Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Utah.

Mr. BAUCUS. How much time do I have remaining?

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, I want to spend a little time today discussing the labor and environment provisions of the fast-track bill that is before us. I want to start with one simple truth: When it comes to labor and the environment, this is the most progressive trade bill that has ever received serious consideration in the Senate. The labor and environment provisions in this bill represent dramatic--and I mean dramatic--improvement over the bill this Senate considered just several years ago. Some of my colleagues in both the House and the Senate have introduced other bills this year. Some of those bills ignore labor and the environment. Others require so much on these issues as to make the negotiating process unworkable. Both types of bills, in my view, are equally antitrade. They either ignore the reality that labor and environment issues are now an entrenched part of the trade dialog, or they impose so many burdens and barriers on fast track that they render it useless. Last year, Congress and the administration worked together to solve this problem. We unanimously passed in the Senate the Jordan free trade agreement negotiated by the Clinton administration, and President Bush signed it into law. Using the Jordan agreement as a model, our colleagues in the House and Senate drafted a fast-track bill that fully reflects the provisions of the Jordan agreement. As the committee report states, the negotiating objectives on labor and environment are ``based upon the trade and labor and trade and environment provisions found in articles 5 and 6 of the United States- Jordan free trade agreement. Those provisions (including their coverage by the Agreement's general dispute settlement procedures) have come to be known as the Jordan ``standard.'' The Jordan agreement breaks new ground on labor and environmental issues in two ways. First, both countries agree to work toward better labor and environmental standards. That is an agreement by both the United States and Jordan, written into the agreement. In the area of labor, we agreed to promote respect for worker rights and the rights of children--this is very important--consistent with the core labor standards of the International Labor Organization, the ILO. We also agreed to protect and preserve the environment and to pursue trade and environmental policies that are mutually supportive. Second, both countries agreed we would not lower labor or environmental standards in an effort to improve our positions on trade. That provision of the agreement has equal weight with all other provisions of the agreement--it is just as important, and it is just as enforceable. I want to be clear on this point. By necessity, the language in the fast-track bill is not and cannot be identical to the Jordan agreement because the Jordan agreement is limited to two countries. The fast- track bill sets the agenda for future trade agreements. That said, the fast-track language incorporates all of the elements of the Jordan agreement--every single one--and those who criticize the fast-track bill before us as not meeting the Jordan standard are simply inaccurate; they are not stating the case. They exaggerate the provisions of the Jordan agreement or they mischaracterize the bill. Let me address several of the critics' assertions. First, opponents criticize this bill as failing to require that countries implement core internationally recognized labor standards. That is true, the bill does not make that requirement. But the Jordan agreement does not make that requirement either. The Jordan agreement simply reaffirms obligations of each country that already exist by virtue of ILO membership, and it establishes the countries' agreement to ``strive to ensure'' that ILO standards are recognized and protected by domestic law. If a country strives but fails to actually ensure that ILO standards are reflected in domestic law, it has not violated its obligation. Second, opponents criticize the bill as not including the Jordan standard on enforcement. That is simply not true. The Jordan labor and environment provision that is susceptible to dispute settlement--that is, the requirement that a country not fail to effectively enforce its labor and environmental laws in a manner affecting trade as incorporated as a priority negotiating objective in the bill. Also, negotiators are directed to treat all principal negotiating objectives equally with respect to access to dispute settlement, as well as with respect to procedures and remedies in dispute settlement. Third, opponents criticize this bill because of the late addition of the so-called Gramm language. That is the Senator from Texas. They suggest this language allows countries to lower labor and environmental standards with impunity. While I am not a fan of the Gramm language, critics grossly exaggerate the effects of this language. The language states that ``no retaliation may be authorized based on the exercise of these rights''-- that is, regarding countries' discretion to take certain actions--``or the right to establish domestic labor standards and levels of environmental protection.'' As explained in the committee report accompanying the bill, this language is simply meant to--that is the Gramm language--is meant to ``clarify the language that precedes it in subparagraph (B). That is, in negotiating provisions on trade and labor and trade and environment, the United States should make clear that a country is effectively enforcing its laws if a course of action or inaction is the result of a reasonable exercise of discretion or a bona fide decision regarding the allocation of resources and, as such, the country cannot be subject to retaliation on the basis of that course of action or inaction alone. In short, the language at issue does not allow countries to lower labor and environmental standards with impunity. It does not add to or subtract from the other provisions on labor and environment in the bill. It merely clarifies that administering authorities are to be accorded some leeway, as they are in the United States-Jordan agreement. Same, no difference. Finally, opponents criticize the fact that promotion of respect for worker rights is included in this bill as and ``overall trade negotiating objective'' rather than a ``principal trade negotiating objective.'' As explained in the Finance Committee report, all of the subsections in section 2 of the bill carry equal importance in defining the trade negotiated positions of the United States. The report further states: It is the expectation of the committee that in affirming that a trade agreement makes progress toward achieving the applicable purposes, policies, priorities, and objectives of this bill, the President will address the purposes, policies, priorities, and objectives in each of the subsections of Section 2. Moreover, by criticizing the placement of promotion of respect for worker rights under the heading of ``overall trade negotiating objectives,'' the assertion implies that placement of the objective under the heading of ``principal trade negotiating objectives'' would somehow make it more enforceable. That is not true. The fact is, the ability to use dispute settlement to enforce an obligation to promote or to strive to ensure is extremely limited, regardless of the section in which it is listed. How would someone determine whether a country is promoting core labor standards or striving to ensure that those standards are reflected in domestic law? Clearly, this legislation would direct the administration to negotiate Jordan-like provisions as it completes negotiations with Chile and Singapore. And as it moves forward on the free trade area of the Americas, it makes Jordan the model for new negotiations with Central America, with Australia and others. There are also key provisions on labor and the environment added to the Senate bill that were not in the House bill. First, in addition to an environmental report, which would be codified into law, the legislation requires a new report on trading partners' labor practices. These reports should clearly identify the problems to be addressed in negotiations. Second, the Senate bill contains important language to ensure that new investor-State provisions, such as NAFTA chapter 11, are transparent and accessible to the public. The bill also addresses concerns that investor-State provisions may give foreign interests more rights than U.S. investors; that is, we made sure that provision is addressed in the solution in the bill, and, particularly with the adoption of the recent Kerry amendment, strikes a balance between legitimate concerns of environmental citizen groups and legitimate concerns of American investors overseas. Foreign investors and domestic investors are treated the same way, and also municipalities are treated the same way with respect to domestic investors or foreign investors that may be challenging a certain environmental or municipality law under article V of the Constitution, the takings provision of the U.S. Constitution. Some critics have said this legislation does not go far enough on labor and the environment. Many critics, I believe, will never be satisfied. They just cannot be satisfied. They simply oppose trade. That is fine. Some will be for trade; some will be against trade. I respect that. But as we move forward on these issues, we have to be realistic. It is simply unreasonable to suggest that we can take our labor and environmental laws, that is the United States, impose them on developing countries, and slap sanctions on them if their laws do not live up to our standards in a few years. That is simply unrealistic. We simply would not be able to negotiate agreements if that were the position the United States took and those were the provisions that we had written into the underlying fast-track bill. We have to move forward very aggressively, and the provisions in this bill do make that aggressive step forward. We have to keep in mind that many of these countries are at a level of development that the United States was at 100 years ago. At that time, the U.S. labor and environmental laws looked much different than they do today. That is not to say we must wait a century for progress. Clearly, we should not wait a century. Every trade agreement must recognize that labor and environmental standards are now on the agenda. I might say that is one of the reasons that the Ministers in Seattle collapsed because the world recognized that labor and environmental provisions should now be on the trade agenda. They should not be separate from trade. Our Ministers worldwide were unable to adapt quickly enough to come up with a solution dealing with labor and environmental issues. The fact is, they are here. The question is, What is the most appropriate way to incorporate labor and environmental standards? We have worked very hard with those most interested in this issue to write provisions in the Jordan agreement. That is a major step forward, and we are making those Jordan standards the core basis by which we proceed today. We can lock in important advances that have already been achieved. That is what we are doing with the underlying bill. We can create positive incentives for countries to raise their standards. We are doing that, too. For example, we see phase-in benefits more quickly for countries that make progress on labor and environmental issues. We can provide technical assistance to help those countries improve their practices. Importantly, we can trade more with them. Progress on labor and environmental standards often follows economic growth. That is certainly true of the United States. Our own country is the best example of that. Isolating developing countries will not help the United States, either. There will always be those that the fast- track bill does not do enough for, does not go far enough in protecting labor and environmental standards worldwide. To them, I say this bill is an enormous step forward. By definition, it is a fitting--and I say by definition because the prior bills were zero. This has a very significant provision so this is a great step forward. It is far stronger on these issues than any previous grant of fast track. It is far stronger than the fast-track bills considered by the House and Senate only a few short years ago. So can we not do more on these issues? Absolutely. And I will continue mightily to work to make improvements. That is a process that is likely to continue for decades to come. We will continue to work and make progress with each passing couple of years on labor and environmental provisions. At the end of the day, I believe there is something in this bill that is very solid with respect to labor and the environment. It is a wonderful first step forward, and I believe those who are truly for trade worked hard to pass this comprehensive trade bill because, if they vote against this bill, then we are back to where we were before, that is, no meaningful labor and environmental standards as we have worked for in fast track. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from North Carolina on his amendment. It is one that is particularly needed for his area of the country for several reasons. One is that under agreements that predate the Uruguay Round in 1992, the quota on textiles and apparel is gradually being phased out. That is going to put tremendous additional pressure on employees working in the Senator's area of the country, the South, which means we need to go the extra mile to help people who will be dislocated as a result of various and significant changes in the textile and apparel industry. I compliment the Senator. He is standing up for his people and the State he represents, as is Senator Miller. I am sure that others who represent textile and apparel workers have the same concerns. I compliment them as well. The underlying bill, as the Senator said, does have certain negotiated objectives. The Senator adds an additional objective that would specifically address trade in textile and apparel products. I must say that although we have the most open market in the world, many of our competitors, unfortunately, are not nearly as open. As it happens in the textile and apparel sector, some of the most active exporters of these products happen to be countries that maintain the highest barriers to imports into their own country. For that reason, the amendment we are now discussing directs our negotiators to focus their efforts on achieving fairer and more open conditions of trade in textile articles, particularly with major textile and apparel export countries. It also instructs them to take into account whether our negotiating partners have played by the rules under existing agreements. This, too, is very important. For that reason, I urge the Senate to strongly endorse this amendment. I am sure my colleague from Iowa has the same point of view. When he finishes his statement, I will make a request as to when we vote on this amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, my good friend from Illinois ridiculed the concept that if he pursued to be an actor or movie star, he would never be one. I might say I think the Senator is a great actor. I will nominate the Senator for an Oscar for best actor or best supporting actor. I think the Senator has a great career in the movies based upon this last performance. In that vein, to be honest about all of this, we have to ask ourselves, what is best, given all the complexities we are dealing with? That is really the question. This bill is a huge step forward with respect to protecting labor and the environment overseas. It is massive compared to what we have done in the past. A basic question we have to ask ourselves is: Are we in favor of trade agreements or are we not? Generally, that is the basic question. I think we should pursue trade agreements. There are some in this body who will vote against all of them, fast track or trade agreements. Let's not forget, most trade in this country has nothing to do with fast-track negotiating authority. Some of it has to do with some trade agreements that are reached without fast track. We are talking only about the very complex multilateral trade agreements. That is what fast track is about. Companies, employees, and people should pursue their economic objectives worldwide, irrespective of anything they call fast track. In addition, there are lots of bilateral trade agreements that are negotiated and reached all around the world, irrespective of fast track. Fast track will only be used for the very complicated multinational trade agreements, and we have to delegate authority to the President because we are the only nonparliamentary government negotiating these agreements in most cases. That is in our separation of powers and in our Constitution. Other countries are not going to negotiate with the President knowing that the Congress can totally amend it according to our own particular State and congressional interests. They cannot negotiate with us. We have to, on the very complex agreements, have a fast-track negotiating authority. It is just a given. Otherwise, nothing happens on the very large, complex agreements we hope we can reach to knock down trade barriers around the world in agriculture and lots of other areas if we are really going to help our people get these trade barriers overseas knocked down, which is the real goal of all of this--to open markets. We need to pass this to get that done. Second, we have to ask ourselves, do we want a partisan bill or a nonpartisan bill? We know we have a closely divided Senate. We have to have a nonpartisan bill. It has to be nonpartisan. The provision the Senator is advocating is totally partisan. It received not one vote from the Republican Party on the other side--not one vote on the floor or in committee. Now, I am a Democrat. I am very proud to be a Democrat, but I am also a Montanan and an American, and I want practical results that really move us forward. This bill before us is that. It is a bipartisan bill. It is not a partisan bill. It is a bipartisan bill. It passed the committee 18 to 3, and it has strong bipartisan support in this body. So if we really want to reach our objectives and get things done and work to try to solve these extremely complex problems--and they are complex--I believe we should do it on a bipartisan basis, not on a totally partisan basis. Even though I am a Democrat and strongly support the ideas of our party, we have to be practical about things and get some results as well. Third, this is the most progressive fast-track bill this country has ever seen, by far. I understand some of the problems the Senator from Illinois is suggesting. We cannot let perfection be the enemy of the good. The Senator is seeking perfection. We cannot have perfection. His idea of perfection is totally opposite to some other Senator's idea of perfection, and we can think right now in our minds who that Senator might be. We cannot let perfection be the enemy of the good. We have to find a good solution, a good result, and this underlying bill is just that. I ask my colleagues, therefore, to vote for the most progressive trade bill this body has ever seen. Unfortunately, that means voting against the amendment of my good friend from Illinois for all the reasons I have indicated.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I have the highest regard for the Senator from Connecticut and his adherence to provisions to protect the environment. I do not know who has worked as hard as he or as effective as he in working to support measures to help not only the Nation's but the world's environment. However, I strongly oppose his amendment and I will say why. First, the provisions in the underlying bill are a dramatic improvement to protect the American environment overseas as compared with current law, any other fast-track bill. It is a major step forward. For example, it incorporates the basic provisions of the Jordan agreement, provides no derogation, that is, neither country will derogate, will reduce, the environmental protection that has an effect on trade. That is a major step forward. I cannot overemphasize how important it is to have those Jordan standards in the underlying trade agreement, that is, the fast-track agreement. It is incredible. I am, frankly, surprised to be saying at this point that those provisions are already in the bill because it was such a hard battle to get them. In addition, this is the first time that the environment has been made a principal negotiating objective. It is the first time the environment was given priority to other matters. It is the first time the multilateral environmental agreements are recognized, the so-called MEAs, that is, to protect the ozone, for example. That is a big first step. It is also the first time efforts have been made to improve the ability of other countries to enforce their environmental laws. So it is important not to just talk about this subject in the abstract but to compare it with what is in the underlying bill. The underlying bill goes a tremendous way to improving the environment. This reminds me of the metaphysical question: How many angels are there on the head of a pin? That debate has gone on for years. We do not know how many angels there are on the head of a pin. It is a metaphysical question as to the meaning of life and its existence. It is also unknowable. To be honest, that is what this amendment is, and I will explain what I mean. I take a slightly different tack than my good friend from Texas. I think the amendment does nothing, either way, with respect to protecting the environment. It is, frankly, poorly drafted. It is ambiguous. It is hard to say what is meant by it. So I say if we already have strong provisions to protect the environment, why add something that takes or does not take away a provision which is ambiguous and redundant, an argument made either way? However, the main point is, this fast-track bill is the result of very intensely negotiated positions and it is in the balance. If this amendment passes, I fear for the life of this bill in the Senate. This is a killer amendment, as strange as that may sound. I said earlier, this is basically a metaphysical question: How many angels are on the head of a pin? Why would that be a killer amendment? I grant that is another metaphysical question. That is another very strange situation we find ourselves in, but I must say that it does. This is an amendment which, if it passes--first, it has no practical effect, has no substantive effect, but it has, unfortunately, a strong sort of political effect within this body. I support the protection of the Senator from Connecticut of the environment, but this is one amendment which, frankly, does not further protect the environment and, if passed, is going to weaken this bill. In a moment I am going to move to table, but I am first going to recognize my friend from Texas.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, just a couple points to make here. We have to pass this bill. We in America must show that we are not isolating ourselves from the world but, rather, moving forward; we are engaging the world in trade agreements. We must move forward. As the largest, strongest country in the world, we must not abdicate our leadership position in the world. The underlying bill, the fast-track bill before us, which includes trade adjustment assistance as well as the Andean Trade Preference Act, will help the United States regain some lost position in world leadership certainly with respect to trade, international affairs, and economic affairs, particularly. We can say no. We can say we are not going to pass this bill. One Senator said he is opposed to fast track. Frankly, if we as a body say no, we as a Congress say no, we are, as a country, like the ostrich with his head in the sand, isolating ourselves from the rest of the world. We cannot go backwards. We must embrace the future, embrace it, work with it, help it work to our advantage, work with other countries to our mutual advantage, but certainly not to the disadvantage of the United States. That is what we must do. The amendment offered by my friend from Illinois is a killer amendment. It is clearly a killer amendment. It is an amendment to totally undermine the provisions of this bill. It is totally contrary to a balanced effort on a bipartisan basis, working together, both sides of the aisle, to get legislation passed. For that reason, it is essential that it not be adopted. Let's not forget, too, that in addition to the trade negotiating objectives, which we have been talking about, this bill also includes another provision which, frankly, is the driver. It is the main provision in the whole bill. That is trade adjustment assistance. That is the most important part of this legislation. It expands the current program by three or fourfold. It includes secondary workers. It includes health insurance benefits, provisions that don't exist today in current law. This bill is designed to strike a bargain between manufacturers and producers on the one hand and people who work in plants and factories and companies on the other hand. We are all Americans in this together. It is true that trade with other countries yields tremendous economic advantages to the United States. We all know that. That is a given. We also know that trade with other countries also causes dislocations, the topsy-turvy world we are in now, almost chaotic, certainly sometimes unsettling. We know that. The trade adjustment provisions in this bill help people who are dislocated, who lose their jobs on account of trade. It also provides them health insurance if they lose their jobs on account of trade. That cannot and should not be forgotten here. That is part of the bargain in reaching a trade agreement; namely, helping make sure our country can negotiate trade agreements overseas but doing the best we can to protect our workers at home. It is vitally important. The Senator earlier said that we have a huge trade deficit that has been caused by all these trade agreements. That is not accurate. We have a large trade deficit for many reasons. One is, frankly, because American consumers want to buy cheaper products made overseas. I do not think that very many Americans want to move overseas, or work for 25 cents or $1 an hour making shoes or products that are produced overseas. Rather, it is up to us in the United States to keep working on the areas we are best at; and that is, educating our workforce, providing more job training and more ways for us to secure better, higher paying jobs. That is the goal we should have. Another cause of the trade deficit which has nothing to do with trade laws in a certain sense, is the high U.S. dollar versus other countries' currencies. In fact, that is the main reason we have a trade deficit. I think to some degree it is a little secret, but all Treasury Secretaries who followed this the last 20, 30 years, like the high dollar. Why? Because a strong dollar keeps inflation down. They think it is good to keep inflation down, so we have a high dollar. As a consequence, foreign products are cheaper, irrespective of trade agreements--totally irrespective of trade agreements. That is one of the main reasons we have a trade deficit, which should be addressed, I grant my colleagues, but not addressed in a way that says: Let's have a very prescriptive fast-track bill which dictates what all the provisions should be in a way that is totally unworkable. It will not work at all, and that means not giving the President authority to proceed. I will yield back the remainder of my time--I do not have much to add--with the understanding my good friend from Illinois also will not have a lot to add so we can vote.

Mr. BAUCUS. I did not hear the response. How much time remains on both sides?

Mr. BAUCUS. Parliamentary inquiry: Has the motion to reconsider been made?

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I yield myself about 10 minutes. I obviously have the highest regard for my colleague from Illinois. He is advocating a point of view that is extremely important; namely, the protection of American employees, the environment, basic principles that are fundamental to the human condition, working hard. I highly applaud him for what he is doing. I would like to comment a bit on some of the points that the Senator and that others who are in support of his amendment have made, just to clear the air a little bit so we know what is in the underlying bill and what isn't. The Senator said--and we all agree--that we want to uphold the dignity of law, particularly the dignity of labor, and do all we can to discourage the exploitation of children around the world, or other employees who are in adverse conditions. We all know that. I might say that one of the core objectives in the underlying bill is to promote the ILO core standards in new trade agreements. That has not been mentioned very frequently here. I think it is something that should be stated very clearly. That is, one of the negotiating objectives in the underlying bill is that the United States pursue promotion of the International Labor Organization core standards as one of our negotiating objectives. It is also important to know that each of the negotiating objectives in the underlying bill is of equal weight. We are not picking and choosing here. They all have the same weight. Some talk about textiles. There is a negotiating objective on trade in textiles. That is in a special category. There are other objectives, but the bill makes clear they all have equal weight, and our trade negotiators must pursue them all equally. Pursuance of ILO core standards is certainly one objective stated in the bill. It also has been said the bill does not push the United States strongly enough toward promoting ILO core standards. But, again, I want to underline that the provision in the bill directing our negotiators to pursue ILO core standards has the same weight as other negotiating objectives. It is not less important than any other objective; it is equal. Now, it has been stated that the so-called investor-State dispute resolution provisions in the bill kind of tilt toward foreign investors at the expense of American investors, or that environmental provisions that a State may pass, that Congress may pass, that a local government may pass, are in jeopardy because of rights we may afford to foreign investors; that is, it is asserted that foreign investors will have an easier time in challenging a State action as a compensable taking than a domestic investor. I might say, we corrected that problem with the Baucus-Grassley-Wyden amendment. The Baucus-Grassley-Wyden amendment makes it very clear that foreign investors should not be accorded a greater level of protection in the United States than domestic investors in the United States. That is, there should be a level playing field. We make that very clear in the Baucus-Grassley-Wyden amendment that we adopted just yesterday. Now, it has also been stated: Gee, we have these multilateral environmental agreements that could be superseded by trade agreements. I urge all Senators to read the bill, and read it fairly closely, because it states very clearly that one of our overall objectives is for trade agreements and MEAs to be mutually supportive. That is the goal. It is clear that the United States cannot dictate exactly what the outcome of a trade negotiation will be, but it is certainly clear that we, in the underlying bill, have set as our objective making multilateral environmental agreements and trade agreements consistent with one another; that is, they should be mutually supporting. And many of those multilateral environmental agreements are good agreements. The one on ozone, for example, or the CITES on trade in endangered species products are terrific agreements. It is only proper that our trade agreements not undermine these environmental agreements. It has also been stated here: Well, gee, under the provisions of this bill, it says we cannot have country-of-origin labeling. I ask Senators to go back and read the bill. That is not an accurate statement. It is accurate to say there are provisions in the bill that say that we should not agree to deceptive labeling requirements or labeling requirements that are not based on scientifically sound principles. That is true. We should not allow labeling requirements that are not based on scientifically sound principles. But there are all kinds of labeling requirements that are permissible. I know my friend from Illinois agrees, as do others, that we should not have deceptive labeling or labeling requirements that are not based on sound science. It has been stated here that enforcement of environmental and labor laws is weak in the underlying bill. But, again, I remind my colleagues that enforcement of environmental and labor laws is a priority; it is one of the objectives that is listed in the underlying bill. It has equal weight with all of the other objectives. We want to enforce environmental laws. We want to enforce labor laws. It is also important, on this point, to remind ourselves that the vision of the bill with respect to labor and environment is a dramatic improvement over the status quo; that is, over current law, current law being no fast track. Let's remember, in previous fast-track bills, there was virtually nothing on the environment or on labor that made any sense. It took a lot of work to get these provisions in, that is, the Jordan provisions, which provide that no country should derogate from its environmental or labor laws in a manner that has an adverse effect on trade with the United States. That is very important. Clearly, that is a first step. We have to take steps here. The United States cannot today pass, in my judgment, fast-track legislation which really dictates to other countries what their environmental and labor standards should be. The amendment offered by my friend from Illinois unfortunately goes in that direction. It is an extremely prescriptive bill. It is unworkable. It basically is not a fast-track bill delegating negotiating authority to the executive branch, which we must do if we are going to have trade agreements. Rather, it is writing the trade agreements. It is saying what all the provisions must be, which is clearly a very unworkable way for the United States to negotiate trade agreements. I have deepest sympathy for the intent of my friend from Illinois. But I must say, after listening to his presentation, there are provisions in the bill which address some of the concerns he has--in fact, almost all the concerns he has. We have to take this a step at a time. We cannot solve all the world's problems in one fast-track delegation bill, but we can take tremendous steps forward, as this bill does. I strongly encourage my colleagues to not adopt the amendment by the Senator from Illinois. It goes much too far. The provision the Senator is suggesting was defeated resoundingly in the other body by over 100 votes. In the Ways and Means Committee, the vote was 22 to 10. So it is not a consensus measure by any stretch of the imagination. It was defeated quite soundly in the other body. On the other hand, the Finance Committee passed out the current version by a vote of 18 to 3, favorably, which indicates a much stronger consensus. It would have to go back to the House. I urge Senators again to not support the Durbin amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we are ready to vote on these amendments, but we cannot vote at this time. I ask unanimous consent that once debate is concluded on the Edwards amendment No. 3417, the amendment be set aside to recur at 1:45 p.m. today, and that at 1:45 p.m., there be 4 minutes remaining for debate with respect to the Edwards amendment, with the time equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment, with no second-degree amendment in order prior to the vote; that once the Edwards amendment is set aside, Senator Lieberman be recognized to offer an amendment relating to enforceable commitments, without further intervening action or debate.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to support the Edwards amendment and, frankly, I urge my good friend from Texas to also support it and refrain from raising a point of order or otherwise opposing the Edwards amendments. They are very good amendments. They help this bill. I am quite surprised, frankly, that the Senator from Texas was having objections to them. I am not going to use all the remaining couple minutes we have. I will let my friend and colleague from North Carolina make those statements, but I strongly urge us to work this out so we can get these Edwards amendments passed. I yield the remaining time to the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. BAUCUS. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a business meeting during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 15, at 9:30 a.m. in SD-366. The purpose of the business meeting is to consider pending calendar business. Agenda item No. 1--S. 1768, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to implement the Calfed Bay-Delta Program. Agenda item No. 2--Nomination of Guy F. Caruso to be the Administrator of the Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy. Following the disposition of these agenda items, the committee may turn to the consideration of any additional items on the enclosed agenda cleared for action. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date placed Item No. on agenda Page ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. S. 1768--To authorize the Secretary of the 5-10-02 5 Interior to implement the Calfed Bay-Delta Program 2. Nomination of Guy F. Caruso to be Administrator, 5-10-02 6 Energy Information Agency, Department of Energy... 3. S. 281--To authorize the design and construction 7-27-01 7 of a temporary education center at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial................................. 4. S. 454--To provide permanent funding for the 5-10-02 8 Bureau of Land Management Payment in Lieu of Taxes program and for other purposes.................... 5. S. 639--To extend the deadline for commencement 12-7-01 9 of construction of certain hydroelectric projects in the State of West Virginia..................... 6. S. 691--To direct the Secretary of Agriculture 12-7-01 10 to convey certain land in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Nevada, to the Secretary of the Interior, in trust for the Washoe Indian tribe of Nevada and California............................. 7. S. 1010--To extend the deadline for commencement 12-7-01 11 of construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of North Carolina........................... 8. S. 1028--To direct the Secretary of the Interior 5-10-02 12 to convey certain parcels of land acquired for the Blunt Reservoir and Pierre Canal features of the initial stage of the Oahe Unit, James Division, South Dakota, to the Commission of Schools and Public Lands and the Department of Game, Fish, and Parks migrating lost wildlife habitat, on the condition that the current preferential leaseholders shall have an option to purchase the parcels from the Commission, and for other purposes.......................................... 9. S. 1069--To amend the National Trails System Act 5-10-02 13 to clarify Federal authority relating to land acquisition from willing sellers for the majority of the trails in the system, and for other purposes.......................................... 10. S. 1139--To direct the Secretary of Agriculture 5-10-02 14 to convey certain land to Lander County, Nevada, and the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain land to Eureka County, Nevada, for continued use as cemeteries....................... 11. S. 1175--To modify the boundary of Vicksburg 12-7-01 15 National Military Park to include the property known as Pemberton's Headquarters, and for other purposes.......................................... 12. S. 1227--To authorize the Secretary of the 12-7-01 16 Interior to conduct a study of the suitability and feasibility of establishing the Niagara Falls National Heritage Area in the State of New York, and for other purposes............................ 13. S. 1240--To provide for the acquisition of land 12-7-01 17 and construction of an interagency administrative and visitor facility at the entrance to American Fork Canyon, Utah, and for other purposes......... 14. S. 1325--To ratify an agreement between the 5-10-02 18 Aleut Corporation and the United States of America to exchange land rights received under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act for certain land interests on Adak Island, and for other purposes.. 15. S. 1451--To provide for the conveyance of 12-7-010 19 certain public land in Clark County, Nevada, for use as a shooting range........................... 16. S. 1649--To amend the Omnibus Parks and Public 5-10-02 20 Lands Management Act of 1996 to increase the authorization of appropriations for the Vancouver National Historic Reserve and for the preservation of Vancouver Barracks............................. 17. S. 1843--To extend certain hydro-electric 5-10-02 21 licenses in the State of Alaska................... 18. S. 1852--To extend the deadline for 5-10-02 22 commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of Wyoming................... 19. S. 1894--To direct the Secretary of the 5-10-02 23 Interior to conduct a special resource study to determine the national significance of the Miami Circle site in the State of Florida as well as the suitability and feasibility of its inclusion in the National Park System as part of the Biscayne National Park, and for other purposes............. 20. S. 1907--To direct the Secretary of the 5-10-02 24 Interior to convey certain land to the City of Haines, Oregon.................................... 21. S. 1946--To amend the National Trails System 5-10-02 25 Act to designate the Old Spanish Trail as a National Historic Trail........................... 22. H.R. 37--To amend the National Trails System 5-10-02 26 Act to update the feasibility and suitability studies of 4 national historic trails and provide for possible additions to such trails............. 23. H.R. 223--To amend the Clear Creek County, 12-7-01 27 Colorado, Public Lands Transfer Act of 1993 to provide additional time for Clear Creek County to dispose of certain lands transferred to the county under the Act..................................... 24. H.R. 308--To establish the Guam War Claims 12-7-01 28 Review Commission................................. 25. H.R. 309--To provide for the determination of 12-7-01 29 withholding tax rates under the Guam income tax... 26. H.R. 601--To redesignate certain lands with the 12-7-01 30 Craters of the Moon National Monument, and for other purposes.................................... 27. H.R. 640--To adjust the boundaries of Santa 7-27-01 31 Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, and for other purposes.................................... 28. H.R. 1384--To amend the National Trails System 5-10-02 32 Act to designate the route in Arizona and New Mexico which the Navajo and Mescalero Apache Indian tribes were forced to walk in 1863 and 1864, for study for potential addition to the National Trails System............................ 29. H.R. 1456--To expand the boundary of the Booker 5-10-02 33 T. Washington National Monument, and for other purposes.......................................... 30. H.R. 1576--To designate the James Peak 5-10-02 34 Wilderness and Protection Area in the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests in the State of Colorado, and for other purposes.................. 31. H.R. 2234--To revise the boundary of the 5-10-02 35 Tumacacori National Historical Park in the State of Arizona........................................ 32. H.R. 2440--To rename Wolf Trap Farm Park as 5-10-02 36 ``Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts,'' and for other purposes.................... ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Copyright Royalties: where is the Right Spot On the Dial For Webcasting'' on Wednesday, May 15, 2002 in Dirksen Room 226 at 9:30 a.m. Witness List Ms. Hilary Rosen, President and Chief Executive Officer, Recording Industry Association of America, Washington, DC; Mr. Jon Potter, Executive Director, The Digital Media Association, Washington, DC; Mr. Bill Rose, VP and General Manager of Webcast Services Arbitron, New York, NY; Mr. Frank Schliemann, Founder, Onion River Radio, Montpelier, VT; Mr. Billy Straus, President, Websound.com, Brattleboro, VT; and Dan Navarro, Artist, American Federation Of Television and Radio Artists, New York, NY.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 15, 2002 at 9:30 a.m. for the purpose of holding a hearing entitled ``Under the Influence: The Binge Drinking Epidemic on College Campuses.''

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 15, 2002 at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing to discuss transportation planning. The hearing will be held in SD-406.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 15, 2002, at 2:30 p.m. in SH-216. The purpose of the hearing is to examine manipulation in western energy markets during 2000-2001, as revealed recently in documents made available as part of the investigation underway at FERC; actions that were taken to mitigate any market manipulation or failures; and further actions that should be taken now and in the future.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 15, 2002, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct an oversight hearing on ``Affordable Housing Production and Working Families.''

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. What is the regular order?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, for the past several days, we have been debating the merits of granting fast-track trade negotiating authority to the President. Today, I would like to illustrate the importance of this measure and that of its companion, Trade adjustment assistance, to my home State of Montana. Montana's role in the global economy is directly linked to our success in passing this important trade package. More importantly, if my State is to grow economically, we must secure opportunities beyond our borders. Those opportunities represent risk, growth, change, and challenge for a State that is highly reliant on export markets and highly sensitive to imports. Just as the founders of Montana--fur trappers, gold prospectors, cattle ranchers, hardrock miners--were driven west in pursuit of trade opportunities, so, too, must the citizens of modern Montana seek new markets. In fact, some would say that our viability in the 21st century is contingent upon our ability to expand and compete in the global marketplace. To further this endeavor, we must negotiate responsible trade agreements that help Montana workers, business, farmers, ranchers and entrepreneurs. At the same time we must recognize some of the problems associated with trade, which include worker dislocation or intensified competition, must also be addressed. I believe that fast track and trade adjustment assistance are critical to economic growth and strength of Montana. Let me tell you why. First, Montana exports nearly a half billion dollars in products a year. This includes $260 million in agricultural commodities, $100 million in industrial machinery, $24 million in chemical products, and $37 million in wood and paper products. Second, as a key State in the Rocky Mountain Trade Corridor we are expanding more to Canada and Mexico--our first and second largest trading partners. Respectively, these countries import more than $300 million and $34 million of Montana products with China, Japan, Germany, and the United Kingdom next in line. With new trade agreements that open markets to Montana products and re-adjust some of the current trade inequities, my State's economy stands to grow and prosper. Within this same context, the principle trade negotiating objective of the fast-track legislation calls on our negotiators to remove barriers that decrease market opportunities for Montana exports or distort imports that put producers at an unfair advantage. These barriers include governmental regulatory measures such as price controls and reference pricing which deny full market access for United States products. Take, for example, the Canadian Wheat Board. The Government of Canada grants the Canadian Wheat Board special monopoly rights and privileges which disadvantage U.S. wheat farmers and undermine the integrity of the trading system. These rights insulate producers from commercial risk because the Canadian Government guarantees its financial operations, including its borrowing, credit sales to foreign buyers, and initial payments to farmers. As a result, the Canadian Wheat Board takes sales from U.S. farmers and prices drop. The negotiating authority granted the President that fast track is aimed at stopping these unjust trade practices. Some folks say they don't want any new trade agreements until the old ones are fixed, I like the ring of that, but sometimes it is not terribly practical. I say, you can't fix something from the sidelines, you must be at the table. Fast track is a means to that end. If you want to fix an old agreement, clearly the other side is going to want to fix the old agreement from its perspective, too. It is never a free lunch. The bill also strives to ensure that trade agreements afford small businesses equal access to international markets, equitable trade benefits, expanded export market opportunities, and provide for the reduction or elimination of trade barriers that disproportionately impact small business. Let me illustrate what effective negotiations at the WTO mean for Main Street Montana. A company in Bozeman could be able to ship more trailers for mining equipment to Latin America. Discussion on pharmaceuticals could help companies like All American Pharmaceutical in Billings and Technical Sourcing International in Missoula. Montana's tech corridor in Bozeman could seek clarification on European manufacturing standards for electronics, increasing market opportunity for small technology businesses. Aviation firms such as Blue Sky Aviation in Lewistown, Garlick Helicopters and Tamarak Helicopters in the Bitteroot Valley could see a normalization in requirements for aviation products. Medical standards could be addressed helping Glacier Cross of Kalispell enter new markets. And Lawyer Nursery could spend less time fighting phytosanitary barriers and focus more on providing seeds and seedling trees to developing nations. The bottom line is that good jobs will be created in Montana if we are willing to give our negotiators the strong hand needed to secure sound trade agreements. In addition to small business owners, Montana's agricultural industry stands to benefit from sound trade agreements. For agriculture, the goal is to obtain competitive opportunities for U.S. exports of agricultural commodities in foreign markets substantially equivalent to the competitive opportunities afforded foreign exports in U.S. markets. The fast-track bill includes a concrete set of trade objectives for agriculture that targets my five key concerns. First, we must reduce tariffs to levels that are the same as or lower than those in the United States. These are the same tariffs that block Montana beef exports to Korea and Japan. Second, we must eliminate all export subsidies on agricultural commodities while maintaining bona fide food aid and export credit programs that allow the U.S. to compete with other foreign export promotion efforts. As you well know, the EU maintains the lion's share of export subsidies--60 times more than the United States. How can we ever expect a level playing field if we are undersold time and again by government-backed competitors? Third, we must allow the preservation of programs that support family farms and rural communities but do not distort trade. Currently we are engaged in passing a new farm bill. This bill seeks to reflect and respond to the counter-cyclical nature of our farm economy. It strives to limit production through sound conservation programs and maintains trade provisions, including the Export Enhancement Program and Market Access Program, which help our products overseas. The U.S. exported over $53 billion last year. However, our trade policy will only be effective if the commodity support and conservation programs of the farm bill are balanced. We cannot afford for one leg of the stool to be weaker than the others. Without family farmers, increased trading opportunities are irrelevant. Fourth, we must eliminate state trade enterprises wherever possible. Montanans know far too well the effects of competing with the Canadian Wheat Board. As I mentioned above, we must bring price transparency and competition to the marketplace. The Canadian Wheat Board is nothing close to that. Anything short of this flies in the face of fair trade. And fifth, we must develop rules to prevent unjustified sanitary or phytosanitary restrictions not based on sound science. For three decades we fought to pry open the Chinese market to Pacific Northwest wheat due to TCK. That was a real struggle. I spent a lot of time on that. It was difficult to get the Chinese to listen to us. They finally cracked open a little bit. Now we are struggling with markets in Chile and Russia that place arbitrary sanitary barriers on U.S. exports of beef, pork, and poultry. I will closely monitor any upcoming trade negotiations to ensure that these goals are met. Further, I will not hesitate to call for the repeal of fast-track trading authority or pursuing a resolution to limit fast track, at any time during the process if these objectives are not met. Let me share a few more points that make the case for fast track in my State. In order to address and maintain Montana's competitiveness in the global economy, the bill directs the President to preserve the ability of the U.S. to enforce rigorously its trade laws, including antidumping, countervailing duty, and safeguard laws. Montana has benefited from these laws. These laws have been used against unfair, or a surge in, imports of softwood lumber from Canada and lamb from Australia and New Zealand. In addition, our wheat industry is considering launching a case against the Canadian Wheat Board. These laws are not protectionist. Far from it. They simply ensure that Montana workers, agricultural producers, and firms, can compete fully on fair terms and enjoy the benefits of reciprocal trade concessions. These laws are designed to help other countries play fair. If all countries played fair, our trade laws would not be necessary. They are there only to help make sure that when other countries are not playing by the rules of the road we have ways to protect ourselves against unfair foreign trade barriers. All our trade remedy laws, as you know, Mr. President, are totally WTO legal. They are totally consistent with WTO. On a related note, I am often approached about the problem of a strong dollar for commodities and manufacturing. The overvalued dollar is certainly a problem, and I do not have the perfect solution today that balances these concerns with Treasury's intent to maintain a strong economy and control inflation. However, within this bill, the administration is directed to work with our trading partners to draw up a blueprint to deal with the trade consequences of significant and unanticipated currency movements and to scrutinize whether a foreign government is engaged in a pattern of manipulating its currency to promote a competitive advantage in international trade. Rest assured, I recognize these concerns, and I believe this is a step toward finding a solution and not an easy one to resolve but certainly a major step forward. In Montana we know the value of preserving our environment while optimizing the use of our natural resources. At the same time, we cannot afford to compete with shoddy worker and environmental rights. This measure brings that message to the world recognizing that trade and environmental policies are mutually supportive: That we should seek to protect and preserve the environment and enhance the international options of doing so, while optimizing the use of the world's resources. And, it promotes respect for worker rights and supports efforts to crack down on the exploitative child labor. This bill is different from past fast-track legislation because it is the first to ever seek provisions that aim to ensure that parties to the agreements not weaken or reduce the protections afforded in their domestic environmental and labor laws as an encouragement for trade. It is a first, and major development. It also works to establish rules to prevent frivolous investor claims that contravene the public good. I have a few words about part two of this package, the Trade Adjustment Assistance program or TAA. This is a program with a simple but admirable objective: to assist workers injured by imports to adjust and find new jobs. many Montana workers are now employed and many firms still in business thanks to TAA. Take for example the 221 employees who lost their jobs as a result of the suspension of operations at the ASARCO lead bullion facility in East Helena. It was a bitter blow to that community when that announcement was made. Due to the decline in the mining and mineral processing industries in the Western U.S., these workers faced few prospects for re-employment in a similar sector. Thanks to income support provided by trade adjustment assistance, and NAFTA-TAA, 50 percent of these workers are involved in or did seek training--many at the Helena College of Technology and a few at heavy equipment operating school. They are learning everything from trucking to computer technology. Now nearly 42 percent have found full-time employment. Workers at Plum Creek Timber in Seeley Lake are similarly taking advantage of this program. TAA is often seen as the last resort, but it also provides a chance for companies to retool. This is especially true of TAA for firms, a related program that provides assistance to over 10 small companies in Montana to help them readjust and effectively compete with imports. With TAA for firms, Montola Growers is researching new markets for its safflower oil, Tele-Tech Corporation is designing new products and print ads for its sophisticated electronic devises, Thirteen Mile Lamb and Wool Company is designing new garments for manufacture by contract knitters, and Pyramid Lumber is improving its milling efficiency. Without TAA for firms, we would see closed signs on many business doors. Unfortunately, more worthy projects exist than funding to support them. For that reason, I support significantly increased funding in order for this program to continue and expand its good work. Additionally, this trade adjustment assistance bill includes a new provision that will offer up to $10,000 in cash assistance to Montana farmers and ranchers injured by imports. Let me be clear, this is a real opportunity to retool and reform a family farming operation, to make it competitive and sound, for generations to come. Like trade adjustment assistance for firms, this program is a means to keep an operation in business and keep our Montana families on their land. One final item tucked neatly away in the TAA title is a provision to protect Montana sugarbeet growers from unfair trade practices. We all recall the black eye that stuffed molasses gave the industry, and we can not afford to suffer from such blatant circumvention again. This provision allows the Secretary of Agriculture to monitor imports of sugar to ensure that they do not circumvent the existing quota. If they do, the Secretary will report to the President who can then ``snap-back'' the offending commodity into the appropriate tariff line. This should send a clear message that America will no longer tolerate efforts to manipulate the trading system to the disadvantage of our sugar producers. The trade package before us today will help Montana move toward a greater role in the global economy. I hope my colleagues will feel the same about their own constituencies and lend their support to this important matter. Mr. President, I thank you for listening. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, is there a time allotted?

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask for the yeas and nays.