Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I move to table the Kerry amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Texas has a good idea. Under current law, there is discretion but this would extend benefits. Certainly strong consideration should be given to a country's support or lack of support for our war on terrorism. I think the Senator has added a very valuable additional criteria to the President's which should be considered. I urge all Senators to support the amendment. I yield the remainder of our time. We are ready for a vote.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the amendment offered by Mr. Gregg. Let me say, first of all, that this bill represents a very balanced compromise between Democrats and Republicans. I have worked hard to defeat some amendments that I view as killer amendments, I am disappointed that this amendment--which I also view as a killer amendment--has even been offered. This amendment would strike an important provision in the TAA bill--wage insurance. Wage insurance, as many now know, gives an incentive to displaced workers to find employment more quickly. It does this by cushioning them against income losses they might experience after losing a job and starting again in a new field. Now, there have been some misstatements about when wages insurance was added to this bill. I have heard some Members suggest that this was added after the markup. That is simply not true. Wage insurance was included in the original bill introduced by myself and Senators Bingaman and Daschle last July. And it was open to debate at the Finance Committee markup last December. As a part of a compromise with Senators Grassley and Gramm, we have all agreed to make this program a pilot program to see if it works. If it does, I suspect we many want to broaden the program. If it does not, I expect that Congress will end this program. But it is hard to argue against, at a minimum, giving this widely-supported program a chance. So how does it work? We have drafted this as a pilot program for older workers. Due to their long tenure in a single job or industry, older workers tend to be the hardest TAA participants to reemploy and the most likely to experience significant earnings losses in a new job. So, under our bill, any worker who is at least 50 years old and certified eligible for TAA can choose to participate in the wage insurance program. To qualify for wage insurance, a worker must take a new job that pays less than the old one within the first 26 weeks of regular unemployment insurance. By opting for wage insurance, a worker agrees to forego the 18 months of additional income support the could get under traditional TAA. Wage insurance lasts 2 years and is capped at $5,000 per year. A worker would not be eligible for wage insurance if he made over $50,000 per year. Now, why should we try a wage insurance program as part of TAA? First, I would note that this is an issue that has been championed by Both Republican and Democratic leaders, and by academics. A number of Republicans, including Secretary Rumsfeld and Ambassador Zoellick--as members of the Trade Deficit Review Commission--and former USTR Carla Hills, have supported wage insurance. Alan Greenspan has also expressed support for such a program. These prominent individuals support wage insurance because it uses market incentives to shorten the period of unemployment. Second, this is an innovative way to get hard-to-employ people back to work faster. The idea behind wage insurance is that a worker will be more willing to take a lower paying job--and get back into the workforce sooner--if someone is making up part of the difference between the old and new wage. After a year or two of experience on the job, wages tend to rise, reducing the long-term wage losses. Third, this program actually saves money. During the 26 weeks a worker receives unemployment insurance, they can choose traditional TAA benefits or they can get a job and opt for wage insurance. The choice is up to the worker, but on average providing wage insurance will cost less than providing traditional TAA benefits. By getting people back into the workforce sooner, wage insurance will reduce unemployment rolls, reduce traditional TAA participation, and reduce overall costs to the government. Basically, if a worker certified for TAA takes a job before the end of his 26-week unemployment insurance period, the money that would have gone to fund income support starting in week 27 is instead used to pay the wage insurance. The difference is that the total amount of wage insurance a worker could receive is much less than the cost of traditional TAA benefits. One year of TAA income support at an average of $250 per week is $13,000, while wage insurance is capped at $5,000 per year. There are additional savings because the government will also not be paying for training. Fourth, on-the-job training works. Studies show that on-the-job training is better for both employers and employees. Wage insurance gives workers the incentive to take entry level jobs and train on the job and it gives employers more control over the kind of training that employees receive. I would also like to respond to some of the criticisms raised last night about the wage insurance program. First, critics have suggested that wage insurance will give people an incentive to lower their productivity, that wage insurance will persuade workers to turn down good-paying jobs that use their skills in favor of underpaid dream jobs like a fly-fishing instructor or a Disneyland worker. That seems pretty far-fetched to me. Workers in their 50s have kids in college, retirement nest-eggs to build, and mortgages to pay off. Research shows that older workers are the most likely to have obsolete job skills that do not lead to well-paying jobs they need to meet these obligations. I expect that these workers will take the best job they can get. We have an example in my own state of Montana. Last year the Asarco lead smelter closed in East Helena. Most of the workers have been with the plant many years and are in their late 40s or older. There are no more lead smelting jobs in the U.S. where they could match their wages and use their skills. Most ended up starting again in jobs that paid much less--if they could find jobs at all. This wage insurance program could have helped many of them get back on their feet faster. In any event, I would emphasize that this is a pilot. If it turns out that critics are right and wage insurance leads to a glut of fly fishing instructors, the program can be ended after the 2-year trial. But I don't think that is what we will see. The second criticism made of wage insurance is that it is inconsistent with the purpose of TAA, which is to provide retraining. Nothing could be further from the truth. The purpose of TAA is not training for its own sake. The purpose of TAA is to get trade-impacted workers back to work as quickly as possible by helping them get new skills. Wage insurance serves that goal, because it encourages on-the- job training. And on-the-job training is the best way to learn new job skills. Finally, we have heard that this wage insurance program is a form of age discrimination. Giving older workers first crack at an alternative to traditional TAA is not age discrimination. But if this is truly a serious concern, I would be happy to amend this provision, and expand wage insurance to workers of all ages. Mr. President, in concluding, let me say that there have been several Members who have criticized TAA in the last several days. They suggest it does not work. Yet they reject new bipartisan ideas--like wage insurance--that are offered as alternatives to TAA. I don't understand that. This amendment puts at grave risk the bipartisan compromise that has been struck in this bill. I oppose the amendment and I hope my colleagues will work hard to defeat it.

Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator is absolutely correct. And as the Senator well knows, in this ongoing evolution here, we have worked with the ILO definitions under the extension of GSP. And GSP is also in this bill, and that is the Generalized System of Preferences. The question is: What are the ILO standards? I am sure the Senator knows better than any other Senator that the ILO standards were changed in 1998. The earlier version was enacted or stated in the early 1950s. We, after great discussion, I might add, were able to get a modern, updated ILO definition in GSP, although it is not in this bill. My thought is, when we are in conference, that is an issue we can address. The Senator raises a good point.

Mr. BAUCUS. Senator Grassley and I have to go to a Finance Committee meeting in 8 minutes. I would like Senator Grassley to have the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I listened very carefully to my good friend from Connecticut. I imagine people, while they are listening to him, are wondering what is this debate all about, really? Certainly none of us want to promote child labor. All of us want to discourage child labor. All of us, as Americans, with the values we have as Americans, want to promote our American values. The question is, what is in this bill, what is not, what are we debating, and what are we not debating? Essentially, as I listen to my good friend, the Senator is arguing for the bill. What the Senator suggests is virtually what is in the bill. There is really not any difference. When I listen to the Senator, he makes it sound as if there is a huge difference, but there really is not. First of all, we do incorporate the Jordan provisions in the underlying trade promotion authority fast-track bill that are labor and environmental standards. Let's remember, the Jordan agreement is an actual trade agreement; whereas today we are debating whether to give the President authority--along with passing the trade adjustment assistance and Andean Trade Adjustment Act--whether to give the President the authority to negotiate future trade agreements under a certain procedure. There is a difference between a current, existing agreement that was negotiated--that is Jordan, on the one hand--and future agreements which have not been negotiated on the other. The Senator from Connecticut is essentially saying the standards, exact language as in the Jordan standard, essentially should be the language that applies to environmental and labor provisions and dispute settlement provisions in all future trade agreements. Again, I think it is important to note that there is a difference between what is actually negotiated in an agreement and future trade agreements. That difference is very important. No two trade disputes are exactly alike. No countries are exactly alike. The matters over which they negotiate are different. Each negotiation involves different issues, different complexities, and these require us to be creative, to adapt, and not take--the common phrase is the cookie- cutter approach. I also want to react to the argument of my friend from Connecticut who implied that ILO negotiating objectives are not in the bill or negotiating to reduce child labor is not in the bill. That is not accurate. It is in the bill. There are three categories of objectives. This sounds a bit arcane. One is principal objectives, overall objectives, and then other objectives. But the language in the bill makes it clear that each of the objectives has the same priority. You may ask why they are not all in the same category. I am not sure I can answer that question, but the operating principle is that the language in the bill provides that each of these objectives, although they might be in different categories--one of them includes ILO labor-- is a core labor standard. It also includes--promote respect for workers' rights, the rights of children consistent with core labor standards of the ILO, and understanding of the relationship between trade and workers. The main point, though, is respect for workers' rights and the rights of children consistent with core labor standards of the ILO. That is an objective and it is an objective that has equal weight compared with all the other objectives. It is in the bill. To say it is not is simply not accurate. In summary, the concerns the Senator from Connecticut voices are met. They are in the bill. They have equal weight. One can argue: If it is in the bill, why not just accept what the Senator has suggested? We are in this unfortunate situation, though, where we have this bill put together, and it is a bipartisan bill. It passed the committee 18 to 3. If we are to have trade adjustment assistance enacted into law, which I think is the most important part of this bill, and if we are going to have the Andean Trade Preference Act extended, which is very important to South American countries, and if we are going to have fast-track authority, which I think is necessary for these very complex trade negotiations, otherwise other countries will not enter into negotiations with the United States, this amendment has to be defeated. The substance of what the Senator talks about is already covered in the bill. It is substantially covered in the bill almost to the degree the Senator wants. But to adopt the Senator's amendment will cause this agreement to unravel. It is already very precarious. I remind my colleagues the other body passed the fast-track part of this legislation by one vote. I know there are some Senators in the body who do not want to pass fast-track legislation. They are opposed to it. But a very significant majority of Senators wants to pass legislation. They are in favor of it. If this amendment were to succeed, due to the very strong opposition to this amendment by a very substantial number, if not unanimously, of the Members of the other side of the aisle, this amendment could unravel this bill. It is a delicate balance. That phrase is used over and over again, but I can tell you it is a delicate balance. I wish I could help my friend and accept the amendment, but for all intents and purposes, to take care of all his concerns, if he were to push a little further, it could very well push us over the edge. And I do not think we should take that risk. We cannot let perfection be the enemy of the good. We can strive for perfection, but if we get too close to trying to get perfection it causes unintended consequences elsewhere. I urge my colleague to remember it is a very delicate balance we have before us. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. On behalf of myself, Senator Gramm of Texas, and Senator Grassley of Iowa, I move to table the Gregg amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. We could voice vote the amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, to be quite candid, I wish we could accept this amendment. The Senator makes some very good points. The fact is that all those standards that he seeks are in the underlying GSP provision that is a part of the underlying legislation. That just brought our definitions of core worker rights up to date. As I mentioned before, I hope we can bring the definition of core worker rights in the fast track part of the bill also up to date. The overall objectives and the priority objective in the underlying bill have equal weight. We are splitting hairs. This amendment is very much opposed by many Senators. I am duty-bound as part of the agreement to oppose it. I wish we could accept this amendment because it is one we should be able to accept.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, very briefly, I think we are reaching time for the votes. I think it is proper that the Senate vote in favor of the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona because basically, under current law, passage of fees does go back to Customs. The merchandise fees that are collected go into the general revenue, but they have always historically been appropriated right back to the Customs Service. So the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona simply confirms existing practice. Basically, the Senator is correct on how the actual dollars are collected and should be collected and then transmitted back to the Customs Service. We are prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. We are prepared to take the amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the social security number was originally devised to administer the Social Security program. Despite the limited purpose for which it was intended, the social security number is now widely used by Federal, State and local governments, businesses, health care providers, educational institutions, and others for identification and recordkeeping. The unintended consequence of this widespread use is that social security numbers have been used to facilitate a growing range of illegal activities, including fraud, identity theft, and, in some cases, stalking and other violent crimes. Because the Federal Government requires virtually every individual in the United States to have a social security number to seek employment, to pay taxes, to qualify for social security benefits, it is necessary and appropriate for the Federal Government to take steps to prevent the abuse of social security numbers. Last year, Senator Feinstein and Senator Gregg introduced a bill, S. 848, designed to protect social security numbers. Based on the fact that one section of the bill amends Title 18, the so called ``criminal code,'' and another section of the bill gives the Attorney General certain rulemaking authority, the bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee. However, the purpose of this bill is to protect social security numbers, which as a matter of law falls within the scope of Social Security Act, which as a matter of jurisdiction falls within the purview of the Financial Committee. The Social Security Act, which led to the creation of the social security number, has been amended numerous times to protect Social Security numbers and the Social Security Office of Inspector General has been given authority to enforce these protections. A careful review of S. 848 clearly shows that the preponderance of its provisions fall within the scope of the Finance Committee's jurisdiction. Therefore, it is my view that this bill, S. 848, should have been referred to the Finance Committee. Unfortunately, there is no provision in Senate rules to correct this mistake and refer S. 848 to the Finance Committee once it has already been referred to the Judiciary Committee. When the Judiciary Committee scheduled a markup of this bill on May 2, Senator Grassley and I sent a letter to the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee urging them to postpone markup until these questions of jurisdiction could be resolved. Following our discussions with Senator Feinstein, Senator Grassley and I have agreed to withdraw our objections to the Judiciary Committee proceeding to markup S. 848, based on the following three conditions: First, in the event that S. 848 is reported out of the Judiciary Committee, it will be referred to the Finance Committee. Second, it should be understood that this agreement to a sequential referral does not cede our claim of jurisdiction to this legislation and should not prejudice the referral of future legislation on this matter. Third, it is my intention to have the Finance Committee consider S. 848 as soon as the committee schedule permits.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I do.

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I move to table the Lieberman amendment, and I ask for the yeas and the nays.

Mr. BAUCUS. Absolutely.

Mr. BAUCUS. I commend the Senator from Minnesota for his amendment. I think it is a good amendment. It improves upon an already good piece of legislation. That is, the underlying legislation already has employment impact provisions. The amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota goes further, and I think that is good. The more people know about the ramifications of trade and the more different organizations investigate the ramifications of trade, the better we will be. I tend to subscribe to the John Locke ``marketplace of ideas'' philosophy and welcome a good, honest discussion of the issues. I believe that the more discussion we have, the more the sun shines, the more likely it is we will do what is right. It is almost axiomatic. The more the Senator from Minnesota offers amendments such as these, the better off we are all going to be in the short term and the long run. We will know more about how trade does or does not affect job security, one of the provisions in his amendment. We will know more about how trade affects levels of compensation. It has often been stated, frankly, that some of the jobs created as a result of trade pay more than nontrade jobs. It is equally clear that many jobs are displaced by this very rapid race to globalization that is occurring in the United States as well as other countries. I also think that regional distribution of employment, another one of the Senator's goals, is a good one. Let's see if there is regional distribution as a consequence of trade. I say this in part because trade itself is not the most exciting topic in the world. It is sort of an opaque gauze that clouds Senators' minds when we talk about trade, except when we see the real life effects of trade. Real life effects can be positive and not so positive. The Senator is trying to put a real life face on trade, to look at the actual effects or real people. I think this is a very good idea. I commend him and urge the Senate to accept this amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. I would like to echo the colloquy between the Senator from Arizona and the majority leader. It is true that the Secretary, pursuant to the discretion he is given under the law, did extend the period with respect to the Andean tariffs to May 15. It is also true that he has the authority to extend it even longer. It is also true that the last time this issue arose, some in the administration suggested to Chairman Thomas in the House that this would only be extended once. We are very close to passing the trade package in the Senate, getting to conference very quickly. I urge the administration to extend the period for a little bit longer. Having said that, it is important to remind all Senators that the underlying bill is drafted to make benefits retroactive to December 4, 2001. So even if the period the administration has suggested expires and we would move past that period, nevertheless all collected tariffs would be returned retroactive to December 4, 2001. It is our hope to get this passed very quickly. I say all that so it is clear that we have pressure but all is not lost if we don't move to get it all passed within the next days or the next few weeks. We are working together to solve the problem which has been mentioned. Amendment No. 3419

Mr. BAUCUS. I yield whatever time my friend from Utah desires.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I understand the order was given to go to the Edwards amendment at 1:45 p.m. I ask that the Senator from Connecticut withhold his comments at this point.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we have made progress on this bill. There are a couple of other Senators who are now in a position to offer amendments, which I think will be offered very shortly. I hope they offer them very shortly because that would mean more progress. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, be authorized to meet on May 15, 2002, at 9:30 a.m. on Examining Enron: Developments Regarding Electricity Price Manipulation in California.