Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized following Senator Kyl's presentation.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I want to speak about fast-track trade authority, which is now known by the euphemism ``trade promotion authority.'' Before I do that, I want to talk for a moment about what is happening with respect to trade with Cuba. Since we are on the subject of trade, there is something happening with Cuba about which I believe I must alert the Senate. As you know, a wide majority in both the U.S. Senate and the House has agreed that we should not use food as a weapon and that the 40-year embargo with Cuba--at least with respect to food and medicine--should be loosened. So by a vote of the House and of the Senate, we are now able to sell food to Cuba. Yet under current law, the Cubans are not allowed to purchase food from the United States on credit. They cannot borrow from a private lender. They must pay cash. Following the hurricane in Cuba, Cuba is buying American grain and agricultural products to the tune of $70 million, but they have to pay cash and run the transaction through a French bank in order to buy commodities from American farmers. This is just bizarre. The head of a group called Alimport, which is the organization in Cuba that purchases food for the Cuban Government, was invited to this country by farm leaders. His name is Pedro Alvarez. He was intending to come here--including to my State of North Dakota--and asked for a visa to do that. He was intending to purchase additional food from our country--and to pay cash. A visa was granted, but then the State Department abruptly reversed course and decided to revoke the visa. The State Department said: No, we don't want somebody from Cuba coming in to buy food or commodities from American farmers. When we called the State Department to ask them why they decided to revoke the visa to have the head of Cuban imports come into this country, they said: It is not our policy to encourage the sale of food to Cuba. Now, I find it just byzantine that our State Department would say: No, we don't want the head of the Cuban agency that purchases agricultural commodities to come to our country to purchase those commodities and, therefore, we will revoke his visa. When will those who take that position wake up and understand that using food as a weapon is merely shooting ourselves in the foot? I have now written a letter to Pedro Alvarez in Alimport and said: I am inviting you to this country; a U.S. Senator is inviting you to this country. I would like you to come to America; I would like you to come to North Dakota; come to North Dakota and buy wheat from our wheat farmers and buy dried beans from those who plant dried beans. I wrote a letter to the State Department saying: You have a responsibility to give these people visas to come here. I do not know what on Earth the State Department is thinking. I have talked to someone at the State Department who indicated that the matter is being reviewed. I said: Can you tell me who decided to revoke the visas? Who decided that farmers in America should be the victims of this foreign policy nonsense? Who was it? Who made the phone calls? I want to know who said that this is political, this isn't trade policy, and the politics persuade us we ought to revoke visas from someone from Cuba who wants to come to this county and buy wheat, dried beans, apples, and other commodities from the United States. I just do not understand why we have people in this country who still think that way. We ought never use food and medicine as a weapon. We have done it for 40 years with respect to Cuba. We can sell food to China. That is a Communist country. We can sell food to Vietnam. That is a Communist country. But for 40 years we have said no, you cannot sell food to Cuba. We loosened that restriction. Cubans can now buy our food, and now we have the spectacle of the State Department deciding to revoke visas they already approved for people from Cuba who want to come to this country and buy from American farmers. That is unfair to our farmers. It is another embargo. Cuba bought $1 billion worth of food last year. The Europeans are selling food to them, and the Canadians are selling food to them. We have sold them some now, but judging by the behavior of the State Department, it appears they do not want us to sell food to Cuba, despite the fact the Congress has already made the judgment that such sales should be lawful. I intend tomorrow to press this case once again at the State Department, and I hope they will change their mind and make a rational decision, one that is in concert with what the Congress has already decided, both the House and the Senate. Let me turn to the trade issue of fast track for a few moments. I see some colleagues in the Chamber who wish to speak. I will not speak as long as I had intended. They will want the opportunity to have a portion of this time as well. Let me quickly put up a chart showing an excerpt from ``Inside U.S. Trade,'' a publication on international trade. It quotes U.S. Trade Representative Zoellick speaking to a business group in Chicago. Mr. Zoellick described lawmakers and lobbyists who oppose a trade promotion authority bill sponsored by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas as ``xenophobes and isolationists.'' The Trade Ambassador says those who oppose fast track are xenophobes and isolationists. This really fits the way this thoughtless debate always plays out on trade. Instead of it being a thoughtful debate about what America's real trade policy ought to be to benefit this country, it turns quickly into a thoughtless debate by those who say there are only two sides: Those who support free trade, globalization, expanded trade, and have a world view that will allow them to see well over the horizon and understand the world much better than others, and those who are just xenophobic, isolationist stooges. That is how this debate is characterized: Those who think and those who do not. There is an old saying: You ought not ever buy anything from somebody who is out of breath. There is a kind of breathless quality to this debate about fast track: It just has to be fast track; if it is not fast track, we cannot pursue international trade agreements. That, of course, is total nonsense. We did not give Bill Clinton fast track when he was President. I did not support giving him fast-track trade authority when he was President, and I do not support giving George W. Bush fast-track authority either. Yet in the Clinton Presidency they did negotiate trade agreements. How did they do that? They do not need fast track to negotiate trade agreements. Fast track is simply a mechanism by which the Congress says: Wait a minute, before you negotiate in secret the next trade agreement, let us handcuff our arms behind our back; please let us do that; then you negotiate in secret; and when you come back, we wear handcuffs so we will not be able to offer even one amendment to this trade agreement you have negotiated in secret. That is what fast track is. There are a good many Members of Congress who sign up. I do not know, there is some kind of masochistic urge in trade, I guess, to say: Let's do this, let's tie our hands, and then allow someone else to negotiate in secret. Here is what the Constitution says about the Congress. Article I, section 8, says: The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations. . . . It does not say the President. It does not say the U.S. Trade Ambassador. It does not say some unnamed trade negotiators. The Constitution says: The Congress shall have Power-- The word is ``power.'' The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations. . . . In recent decades--three decades, in fact--we have had Presidents negotiate just five trade agreements under fast track: GATT, United States-Israel, United States-Canada, NAFTA, and the WTO. I want to show a chart showing the effects of one of these agreements. We gave fast-track trade authority to negotiate a trade agreement with Canada and Mexico. Prior to that, we had a small trade surplus with Mexico. Of course, after this agreement was done, it turned into a huge deficit. Prior to that, we had a modest deficit with Canada. After a trade agreement was negotiated with Canada, the deficit exploded. We turned a trade relation with Mexico that was a positive relationship into a negative relationship, and with Canada we had an explosion of the deficit. I thought it would be interesting to take a look at a chart that showed what happened to our trade deficits through all of these trade agreements. Every time we have another agreement, the trade deficit goes up, up, and way up. One might ask: What is the difference? The difference is this line means jobs in this country, good jobs, manufacturing jobs, and this line suggests an erosion of the manufacturing sector in this country. Under fast-track trade authority, which Congress has given to some Presidents, the major export has been jobs. The Economic Policy Institute suggests somewhere over 3 million jobs have been lost comparing prior to NAFTA and WTO and after NAFTA and WTO. Some say: This is just a global economy, and let's just move goods everywhere, and whatever happens happens. They ignore the fact that in this country, we have had people fight in the streets, we have had people killed in the streets for the right to form unions. We had people take to the streets to demand fair and safe workplaces. We had people marching in the streets in this country dealing with child labor laws. For 75 and 100 years, we have confronted all of these tough issues in the United States, and we have created an environment in which an employee has to have a safe workplace, be paid a decent wage, a business cannot hire kids, cannot dump pollutants into the stream and the air, and employees have a right to organize as a labor union. Economists always remind us of the importance of comparative advantage in determining what country gets to produce what products. But should child labor be a comparative advantage in trade? The legal minimum age for child workers in Peru is 12 years old. When someone takes the product of a 12-year-old, who works 12 hours a day and is paid 12 cents an hour, and ships it to Pittsburgh or Los Angeles or Denver or Fargo, and puts it on the store shelf, is that fair trade? Is that what we want American workers to compete with? There are 3 million workers in Brazil under the age of 15. Fair competition? Or how about people making shoes for 24 cents an hour in Indonesia? Fair competition? People say, well, America has to become competitive. Competitive with what? With 12-year-old kids making 12 cents an hour or 24 cents an hour? Is that the marketplace in which we describe fair trade competition? Before we pass fast track, I would like to see a little bit of progress by our trade officials to solve a few problems they have created recently. I am not asking for the Moon. I am saying before they run off and, under fast track, negotiate new trade agreements, how about doing something that stands up for this country's economic interests? How about solving a few problems that have been created in past trade agreements? I will talk first about Canadian wheat because that is a huge problem for my state of North Dakota. We had a trade agreement with Canada. We allowed Canada to sell its wheat through a sanctioned monopoly called the Canadian Wheat Board, which would be illegal in this country. It then sends an avalanche of unfairly subsidized Canadian grain into this country, taking money right out of the pockets of our farmers. It goes on year after year in a relentless way and no one stops it. Why? Because the remedies to stop unfair trade have been emasculated in our trade agreements. We were promised with the U.S.-Canada free trade agreement that this would not happen, but it did. It not only happened and an avalanche of unfairly traded Canadian grain came down injuring our farmers, but when we got to the bottom of it, we found out that our trade ambassador entered into a secret side agreement with Canada, and our negotiators refused to tell the truth about it even in a committee hearing in the U.S. House of Representatives when asked directly about it. This is what has happened with Canadian wheat exports in the United States and U.S. wheat exports to Canada: a pail versus a thimble, but that pail represents serious damage to U.S. farmers. There are some other trade problems. I have spoken at great length about beef in Europe. We have not been able to get most U.S. beef into Europe for 10 years because they say we use beef hormones. They portray our cows as having two heads over in Europe. We took Europe to the WTO, the World Trade Organization. We took our case to the WTO and we won. The WTO said, yes, Europe is wrong so you can go ahead and exact some penalties with respect to Europe. Do you want to know what we did? We were upset that Europe would not allow our beef in. We went to the WTO. The WTO said, yes, Europe is guilty. So the United States says, all right, what we are going to do is we are going to retaliate. We retaliated against European shipments to the United States of goose liver, truffles, and Roquefort cheese. Now that is enough to scare the devil out of an opponent; is it not? A trading partner like Europe, we say they better watch it; we are going to slap them with goose liver, truffles, and Roquefort cheese? What kind of remedy is that? When Europe was upset about the recent steel decision, they said, we are going to respond with tariffs on U.S. steel, textiles, and citrus products. How about Korean automobiles? Maybe we could ask our trade ambassador to fix that. I have gotten several letters from Korea recently because I have been talking about their automobile industry. Last year there were 618,000 Korean automobiles shipped into the United States, Daewoos and Hyundais, into our marketplace. That is fine with me, but do you know how many U.S. automobiles were shipped into Korea? We were able to sell 2,800 U.S. cars in Korea. For every 217 Korean cars sold in the U.S. marketplace, we were able to sell one in the country of Korea. Why? Because Korea does not want U.S. cars in the marketplace. It is very simple. Is there somebody who will stand up and say this is unfair trade? Because, after all, this represents a loss of good manufacturing jobs in our country, when there is that kind of trade imbalance. Is there someone who will fix that problem? The beef problem with Europe? The grain problem with Canada? Or how about wheat flour to Europe? Or eggs? Let me use eggs as an example. We cannot get American eggs in the European marketplace. Do you know why? Because American eggs are washed. They will not allow washed American eggs into the European marketplace. So we do not have a market for American eggs. Pork chops to China, T-bone steaks to Tokyo-- I will speak tomorrow at much greater length about a range of these issues. I ask this question: Mr. President and Mr. Trade Ambassador and others, you are so anxious to go negotiate a new trade agreement. How about solving a few of the trade problems that have been created? Brazil sends sugar to Canada. It is loaded on molasses, liquid molasses, and sent into the United States. Molasses becomes the carrier for sugar that could otherwise not enter under U.S. law. They ship it down into Michigan, offload the sugar, send the molasses back to get another load of Brazilian sugar to Canada, fundamentally undercutting our sugar program. In my judgment, it is an abrogation of fair trade. It has been going on for years. Yet you cannot get anybody to do anything about it. In the legislation that is going to come up on trade adjustment assistance, I believe that the molasses problem is being addressed by some concerned members of the Senate. But the point is that we have chronic trade issues and that administrations do not do enough about these problems. We have an enforcement division down in the Commerce Department. We have some enforcement in USTR. I have not seen the statistics lately, but do you know how many people we have dealing with China and Japan? We have eight people enforcing trade agreements with Japan, a country with which we have a $60 billion to $70 billion trade deficit, and they cannot even tell us what the agreements are that we have with Japan, let alone tell us whether they are enforcing them. This country does not do right by its producers, farmers, manufacturers, and others in the area of international trade. So we are now requested by this administration to give them fast-track authority so they can negotiate another agreement somewhere in the world. I say that we ought not give fast-track authority. I would not support it for President Clinton. I do not support it for this President. I think it is time for us to stand up for this country's economic interest. No, not build a wall, not keep goods out of our country. This is not about isolationism. This is about standing up for this country's manufacturing sector and its workers, saying that we will compete any time, anywhere, as long as the conditions of competition are fair, but we demand fair trade. One final point: I started by talking about Cuba. The revocation of the visas that I described is about politics. It is not about trade policy. It is about pointy-headed foreign policy. For the first 25 years after the Second World War, our trade was almost all foreign policy. We could compete anywhere in the world with one hand tied behind our back. We were the biggest, the best, and the strongest. In the second 25 years, things have gotten tougher. Our competitors are shrewd, tough, international competitors, and it is time that our foreign policy stop being the dominant force in trade policy. It is time our country stand up for its own economic interests and demand fair trade. We ought to do that before we embark on any notion about fast-track authority for any President. That is in the best interest of this country, in my judgment. I see my colleague from Iowa is in the Chamber. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized following Senator DeWine's presentation for a period of 25 minutes.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Ohio yield for a question.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding is a cloture motion has been filed on the motion to proceed on the Andean trade bill; is that correct?

Mr. DORGAN. I will spend a few moments today saying a few words about the trade bill. We are now going to segue into a big debate about international trade. It comes by way of the Andean trade initiative, which will be amended with the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act, and then amended further, I understand, by something called Trade Promotion Authority, or TPA. TPA is a euphemism for what has traditionally been called fast-track trade authority. I am opposed to it, and I will describe why and what it has meant to our country in recent years. The Constitution of the United States has something to say about international trade, at article I, section 8: ``The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations. . . .'' It doesn't say ``the President''; it doesn't say ``the U.S. trade ambassador''; it doesn't say a bunch of trade negotiators on an airplane heading to a foreign land to negotiate a trade agreement. It says: ``The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations. . . .'' Congress has largely ceded its power on international trade issues to the executive branch. Fast-track trade authority is a mechanism in which Congress is told, after a trade agreement is negotiated and brought back here, you have no right to offer one amendment, not even one amendment. Up or down, yes or no, expedited procedures, but no amendments. That is fast track. It is the Congress saying: let's get together and handcuff ourselves. We have done it five times. Now we are prepared to do it again. I didn't support giving fast-track trade authority to President Clinton, I don't support giving it to President George W. Bush and I intend to explain why. Will Rogers once said that the United States of America has never lost a war and never won a conference. He surely must have been speaking about international trade. When we talk about recent trade agreements, in almost every circumstance, we have given away too much and gotten too little. Those who come to this floor of the Senate and talk about trade are always saying, the whole purpose of trade is to strike down the barriers in foreign markets that prevent American goods from getting into foreign markets. Were that the case, I would say good for us. I aspire to that goal. That is what we should be doing. We don't get enough pork into China. We don't get enough beef into Japan. We don't get enough cars into Korea. We don't get enough grain into Canada. We don't get enough high fructose sugar or sweetener into Mexico. We don't get enough wheat flour into Europe. I can talk about the barriers. They are chronicled in a book that is inches thick. What happens with international trade when we have another trade agreement? Our trade deficit goes up, up, up, and up, to the point that we now have a merchandise trade deficit that is well over $400 billion a year. Every single day in this country we experience a trade deficit of well over $1 billion more coming in than we export. Is that helpful to our country? It is the largest trade deficit in human history. Nobody seems to care much about it. Is it helpful to our country? No, it weakens our country. Let me describe one of the trade agreements we negotiated and see what happened with that trade agreement. We negotiated a trade agreement with Canada and Mexico. It was called NAFTA, North American Free Trade Agreement. We had all these economists telling us it would create hundreds of thousands of new jobs, what a wonderful thing it would be. When we negotiated it, we had a slight trade surplus with Mexico and a modest trade deficit with Canada. That was in 1993. Eight years later, we have a huge deficit with Mexico and a giant deficit with Canada. Has that trade agreement worked out? Has that been in our country's best interests? I don't think so. Incidentally, currency fluctuations immediately emasculated these trade agreements. The high U.S. dollar against the Canadian dollar and the devaluation of the Mexican peso just emasculated NAFTA, as far as our trade with those countries is concerned. But that is an issue for another day. My point is this: When we negotiate bad trade agreements and then we have some difficulty, we do not have the backbone or nerve as a country to stand up and say: Wait, on behalf of our American companies and workers, we demand fair trade. We will compete with anybody at any time, but we demand fair trade. Let me give an example of how we behave. Europe is upset with us about a recent 201 case, so Europe threatens retaliation. Do you know what Europe says it is going to retaliate on? Steel, textiles, and citrus products. Europe is going to get tough, they say. So we have a trade dispute with Europe over beef exports, and it is our turn to threaten Europe with retaliation. Even the WTO says that we are authorized to retaliate, and we get to pick the products with which to retaliate. Do you know what our negotiators choose to retaliate on? Truffles, goose liver, and Roquefort cheese. The Europeans are still laughing over that one. And not surprisingly, our retaliation on truffles, goose liver, and Roquefort cheese has not done anything to get the Europeans to open up their markets to U.S. beef. My point is we don't have the backbone and the will, as a country, to say to Europe, Japan, Korea, Canada, Mexico, China: We want to trade with you. Our country seeks free trade, open trade, and fair trade. Our market is open to your producers. God bless you; come in. Our consumers appreciate your goods. By all means, our markets are open to you. But your markets must be open to American producers as well--they must. If they are not, then you sell your goods in Kinshasa, in the Congo, and see how quickly they sell. The condition of access to the American marketplace must be fair trade; you must allow American goods into your marketplace. Let me give an example with respect to Korea. I have talked about this before, and recently I received a letter from an association of Korean auto manufacturers, who are upset with me. Last year, Korea sent 618,000 Korean automobiles to be sold in the United States of America. That is fine with me. Hyundais, Daewoos, I am sure they are fine cars--618,000 cars were manufactured in Korea and sent to the United States. Do you know how many automobiles the United States was able to sell in Korea last year? It was 2,800. For every 217 cars that the Koreans shipped to our country, we were able to sell just one in Korea. Why? The letters from the Korean automobile organization say: You are just not competitive here; you are making the wrong kind of cars. But that is not it. They just don't want American cars in Korea. Let me show you the market share. This chart shows the market share of automobiles in Korea. This will tell the story: 99.4 percent of the Korean marketplace for automobiles is for Korean automobiles. Why? Because that country says: We want only Korean automobiles sold inside our country. They are interested in creating jobs in Korea to ship their cars to us and access our marketplace, but not interested in allowing our car manufacturers and auto workers to access their marketplace. Fair trade? I don't think so. Is anybody running around here trying to figure out how to fix that? I don't see any progress where it counts. How about the issue of Brazilian sugar? Like many countries, we have limits on the importation of sugar, to make sure that our sugar producers are not undermined. But Brazilian sugar gets into our country through a loophole you can literally drive a truck through. Brazilian exporters send their sugar to Canada, where the sugar is loaded into molasses, so it becomes what is called stuffed molasses. The stuffed molasses are shipped to Michigan. The sugar is taken out of the molasses, and then the molasses are shipped back to Canada to get another load of sugar. That is how you move Brazilian sugar into the United States to undermine our sugar producers. Fair trade? No. Is anybody willing to do anything about it? Hardly. My point is, time after time after time, these trade agreements leave us in a situation where the trade is unfair--unfair to our companies and unfair to our workers--and our trade officials shrug and say: Tough luck. They just want to go negotiate another new agreement with some other country. My message is very simple. How about fixing a few of the problems you have created? Just fix a few of the problems that have been created in the last 20 years in international trade for American companies and American workers before you go negotiate a new agreement. Just fix a few. If someone had demonstrated to me they wanted to fix a few of these problems, I would be here on the floor saying, God bless you, hooray for you. But you can't find anybody interested in fixing them. That is why I don't think we ought to give fast-track trade authority to anybody. What we ought to do is demand on behalf of our country, with respect to an exploding trade deficit that is going to burden every American citizen and every American child with future obligations that are outrageous--what we ought to do is demand some action on these trade problems. Our negotiators just want to negotiate new trade deals. It's what they enjoy. I would suggest that they wear jerseys, like they do in the Olympics, that say ``USA.'' I think our trade representatives would benefit by being able to look down, from time to time, and see whom they represent. Judging from the trade deals they have negotiated in the past, I am not hopeful. Let me tell you of my firsthand experience with that. I have mentioned many times previously my experience with Canada. I was serving in the House of Representatives, at the time that we negotiated a United States-Canada free trade agreement. A Trade Ambassador named Clayton Yeutter led the negotiations, and then other negotiators in USTR completed the deal. They came back and said what a terrific deal for America, what a wonderful thing this United States-Canada free trade agreement is. The deal was brought to the Congress under fast-track trading authority for a vote. The vote in the Ways and Means Committee was 34 in favor and one against, and I cast the single vote against the deal. I was told by everybody that it was imperative to get a unanimous vote in this committee for this United States-Canada free trade agreement. But I still voted against it. Why? Because what these negotiators have done is to pull the rug out from under our family farmers. They have weakened the trade remedies for unfair trade. They have pulled the rug out from under us, and shame on them. I voted against it. But the agreement passed overwhelmingly. Almost immediately, an avalanche of unfairly subsidized Canadian grain came rushing across the border, sold to us by the Canadian Wheat Board, a monopoly which would be illegal in this country. The Canadian Wheat Board just flooded America with durum wheat. As I have explained many times on the floor of the Senate, one day I went to the border with a man named Earl Jenson in a 12-year-old little orange truck with 200 bushels of durum wheat, raised on his farm in North Dakota, to take it across the border into Canada. All the way to the border were all these 18-wheeler trucks going south, dumping this grain into our marketplace. I bet we saw 20 to 25 18-wheel trucks in a matter of a half-hour bringing Canadian grain south. But when we got to the border in that little 12-year-old orange truck, to try to take a small amount of durum into Canada, we were turned back. We could not do it. Unfair trade? You bet you life it is unfair. It has been hurting our family farmers for years. No one is willing to do much about it. Our trade ambassador just went through a long process investigating this, along with the International Trade Commission. USTR concluded that, yes, indeed, Canada is guilty of unfair trade--over a decade after we passed the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. Yes, Canada is guilty of unfair trade; but what is the USTR doing about it? The USTR says that it will take Canada to the WTO. Which means that maybe your great grandchildren will see results--but maybe not--decades and decades into the future. The fact is, once again, our country lacks the will, the nerve, and the backbone to stand up for American producers. The question is, when can our country expect that our Government will stand up for its interests? When will we tell our trading partners, you had better treat our producers, our companies, and our workers fairly because we will treat you like you treat us. If your market is wide open to us, then our market is wide open to you; but if it is not, then this country is prepared to protect and support its companies and its workers. This country has fought for 75 and 100 years for some basic principles about fairness in the workplace. We have had people die on the streets in this country because of violence over the issue of the right to organize as a labor union. We have had a major battle over the question of child labor laws, major confrontations over the issues of whether a manufacturing plant can dump chemicals into the water and pollutants into the air. Big battles about issues such as the minimum wage. So after many decades of hard-fought labor struggles, we now have a country in which you can organize. Labor can organize a union in this country. We must have safe workplaces. We will not allow people to hire 12-year-old children, pay them 12 cents an hour, and work them 12 hours a day in this country. We will not allow that. The question is, will we allow the importation of products that come from a country that has 12- year-old kids, working 12 hours a day, paying them 12 cents an hour? A group of us, when we consider the trade issue next week, will offer a range of amendments dealing with those issues: labor issues, environmental issues. I am going to offer an amendment that deals with the issue of secrecy. The NAFTA tribunals that consider claims by foreign investors are still conducted secretly. This country should not be involved in secret tribunals. There is a responsibility to have those tribunals open, so people can see what is done in those dispute tribunals. I will have an amendment on that. I regret that so-called trade promotion authority--TPA, as they call it, which is a euphemism for fast track--is brought to this floor as an amendment to an Andean trade bill. This is a very big issue. Having the Congress tie its hands and be unable to offer an amendment, as I was unable to do with the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, is not in the Congress' interest or the country's interest, in my judgment. Had I been able to offer an amendment to the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement some years ago, we probably would not have the kind of trade problems we now have, many with Canada in the area of agriculture. We have used so-called fast-track trade authority five times. But We have negotiated many trade agreements without fast-track trade authority. Those who say you must have this to negotiate a trade agreement are just wrong. We used fast track to negotiate, the Tokyo round of GATT, U.S.- Israel, U.S.-Canada, NAFTA, and WTO. I must say that after the last three, and also the GATT Tokyo round, we have seen a much, much larger trade deficit. We are not gaining ground; we are losing ground. The question for this country and this Congress, as it confronts this issue in coming days, is, will we decide to handcuff ourselves and put us right back in the same position, where someone will negotiate an agreement in secret, bring it here, and say, ``Oh, by the way, you have no right to amend it''? I hope we do not do that. We have not used procedures that prevent amendments even on such things as nuclear arms agreements, which are very important, large issues. We have never had expedited procedures that prevent someone from offering an amendment, even on the most complicated nuclear arms control procedures and agreements we had with the old Soviet Union, and others. So I do not think that we ought to consider granting fast-track authority to this President. As I said, I did not support giving it to the last President. I don't support giving it to this President. What I would like to see, instead of fast track, is a demonstration on the part of the administration and our trade authorities to decide they are going to fix some problems--just a few; I am not asking them to fix a lot of problems--demonstrate their interest in fixing some problems, and clean up the mess that was made, rather than running out to create a new mess. I feel as strongly as anybody in this Chamber, I want China's market to be open to us, I want Japan's market to be open to us, and I want the European and Korean markets to be open to us, and, yes, Canada and Mexico as well. The fact is, they are not open to us now, and they are restrictive on a range of our products. The negotiations that we engage in, by and large, have not forced those markets open. The negotiations have not been successful. I think it is time for our country to try something different. We ought to have, as I said, a little backbone to stand up to these countries and say: If you are not going to allow our products into your marketplace, then, my friends, your products are not coming into ours. It is that simple. It is not about being punitive or about building walls or about retarding expanded trade that most of us want. It is just about prying open foreign markets. You will not do that by being weak. You will only do it by being strong. And it is not being strong to send the same negotiators out to negotiate the same soft-headed kind of agreements we have had for decades, and then bring it back here and say: Oh, by the way, none of you men and women serving in Congress have a right to offer an amendment, not a single one. That is not being strong or thoughtful. That is being thoughtless in a way that, in my judgment, jeopardizes this country's long-term economic interest. So, we will have a lot more to say about this subject next week when we turn to the specific issue, first on a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the Andean trade bill, and then on subsequent cloture votes. There will be a great deal of debate. But, in the end, my hope is that enough Senators will agree that it is time for this country to do something different in forcing open foreign markets and forcing the components of fair trade to be central to our trade relationships with other countries. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN. And a cloture vote will occur on what date?

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I was not available when Senator Harkin introduced the amendment last evening, but I want to come to the floor to support the standard that exists in the energy bill we are now considering. This issue is in many ways complicated, but it is also the issue that deals with energy efficiency. We are talking about increased production, conservation, efficiency, as well as the promotion of limitless, renewable sources of energy. This issue is called the Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio. Almost no one knows what it is. It is called the SEER standard. The standard in the bill is established at 13 SEER, which is a standard that was published in the Federal Register almost a year and a half ago, January 2001. It would increase residential air-conditioner efficiency by 30 percent over the prior 10 SEER standard. The Goodman Manufacturing Company, for example, said in testimony they have given at hearings: There have been claims that the 13 SEER standard would cost consumers substantially more money than the proposed rollback to a 12 SEER standard. According to the Department of Energy, the average difference in cost between a 13 SEER unit and a 12 SEER unit is approximately $122. That is what I am told the Department of Energy says is the difference. The Department of Energy also indicates that cost will be recovered in a very short period of time, because of the added efficiency in a 13 SEER standard. According to the Goodman Company, which is the second- largest manufacture of air-conditioners in the country, and who supports the 13 SEER standard in the bill, the incremental cost to the manufacturer to produce a 13 SEER unit is about $100. They say: We believe the most efficient technology should be available to people of all income levels at an affordable price. Not all manufacturers may have this same marketing philosophy. Some may seek a protection of higher profit margins on their more efficient equipment. A 13 SEER standard would force all manufacturers to be truly competitive and provide all consumers with the most affordable energy-efficient technology for air-conditioners that is available today. This issue deals with a mix of things we have to do in a successful energy policy. We are talking about production, conservation, efficiency, and limitless, renewable sources of energy. This is the efficiency piece that deals with air-conditioners. Most of us understand that at peak loads at certain times of the year, the use of air-conditioners consumes a substantial amount of the energy in our country. Much has been said about it. Let me show a couple of charts that describe a couple of other alternatives. Pat Wood, former chairman of the Texas Public Utility Commission said: Such a significantly strengthened standard to SEER 13 would have the triple benefits of improving electric system reliability, reducing air pollution, and cutting cooling costs for our customers. The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners--of the various States--say: Keeping the SEER 13 standard for residential air- conditioners is a crucial component for curbing future demand growth while retaining consumer needs for affordable cooling. And the EPA says: A 13 SEER standard will do more to stimulate energy savings that benefit the consumer, reduce fossil fuel consumption and limit emissions of air pollutants. All of those represent the benefits of the 13 SEER standard as opposed to the 12 SEER standard. History has shown us, on virtually all of these areas of technology, that once a standard is implemented, the markets drive prices down and make the more efficient equipment even more affordable for all consumers. The incremental cost to the manufacturer to produce the 13 SEER standard, according to the Goodman Manufacturing Company, the second largest air-conditioning manufacturing company in the country-- and, incidentally, a supporter of the 13 SEER standard--is about $100. The Goodman Manufacturing company, the EPA, and others say that will be recouped in lower electricity costs by a more efficient air-conditioner in a very short period of time. I mentioned Pat Wood from Texas in a chart. The Texas electric rates were 27th in the Nation compared to other States. One of the primary uses of electricity in Texas is air-conditioning. Approximately 90 percent of the homes in Texas have air-conditioning, and Texans spend more on air-conditioning than on space heating. If the 13 SEER standard is implemented, for example, Texas electric companies will save $241 million by the year 2010. It is estimated in 2020 they will have saved $785 million in electric costs. Consumer organizations and low-income advocacy organizations support the 13 SEER standard. It seems to me, at a time when we want to ensure energy security, increasing the efficiency of our appliances makes good sense. We have testimony not only from one of the large air-conditioning manufacturers, but also from smaller air-conditioning manufacturers, that they support this. This can be done and can be done in a manner that is helpful to all Americans. Goodman Manufacturing, the second largest manufacturer, a couple of small manufacturers--Goettl of Arizona and Aaon, Inc. of Tulsa, Oklahoma--also support the 30-percent increase in efficiency. I know there is not the time to adequately discuss a number of these issues in the energy bill. As I indicated when I began, these are complicated issues. I know there are disagreements about them within the manufacturing sector on air-conditioning units. But with respect to legislation that deals with a range of issues in a comprehensive energy policy, on the efficiency side, the 13 SEER standard makes sense. The 13 SEER standard will save energy. It will promote a substantial movement by the manufacturing base to produce these at an affordable cost. It will save money and also be friendly to our environment. All of this make sense as part of an energy policy. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

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

Mr. DORGAN. How much time is available?

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, today I am introducing the Prescription Drug Price Parity for Americans Act, along with my colleagues Senators Jeffords, Collins, Stabenow, Snowe, Wellstone, Levin, and Dayton. I intend to come to the floor later in the week to speak about this legislation at greater length, but I wanted to go ahead and introduce the bill today. This bill addresses a growing problem with prescription drug spending in our country. Spending on prescription drugs rose 17 percent in 2001, following on the heels of a nearly 19 percent increase in 2000 and a 16 percent increase in 1999. Unfortunately, many Americans, especially senior citizens and the uninsured, cannot afford the substantially higher prices that they are being charged for their medicines. A prescription drug that costs $1 in the United States costs only 62 cents in Canada, and that is just not fair. The bill I am introducing today would address this unfair pricing by injecting some price competition into the prescription drug marketplace. This legislation builds on the Medicine Equity and Drug Safety, MEDS, Act, which the Senate passed overwhelmingly in 2000 and was enacted into law. Like the MEDS Act, this bill would allow U.S.- licensed pharmacists and drug wholesalers to import FDA-approved medicines, but unlike the 2000 law, this year's bill will be limited to approved drugs coming only from Canada. Canada has a drug approval and distribution system similarly strong to the U.S. system. I am very confident that this bill can be implemented immediately while ensuring the safety of our Nation's drug supply and significant cost savings for American consumers. Again, I look forward to coming back to the floor to describe this legislation at length at some later opportunity. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, today I am introducing the Prescription Drug Price Parity for Americans Act, along with my colleagues Senators Jeffords, Collins, Stabenow, Snowe, Wellstone, Levin, and Dayton. I intend to come to the floor later in the week to speak about this legislation at greater length, but I wanted to go ahead and introduce the bill today. This bill addresses a growing problem with prescription drug spending in our country. Spending on prescription drugs rose 17 percent in 2001, following on the heels of a nearly 19 percent increase in 2000 and a 16 percent increase in 1999. Unfortunately, many Americans, especially senior citizens and the uninsured, cannot afford the substantially higher prices that they are being charged for their medicines. A prescription drug that costs $1 in the United States costs only 62 cents in Canada, and that is just not fair. The bill I am introducing today would address this unfair pricing by injecting some price competition into the prescription drug marketplace. This legislation builds on the Medicine Equity and Drug Safety, MEDS, Act, which the Senate passed overwhelmingly in 2000 and was enacted into law. Like the MEDS Act, this bill would allow U.S.- licensed pharmacists and drug wholesalers to import FDA-approved medicines, but unlike the 2000 law, this year's bill will be limited to approved drugs coming only from Canada. Canada has a drug approval and distribution system similarly strong to the U.S. system. I am very confident that this bill can be implemented immediately while ensuring the safety of our Nation's drug supply and significant cost savings for American consumers. Again, I look forward to coming back to the floor to describe this legislation at length at some later opportunity. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I only intend to take 4 or 5 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Iowa be recognized following my remarks.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I thank my colleagues. Let me say that some issues are less complicated than they seem, and this, I think, is one of those issues. The ability to take a kernel of corn or barley, for example, take the starch from it, break it down into its simple sugars, ferment it into a drop of alcohol, and use it to extend America's energy supply makes great sense. Being able to take a drop of alcohol from a kernel of corn or barley to extend America's energy supply, and still have the protein feedstock left to feed animals, also makes great sense. We will produce ethanol in substantial quantities. The question is not whether it will be done; the question is when. We produce a substantial amount of energy right now, but not nearly as much as we could from ethanol. We will, at some point, dramatically increase the ability to produce our own fuel. Producing renewable fuel that we can use for gasoline, the fuel we can use in other ways to extend America's energy supply, just makes sense. The provision in this legislation makes good sense as well. It will substantially increase the quantity of ethanol that is produced in our country, and do it more quickly than we otherwise could. One of my colleagues, Senator Nickles, said: Let the market decide these things. Well, it is interesting that the market apparently has decided that we should import 57 percent of our oil supply, much of it from Saudi Arabia. Is that a market decision that makes a lot of sense? Is that a market decision that puts us in peril of someday waking up in the morning to find out that some heinous act by a terrorist has interrupted the energy supply from the Saudis or the Kuwaitis, and all of a sudden America's economy is flat on its back? Is that a marketplace decision that makes good sense? No, it does not make good sense. So, in a number of ways, we are trying to move in different directions. This debate is about the replacement of MTBE. All of us understand that in various parts of the country it has been showing up in ground water. We understand that this has to be dealt with. And that gives rise to this provision in the energy bill. But this provision in the energy bill, in my judgment, has much more significance than just that issue. I think my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Dayton, just described that. It is not just about a replacement for MTBE; it is about additional production of energy in our country. It is about growing our fuel on a renewable basis year after year. It is about another market for family farmers who produce crops that can be turned into alcohol, and then use the protein feedstock later for animal feed. It just makes good sense for our country to do this. I know there are some who have some heartburn about this provision, and I certainly respect their views. There are some who object to everything that is done for the first time. I am not suggesting that is the case with the opponents here, but we are going to march, inevitably, in this direction. The question for us is: Do we do it sooner, or do we do it later? This is the time when we decide that we want additional production from renewable sources. And yes, that is ethanol. It is good for our country, for the environment, and for our family farmers. Frankly, it is even good for those who are objecting to it today. I hope we will reject this amendment, as we should, and continue to keep this provision in the bill. I thank my colleague from Iowa for allowing me to proceed.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. There was a discussion earlier on the estate tax. They call it the ``death tax'' because the pollsters figured that politically it sounded better, but it is the estate tax. Also, the discussion about estate taxes always comes in terms of helping family farmers or small businesses. I wonder if the Senator remembers that last year, when we had this debate, I offered an amendment to the estate tax. The amendment was one to the proposal by the then-majority, who wanted to abolish the estate tax. My amendment said I don't believe we ought to interrupt the passage of any family business from the father and mother to the descendants who want to continue to operate the business. It doesn't matter whether it is a family farm or a hardware store, and it doesn't matter how big it is. If it is a family enterprise being transferred from the parents to the children, I think it ought to be totally exempt from the estate tax. So I offered an amendment. My amendment said that transfers of family businesses, regardless of size, to family heirs to operate shall be totally exempt from estate taxes beginning in the year 2003, and all other estates shall have a $4 million exemption. So if you have up to $4 million in assets, or if you are transferring a family business, you are not going to pay any estate tax at all. Now, the estate tax provision passed by the Senate said we will begin creating larger exemptions for the transfer of family assets including a family farm or a family business so that, in 2010, there shall no longer be any tax. I said, no, if you package this by saying what you really want to do is help family farmers and family businesses, why don't you vote for my amendment and they will all be exempt next year, in 2003? We had 43 Senators who voted for my amendment. All of those who have spent their careers in the Senate saying ``we want to get rid of this burdensome death tax for family-owned businesses and family farms'' voted against that amendment. So when there is a family farm or a family business that is transferred next year, and there is an estate tax applied to it, people should understand it is because the then- majority decided last year, when they wanted to ram this fiscal policy through the Senate, that they were not really quite as interested in family farms and small businesses as they were in those who have millions and billions of dollars of assets. Incidentally, this country has one-half of the world's billionaires. Good for us and good for them. There is nothing wrong with being that successful. But if somebody in this country has $6 billion or $8 billion, I guarantee you a substantial amount of that has never been taxed. It represents growth appreciation on assets over time, and there is nothing at all wrong, in my judgment, in asking that at least some of that--just some of it--be put back into this country's schools, or invested in the country's kids, and in this country's future. But that is not what the Republicans wanted to have done. They wanted, at all costs, to protect this, and they did it at the expense of having a total exemption for transfers of all family farms and all family businesses, effective immediately in 2003. That is what we could have had. I ask the Senator from Illinois if he recalls that debate and what the real priorities were for the other side of the aisle?

Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator will yield for a question.

Mr. DORGAN. I indicated to the Senator from Nevada that if there is to be a vote on the estate tax issue in the coming days--and I guess it may be with respect to the tax provisions dealing with the energy bill, I will want the opportunity to offer a second-degree amendment or at least offer essentially the same amendment we considered last year, and that amendment will draw a distinction. The distinction is this: If my amendment is adopted, then effective in 2003, no transfer or passage of any family business or family farm, regardless of size, to qualified heirs will have an estate tax obligation attached to it. None. It will be completely exempt next year. There is nothing under the minority party's proposal that would immediately exempt family businesses from the estate tax. It will be another 7 years or so before they are totally exempt. My amendment says, yes, let's exempt them, and do it immediately. My amendment also provides for a higher threshold exemption on all other estates. And I do not intend to agree to an unanimous consent agreement on this issue unless I have an opportunity to offer that as an amendment as well. Warren Buffett has been here a couple of times in the last year or so to visit with us. He is the world's second richest man. He said to us: What can people be thinking about, getting rid of the estate tax? I do not support getting rid of the estate tax. This is the world's second richest man. He said you ought not do that; it does not make any sense. Bill Gates' father came to Congress and said: Don't get rid of the estate tax completely. There are people who have billions of dollars who ought to pay some basic estate tax because they have never paid taxes on those assets, and that is the majority of those assets for the largest estates. When they pass, obviously a significant part ought to go to their heirs, but a significant part ought to be available to invest back into this country's future, especially education, health care, and other critical areas. I think the proper way to deal with this issue is to recognize there is merit to the question of whether we want to interrupt the transfer of a family business to other family members. The answer from us is, no, we should not interrupt that transfer. If mom and dad want to pass the business along to the kids to run, I do not care how big the business, let's not saddle them with an estate tax obligation. The fact is, the amendment I offered last year would have exempted all of them completely next year. We can do that. I would like an opportunity to vote on that again, if we are going to vote on exempting all estates forever from the estate tax. I think we ought to have a vote on the amendment I offered last year. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for one additional question?

Mr. DORGAN. I have one additional question. We ended up with the worst of possible worlds last year. Those who said they supported a repeal of the estate taxes to help businesses and farms would not support the amendment that would have repealed it for family businesses and family farms next year. That was more than confusing. No. 2, the bill that was finally completed said let's repeal the estate tax and we will ratchet it up until it is finally repealed in 2010. So if you are going to die, you have to die in 2010 to take full advantage of this because in 2011, the estate tax kicks back in. I think historians and policy analysts will look at that and say what on earth could they have been thinking? Who could have constructed something that bizarre?

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it is one thing to shoot yourself in the foot, it is quite another thing to take aim before you shoot. That is what has happened in the last couple of weeks with respect to the State Department deciding to revoke the visas they previously granted to Pedro Alvarez and other officials from a group called Alimport, which is a Cuban state-run purchaser of foreign goods. Mr. Alvarez and others were invited to come from Cuba to the United States, to come to North Dakota, to Iowa, and to other parts of farm country in the United States because they need food. The Cuban economy has been injured, of course, by the hurricane, and they need food. As a result of that, they have been purchasing food from the United States. Why have they been purchasing food from the United States? Because I and some others took the lead in Congress to end the embargo with respect to the shipment of food from the United States to Cuba. That embargo has existed for decades. We ended that in the year 2000. The result is that Cubans have bought $70 million-plus worth of food from us in the last few months. It is kind of byzantine, because in order to buy food from us, they are required to pay cash and do it through a French bank. They work the transaction through a French bank. Nonetheless, that is what they have done. Mr. Alvarez and the organization Alimport applied for visas to come to this country at the invitation of U.S. farm groups to buy additional wheat, eggs, dried beans, and other commodities. So they were given the visas. Just a couple days later, the visas were yanked. The passports were asked to be returned, and the visas were revoked. When I learned of that, I called the State Department. Here is what the State Department told my staff. My staff asked: What is going on? Why did you revoke the visas of the people who were going to come from Cuba to purchase some additional United States food from our farmers? It is the policy of this administration not to encourage agricultural sales to Cuba. Let me read that again. That is a most byzantine position. It is the policy of this administration not to encourage agricultural sales to Cuba. We sell it to Communist China. Yes. That is a Communist government. We sell food to Vietnam. Yes. That is a Communist government. We sell food virtually all around the world. We fought for years to lift this embargo on food sales to Cuba. We are now selling food to Cuba, and we have some people taking a brainless position down at the Department of State that it is not our position to encourage food sales to Cuba; therefore, we will revoke the visas we previously granted to the head of Alimport to come into this country, to visit farm States, to purchase some dried beans, wheat, eggs, and other food products. I am writing a letter today to Mr. Alvarez inviting him to come to the United States. It is not from farm organizations. It is from me. I am sending a copy of that letter to the State Department saying: You have an obligation to play straight. When this country has the opportunity for family farmers to sell food to those in Cuba who need it and who are hungry and want access to that food, we have a responsibility to our farmers, and the State Department has a responsibility to the Congress to help make that happen. Our farmers are facing really tough times. Prices have collapsed. They have remained down for a long while. Then we have this embargo on food sales and shipments to Cuba. We opened it just a bit and sold them $70 million worth of food. Now we have folks down in the State Department trying to play games with it once again. I have asked the State Department: Who made these decisions? How did you make the decision? Who demanded that the visas be revoked? I want to know who has their foot on the brake. I want to know who has one of these hardheaded embargoes still going on with respect to Cuba. I want to know who is asking family farmers to be pawns in this struggle they have with Cuba. Let me say that Mr. Otto Reich, the administration's top Latin American official, told a group of farmers: We are not going to be ``economic suckers'' to Fidel Castro. That attitude is an insult to American farmers. Our farmers produce food. They ought not be pawns in some soft-headed foreign policy by which someone wants to prevent that food from going to hungry people. Does anyone here think Fidel Castro has ever missed a meal because we have for 35 or 40 years not allowed farmers to send food to Cuba? Does anyone here think Fidel Castro has ever missed breakfast, lunch, or dinner? You know better than that. This country is shooting itself in the foot. Mr. Reich and others are taking aim before they do it. It is unforgivable. They have an obligation to play straight on this issue. We have already debated this issue and made a decision on this issue. The decision was that it is immoral to use food as a weapon, and we are not going to do it anymore--not with Cuba, and not with other countries. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of a letter I sent to Mr. Colin Powell, Secretary of State, asking the questions: Who made these decisions? How did they make these decisions? When did they make them? I would also like to have printed in the Record a letter from two dozen agricultural organizations protesting the same decision to revoke this visa. It includes the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Meat Institute, Farmland Industries, the National Association of Wheat Growers, the U.S. Canola Association, the U.S. Dry Pea & Lentil Council, U.S. Wheat Associates, and the list goes on and on.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this policy is wrong. This policy injures American farmers. This policy continues an embargo. We know embargoes hurt us. They hurt our farmers. Those kinds of activities hurt poor, sick and hungry people in countries like Cuba. They do not hurt Fidel Castro. They hurt our farmers. And they hurt the poor, sick, and hungry people abroad. When someone wants to come to this country to buy American grain, eggs, dried beans, and other products our farmers produce, the State Department has no right, in my judgment, to revoke those visas for political purposes. That is what I think has happened in this regard. It is the policy of this administration not to encourage agricultural sales to Cuba. I say to those in this administration who have said that and who believe that: You have a responsibility to stop this nonsense. You are hurting American family farmers. And it is an abrogation of the policies we have already developed here in the Congress. I am going to send a letter today to the State Department saying I have invited the head of Alimport into this country. I have invited them to North Dakota. I want them to come here and buy American farm products. I think the State Department has a responsibility to provide visas for those who would come from Alimport to make those purchases of grain.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, last week the Senate adopted an amendment that deals with vehicle efficiency. It deals with the issue of fuel cells. I want to describe the amendment, because I think it is a very important amendment. The amendment directs the Energy Department to develop a program that would create measurable goals and timetables with the aim of putting 100,000 hydrogen fuel cell vehicles on the road by 2010, and 2.5 million by the year 2020, along with the needed hydrogen infrastructure. DOE would have to report annually on its progress toward achieving these goals. The amendment is designed to have the Department of Energy work with the auto manufacturers to ensure these goals are met. With this amendment, we are sending a strong signal that our goal is to accelerate and enhance the development of fuel cell vehicles and fuel cell technologies with concrete targets and timetables. I have asked the question with respect to our energy policy, especially with respect to our transportation sector, about whether our policy is going to be ``yesterday forever.'' I have said on previous occasions--and I will say it again--my first car was an antique 1924 Model T Ford that I bought for $25 as a young kid, and I restored it. It took me a couple of years to restore that old Model T. But a 1924 Model T Ford is fueled exactly the same way as a current model Ford. You drive up to the gas pump, stick a hose in the tank, and start pumping. Nothing has changed. Nothing has changed in 78 years, and it ought to change. The issue of how we run our vehicles what kind of engines we use and what kind of fuel we use--we ought to inspire these changes by developing aspirations and national goals with respect to new technologies. I drove a fuel cell car here on the Capitol grounds some months ago. It has essentially a limitless battery that allows you to run the vehicle using this fuel cell. The fuel cell combines hydrogen and oxygen and the only byproduct is water vapor. Fuel cells have the potential to dramatically improve the efficiency of automobiles and dramatically reduce emissions, as opposed to the vehicles that we use now, which have the internal combustion engine we have used for decade after decade after decade. We can decide that the debate will be a debate about our energy supply, as it has always been. That has been the energy debate we have had for a long while and will be again 25 and 50 years from now, unless we decide to create national aspirations and goals for new technologies. I believe we ought to do that with respect to automobiles. Our transportation sector consumes the largest amount of energy in our society: about 40 percent of the oil products our Nation consumes each year, or nearly 8 billion barrels of oil each day. In 2001, we imported about 53 to 57 percent of our energy from abroad. That is expected to increase, according to the Energy Information Administration. So the question is, What do we do about that? Some say we should just adopt CAFE standards. Others say let's develop new technologies. Others say let's not do anything at all. Let's let the marketplace decide who buys what, when, and why. I think this country ought to encourage the development and the capability to move to a new technology. The Ford Motor Company representative stated that alternative fuel technology has the potential to significantly improve the fuel economy of vehicles, which could reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and save consumers substantial money at the pump. Most major automakers are racing to produce prototype fuel cell vehicles. DaimlerChrysler has been talking about this now for several years. They plan to have a fuel cell car in production by the year 2004. California has a Clean Air Act requirement that will ensure that many fuel cell vehicles are going to be on the road. By next year-- 2003--2 percent of California's vehicles have to be zero-emission vehicles, and around 10 percent of its vehicles must be zero-emission vehicles by 2018. That means California could have nearly 40,000 or 50,000 fuel cell cars on the road by the next decade. The amendment I offered is supported by the Alliance to Save Energy and United Technologies. Senators Cantwell, Bayh, Reid of Nevada, Dodd, Lieberman, and Harkin all cosponsored my amendment. The amendment was adopted last week. I think most Members of the Senate want to move, using new technology, to new opportunities and new goals for our country's future. Fuel cells are expected to achieve energy efficiencies of 40 to 45 percent, and possibly much higher. After a century of constant improvements, the internal combustion engine converts, on average, about 19 percent of the energy and gasoline to turn the wheels of an automobile--19 percent. Fuel cells are expected to achieve efficiencies double that: 40 to 45 percent at least. I think that as we debate this energy bill there is much, perhaps, that will persuade some that it is worthless. There is much in it that will persuade others it has great merit. There are a fair number of amendments that we have produced in the many weeks this bill has been on the floor of the Senate--thanks to the patience of Senator Bingaman, who I know wanted it completed much earlier--but there are many amendments that have been added to a pretty sound piece of legislation, in the first instance, that I think will commend this legislation to the Congress as a whole and to the American people as moving toward a solution. Finally, when the Energy Department testified before our Energy Committee, I asked the representatives of the U.S. Department of Energy what goals they have for 25 and 50 years from now for our country's energy supply and energy use. We talk a great deal about what is going to happen 25 and 50 years from now with respect to Social Security and Medicare. What about with respect to energy use and energy supply, do we have goals there? The answer is, no, we do not. There are no such goals. We ought to develop those goals, in my judgment. That is the purpose of this amendment dealing with new vehicle technology, and specifically with fuel cells. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Amendment No. 3239

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent floor privileges be granted to Brandon Hirsch for the remainder of the day.