashion out of the confusion of current events a clear and bold action to show the world what we stand for. Such an opportunity is before us now. Congress seized that opportunity and passed the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Today, we too can show the world--and America--what we stand for. Building not only on the vision of President Kennedy, but on the efforts of the Presidents who followed him, we can show the world that America can lead the way in building a new consensus on international trade. We, too, must seize this opportunity. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized. Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, we have attempted to really get the process going on trade promotion authority for a week now, with little or no success. I think today we moved completely in the wrong direction. I am, for the first time, becoming concerned that we may not be successful in our effort. I wanted to come to the floor today to talk about it. Had we brought the trade promotion authority bill to the floor of the Senate on Tuesday, the bill that was reported on an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote--I think 18 to 3 out of committee--and if we could have had an up-or-down vote on it, my guess is that some 70 Members of the Senate would have voted for trade promotion authority. And the vote ought to be 100. If there is anything I think we have learned in the history of mankind, it is that trade works, that trade promotes economic growth, it promotes better jobs, it expands freedom, it is something that all enlightened opinion speaks in favor of; yet it is something that, throughout history, has been under assault. It is hard to understand trade, and it is so easy to argue against it. Every special interest can cloak itself in the American flag and argue against trade. It reminds me of the writing of a French economist, who, as individual industries were getting protection from foreign competition in France while England was blossoming economically through free trade--a famous French economist wrote a petition to the economic ministry that was granting all these exceptions for one industry after another, basically arguing that they had to protect dairy products because they had so many jobs tied to it--tending the cattle, and all of the people who service the industry--and they had to protect this industry to protect that. So this famous economist wrote a petition on behalf of candlemakers, arguing that they were disadvantaged in selling their products because of the Sun, which had an unfair competitive advantage: It seemed to produce light for nothing--in overwhelming quantities. Anyway, to make a long story short, he goes into this elaborate argument about how France could become rich from all the people who would be employed in making candles if they would just pass a law requiring people to pull their shutters closed during the day and to pull down their shades so that they would have to buy more candles. What was interesting about his petition was that it made exactly as much sense as all the other petitions that had been granted. The point is that trade doesn't help every individual producer under every individual circumstance, but it helps the whole, it helps society. We live in a golden age today. We live in an age where consumer goods, relative to our wages, are the cheapest they have ever been in the history of mankind. The other day I put a shovel in a truck, and someone had gone somewhere in the truck. I needed the shovel, but I had a limited amount of time. So I went to the hardware store to buy another shovel--complaining about how stupid I had been for leaving it in the truck. I should have paid attention. I had only one day to do what I was going to do. So I went there to buy a shovel, and I bought a shovel for $4.52. I submit that never, since man first emerged from the Garden of Eden, has any citizen anywhere bought a quality shovel for less than I paid for it at the hardware store. Today, we all benefit from world trade. I never will forget, as a boy, as an economic student, when the professor explained comparative advantage and the gains from trade. It didn't take me long to figure out these were powerful ideas that people didn't understand. It is so easy for a Member to stand up and say: We buy products from some country, but they don't buy that product from us. But I could say that I buy groceries from Safeway, but they don't buy anything from me. I have a totally one-way trade with Safeway. I could claim that that was unfair trade. I could stop buying groceries from grocery stores since they don't buy anything from me. I could plant my little backyard in vegetables. But the price I would pay would be poverty. The point is, there is no issue we have debated in this Congress, or any Congress, related to the material well-being of our people--which I separate from things like our political freedom--there is no issue that we have debated that is more important than trade. Trade won the cold war. Trade and the wealth that it created, the wealth machine it generated rebuilt Japan and Europe after World War II. Trade created wealth in Taiwan and Korea where it had never existed. In the process, it destroyed the Soviet Union. It gave more freedom to more people than any victory in any war in the history of mankind. The first point I am trying to make is, trade is very important and trade promotion authority, giving our President the tools he needs to negotiate and create more good jobs in America through trade, is something that every Member of the Senate ought to be for, and thank goodness, a large number of our Members are for it. If that had been the issue before us, we could have finished our business on Tuesday. But for some reason, the majority decided they were unwilling to let the Senate vote on trade promotion authority alone and that they were going to add other legislation to it, most importantly, trade adjustment assistance. Whereas the trade promotion authority bill came out of the Finance Committee on a strong bipartisan vote, the trade adjustment assistance bill actually passed the committee after the expiration of the two-hour rule. It was totally a partisan procedure, and it is a very contentious bill. I could go into great length about what is in it, but the point I wish to make today is that we have been negotiating, I believe, in good faith in trying to come up with an agreement that would let us move forward and pass this most important legislation--trade promotion authority. In the midst of these negotiations, yesterday Senator Daschle offered this amendment. The astounding thing is that a huge amount of this amendment represents material that not only is not in the trade promotion authority bill but is not in the trade adjustment assistance bill. And there are totally new issues that have not been discussed in the context of fast track before. These represent basically an undercutting of the whole process of trying to negotiate a compromise. I understand that to legislate, it requires a compromise. Nobody gets everything they want. I do not think it is asking too much to have a straight up-or-down vote on trade promotion authority, something as important as that, but now we find hidden in this amendment a provision whereby to get trade promotion authority, we are going to have to cover legacy costs for the steel industry. This provision was not part of trade adjustment assistance, but suddenly out of nowhere, if you are part of the legacy cost to the steel industry, you are going to get a brand new entitlement benefit under this program. Never in our negotiations has there been talk about wage insurance. Let me explain this concept and let me explain how trade adjustment assistance works. First, under the current law, if I lose my job because lightening strikes the building I am in and destroys the Capitol or a terrorist attack destroys the [[Page S3801]] business, I get unemployment insurance until I can find a new job. But if foreign competition can be blamed for me losing my job, I get a totally different set of benefits, far richer, far more valuable. Quite frankly, I never understood why Americans ought to be treated differently based on why they lose their jobs. If they are Americans and they lose their jobs and Government provides programs, it seems to me they ought to get the same benefits. I do not understand treating people differently, but I long ago have concluded that my view is hopelessly in the minority on that issue. Now we are talking about adding new benefits to the differential, and I want to talk about two issues in particular. The first I mentioned is this whole steel legacy issue, and it really boils down to the following thing: Sad as it is, painful as it is, the American steel industry promised benefits that they never intended to pay, that they never had the resources to pay, and now, having negotiated all of these gold-plated benefits, principally to their retirees, when the bill has come due, these companies, many of them still in business, many of them that have equity values on the New York Stock Exchange are saying: Look, we cannot pay these benefits; we agreed to them, but we cannot pay them, so we want the taxpayers to pay them. Now we have a proposal out of the clear blue sky added to the ransom that we are supposed to pay to get trade promotion authority passed. We have this requirement that these steel legacy costs come under trade adjustment assistance. I say to my colleagues, when you are in the business we are in, you never say never; you never say that something is not going to happen. But let me put it this way: We may adopt a bill that funds steel legacy costs as tribute or bribery or ransom to get trade promotion authority, but it is not going to happen soon and it is not going to happen easily. Within every limit of every rule of the Senate, I assure my colleagues, we are going to fight this. And if in the end, God forbid, but if in the end it were a choice between trade promotion authority, which we need, which is vitally important and which I am 100 percent committed to, if I had to choose between trade promotion authority and paying steel legacy costs to get it, the answer is no, it is not worth it. It is absolutely not worth it. If we were talking from now until Jesus came back, I do not know that I would be so quick to make that statement. But we know we are going to have a new Congress next year. We might actually have a Republican majority in that Congress. To simply come in and ask the taxpayers to pick up all these legacy costs for operating American businesses that promised benefits they could not and they never intended to pay, in many cases, is so outrageous it is piracy on such a scale that, in my opinion, it is not worth paying, not even for trade promotion authority. Let me talk about wage insurance. I remind everybody that currently in our trade promotion authority bill only about one out of every four Americans who lose their jobs where it can in any way be related to trade claim benefits under trade promotion authority. About three- fourths of them simply go on about their business and get other jobs, but about one out of every four take trade adjustment assistance benefits. Under this bill, we create a brand new benefit which will guarantee that almost everyone will participate in the program. As a result, the cost of the program will skyrocket. This is a brand new entitlement, and what it says is, if you earn less than $40,000 a year when you lose your job, when that can be in any way related to trade, the Government is going to guarantee your wage, and so you will take a new job and the Government will come along and pay a portion of the difference between the wage you had in your old job and the wage you have in your new job. This is a brand new entitlement program, potentially explosive in its costs. The idea we are suddenly going to start insuring people's wages represents a step toward Government domination of the marketplace that we have never seen before. This is a provision that cannot be in any final compromise. I will sum up because I know the distinguished ranking member of the committee is present. I know he wants to speak. I do not think we are moving in the right direction. I thought it was a mistake, I believe it is a mistake, and I believe many of my colleagues will not support tying trade adjustment assistance with all of these new entitlement programs to trade promotion authority. Now we are having all of these new benefits in the trade adjustment assistance bill, benefits the cost of which no one knows. I hear my colleagues say we are running a deficit, we are spending the Social Security trust fund, what an outrage it is, but yet today we have an amendment before us offered by the majority leader that would create massive new entitlements that, clearly, would end up costing billions, perhaps tens of billions of dollars, and no one seems the least bit concerned. No one seems concerned that we are creating all these new entitlements that will change worker behavior, that will induce people not to move to new jobs, that will disrupt the economy and in the process create this incredible situation where people who are working have no guarantee of wages but people who are unemployed do; people who are working do not have a guarantee of health insurance but people who are unemployed have a Government guarantee. How can we tax people who are working, who have no wage guarantee and who have no health insurance, how can we justify taxing them to pay benefits to people who are unemployed who are not working? I do not see how such a guarantee can be made. Ultimately, what we are talking about is a European-type system, where we are going to guarantee health coverage ultimately to everybody, where we are going back and bailing out the steel industry to simply get the right to vote on trade promotion authority, and where we are beginning to write guaranteed wages into the American economy. The President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce today in the paper said it well, I think, that we are reaching the point where the price we are being asked to pay for trade promotion authority is simply too high; it is unacceptable. So I urge my colleagues to--and let me speak to my colleagues on my side of the aisle. I am never going to support these provisions. I am never going to support bailing out the steel industry as a price for trade promotion authority. I am not going to support a wage insurance program. Every country in the world that has such a program, that has the least bit of economic development, is trying to get out of it. Europe has not created a job in 30 years because of their wage insurance program and the inflexibility that produces. So if you ever get a job, you are protected, but in Europe people do not get new jobs unless somebody dies or retires. That is not what we want in America. So I think this has to be rejected. I do not think this represents any kind of good-faith offer. I think this undercuts what we have been trying to do, and I think we are moving in the wrong direction. We are going to hear today from many of my colleagues who have been involved in this debate. I am for trade promotion authority, and I understand piracy. I understand that often in the legislative process one has to do a lot of things they do not want to do to do some good, but the price we are being asked to pay in the Daschle amendment is too high. Not even trade, as great as it is, is worth the tribute we are being asked to pay in this amendment. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). The Senator from Iowa. Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, does the assistant majority leader have a statement he wishes to make? Mr. REID. I appreciate the Senator asking. What we are going to do, as soon as the Senator completes his statement, we are going to work out a time agreement where Senator Dorgan's amendment will be voted on at or around 12:30 today. So Members should be aware that is what we are working toward. As soon as the Senator completes his statement, we will propound a unanimous consent request. I have checked with the Senator and I have [[Page S3802]] checked with the manager on our side and that seems to be OK with both of them. Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, will the Senator yield to me for a moment? Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes. Mr. GRAMM. I appreciate the Senator yielding. There is not going to be a unanimous consent agreement on the Dorgan amendment. We are not going to do a time limit on it. We are not going to vote on it today. Mr. REID. I say to my friend, there are other ways we can vote. Mr. GRAMM. That is fine. I am saying we are not going to have a unanimous consent agreement today on that amendment or any other amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa. Mr. GRASSLEY. The majority leader yesterday finally brought to the Senate legislation that contains trade promotion authority, a second part called trade adjustment assistance, and a few other items, all very important but not getting as much attention as those two. I am pleased that the Finance Committee's bipartisan trade promotion legislation is now before the Senate. I believe strongly this legislation, more than any other, will promote America's constructive leadership of the international trading system. Nevertheless, my enthusiasm for the trade promotion authority component of the majority leader's legislation is tempered by the dismay that I have about how this process has been carried on. Even though I believe strongly trade promotion authority is badly needed, and surely it ought to be passed by the Congress and signed into law, I regret we are being forced by the Democrat leadership's unnecessary counterproductive, sort of take it or leave it approach--it is kind of a partisan attitude in the taking up of trade promotion authority and doing it in this fashion. When we passed trade promotion authority from the committee 4 months ago, the vote was 18 to 3. We did it in an open, cooperative, bipartisan spirit. I was greatly heartened by the bill itself and by the process in which we achieved a result that was good for America. But this bill before us, the one laid down by the Senate majority leader, is a much different story. I had hoped after bruising, partisan fights on economic stimulus, the Jordan trade bill, judicial nominations, and other issues, finally after those other issues that are very partisan, because we had an overwhelming vote in committee then in favor of trade promotion authority, that we would be able to show America's farmers, ranchers, agricultural producers, our workers in America's families and tens of millions of American consumers who benefit from free trade that we were beyond partisanship, able to do in a successful and short manner what the Senate has done on trade in the past, to be able to give the President the authority in this bill that Presidents since President Ford have had. I hoped the Senate could put aside partisan differences and we could move forward for the good of the country and this bipartisan spirit would carry over into the consideration of trade promotion authority. Unfortunately, because of the bill laid down last night, I am very sad to say I was wrong. Even after the Finance Committee approved trade promotion authority 18 to 3, it took 4 months before the Senate Democrat leadership would agree to bring this critically important bipartisan bill to the Senate floor. It took 4 months just to get a bill which passed out of committee by 18 to 3, to the floor, even though the President said time and again that the lack of trade negotiating authority was hurting his ability to lead at the negotiating table. When we finally seemed to be making progress in getting trade authority legislation to the floor, we were told the only way we could have this debate--a debate that the American people deserve to have, particularly the jobs created by trade--was if we agreed to partisan trade adjustment assistance legislation with which many Members on our side of the aisle disagree. I support trade adjustment assistance. I support an enhanced, updated, and fine-tuned trade adjustment assistance program. I have said that many times. In fact, the trade adjustment assistance legislation I support will more than double overall program spending because what I support will vastly increase spending on training to help the dislocated workers. My program adds health care coverage for the first time ever. It will assist so-called secondary workers for the first time ever. What I find difficult to agree to, and many Members on my side of the aisle will not agree, is the partisan, "my way or the highway" approach taken in the bill laid down by the Democrat leadership. The bipartisan way is the best way to get things done in Washington. Somehow the Democrat leadership is not listening to either the people on my side of the aisle or the people on his side of the aisle who I know agree that we need a bipartisan approach. Others have been ignored, even beyond this body, groups representing tens of thousands of farmers, ranchers, and hard-working American families, those workers who have jobs related to trade, those jobs that will be created because we pass this bill and have enhanced trade. I briefly quote from a letter to the majority leader printed as a full-page advertisement on April 11 in the Roll Call newspaper. This letter to the Senate majority leader was from the Agricultural Coalition for the Trade Promotion Authority, representing 80 food and agricultural groups dedicated to the passage of TPA. In part, it says: The strong bipartisanship that has historically prevailed in the Senate on trade matters must be reestablished to allow rapid action on trade promotion authority. We urge that this bipartisanship extend to work on other trade-related legislation that may need to move in tandem with trade promotion authority so that the U.S. can regain its position as world leader for free and fair trade, and in so doing open a world of opportunity for U.S. agriculture. That plea for bipartisanship on trade adjustment assistance is being ignored. My pleas for bipartisanship are being ignored, and so were those of many other Senators. We have a divisive partisan product, laid down last night, a product deliberately designed to emphasize differences, not to build bridges between Republicans and Democrats, among people of different viewpoints. It was meant not to seek common ground, not to restore the traditional nonpartisan approach to international trade and foreign policy that characterized so much of America's history but otherwise put down to simply score partisan political points. As disappointed as I am by the process that took place last night, I am still hopeful and commit myself to work for a genuine compromise. I happen to think it can still come together. I believe we can compromise and come together because America's global leadership is at stake. In other words, this is a very important bill. I don't for 1 second believe any Senator would deliberately want to diminish America's standing in the world community. Stakes are very high. But that is what will happen if we don't restore the President's credibility at the negotiating table. And this bill that came out of the committee does that--not the bill before the Senate. The merits of the Finance Committee bipartisan trade promotion authority bill are so compelling that I believe we will ultimately be able to compromise on trade adjustment assistance. I summarize the need for the Finance Committee TPA bill simply by saying the United States must be in a strong position to pursue our Nation's interests at the bargaining table. Without trade promotion authority, we are not in a strong position to accomplish that goal, it is just that simple. Already the United States has been pushed to the sidelines, pushed to a point where a great deal of activity on the trade front has taken place bilaterally, it has taken place regionally, and now globally in new trade negotiations underway through the regime of the WTO. There are many examples of how the United States is being left behind. The Andean community and Mercosur, for example, have moved closer to creating a South American free trade zone comprising 310 million people. Mercosur and the Andean community together have about $128 billion in annual exports. If they have a free trade zone, it will strengthen tremendously the economic power of Latin America and be negative towards the United States. If [[Page S3803]] we fail to give our President trade promotion authority and progress on negotiations of the free trade area of the Americas slows as a result, or comes to a halt as a result--and this is now the case--then major U.S. exporters will be at a major disadvantage in these important Latin American markets compared to exporters in countries that do have such trade agreements. American suppliers seeking to sell in these Latin American countries are going to have a heck of a time to have a market for their goods that come from the United States. They will face other difficulties as well. Just one example from my State of Iowa, the Bandag company, in Muscatine, IA, makes and sells retreaded tires. That company is an enormously successful company, also in the international market. At one point in time, Bandag products went to Uruguay, Paraguay, and Argentina from our country. American workers made those products. However, when the Mercorsur agreement was put into effect between Brazil and those other three countries, it became more viable for Bandag to ship product from a plant that Bandag built in Brazil. Those jobs and that investment as well did not stay in my State of Iowa or somewhere else in the United States. In fact, out of economic necessity, it went to Brazil. That is what happens if the United States is not credible at the negotiating table. That is what happens when the United States cannot lead in opening new markets and reducing tariffs overseas. Without trade promotion authority, it is a story that will be told over and over again. This is our challenge, then. If we fail in this challenge, if we do not seize this opportunity to grant the President trade negotiating authority, I believe the process of opening global markets through bilateral, regional, and especially global negotiations--the process that has been the pattern for the last 50 years--will be set back for years. If that happens, then the future prosperity of millions of Americans and the future prosperity of many of this Nation's most competitive businesses, and our farmers as well, will be put in doubt. Even though this was a flawed process, and regrettably an unnecessarily divisive process, laying this bill down last night, it is never too late for us to do the right thing. Let us use the commitment to good faith that I believe we all share to reach a genuine and fair political compromise on trade adjustment assistance and to finally resolve the few remaining trade adjustment assistance issues--and maybe a few other issues--that are out there. We can get this done. Senator Baucus and I have shown 98 other Senators that working together we can accomplish a great deal of good. He has been doing that with me. But I think the process last night detracts from it. Maybe it was not meant to hurt what we are trying to do, but I think it has done that. I am glad that I will have the opportunity, regardless of this act, to continue to sit down with my colleague and work out differences. That is what I want all the other 98 Senators--or at least hopefully an overwhelming number, 70 or so--to do, work with us in this process. I think there are that many people in this body who know trade promotion authority is the right thing to do. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho. Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I come to the floor this morning to speak in behalf of an amendment laid down by my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, as it relates to a particularly growing concerning that we have about a provision within the North American Free Trade Agreement. Because we are now on the floor of the Senate with trade issues that are so important to our country, we thought this the appropriate place to offer this amendment. Representing a State such as Idaho, I know the words "made in Idaho" or "buy Idaho" have become a rather important but familiar refrain across my State for the last good number of years. What is unique about that is it has now become a refrain around the world, as products built in my State, as in other States, are now trafficking in world commerce and are a growing part of the Idaho economy. Whether it is the potato chip, for which we are well known, or the computer chip, with which we now dominate world markets because of quality and efficiency, Idaho's trade has grown phenomenally in the last decade, increasing and improving and diversifying our economy, and at the same time supplying increasing numbers of jobs that are important to all Idahoans. So whether it is trade adjustment or whether it is trade promotion authority, all of those become important items that we clearly need to debate. I, like the ranking member of the Finance Committee, am extremely frustrated by the process and the character of the process that has been given to us by the majority leader. We cannot look at these different trade issues separately and in a clean fashion and debate them in a way that allows us to focus individually on these issues from the importance of displaced worker health care, of course, to the importance of our President having the authority to negotiate trade agreements. All of that said, what is most important in any trade agreement is the transparency of the process so all of us can understand what our negotiators are doing and why they are doing it and the advantages those negotiations will bring to us as citizens, as workers, as producers within this economy. The Dorgan amendment does just that for an agreement that is already in place, the North American Free Trade Agreement--that I happened to oppose when it came to the floor some years ago. I had been a supporter of the Canadian Free Trade Agreement originally. But as the Bush administration and then the Clinton administration put the final touches to the North American Free Trade Agreement, there clearly were provisions within it that I thought would not only be troublesome to enforce but this country more likely would not enforce, and the Canadian Government, on the other side of the border, would enforce, making it most difficult for commerce to flow evenly in both directions, which would create disadvantages for our producers and for our consumers, while creating advantages for the producers of Canada. Guess what. I was right in many instances. Many of my farmers and ranchers in Idaho today do not agree that the Canadian Free Trade Agreement was, in fact, a positive move for our country. This administration, though, has shown its willingness to enforce trade remedy law. With the steel agreement of a few months ago, and now a soft wood Canadian timber agreement just penned by the Department of Commerce, and being heard by the International Trade Commission as we speak today, we see the willingness on the part of this President to use law, current law, in a way that will not only force but stabilize markets and create level playing fields for producers and create a fair trade environment that some of my producers do not think exists. While trade is so important to my State, tragically enough some of my producers and workers are beginning to believe that free trade means that it all comes here and is sold in America, displacing our workers and changing our economy because we have had administrations in the past that were not willing to enforce trade remedy situations and level the playing field and create fair and equitable environments. I know the positive nature of trade and the importance of it. At the same time, chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement does something that is increasingly important as it relates to what are called Investor Protection Tribunals. That means when one government takes an action that may cause a dislocation of a product within the commerce of another country under the North American Free Trade Agreement, there is a procedure, a process by which it can be determined whether that was a fair and equitable process. The tragedy of that is the tribunals have been closed and the public has not been allowed to see them. I must tell you, this administration recognizes it, understands its problems. It is important we try to deal with those as rapidly as we can. Last July, our U.S. Trade Representative, Bob Zoellick, together with his Canadian and Mexican trade counterparts, discussed the secretive nature of [[Page S3804]] these unique dispute tribunals. They recognized that these tribunals needed to be more open and they announced they would take steps to open up the deliberations of the tribunals. On July 31, they issued an interpretation of chapter 11 stating that tribunals should operate as transparently as possible. That very wording, tragically enough, gave those who operate the tribunals an opportunity to operate in a less than transparent environment. As a result of that, Senator Dorgan and I have brought this amendment to the floor--I am a cosponsor of it--simply saying that this is a requirement, that the President needs to move in this direction, to certify that these tribunals are open, and to respond as quickly as possible in a time certain. We believe that is critically important. If we are going to get the American producer, the American worker, and the American consumer to understand the international character of our commerce and the international character of our economy, they also have to know that on the government side of the process--and there is a government side to trade when you move across international borders and when you move across political jurisdictions--that the government's side of it will be aggressive, balanced, fair, and that the proceedings of that government be transparent so that the public can understand why a certain action is taken and why a certain remedy is produced. We think that is all very critical and very necessary. I suggest that the Dorgan amendment is in fact a perfecting amendment to the North American Free Trade Agreement. We believe it was the intent originally that these dispute tribunals be allowed to be open, and appropriately so. Yet it has not occurred. All of them have been secretive in the past. We had a tribunal against MTBE because of the action of the State that dramatically impacted the producing company in Canada. At the same time, it was the right of the State of California to do what they did. Regulatory activity that changes a market environment needs to be understood, and the transparency of those tribunals simply allows that to happen. That is, in my opinion, the importance of the Dorgan amendment. The Washington Times has recognized this problem, as have other publications, as it relates to, again, the kind of transparency that we think is important. In the character of the tribunal, Bill Moyers--I don't always agree with him and what he says on PBS, but I think in this instance we agree--talked about the balance and the importance. Other publications have recognized that this is a growing problem within the North American free trade environment--that what we do is not as open and transparent as it ought to be. It is my understanding that we are going to have an opportunity to vote on this issue sometime in the immediate future. I hope my colleagues, recognizing that this is a perfecting amendment which directs the President to move in a positive direction to certify the openness and the transparency of these actions within the North American Free Trade Agreement and within the tribunals of jurisdiction, will do so under what we call the chapter 11 tribunal. With those comments, I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania. Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for 7 minutes as if in morning business. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the introduction of S. 2446 are located in today's Record under "Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.") Mr. SPECTER. I yield the floor The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana. Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I would like to say a few words about the pending amendment offered by my good friend from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan. It was offered yesterday evening. His amendment calls for greater transparency in dispute settlement under NAFTA chapter 11--that is the so-called investor-State dispute settlement. I think that is a very important objective. I agree that lack of transparency is one of the major flaws in how chapter 11 has operated. It is clear that it makes no sense whatsoever that when the United States is negotiating or companies are negotiating or trying to resolve a dispute with a Canadian company, the proceedings are, in effect, secret, that they are not open to the public. That makes no sense. I might say, too, that the issues in dispute before chapter 11 tribunals clearly implicate essential functions of Government, including protection of the environment. They raise issues concerning public health and safety. I think any body deliberating on such important questions--it is axiomatic; it is a priority--should be open to the public. That is just a given. Moreover, interested parties must be able to convey their views in such a body, as is the case in our judicial process, where an interested party can file a brief, say, an amicus curiae brief, say, with the Supreme Court. Fortunately, this is a matter under which I think there is a growing consensus. I note that last year the United States, Canada, and Mexico adopted an interpretive note that provides for greater transparency in chapter 11 proceedings. The parties agreed, "to make available to the public in a timely manner all documents submitted to, or issued by, a Chapter eleven tribunal," subject to redaction of confidential material. The United States, Canada, and Mexico did agree, in an interpretive note, to provide for greater transparency, at least with respect to making public documents more available. I think this interpretive note is a good start, but it is clear it is only a start. We have far more to do in opening up proceedings. I might say, I raised this issue with European negotiators at the infamous Seattle administerial on trade not so long ago, and I was surprised at the resistance I received, particularly from European negotiators. They did not seem to be automatically agreeing that, yes, that is good for the process. To me, it indicates we are going to have to move further and work a little more aggressively to help accomplish our objective, and that is transparency. For that reason, the Finance Committee bill currently on the floor included in the TPA bill a detailed negotiating objective precisely on this subject. Let me read it. These are the primary negotiating objectives contained in the bill: provide for ensuring that all requests for dispute settlement, and all proceedings, submissions, findings, and decisions in dispute settlement are promptly made public; ensuring that all hearings are open to the public; and establishing a mechanism for acceptance of amicus curiae briefs from businesses, unions, and nongovernmental organizations. It is a huge step, frankly. It is very clear that this is a primary negotiating objective on the part of the U.S. Government. I think we in America sometimes take it for granted that important decisions--that is, judicial decisions, legislative, and executive decisions--are made openly, made in public, with adequate opportunity for all sides to be heard. I think we take that for granted; it is so common in our country. I think the same ought to be true when important Government regulations are being considered in international dispute settlements. I firmly believe the trade bill makes that objective clear. Having said that, I must say I have some concerns about the amendment of my friend from North Dakota. And that is because his amendment would mandate that the President pursue negotiations with Canada and Mexico and require that the Trade Representative certify that the negotiations have been accomplished within 12 months. There is no mandating language in this bill--for good reason. First, it is unconstitutional. The courts will strike it because the legislative branch cannot mandate the executive branch what to do in negotiating agreements. It is unconstitutional. That is No. 1. No. 2, even if it were constitutional, if we mandate in one area, we necessarily give up significantly in other areas. One other area would be the agricultural provisions. We are trying to get Canada, for example, to dismantle [[Page S3805]] its trading commission, the Wheat Board. It is an unfair trade barrier and hurts our American farmers. If you mandate transparency, what will happen? First, the Canadians will say, if you want us to do that, we will ask you to give up someplace else or we will not be as amenable to your suggestion that we give up on the Canadian Wheat Board. It does not make good sense in trying to get good, solid trade agreements. We have avoided using mandates in the bill. Rather, in the tradition of these kinds of measures, we laid out negotiated objectives and agreed to consider implementing legislation under special rules; that is, if the President makes progress in achieving these objectives. I think it should give all Senators some concern that this mandate also requires the President to, in 1 year, certify that the USTR has fulfilled the requirements set forth in this section. I don't know how in the world the President of the United States in 1 year will be able to certify that the mandate called for in this amendment is fully implemented; that is, full transparency. It is just not going to happen. It is unconstitutional anyway because the legislative branch, under the Constitution, cannot mandate to the executive branch what to do in negotiating agreements with other countries. That is an unconstitutional provision. I very much hope my friend from North Dakota will work to modify the amendment. I strongly agree with the intent and the import of what he is trying to do. This puts me in a very difficult position because I do agree with what he is trying to do. But the goal here is to be effective. The goal here is to get the job done. Frankly, I would like to ask the Senator from North Dakota if he would yield for a question; that is, if there is some way we can modify this amendment to make it effective, because the current draft is unconstitutional and also because of the flaws of the mandating approach and the impracticality of getting this accomplished within 1 year. I ask my good friend from North Dakota if he is willing to modify given those flaws? Mr. DORGAN. In response to the Senator from Montana, I certainly respect his view, but I don't share his view that this amendment would in any way be unconstitutional. I believe the amendment, if I modify it, would be less likely to achieve its purpose. If I don't modify it, I think it is a stronger initiative that says to the administration, this is what the Congress aspires to achieve with respect to changing the secrecy by which dispute tribunals in NAFTA are now conducted. I would prefer we not modify it in order that it be a stronger initiative. I do not see this as in any way being unconstitutional. It is in perfect concert with our constitutional responsibilities. Mr. BAUCUS. I thank my good friend, but it is just a matter of judgment. It clearly is unconstitutional because Congress cannot mandate to the President telling the President what he must do in negotiating agreements with other countries. That is clearly an unconstitutional mandate of authority. I must say, I doubt this provision will survive in conference for those reasons. I fully understand the Senator. The goal here is to be as effective as we possibly can because the Senator and I agree with the same objective. The objective is full transparency in these proceedings. That is clearly going to be in the public interest. It is going to help Americans and help people all around the world. I thank my good friend and yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). The Senator from North Dakota. Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, my colleague, Senator Craig from Idaho, spoke in support of the amendment. It is an amendment we offered jointly. I ask unanimous consent that others in the Senate who have asked this morning be added as cosponsors: Senators Byrd, Dayton, and Durbin. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. DORGAN. Let me describe again what it is we are attempting to achieve. We have now, under NAFTA, dispute tribunals or tribunals that are created for the purposes of resolving disputes. Regrettably, those tribunals are conducted in secret. They are secret tribunals. The American people are excluded from knowing what they have done, what they are doing, what they are going to do, how they reached a decision. We are not entitled to review any of the information they have or the information they might have used to reach a decision. They lock the door, and behind locked closed doors, they discuss this country's future with respect to international trade disputes. We ought not be a party to that. That is not what we signed up for. That is not what the U.S. Government is about--secrecy, closed, locked doors in some foreign land. That is not what we ought to be about. This amendment says: Let's stop that. Let's not have the dispute tribunals be secret. Let me give an example of why this is important: what is happening with respect to NAFTA and a fuel additive called MTBE. This is all under something called chapter 11. You might think chapter 11 has to do with bankruptcy. It does not. Chapter 11 was put in NAFTA at the request of negotiators thinking that U.S. investors in Mexico might have their assets seized by the Mexican Government or Mexican regulators and the Mexican legal system probably wouldn't provide sufficient protection. So U.S. negotiators actually asked to have chapter 11 included in NAFTA. It was. It was designed to create tribunals that would consider claims from foreign investors that they had property taken by Government regulation. By design, these tribunals were given leeway to operate in secrecy. They were bound only by international arbitration rules. That allowed the tribunals to act however they saw fit. If any of the parties to the claim wanted to keep the proceedings secret, the briefs would not be disclosed and the hearings would be closed. And that is exactly what has happened. Let me describe what has happened here with respect to chapter 11 and the tribunals and what this Government, what the United States of America, is part of. It involves Methanex, a Canadian company that makes MTBE, a fuel additive. We have been talking about MTBE recently in the debate over the energy bill so most Members are familiar with this fuel additive. In 1999, California decided to ban MTBE because they began to find it in their ground water and drinking water. All of a sudden they began to measure this fuel additive, which is harmful to human health in their water system. They decided they better ban MTBE. And so California did that. Fourteen other States are considering limitations to the use of MTBE. It was 1990, in fact, when California first discovered traces of MTBE in the drinking water. In 1995, 71 percent of Santa Monica's drinking water was shut down. Their supply was shut down due to the presence of MTBE. In 1996, MTBE was discovered in Lake Tahoe. In 1998, an EPA blue-ribbon panel called for substantial reduction in the usage of MTBE. Then California decided, in 1999, they were going to ban MTBE altogether. A Canadian corporation that makes it called Methanex heard about the California decision, and they realized they stood to lose a lot of money. If California bans MTBE, this corporation stands to lose money. So Methanex filed a chapter 11 claim against the United States for $970 million. Think of this. Methanex, a Canadian corporation, files a $970 million claim against the United States of America because California decided to ban MTBE because it was discovering it was showing up in drinking water and ground water and that it is harmful to human health. So a foreign corporation sues our country because we are taking action to protect human health in this country. This claim has had an incredibly chilling effect on environmental regulatory activity. If a State wants to keep poisons out of its rivers and streams, it now has to worry about a chapter 11 complaint being filed. The producers of that poison will file a chapter 11 claim and claim a billion dollars in injury against the United States. But, then, that claim, when considered under a tribunal in chapter 11, will be resolved in secret. Let me restate this so people will understand it. A State finds a poison in its drinking water and in its ground [[Page S3806]] water. It takes action to ban the use of that fuel additive that creates it and which has allowed it to show up in the drinking water; and a foreign company that produces it sues us for almost $1 billion because that is the injury that will exist to that company. By the way, they would sue us and go to chapter 11, and they will have an advantage in a three-person tribunal under chapter 11 of having secret proceedings. The American people are told it is none of your business. It is none of our business when we take action to stop poisons from finding their way to our drinking water? That is none of our business? Well, I am using one example--MTBE. This amendment says it shall not be secret any longer, that the dispute resolution under chapter 11--the tribunals, their behavior, actions and their considerations--shall not be secret. You cannot keep that information from the American people. We will not allow it. Our amendment says the President shall negotiate a change with Canada and Mexico to the conditions under which these tribunals meet and shall report back to Congress within 1 year; that these tribunals shall be held in the open; that the secrecy has ended, and that transparency will exist. That is our amendment. My colleague from Montana said the amendment is unconstitutional. If I might, without providing a lecture on the Constitution, I will put up a chart. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution says the Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. It doesn't say Ambassador Zoellick shall have the power, or President Clinton or President Bush shall have the power; it says the Congress shall have the power. We have a lot of people here who have forgotten that or have decided to ignore it. But that is what the Constitution of the United States says--Congress shall have the power. Fifty-five people wrote that over 200 years ago. This Congress, well over two centuries later, has apparently decided that it wishes to consider giving the President the authority on trade with something called fast track. So it is apparently not unconstitutional in the minds of some to give the President this authority, despite the fact that the Constitution says it is the Congress's authority. They would say it is not unconstitutional to give the President the authority to do this, but it is unconstitutional to direct the President to end secrecy in the tribunals. I don't understand that. That doesn't make any sense to me. Of course, we have a right to direct our trade negotiators to direct this administration to negotiate an end to the secrecy in these tribunals. Of course, we have a right to do that. Are we kidding? The Constitution says we have the right. This isn't some idle piece of paper. It is the Constitution of the United States. I don't want to hear that we don't have the authority to do this. Of course we do. The question for the Senate is this: In the future, both in this case and the next one, when one of our States, or our Government, takes action to protect our citizens against someone poisoning our water or polluting our air, and somebody files a large claim against the United States for protecting its citizens, saying, by the way, you have violated our trade laws and injured us; do you want the consideration of that dispute to be resolved in deep secrecy, behind closed doors, perhaps in a foreign land, with three people who will not tell you what they are doing, what they have done, or why they have done it? Is that what you want for this country? I don't think so. If you believe in open government, and in democracy, and in fair trade, and in the Constitution, then you have to believe in this amendment. This is not rocket science. This is common sense. Often, common sense finds a difficult road here in the Congress because it attracts comments by people who say, well, I know it sounds good, but it is not as easy as it sounds. This is as easy as it sounds, believe me. It is as easy as it sounds. All this country has to do, with respect to Canada and Mexico, is to say with respect to our trade agreement that we will not be involved in secret tribunals. That is not the American way and not something Congress will any longer support. Why do we have to do this in this legislation? Because we have had our Trade Representative, Mr. Zoellick, already tell us that he would like to end the secrecy. Trade ministers from the U.S., Canada, and Mexico last year tried to impose greater openness on a procedure under NAFTA that allows companies to sue governments for millions in monetary damages, but the effort has so far failed. That is according to the Washington Times last month. Charges of secrecy have dogged the chapter 11 process since its inception. Many NAFTA supporters now concede that the closed tribunals have contributed to public distrust of the agreement, and advocate greater openness for the procedure. Our Trade Representative, Mr. Zoellick, has spoken on this issue. He wants more openness. But the fact is, these tribunals ignore it. The openness doesn't now exist. There is still a veil of secrecy. That dis- serves the interests of this country. That is why this amendment is necessary, and that is why the amendment is necessary now. No, it is not unconstitutional--not at all. This Congress has every right to speak on this subject. In fact, this Congress has a responsibility to speak on this subject. We know it is wrong to have a foreign corporation suing our Government because our Government is taking action to protect our consumers against poison in the water. And then to throw that into a tribunal and tell the American people, by the way, it is none of their business; they can't see it, hear it, or be a part of it, we know that is wrong. Everybody in this Chamber knows that is wrong. So we are going to vote on this amendment. As I said when I started, it is a bipartisan amendment. I have been joined by Senator Craig from Idaho, from the other party. I appreciate his cosponsorship and his work with me on it. I think he believes, as I do--in fact, he expressed that a few minutes ago on this floor--that we must take action to end this secrecy. This is the place to do it and this is the time to do it. We are now considering international trade. We are considering fast- track trade authority. This is the place and time to add this amendment. With that, I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized. Mr. REID. Madam President, I move to table the Dorgan amendment and ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. The yeas and nays are ordered and the clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Torricelli) is necessarily absent. Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett) are necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote "no" and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would vote "yea." The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? The result was announced--yeas 29, nays 67, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 101 Leg.] YEAS--29 Allen Bond Breaux Brownback Chafee Cochran DeWine Domenici Enzi Fitzgerald Frist Gramm Grassley Gregg Hagel Hatch Hutchison Kyl Lott Lugar McCain McConnell Miller Nickles Santorum Stevens Thompson Voinovich Warner NAYS--67 Akaka Allard Baucus Bayh Biden Bingaman Boxer Burns Byrd Campbell Cantwell Carnahan Carper Cleland Clinton Collins Conrad Corzine Craig Crapo Daschle Dayton Dodd Dorgan Durbin Edwards Ensign Feingold Feinstein Graham Harkin Hollings Hutchinson Inhofe Inouye Jeffords Johnson Kennedy Kerry Kohl Landrieu Leahy Levin Lieberman Lincoln Mikulski Murkowski Murray Nelson (FL) Nelson (NE) Reed [[Page S3807]] Reid Roberts Rockefeller Sarbanes Schumer Sessions Shelby Smith (NH) Smith (OR) Snowe Specter Stabenow Thomas Thurmond Wellstone Wyden NOT VOTING--4 Bennett Bunning Helms Torricelli Mr. REID. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada. Mr. REID. Madam President, I have been informed by staff--I hope I have been informed wrongly--that we are now not going to be allowed to vote on the underlying amendment, the Dorgan amendment. Normally what happens here is that when a motion to table is defeated and the amendment is there, and it is such an overwhelming vote, it is just adopted by voice. But I have been told the minority will not allow us to do this. I am troubled for a number of reasons, not the least of which is what happened when the majority leader had breakfast with the President yesterday. I believe it was yesterday. It could have been the day before, but I am almost certain it was yesterday. At that breakfast, the President told the majority leader and those other people assembled that his No. 1 priority was this trade bill. On the first amendment we offered, there is a filibuster. If there is something in this bill that someone doesn't like, let him move to strike that portion of the bill. There are all kinds of things that can be done. But for us to be told that we cannot vote on this says there is a filibuster taking place. I suggest--certainly the decision is not mine, but I think the majority leader would have to strongly consider filing a motion to invoke cloture. Certainly, when the motion is defeated by such an overwhelming margin and we are now told we cannot adopt the measure, it seems it is totally unfair. Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator from Nevada yield? Mr. REID. I yield to the Senator from North Dakota, for a question, without losing the floor. Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I inquire whether the Senator has been informed of the delay here being a delay because someone needs more time to speak on this amendment. That is certainly reasonable. I spoke on the amendment yesterday. I spoke on it this morning. Others spoke on it this morning. Senator Craig, who is a cosponsor, spoke on it. Unless there are others who wish to speak on the amendment--certainly that is reasonable. But if that is not the reason, we have had plenty of time on this amendment. I thought we had. Then there was a tabling motion. We should be ready to adopt the amendment. After all, 67 people voted against tabling. One would expect there would be a pretty strong expression here with respect to this amendment. Was the Senator informed about the manner of the delay? Is it because there needs to be more discussion on the underlying amendment or is there some other reason? Mr. REID. I say to my friend from North Dakota in answer to his question, we have just been through 6 or 7 weeks on the energy bill. On that bill, we had a series of amendments pending. I think we got up to maybe 15 or 16 amendments pending where people would offer amendments and then there would be no resolution of that amendment. It made it very difficult to work through that bill. I say to my friend from North Dakota, who had the wisdom and foresight to offer this amendment, that it appears clear we have an effort to stop the bill. I commented as the Senator from Texas was giving his statement this morning, I have great respect for him. He obviously was a great professor. We know he has a Ph.D. in economics. His statement was one that gave me the desire to listen to what he had to say. As I was going through this, I said to myself: If I were on the other side and I didn't like this, I would simply move to strike part of it. But the Senator has made his decision, and I respect that. As a result of that--I think it is too bad--I say to my friend from North Dakota, I think the majority leader this afternoon should strongly consider invoking cloture on this bill. [...]