Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I add that to the request.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following be the only remaining debate on the bill, in the following order: Senator Sessions, 10 minutes; Senator Dayton, 5 minutes; Senator Sununu, 5 minutes; Senator Ensign, 5 minutes; Senator Baucus, 10 minutes; Senator Grassley, 10 minutes; Senator Reid from Nevada, 10 minutes; Senator Frist, 10 minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS. That would be after Ensign and before myself.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Florida, and following the remarks of the Senator from Florida, I ask unanimous consent that 10 minutes then be allocated to Senator Sessions and that the time be taken out of the time allocated to Senator Grassley.

Mr. BAUCUS. Yes, 10 and 10.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be recognized in this order: Senator Roberts, 15 minutes, with the time to be taken out of the time allocated to the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley; Senator Harkin, 20 minutes, with the time to be taken out of the time allocated to the Senator from North Dakota; and Senator Graham, 15 minutes, with the time to be taken out of the time allocated to Senator Grassley.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Does the other side of the aisle control any time?

Mr. BAUCUS. Two hours 50 minutes?

Mr. BAUCUS. Thank you.

Mr. BAUCUS. How much time does he have?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask the time be equally divided between both sides.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts, and ask it be taken off the time allocated to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. BAUCUS. I modify the request: 20 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts taken from the time of the Senator from North Dakota; when he has finished, 5 minutes to the Senator from Vermont, that time to be taken off the time allocated to the Senator from Iowa. Then, following that, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Oregon, that time to be taken off the time allocated to me.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I do not see Senator Graham here. I ask unanimous consent that the order be vitiated, and I will yield to him when he arrives.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in a narrow sense, the Senate today is considering the free-trade agreement with five Central American countries and the Dominican Republic, but in a larger sense, the Senate is debating how the United States can remain competitive. In a larger sense, the Senate is debating how America can continue to earn $37,000 per person, or more, when there are hundreds of millions of people in China who earn $1,100 per person a year. Little agreements like that before us today cannot be the answer. It may be a partial answer but, frankly, in the larger scheme of things, it is really much less important than the central question facing America today with respect to economic competitiveness. The agreement before us today will not open enough markets for American exports to make that much of a difference. That is clear. No, we need a much more aggressive strategy. On trade policy, we need to try to negotiate bigger agreements--not these small ones, but bigger ones that have much greater commercial value. We need to open negotiations with trading partners who represent a larger share of American trade. There are many examples. We are not doing that, but we should and we must. Time is ticking by. We need to give renewed emphasis to multilateral agreements like the Doha Round. And we need to do a better job enforcing the trade agreements we have already entered into. Each Senator can list many agreements the United States has entered into with other countries, but the other countries, by and large, have not lived up to the agreements. The most glaring example is intellectual property. We know who the countries are that have not lived up to their obligations to honor intellectual property rights and, as a result, American companies are losing billions of dollars a year. The United States must be much more aggressive in enforcing those agreements. We need to improve America's education. We need to ensure that we can remain more productive than workers in other countries. That too is clear. We need to give teachers the recognition and compensation they need to ensure that they can help to educate the most productive workers in the world. We need to increase the incentives for students to study the basics--math, science, engineering. Why? So that American students can remain the source of tomorrow's new ideas. We pride ourselves--we have in the last several decades--in being the country that is the most innovative and creative, and that has been true. We also know that others are catching up. There is no reason why people in other countries cannot be as creative and as innovative as Americans. There is no reason--none. They are people, and we are people. They are human beings, as we are. Their brains are the same as our brains. It really comes down to who is the most educated, the most aggressive, who works the hardest, and who works better together. And people in other countries are becoming very well educated, very aggressive. They are hungry. They are working closely together, and they are investing in areas to increase their productivity. They are catching up very quickly. We also need to increase our national savings. America has an abysmal national savings history. It will not be much longer, if that trend continues, when we are going to face very dire economic consequences. We have to do something about that; we are not. Our private savings rates are zero. Americans do not save. They spend. We spend. We like to buy refrigerators, cars, boats, clothes. We consume; we do not save. With housing prices so high these days, what do we do? We borrow against the equity in that house. What do we do with the borrowing? We spend. To make matters worse, the Federal Government not only has a savings rate of zero, it has a dissavings rate, huge deficits and debts. We cannot continue like this. That is one part of the agenda that we must work on if we are going to address American competitiveness. This agreement before us is an important debate, but it is not the real debate. It is an important issue, but it is not the real issue. It is only a small part of the central issue we should be facing. We need to expand incentives for employees to save through work, for example. There is no glamor or rocket science in this. It doesn't make the evening news. That is one reason we don't do it because we are people with such a short attention span. It is the instant view--what is now-- and not what can be 10, 15 years from now. We need to expand incentives for employees to save through work, which is a small step in the right direction to increase savings. We need to stop running massive Federal budget deficits because they are reductions in national savings. We need to address our outsized and very expensive health care system. We spend twice as much on health care per capita than the next highest country. I ask, are we twice as healthy? Of course not. We are not twice as healthy. Why do we spend twice as much? A lot of reasons. It is very complex, but we do. What is the consequence of that? One consequence, clearly, is that our companies are having a very difficult time competing--particularly our larger, older companies. They have extremely high health care costs, legacy costs to employees and retirees. Their competitors don't have them nearly that high. I have talked to CEOs of large companies who say they are thinking of locating their plants in other countries largely because the health care costs for those employees in those countries is much lower and so they can compete. I remind my colleagues, this is an incredibly competitive world. It is incredibly competitive, and just the slightest margins make a difference. We have to, therefore, be incredibly competitive ourselves. It is teamwork. It is Americans working together. We are not working together. Look at this debate. This debate is pretty sterile. One side exaggerates; the other side exaggerates. We are not talking with each other. We are not focusing on the real problem. I hope in future days, weeks, and months we start to wake up and not get so involved with the periphery. CAFTA is not really the periphery, but it is not far from the periphery. We should, rather, focus on the central questions. We also need to foster much greater use of information technologies in health care. Did you know, Mr. President, that the equivalent of two 747s crashing every day is the number of Americans who die on account of medical errors? Between 58,000 and 98,000 people a year in America die because of medical errors. It is not true in other countries. It is in America. Much better information technology in the health care industry will reap immense benefits. What is one of the reasons we do not invest in IT in America in health care? It is pretty simple. It is reimbursement. Hospitals will spend thousands of dollars on CAT scans and on PET scans, the latest technologies. Why? Because the Medicare program reimburses them for those machines. It is also competition, keeping up with the Joneses. What is the Medicare DRG for IT? There isn't one. We have a system that reimburses and sets up incentives that discourages development of IT in health care, which we have to have, which will reduce medical errors. It will have all kinds of positive consequences if we get a much better IT system. We have to get going in this country. We are behind the eight ball. In sum, to be competitive, we need to have a plan. This is a bit simplistic, but I think it somewhat makes the point. I mentioned earlier how competitive this world is. We all know that. If we put two teams on the playing field--by the way, I am an American. I am for the American team. I do not want to denigrate other people or hurt other people. The ideal is that everybody around the world is doing extremely well. I am an American. I am on the American team. I want America to do well. If we put two teams out on the playing field--let's take football. One team has a quarterback, blocking backs, the linemen, they have a coach, a play, a plan. That is one team. The other team has 11 players on the field. One person wants to do one thing; he wants to carry the ball. Someone else says: I want to carry the ball. No, I want to kick. No plan, no coach. They are out doing their own thing. They are entrepreneurial. It is free competition, going in their own directions, doing what they want to do. Which team wins? I grant you, that is simplistic. That is very simplistic, but I think it does make a point. Other countries have plans. I can name them: China. China has a plan. Japan has a plan. I think some European countries do; I am not sure. I do not know how much better organized they are, but the main point is we do not have a plan. I am not asking for a centralized plan where somebody decides what everybody does, but I am asking for much greater cooperation, much more working together so that Americans can compete. I go back to what I said earlier. So much of this is education. It is value added. We need to add value up here at all levels--K through 12, continuing education, vo-tech, and so forth. Ultimately, that is where it is at--education. There is nothing else but education--math, science, and other areas. I see the Presiding Officer taking notes. I can see he is listening to me. I can tell I am making some points that maybe make sense and he is going to do something about it. I appreciate that. I wish others would, too. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be the next recognized for debate: I see Senator Graham is in the Chamber. He will have 15 minutes, and that time will be taken out of the time allocated to Senator Grassley. Senator Conrad of North Dakota wants 15 minutes, and his time will be taken out of the time allocated to Senator Dorgan. Senator Thomas will be recognized for 15 minutes, and his time will be taken out of the time allocated to Senator Grassley.

Mr. BAUCUS. I do not know that it matters, Mr. President. For the sake of moving along, we will stick with what we have.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that subsequent to the remarks of the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, pursuant to the existing agreement, Senator McCain be recognized to speak for 10 minutes and that time be taken from the time allocated to Senator Grassley; following Senator McCain, that Senator Dayton be recognized for 15 minutes and that time to be taken from the time allocated to myself.

Mr. BAUCUS. Does the Senator want more time? We can certainly find it.

Mr. BAUCUS. I make that request.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be recognized next to speak after Senator Dayton: Senator Kerry for 15 minutes, with the time taken from the time allocated to me; and then a Republican Senator not yet named, for 10 minutes, with the time taken from the time allocated to Senator Grassley.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, under the order the Senator from New Jersey is recognized next for 10 minutes. I ask unanimous consent he be given an additional 5 minutes, total of 15, and the time to be taken out of the time allocated to Senator Dorgan.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have a rough understanding that Senator Dorgan will speak next. He is not here. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask consent that it be charged equally against both sides.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this has been a long debate, and generally, in most respects, the statements have been a little bit one- sided: CAFTA is great, it is going to help; or CAFTA is a terrible idea; it will send us down the drain. I am hopeful because I sensed that in the last 2 to 3 hours, the statements have been a little more toward the center, trying to figure out realistically what is happening, what is going on here. I think it is true, we all know in this competitive world that trade is important, it is essential. Companies have to trade, people have to trade both ways. If we do not, we are going to lose out big time. That is clear. There is not much doubt about that. But it is also true--and this has not been sufficiently addressed, certainly not in this debate and certainly not in the country, is how we address the dislocations that happen on account of trade because so many people lose jobs through no fault of their own. They work at a company, they work at a plant, say a manufacturing job at a plant, and the company seeking lower wages or lower health care costs goes overseas, maybe seeking software development, R&D investment, and an American loses his job. This might be a 20-year-old, it might be a 50-year-old, who loses his or her job. It is not the fault of the employee. It is because of the system. It is because the world is changing so dramatically. We have not begun at all to address what we should do about that. We do have trade adjustment assistance. Trade adjustment assistance today applies only to persons who lose manufacturing jobs. It does help people who lose manufacturing jobs get some assistance, get some training, get some health care benefits, but it ought to be easier to get, and it ought to cover more workers, including service workers. What we care about is training people, finding ways for them to get jobs that make a difference, to help them feel good about themselves without big dislocations in their families. I might say we also are not addressing the larger trend that is coming. We have lost, say, 3 million manufacturing jobs in America over 2, 3, or 4 years. They are gone. We have also picked up a good number of jobs. But what is the area in which we have picked up a lot of jobs? Lately, in the last couple of years, it is because of 9/11. It is homeland security jobs. It is national defense jobs. Clearly we need those jobs. But it makes one wonder a little bit, first, if there were no 9/11, sounds like there would be a huge net loss of jobs. We would not have the homeland security jobs we now have. To make matters more, if not alarming, at least serious, is that although we have lost about 3 million manufacturing jobs, we picked up maybe roughly the same in the homeland security jobs, the next wave is going to be much greater and it is going to make the loss of manufacturing jobs pale in comparison. Our economy is creating and destroying jobs at a faster and faster rate. The total number of jobs may not be decreasing, but the rate of churn in the economy is getting faster and faster, especially with service jobs. This country is not ready for that. We have no paradigm, no structure, to deal with it. The days when you could work single job for 30 years without updating your skills are over. We need to be more prepared, have more educated workers, and more adjustment assistance. Knowledge is not perfect. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. A book that I started to read is a good book that most Americans should read, called ``The World Is Flat,'' by Thomas Friedman. If one reads that, they get a sense of how much technology, communications technologies, moves things from bottom up instead of top down. In the economic world, nothing is sacred anymore. It is such a free-for-all. It is the wild west in a certain sense. I do not think we are ready for that. So this debate has been helpful. It helps bring out some of the provisions of CAFTA, what it does and does not do, but it does not address the fundamentals. It does not address the basic problems we should be addressing. I am quite hopeful that sooner rather than later we are going to begin to address and we are going to hear Senators give speeches on what needs to be done. After that, there will be some proposals and debates on those and I am very hopeful that will happen sooner rather than later. With respect to the more narrow issue of CAFTA, it is my belief, frankly, that regrettably the administration did not work with Congress as much as it should have. If it started earlier, we could very well have had a big vote for CAFTA, especially with respect to sugar. The administration came to Senators with the sugar concerns, beet sugar, cane sugar, very late in the game. In fact, there are negotiations going on right now. It is only because they realized they do not have the votes, especially in the House, at least not yet. The same is true with the labor provisions, no real negotiations, no real discussion there. That is unfortunate because we are one of the two bodies trying to find ways to get trade agreements. I must say, however, that is not true about environmental issues. About a year or so ago, I realized that on CAFTA, environmental issues were going to be a big problem so I asked Ambassador Zoellick if he could come over to my office and talk about it, and he did. I must say I appreciate the way Ambassador Zoellick, over a period of about a year, dealt with the environmental issues so that would be much less of an issue in this agreement. There has been a lot of talk about trade fatigue. Maybe the people of our country, Members of Congress, are beginning to wonder, gee, do these agreements mean much. I think that is an appropriate question. There is trade fatigue. One is because we are not enforcing our current trade agreements as we should. If we were to start to enforce our trade agreements, I think Americans would start to think, hey, maybe our Government is doing something to help us out. My final two points are this: We speak about job loss and we speak about job gain. More importantly, there is a lot of talk about the economy is doing better. It masks the real problems that are going on, and that is the tyranny of averages. Average numbers do not mean much of anything. Why? Because we are such a disparate country. Some people have certain kinds of jobs. Some people have a lot of income, some people do not. That is not the question, what is the average GDP in the economy and all of that. It helps a little bit, but we are representing people. There are employees. They are the people who work and an awful lot of people are getting hurt these days. A lot of people are doing very well. Bigger companies do very well, but a lot of people are not doing well, and a lot of people who work for big companies are not doing well. I urge us to remember who we work for. We work for the people. They are the ones who elect or unelect us. I urge us to remember that point. Finally, I will end where I began, namely, I am quite hopeful. I sense in this agreement, this debate, that people are starting to realize what the real issues are and beginning to realize that maybe the administration could have done a better job in talking to the Congress about the provisions that are in this agreement so that the Congress and the administration can work these out in subsequent trade agreements so we do not have quite the same problems we have tonight. At least I hope so. I am hopeful that will happen. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the next speaker be the Senator from North Dakota and as soon as the Senator from Nevada arrives, he follows the Senator from North Dakota, if he is here on time.