Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

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

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I believe it is in our national interest to improve the efficiency of our vehicles, for example, through new vehicles and vehicle fuel technologies, so that we can reduce our oil dependence and better protect the environment. Several months ago, I test drove a fuel cell vehicle. A fuel cell vehicle produces electricity from the reaction of hydrogen and oxygen. The only by-product is water. Fuel-cell vehicles are similar to battery-powered electric cars in that the fuel cell produces electricity that powers motors at the wheels. But while a battery must be recharged after all of the fuel inside it has reacted, a fuel cell is a ``refillable battery,'' in the sense that recharging the vehicle only requires refilling the fuel tank. The hydrogen fuel required to power it can be stored directly on the vehicle in tanks or extracted from a secondary fuel, like methanol or ethanol, that carries oxygen. So, a fuel cell car can get double or triple the mileage of cars on the road today. This new technology would decrease emissions, help reduce global climate change, and protect our national security by reducing the amount of oil we would need to import from unstable regions. All we need to do is look at the political conditions in Venezuela and the situation in the Middle East, coupled with Saddam Hussein's sanctions against exporting oil to the United States, to realize the precariousness of our dependence on these imports. At this point, we still have other countries that can meet the global oil market requirements and we are not in a crisis, but this could change at any moment. Our transportation sector consumes the largest amount of energy in our society. Passenger vehicles account for 40 percent of the oil products the Nation consumes each year, or nearly 8 million barrels of oil each day. And, in 2001, the United States imported 53 percent of the Nation's oil and this is expected to increase to 60 percent or more by 2020, according to the Energy Information Administration. So we can and must change our oil consumption habits. We can do this by implementing new technologies that will increase fuel efficiency and help create jobs. A Ford Motor Company representative has stated ``the 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 money at the pump.'' That is why I am introducing an amendment directing the Energy Department to develop a program that would create measurable goals and timetables with the aim of putting 100,000 hydrogen-fueled fuel cell vehicles on the road by 2010 and 2.5 million by 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 DOE work with the auto manufacturers to ensure that these goals are met. With this amendment, we are sending a strong message that our goal is to accelerate and enhance the development of fuel cell vehicle technologies with concrete targets and timetables. Most major automakers are racing to produce prototype fuel cell vehicles. DaimlerChrysler has plans to have fuel-cell cars in production by 2004. California's clean air act requirements also will ensure that many fuel cell vehicles are on the road in the near future. Specifically, 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. This means that California could have nearly 40,000 or 50,000 fuel cell cars on the road by the end of the next decade. Federal fleet purchase requirements also would help realize the targets established in my amendment. I am pleased that my amendment is supported by United Technologies, the Alliance to Save Energy, and Senators Cantwell, Bayh, and Reid. I know there are a number of other Members that also share my enthusiasm for hydrogen-fueled fuel cell vehicles, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this important and promising technology off the shelves and onto our streets. amendment no. 3024

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, last week a number of pharmaceutical companies announced a new program by which some Medicare enrollees, particularly those at the lower income levels, will be able to access prescription drugs at a lower price. Let me compliment them for that. These companies are certainly moving in the right direction by recognizing that price is a very serious problem for a lot of Americans with respect to prescription drugs. The companies that founded Together Rx are Abbott Laboratories, AstraZeneca, Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. Pfizer and Eli Lilly have separate programs that they have already announced. I think it is a step forward, and I compliment these companies. We have much more to do, but having been very critical of the prescription drug manufacturers for price increases, let me say thanks for these programs because they will benefit a good number of lower income senior citizens. However, let me describe one of the problems that still exists. This chart is of a Washington Post article, from within the last month, ``Prescription Drug Spending Rises 17 Percent in the Last Year.'' There have been double-digit increases year after year after year after year for prescription drugs. Taking a prescription drug is not a luxury. It is a necessity. Prescription drugs can only save lives if you can afford to access them. We talk a great deal about senior citizens and the need to help them by adding a prescription drug benefit to the Medicare Program. We do that because senior citizens are about 12 percent of America's population, but they take one-third of all the prescription drugs. Many senior citizens are taking five, eight, and ten different kinds of prescription drugs. The price increases that have been occurring have been devastating, not just to senior citizens but to all Americans trying to access the supply of prescription drugs they need. It is useful to understand that the debate about access to prescription medicines is not just a theoretical one. From time to time, I have described to my colleagues the experience I have had holding town meetings and hearings across North Dakota and the country on prescription drug prices. The issue of the pricing of prescription drugs is a very serious one for real people every day. The U.S. consumer is charged the highest prices for exactly the same prescription drugs than anyone else in the world. The same pill made by the same company put in the same bottle costs much more in the United States than in other countries. Tamoxifen, to treat breast cancer, is 10 times more expensive in the United States than in Canada, as an example. I ask unanimous consent to demonstrate the point.

Mr. DORGAN. I am holding here empty prescription drug bottles from the United States and Canada. It is useful to compare the prices of these drugs. This is a drug called Zoloft which is used to treat depression. There are two bottles here; the same tablet made by the same company put in different bottles. But if you buy it in the United States, it is $2.34 per tablet. The same tablet purchased in Canada is $1.28. So the same company makes the same pill and puts it into two different bottles. The difference is, when an American consumer buys it, they pay $2.34. If you buy it in Canada, $1.28. To give another example, Norvasc is a drug used to treat high blood pressure. You buy it in Canada--same tablet, put in the same bottle, made by the same company, shipped to two different places, the United States and Canada--and it costs 90 cents and in the United States it costs $1.20. Cipro is a drug commonly used to treat infections. This bottle holds a hundred 500 milligram tablets and costs $171 in Canada and $399 in the United States--the same tablet, the same bottle, and manufactured by the same company. Often drugs are produced in a U.S. manufacturing plant to be sent to Canada and sold at a much lower price. And you have the same thing happening in Italy, France, Germany, England, Sweden. Now, why is that happening and what should we do about it? It is happening because we are the only country in which there is not some kind of governmental regulatory system to limit what is charged for prescription drugs. Actually, we do have price controls on prescription drugs here in the United States. It is just that the pharmaceutical manufacturers are the ones in charge of controlling the price. They ratchet up the price as high as they possibly can, and the result is an industry that is the financially healthiest in the United States. But these high prices for drugs ultimately affect the relationship between a doctor and his patient. A doctor from Dickinson treats a woman with breast cancer. The woman, who is on Medicare, comes back to the doctor after having a mastectomy, and the doctor says: ``Here is what we have to do given the type and grade of your breast cancer. You have to be on some prescription drugs that will substantially lessen the recurrence of breast cancer for you.'' She says: ``What would this cost?'' When told what the cost of the drugs would be, she says, ``Well, doctor, I don't have the money to pay for that. There isn't any possible way I can take those prescription drugs. What I will have to do is just take my chances with the breast cancer.'' That is repeated in doctor's office after doctor's office around the country. I have senior citizens telling me they cannot possibly afford their drugs, so they cut them in half and take only half a dose so it will last twice as long. In the small community of Michigan, North Dakota with perhaps 300 or 400 people, after a farm meeting one evening--a woman in her late 70s grabbed my arm at the end of the meeting and said: ``Mr. Senator, can you help me?'' She began to tear up. Her eyes got full of tears and her chin began to quiver, and she said: ``I am supposed to take these prescription drugs in order to stay alive, but I can't afford them. The doctor says that I must take them. Can you help me?'' This is repeated all over the country. I am talking about senior citizens. But you could be talking about anybody who needs prescription drugs and finds that the prices are simply out of reach. There was a 17 percent increase last year in the cost of prescription drugs. Reimportation of drugs from Canada will save our citizens a lot of money. Dr. Alan Sager from Boston University was a witness at a hearing I held at which he described a study that showed that Americans would save $38 billion a year if we paid Canadian prices for prescription drugs. North Dakotans alone would pay $81 million less in a year. Some would say that by allowing the reimportation of prescription drugs, we are trying to import price controls. But what we are trying to do is force a repricing of prescription drugs in this country--a fairer price for the United States consumer. Why should we pay a dollar for the same market basket of drugs for which the Canadians pay 60 cents? Why should we pay a dollar, when virtually every other consumer in the world is paying a fraction of that for the same drugs? We should not and it is not fair. There is a law on the books that prevents the reimportation of drugs from other countries, except by the manufacturer. If this is a global economy, we say let's allow the reimportation of drugs as long as there is a clear chain of custody and we can do it safely. I will offer, along with my colleagues, a proposal that would allow licensed pharmacists and distributors to access that lower-priced, identical prescription drug from a Canadian supplier and pass the savings along to the U.S. consumer. I understand why the pharmaceutical manufacturers would not like that. But the point is, if this is a global economy, why should it only be good for the big interests? How about for other interests as well? Why should we not allow the reimportation of prescription drugs? The same drug put in the same bottle, manufactured in a FDA-approved plant. Why should we not allow that to be reimported to the U.S. as long as there is no safety concern? All we need is to import a less expensive drug that is identical and made in an approved facility, to be able to provide a substantial benefit to the American consumer. So we are going to be proposing another amendment on that in the coming months. I know that the manufacturers will resist us aggressively. I started by complimenting them on the programs they are developing, but, frankly, we can't continue to see these cost increases in prescription drugs every year. The miracle of medicine means nothing if you can't afford it. There has been a 12, 15, 16, or 17 percent increase year after year, and it is breaking the back of the American consumer and the back of health plans. The fact is, it cannot continue. The prescription drug manufacturers, pharmaceutical manufacturers, simply have to understand that. They say that if you do anything that restrict our ability to charge these prices, there will be less research for the new miracle cures. But we have doubled funding to the National Institutes of Health. We are providing substantial amounts of public funding for research, from which the pharmaceutical industry often is a major beneficiary. I might also say, with respect to the pharmaceutical industry, they spend as much or more on advertising, marketing, and promotion as they do on research. That is a fact. So I think there is a lot to be done here. I pointed out that the industry has announced some positive steps, but there is much more to do, and we must take the right steps here in the Senate to address this issue. That is why a group of us will, once again, offer an amendment that deals with the reimportation of prescription drugs--this time, only from Canada, where there can be no safety issue.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, Senator Daschle, the majority leader, has now promised that before the Memorial Day recess, the Senate will be considering the administration's request for trade promotion authority; that is a euphemism for fast track. Fast-track authority allows an administration to negotiate a trade agreement somewhere and bring it back to the Congress, and Congress is told: ``You are not able to change a decimal point, a period, or a punctuation mark. You must vote up or down on an expedited basis on that agreement. No changes, no amendments. No opportunity to make any alterations at all.'' That is called fast track. Well, let me talk just a bit about this fast track. First of all, it is a fundamentally undemocratic proposition. We have negotiated most agreements that we have had without fast-track authority. We negotiate and have negotiated nuclear arms control agreements. There has been no fast-track authority for that. Most trade agreements that have been negotiated have not had fast-track authority. Let me make a couple of comments about trade. First of all, the Constitution says--article I, section 8--the Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. That is the Congress that said that. The Constitution says that the Congress has that power, not the President. Fast track itself, in three decades, has been used five times: GATT, U.S.-Israel, U.S.-Canada, NAFTA, and WTO. Look at what happened with respect to the trade agreements. Pre-NAFTA, using that as a good agreement, it has been one of the worst trade agreements we have ever negotiated. Pre-NAFTA, we had a slight surplus with Mexico and a small deficit with Canada. After NAFTA was fully phased in, we have a big deficit with Mexico, and getting bigger, and a big deficit with Canada. We have people who think this is successful. I have no idea where they studied if they think this is a successful trade relationship. Let's take a look at what is happening in some of these areas of trade. Let me talk, as I have previously, about automobiles and Korea. Why do I do this? Only to point out that the appetite for going off to negotiate a new trade agreement ought to be replaced by an appetite to solve some of the problems that currently exist. But nobody wants to solve problems. All they want to do is negotiate a new agreement. Now, we have automobile trade with Korea. Let me use that as an example. In the last year that was just reported, the Koreans shipped us 618,000 automobiles. We were able to ship to Korea 2,800. So for every 217 cars coming in from Korea, we were able to send them 1. Try sending a Ford Mustang to Korea. The Koreans will put up so many non-tariff trade barriers that you would be lucky to sell a single one. What we have is one-way trade. Korea ships Hyundais and Daewoos to this country by the boatload, and we cannot get American cars into Korea. Yet our negotiators seem to move along blissfully happy to talk about how we are going to negotiate the next agreement. How about saying to Korea on cars: Look, you either open your market to American automobiles or you ship your cars to Kinshasa, Zaire. Our market is open to you only if your market is open to us. That ought to be our message. We have a number of problems in our trade with Europe. Here is a colorful example. We cannot get American eggs into Europe for the retail market. You cannot buy eggs in Europe if they come from the United States. Do you want to know why? Because we wash eggs in this country, and you cannot sell washed eggs in Europe. The Europeans put up a rule that says that eggs can only be sold at the retail level if they are not washed, because apparently their producers cannot be trusted to wash their eggs properly. This is a picture of washed versus unwashed eggs, in case anybody wants to see the difference. Maybe our Trade Ambassador can take a look at this absurd trade barrier. How about selling breakfast cereal in Chile? The Chileans restrict the importation of U.S. breakfast cereals that are vitamin-enriched, as many of our cereals are. They contend consumers already receive enough vitamins in their daily diet and there is a health risk from the consumption of too many vitamins. So you cannot sell Total in Chile. Just absurd. How about this one? Our cattle operations sometimes give growth hormones to their cattle. There is no scientific evidence that the hormones do any harm, but the Europeans put up a rule that says that beef from cattle that got hormones cannot get into the EU. I have been to Europe and have read the press over there. They depict American cattle as having two heads, suggesting that these growth hormones produce grotesque animals like the one pictured here. Our negotiators actually tried to do something about this, and took the EU to the WTO. The WTO agreed with the United States, and authorized our country to retaliate against the WTO. So what form of retaliation did our negotiators settle on? We took action against the Europeans by restricting the movement of Roquefort cheese, goose liver, and truffles to the United States. Now that will scare the dickens out of another country, won't it? We are going to slap you around on goose liver issues. I do not understand this at all. Our country seems totally unwilling to stand up for our trade interests. Try to sell wheat flour to Europe. We produce a lot of wheat in Nebraska and North Dakota. Try to sell wheat flour in Europe. There is a 78-percent duty to sell wheat flour in Europe. Will Rogers said--I have quoted him many times--that the United States of America has never lost a war and never won a conference. He surely must have been talking about our trade negotiators. It doesn't matter whether it is United States-Canada, United States-Mexico, GATT, or NAFTA, this country gets the short end of the stick. The reason I am going to oppose fast track is not that I am opposed to expanded trade. I believe expanded trade is good for our country and good for the world. But I believe trade ought to be fair trade, and I believe our country ought to stand up for its economic interests. When other countries are engaging in unfair trade, our trade officials have a responsibility to stand up and use all available trade remedies on behalf of American workers and American businesses, and say that we will not put up with unfair trade practices. I must say that Mr. Zoellick, our current Trade Representative, has recently taken some heat for action against imported steel. The Administration also took some heat for its action against unfair imports of lumber. In both cases, I thought the actions were appropriate. But the Administration has been widely criticized. This weekend, George Will had an op-ed that was very critical. But I hope that nobody is getting the impression that U.S. producers are being adequately defended from unfair imports. Nothing could be further from the truth. Take the example of Canadian wheat. The Canadians use a monopoly agency called the Canadian Wheat Board to subsidize their grain and undersell us all over the world. In February, the U.S. Trade Representative ruled that the Canadians had been using their monopoly power to undermine the international trading system. But to date, the USTR has done nothing about it. Our wheat growers had asked for tariff rate quotas to be imposed. USTR found the Canadians guilty, but has yet to impose tariff rate quotas. Instead, USTR proposes to take the matter to the WTO. By the time the WTO issues a ruling, our great grandchildren will still be dealing with the problem. I expect a number of my colleagues who will join me in saying to those who want to bring fast track to the floor: Fix some of the problems that exist in the current trade agreements before you decide you want new trade agreements. Fix some of the problems--just a few. Fix the problem of grain with Canada. Fix the problem of wheat flour with Europe. Fix the problem of automobiles from Korea. How about fixing a couple of the problems dealing with Japan? Almost fourteen years after our beef agreement with Japan, there is a 38.5- percent tariff on every pound of beef that still goes into Japan. Japan has a $60 billion to $70 billion trade surplus with us, and they are still hanging huge tariffs on every pound of American beef we ship to Japan. How about more T-bones in Tokyo? I am describing a few of a litany of problems in international trade that our country refuses to address. Why? Because we have trade negotiators all suited up. They have their Armani shoes and their wonderfully cut suits, and they are ready to negotiate. They will lose in the first half hour at the table if history is any guidance. I am saying we ought not grant fast-track authority until our negotiators demonstrate they can fix a few trade problems. I did not believe Bill Clinton should have fast-track authority when he was President, and I do not believe George Bush should have fast-track authority. Not until the Administration is willing to demonstrate that it is willing to solve a few of the trade problems I have described. Fast track is going to be on the slow track in the Senate. There will be many amendments proposed. I, for one, will offer a good number of amendments dealing with the issues described. I will also offer an amendment that says that NAFTA tribunals should not operate in secret. We should not be a party to any deal that determines international trade outcomes behind closed doors. The public should be able to see what NAFTA tribunals are up to. This country will have done a service to its citizens if we say no to fast track.

Mr. DORGAN. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, for the information of colleagues, I will just be a matter of 2, 3 minutes. I intend to offer an amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Murkowski from Alaska. We have worked on this amendment and have cleared it on both sides of the aisle. Amendment No. 3087 To Amendment No. 2917 Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DORGAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3088 To Amendment No. 2917

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the amendment I offer today is on behalf of myself and Senator Murkowski from Alaska. It deals with the issue of siting future transmission infrastructure in areas that have the greatest energy resource potential to maximize energy efficiency. This amendment would have the Department of Energy provide technical assistance to the States and to regional organizations to help them identify areas with the greatest energy resource potential, and then coordinate the development of these energy resources and future facilities so that we can transmit this energy to the greatest extent possible. We have, in my State, for example, and in other areas of the country, the potential to develop additional energy resources, but we lack the facilities to transmit those resources. Our transmission capabilities are not keeping up with the ability to create this energy. We can address that in a few basic ways: by improving the planing, siting, and development of transmission infrastructure and corridors. We can also develop new transmission technologies that can increase the efficiency and, in some cases, perhaps double or triple the capacity of existing transmission lines. One example of this type of technology is the composite conductor wire, which offers great promise. We would like the Department of Energy to provide the technical assistance to States and regional organizations that are interested in moving in these directions. We think there needs to be some opportunities made available to States and regional organizations to access technical assistance from the Department of Energy to help facilitate and achieve these goals. Our amendment will simply do that. I thank Senator Murkowski for working with me on the amendment. I think it is an amendment that will add to this bill and help us address some of the transmission issues as we plan for greater capabilities in the future to produce and to transmit energy through a grid across the country where energy is needed. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, the Senate will soon start debating the issue of human cloning. I want to state unequivocally that I am against the cloning of a human being. The cloning of a human being raises serious moral and ethical questions about society's perception of human life. Today, I am introducing legislation that prohibits the cloning of a human being. It is a simple bill, but it reflects my view and a view that is held by almost everyone. My bill reflects the common ground that we can all agree to in this debate. My legislation makes it illegal to clone a human being and imposes strict penalties against anyone who violates this prohibition. I urge my colleagues to support a ban on the cloning of a human being, and encourage their cosponsorship of my legislation.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, the Senate will soon start debating the issue of human cloning. I want to state unequivocally that I am against the cloning of a human being. The cloning of a human being raises serious moral and ethical questions about society's perception of human life. Today, I am introducing legislation that prohibits the cloning of a human being. It is a simple bill, but it reflects my view and a view that is held by almost everyone. My bill reflects the common ground that we can all agree to in this debate. My legislation makes it illegal to clone a human being and imposes strict penalties against anyone who violates this prohibition. I urge my colleagues to support a ban on the cloning of a human being, and encourage their cosponsorship of my legislation.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, yesterday the majority leader of the Senate described the conditions under which he intended to bring to the Senate legislation authorizing trade promotion authority. That is a euphemism for fast-track authority. President Bush has requested of this Congress that we give him fast- track trade authority. Like Presidents before him, he has asked to be allowed to negotiate trade treaties and bring them to Congress for expedited consideration, without any amendments, under any circumstance, for any purpose. I opposed fast-track authority for President Clinton, and I will oppose it for President Bush. I do not believe Congress should grant fast-track authority. I think it is undemocratic. I do not believe it is necessary for us to have fast-track authority in order to negotiate trade agreements. We negotiate the most sophisticated agreements without fast-track authority. Nuclear arms treaties are negotiated and brought to the Congress without fast-track authority. Only trade agreements, we are told, must have this handcuff put around Members of Congress, so they cannot offer any amendments. The reason I care about this is I have watched trade agreement after trade agreement be negotiated, often trading away the interests of producers in the United States, only to discover the problems that arise cannot be solved by these agreements. To give an example, the White House negotiated a trade agreement with Canada, under fast-track trade authority. I was serving in the House at the time. I was a member of the House Ways and Means Committee. The trade agreement came back to the House, to the Ways and Means Committee, and the vote in committee for that trade agreement was 34 to 1. I cast the lone vote against the agreement. The chairman of the committee came to me and said: Congressman Dorgan, we must have a unanimous vote. It is very important. You are the only one who is holding out. It is really important you understand that Canada is our biggest trading partner, our neighbor to the north. The administration has negotiated this with great care. We really want to have a unanimous vote. Won't you join us? I said: Absolutely not. It does not matter to me if I am the only vote. It does not matter to me at all. The vote was 34 to 1, and they were sorely disappointed they could not get a unanimous vote out of the Ways and Means Committee. I was this troublemaker. So the trade agreement went into effect, passed the House, passed the Senate. No one was able to offer an amendment. I could not offer an amendment. After the trade agreement was finished, we began to see an avalanche of Canadian grain being sent into our country. That Canadian grain came from the Canadian Wheat Board, which is a state trading enterprise. The Canadian Wheat Board has a monopoly on wheat, and is able to ship to this country deeply subsidized Canadian grain, undercutting our farmers, taking money right out of our farmers' pockets. Nothing could be done about it because I could not amend the trade agreement. Our hands were tied. That is what fast-track trade authority is all about. Let me talk about trade for a few minutes and why I am going to oppose this fast-track resolution when it comes to the Senate. I and some others in the Senate--Senator Byrd has described his opposition-- will be trying to slow down the fast track bill, and to ultimately defeat it. Let me describe why. It is not because we are protectionists. It is not because we want to build a wall around our country. Those of us who oppose fast track believe in expanded trade. We believe trade is good for our country. We believe expanded trade and breaking down barriers in foreign markets makes sense for our country. We believe all of that. We also believe and insist and demand that trade be fair. Let me point out what the Constitution says about trade. The U.S. Constitution, article I, section 8, says: The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States and with Indian tribes. It could not be more clear. The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations--not the President, not the executive branch, not the judicial branch, but the Congress and only the Congress. With fast track, Congress relinquishes its responsibility. We will let someone else go negotiate a trade treaty, go into a room, shut the door, and in private, in secret, negotiate a trade treaty, and then bring it back to the Congress. Our hands will be tied behind our backs, as we will not be able to offer any amendments. That is what fast-track trade authority is all about. I will use a chart to describe one piece of trade that I think demonstrates the bankruptcy of what has been going on in international trade. The example I have in mind involves trade with Korea in automobiles. Now, someone watching or listening on C-SPAN or someone in this Chamber might well drive a Korean car. If you do, good for you. You have every right to drive it. Korean cars are sold all over this country. You can go to a dealership, and buy a car from Korea, from Japan, from Europe. That is consumer choice. I would never be critical of that. But the fact that there are lots of Korean cars coming to our country does not mean that there is free trade. You have to look at both sides of the equation. Last year the country of Korea sent to the United States 569,000 Korean automobiles. How many cars made in the United States are sold in Korea? Only 1,700. I repeat, we purchased in the United States 570,000 Korean cars and the Koreans purchased 1,700 from us. Let me also describe how this happens. Korea does not want American cars in Korea. Under the World Trade Organization, tariff barriers to sending American cars to Korea have come down. Why would we not get more cars into Korea? In January, an English-language Korean newspaper published an article describing the trade barriers faced by imported cars in the Korean marketplace. It is based on a report put out by a Korean state-run think tank, the Korea Institute for International Economic Policy. The report cites a widespread climate of fear and intimidation associated with imported cars, including threats of physical harm. Now, this is a report by a Korean think tank, saying that Koreans face threats of physical harm, lengthy safety test procedures, and discrimination by the traffic police. An especially flagrant example of unfair trade that caught my attention: Korean importers have been frustrated in their inability to showcase foreign cars at the Seoul Motor Show, the biggest car show in Korea. In May of 2000, the distributors put on their own import motor show. As the import show began to attract interest and some orders for foreign cars, the Korean Ministry of Finance announced the selling of any cars with engine displaced at greater than 3,000 cc--which is effectively any imported car--would have to be reported to it. This had an immediate chilling effect on prospective buyers; a lot of car orders were canceled due to fears of tax audits and the like. In January of this year, the deputy U.S. trade representative, Jon Huntsman, stated that ``Korea had somehow become a dynamic exporter without becoming an equally dynamic importer, dampening the competition companies need to keep their edge in the global marketplace.'' This is an example of an intolerable trade situation. Let me give you another example, about Brazilian sugar. There is a tariff on sugar, but none on molasses. So what happens? Brazilian sugar is sent into the United States through Canada disguised as molasses. It is shipped from Brazil to Canada, loaded on as liquid molasses, and becomes stuffed molasses. It comes from Canada to the United States. The sugar is unloaded from the stuffed molasses. The molasses go back to Canada, and the whole process is repeated. This is fundamentally unfair trade. It goes on all the time, right under our noses. And nothing is being done about it--nothing. No one is willing to lift a little finger to resolve these problems. All they want to do is go to the next trade issue. Over $100 million in U.S. beef per year cannot get into Europe. Now, I have here a picture of what a typical U.S. cow, or heifer might look like. It happens to be a Hereford. That is what I raised when I was a kid. Now, our cattle are sometimes fed hormones, and to hear the Europeans describe it, our cattle have two heads. Absurd, of course. We buy a lot from Europe every single year, but we cannot get beef into Europe. There is so much more. Every pound of beef we send into Japan at the moment, 12 years after we had a beef agreement with Japan, has a 38\1/ 2\ percent tariff. Each pound of beef has a 38\1/2\ percent tariff attached when we send it to Japan. That is after we had a beef agreement. We had all the negotiators over there who reached a big deal with Japan. It was front-page headlines across the country: Beef agreement with Japan. Good for us. The agreement provided there will be a 50 percent tariff on all United States beef going to Japan, which will reduce over time, but snap back as the quantity increases. We have gotten more beef into Japan, yes, but 12 years after the agreement, we still have a 38\1/2\ percent tariff on each pound of beef going into Japan. We ought to expect to get more T-bones into Tokyo. That is my cry: T- bones to Tokyo; pork chops to China. Get rid of stuffed molasses to China. How about cars to Korea? How about asking those who are supposed to represent our country to stop worrying about the next agreement and fix a few of the problems we have created for American workers and American businesses? I am perfectly willing to ask Americans to compete anywhere under any circumstances as long as the competition is fair. I said in the Chamber before, it is not fair competition when someone puts a 12-year-old in a factory, 7,000 miles from here, works them 12 hours a day, pays them 12 cents an hour, keeps the doors locked, and ships the product to a store shelf in Pittsburgh, Fargo, or Denver. That might be good for the consumer in terms of low prices, but it is not fair trade and it is not fair to America's producers. We had a hearing one day in which we were told about how some people who make carpets in central Asia and the Middle East. They put the young kids, 8-, 10-, 12-year-old kids, in the factories, and they use needles to work with the carpets. They put gunpowder on the tips of their fingers and lit the gunpowder to burn them, so that the tips of their finger became deeply scarred from the burns. That way, when the kids were making carpets and they would stick their fingers with the needles, they could not feel it and it would not hurt--no downtime. And then the carpets end up on a store shelf someplace in the United States. Fair trade? I don't think so. Abusing children is not fair trade just because a product is getting manufactured at lower costs. Abusing children is just plain abusing children. We ought not have on any store shelf in any place in this country the product of slave labor wages. We should not be letting in women's blouses made in a factory in Honduras where the doors are locked and people are paid slave wages--we ought not have that on the store shelves of this country. That is not good for consumers. It is not good for anybody. This country needs to be a leader in demanding fair trade. We do not do that. We want to pass fast track so we can do another trade agreement, and essentially keep a blind eye for what is going on in the old agreements and move on to the next one. I got involved with this issue because of wheat farmers in North Dakota. After the United States-Canada free trade agreement, I watched all that Canadian grain being dumped into our country, money taken from the pockets of our farmers and ranchers. They are furious about it, as well they should be. On March 6, the U.S. trade ambassador stood up for the American steel industry. He said: We will slap tariffs on those who are unloading massive amounts of steel in this country and ruining our steel industry. We will give our steel producers a chance to compete on a more level playing field. Now, the tariffs are not what they should have been. There were too many loopholes. But at least it is a step in the right direction, and I commend the trade ambassador for doing that. But the fact is, we also just had a guilty verdict against Canada on wheat trade, yet no tariffs have been imposed. Make no mistake about the finding of unfair trade. Here is what the USTR found: USTR concluded that for several years, the Canadian Wheat Board has taken sales from U.S. farmers because it is immune from commercial risk, benefits from special privileges and has competitive advantages due to its monopoly control over a guaranteed wheat supply. This infringes on the integrity of the competitive trading system. That is how our trade ambassador has described the ongoing problem. So is our government taking prompt action, as it did for the steel industry? No. USTR has decided not to impose a tariff rate quota, as requested by our wheat farmers, because of fears that such an action ``would violate our NAFTA and WTO commitments.'' So in effect, USTR has concluded that Canada is guilty of unfair trade, but it is not going to do anything about it anytime soon. Granted, USTR is talking about taking the Canadians to the WTO. My great-great-grandchildren might get some result out of the WTO. There is no guarantee it will be a good result. I guarantee only that the way the World Trade Organization works, the proceedings will not be transparent, because panels deliberate cases behind closed doors, in secret. This country ought to demand open government and demand that World Trade Organization proceedings be open for all to see. When we have the fast track, so-called trade promotion authority bill on the floor of the Senate, there will be a number of amendments. I intend to offer an amendment saying that the proceedings of trade tribunals must be open to the public. The American people have a right to see what is going on. And they may not like what they see. Also, I will have an amendment proposing tariff rate quotas on Canadian wheat. I am going to raise some of the trade problems I have discussed today, and I think the Senate ought to have a chance to vote on this. Advocates of free trade sometimes remind me of the Hare Krishnas, who chant the same thing over and over. Our trade negotiators are always singing the same song: free trade this, free trade that. I am tired of the chanting. The question is, Is someone going to stand up on the floor of the Senate and demand fair trade on behalf of America's workers and America's producers? Do we demand fair trade or don't we? In this town there are only two recognized views of trade. You are either a protectionist xenophobic stooge who just doesn't get it and can't see over the horizon and can't see the big picture, or you are for global trade, expanded trade, opportunity, and jobs for the future. That is the way the issue is presented. You are either kind of a nut who wants to build walls around America and bring Smoot-Hawley back, or you have a broad vision and you are a great statesman and good for you. That is the most thoughtless bunch of nonsense I ever heard. That is not an adequate description of the views of trade we ought to embrace. There ought not be anyone who is worried about standing up on the floor of the Senate and saying: Look, I stand up for this country's interests. I stand up for the interests of people who work in this country, who produce textiles, who work on the manufacturing floor, and who produce automobiles, who work in the fields and produce grain or livestock. We stand up for them. Our government is not ensuring a level playing field. We have stacked the deck with bad international trade agreements, ineffective trade negotiators and bad agreements, one after the other. Now we are told, let's implement fast-track authority again so we can have a new agreement. I say to those who demand fast-track authority, please fix a few of the old problems and then come back and we will talk about new agreements. Fix some of the old problems first. Will Rogers once said that the United States has never lost a war and never won a conference. He must surely have been thinking of our negotiators. I have suggested many times that our negotiators wear jerseys, like they do in the Olympics. Next time they sit around a table with China, Japan, Europe, Canada, and Mexico, they could look down at their jersey and be reminded that they represent the United States. They represent workers, businesses, investors, and others who have decided that, in a global economy, they want a fair shake. Nothing more more, just a fair shake. I am flat sick and tired of seeing negotiators go abroad and negotiate a trade agreement that ties America's hands behind its back. The first 25 years after the Second World War our trade was all foreign policy. We were bigger, better, stronger than anybody in the world, and we could outperform anyone with one hand tied behind our back. So what we did is we granted trade concessions all around the world because it was foreign policy to be helpful to foreign governments. That was the first 25 years after the Second World War. The second 25 years have been different because we suddenly had tough, shrewd international competitors. Too much of our trade policy has been soft-headed foreign policy. And it is not working. We have a large, growing trade deficit, the largest in human history--a large deficit with China, a large deficit with Japan, a large deficit with Europe, a large and growing deficit with Canada and Mexico. This is not working. We used to have a small trade surplus with Mexico and then we had a new trade agreement with Mexico and turned it into a big deficit. We had a moderate deficit with Canada. We got a new trade agreement with Canada and doubled the deficit. Of course, with China and Japan, it has been a miserable failure. Our trade relationship with them has failed to really break down the barriers and open up their markets. So my message is not that I want us to put walls around our country. I don't believe in that. My message is not that we should create special protections for American producers. I don't believe in that. I believe in fair, free, and open competition. My message is, I demand, on behalf of the workers and producers of this country, that trade agreements represent fair trade conditions. If the rules are fair, if the conditions are fair, then we ought to be able to compete. I know we will compete and do well anywhere in the world under those circumstances. This issue is an issue, at its roots, that has to do with jobs and economic opportunity and growth. When we give commencement speeches at high schools and colleges, we look out onto that sea of faces of young men and women, the best and brightest in our country, and we see people who are entering the workforce. The question is, What kind of an economy will they join? We have people around this country bragging about their states being low-wage states. That is nothing to brag about. We need good jobs, good careers, good salaries, and good opportunities for the future. Manufacturing jobs have always been a base of good jobs that pay well and have good benefits, but our manufacturing industry is rapidly being decimated by trade agreements that are unfair to American workers and American businesses. So I simply wanted to say today that we are going to have a vigorous and significant debate on this issue. It is long overdue. I welcome the opportunity to have trade promotion authority on the floor. Those who bring it should understand it will not be easy to get it. Those of us who have amendments to offer will be here offering many amendments.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am chairman of an appropriations subcommittee. Last fall we asked Governor Ridge, who is the Director of Homeland Security, to come and testify on matters dealing with homeland security issues. In my subcommittee, we fund the U.S. Customs Service and others. Governor Ridge determined that he could not do that and would not do that. Other committees have experienced the same reaction from the Governor. I think the administration is making a mistake. I think Governor Ridge is an excellent public servant. I enjoy working with him, but he really does need to come and testify before congressional committees. I think it will benefit him, it will benefit the Bush administration, it will benefit the Congress and the American people. I did want to say, however, as we construct homeland defense, I think the administration's recommendations are good ones. I support them. I have commended President Bush for his prosecution of the war against terrorism. I think his recommendations in this budget dealing with homeland security are some thoughtful and good recommendations. But there is one recommendation that is now floating around, being advanced by Governor Ridge and others, that I will not support. That is a recommendation to merge the Customs Service with the Immigration Service. Let me describe why I think that would be inappropriate. There is a discussion going on about merging a number of agencies of the Federal Government into one larger agency. We are not going to solve the problems of any agency by simply creating larger bureaucracies. That doesn't solve any problems of government. We had an embarrassing circumstance a couple of weeks or so ago in which the Immigration Service issued visas to Mohammed Atta and one of the other terrorists who flew the airplanes into the World Trade Center and murdered thousands of people. We need to solve those problems at the INS. I must say Mr. Ziglar, who runs the INS, a friend of mine and acquaintance of most of the Senate, has inherited an agency that had a lot of problems, no question about that. I know he is struggling mightily to deal with them. I wish him well and I want to help him to do that. But he inherited an agency that wasn't able to track anything on its computers. It couldn't track down someone who overstayed a visa. I think Mr. Ziglar has a lot of work to do, and I want to help him do that. But visiting the problems at the INS that Mr. Ziglar inherited on the Customs Service makes no sense at all. The Customs Service runs pretty well. We have some problems there as well, but it is an entirely different agency, which deals with the facilitation of trade and the prohibition of illegal goods from coming into the country. It is the second largest revenue raiser for the Federal Government next to the Internal Revenue Service. So I don't want to visit upon the Customs Service the problems of the INS or any other Federal agency, and I don't believe you solve the problems with respect to these issues by creating larger government and bigger bureaucracies. So again, I would encourage Governor Ridge to come testify before Congressional committees, and discuss matters such as these. The idea of merging Customs and the INS is one that I just cannot support. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a fellow from the Commerce Department, Gabriel Adler, be given floor privileges for the remainder of this session of Congress.

Mr. DORGAN

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

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DORGAN. Yes.

Mr. DORGAN. Yes.

Mr. DORGAN. That is exactly the case. We have the potential to do things in a different way, and we ought to use that potential. Now we can decide to ignore it, as my colleague from Arizona would have us do, or we can decide to embrace it, believing it will strengthen this country and move us toward greater energy security. I believe it makes sense to take the natural, renewable resources that exist and produce energy from them. I do not want the Senator from Nevada to leave this Chamber somehow describing to others that North Dakota has bad weather. That certainly should not be a conclusion that is left. North Dakota is a wonderful State. It has perhaps more sunshine than the State of Nevada. We have a little bit of a breeze, and it is fairly constant. That is why it ranks well in wind energy. It is a great State, with a great temperature, and a great climate, and the Senator from Nevada should visit it more often. The point is, we also have the opportunity to, from that general breeze I have described, capture the energy and use it to extend America's energy supply, just as is done with geothermal in the Southwest, biomass in the East, and solar resources in much of the country, especially the Southwest. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. Not just the Senator from Alaska, but the Senator from Arizona, in the points he made toward the end of his presentation, specifically talked about the size of the devices to gather solar energy that would be required to offset X amount of oil. I believe it was 2,000 acres, something the size of Dulles Airport. He said: Here is the amount of wind energy; here are the number of wind turbines it would take to offset a certain amount of oil. The point is, when we talk about a renewable source of energy, we are talking about electricity. That is the case. How do you generate electricity? You generate it through electric generating plants. We can put coal in them, use natural gas--there are a number of ways to generate electricity. Our colleague, for example, from Utah, now drives this hybrid car I saw parked in front of the Capitol yesterday. His car uses less petroleum, because it runs, in part, on battery-powered electricity. Renewable and limitless sources of energy will help us reduce our supply of imported oil. I am not suggesting, and I would not suggest, that doing all we can on renewables takes us far down the road in relieving us from the substantial amount of oil we now receive from abroad. I am not suggesting that at all. I do believe, especially in the area of production of electricity, we have opportunities to do things in a different way. The question in the Senate is, Do you want to do that or don't you? Some say, no. The same attitude prevailed, as I mentioned, on the clean air and clean water debates about 20 years ago with respect to this energy debate. My hope is that at the end of the day on the Kyl amendment we will vote no and say we really do want to be involved in a different way with respect to production of electricity.

Mr. DORGAN. My point was this: If the Senator from Alaska is saying he has some concerns about timber, but he believes there ought to be a renewable portfolio standard, that is one thing. My point is the author at the end of his presentation said: I do not think we ought to impose a mandate on the States. This should be left to the States, No. 1, so it is not a national policy to embrace. Second, let's let the free market handle this. My response to that is, the free market has gotten us to the point where over 50 percent of our oil is imported, mostly from Saudi Arabia. If you think it strengthens national security, good for you. I am not saying you believe that. No one believes we are in the position of increasing our national security by increasing the amount of oil that comes from the most unstable part of the world. That is the point and the reason we need a renewable portfolio standard.

Mr. DORGAN. A leading question, but of course I agree. Take a quarter of an acre of land, put on it a 1-megawatt, new, very efficient wind turbine, and produce electricity that is used to power 1,000 homes. Pretty good deal? I think so. With 160 acres of land, especially with the new turbines, you can produce electricity for nearly 160,000 homes in this country. My point is, this is the right thing to do. Let's do it as a matter of national policy. Let's establish a national renewable portfolio standard. Let me finally say, as I conclude, I understand it is controversial. I understand why some people do not want to do it. In fact, there are some people who have never wanted to do anything for the first time. I understand that, too. But if we are talking about national energy policy, and we end the day in the Senate having done nothing that is new, then we have only postponed for another 25 years a debate that is identical to the one we are having today, and we will find ourselves in exactly the same situation. Let's hope between now and then we do not encounter some dramatic circumstance that really shuts off the supply of energy that is critical to our country.

Mr. DORGAN. Let me say, I do not agree with him, but I will be happy to yield for a question.

Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield for a question.