Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the Grassley second- degree amendment to the Brownback amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Reserving the right to object, I want to have a further understanding of where we are parliamentary-wise. The Senator from Florida is asking to take up a different amendment than the amendment that dealt with citrus?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I have to temporarily object until we have an opportunity to study the amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. I would like to have recognition on another matter, on the Byrd amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, is the regular order the Byrd amendment?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Would I be in order to speak on the Byrd underlying amendment?

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Baucus for how he has worked in a team with those of us who worked this compromise out to defeat a lot of crippling amendments. I see this as the last crippling amendment. Senator Baucus and my colleagues on this side of the aisle have already made strong arguments why the amendment ought to be defeated. I add my thoughts to theirs. Senator Baucus and I took great care to address concerns raised about potential abuse of the investor-state dispute process. At the same time, the bill recognizes that protecting U.S. citizens abroad is also an extremely important objective. This amendment threatens to undermine the bill's careful balance in two ways. First, it ignores the delicate political compromises needed to pass this bill. In doing so, it jeopardizes passage of both trade adjustment assistance and trade promotion authority. Second, the bill undermines the careful substantive balance outlined in the bill. Under the guise of protecting Government's ability to apply health, environmental and safety regulations, it takes away the rights of U.S. citizens to receive a fair and impartial hearing when their property is confiscated overseas. Let me give you an example. In 1972, the Pakistani Government nationalized ten schools belonging to the Presbyterian Church of America. For the past 30 years, the Presbyterian Church has been trying to recover their investment. Even after the Pakistani Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that the state could not take their land, Pakistan continued to deny the church its property. It should not take 30 years for a church to recover its own property, but that is what the current state of play in too many parts of the world. And that is why we need strong investor-state dispute settlement procedures. Let me give another example. Nearly 30 years ago, Richard Bell, a U.S. citizen living in Costa Rica, had his property expropriated by the Costa Rican Government for a national park. Despite assurances from several Costa Rican administrations that the matter would be resolved, it took until October 2001 before Costa Rica entered into a framework agreement with Mr. Bell to submit the issue to arbitration. And that agreement would never have been reached without hundreds of hours of U.S. government assistance. Mr. Bell declined to use the Costa Rican courts due to extensive delays associated with the judicial system. In hindsight, 10 years in the judicial system does not seem so bad. Not every country in the world provides quick access to justice like the United States. The amendment would hurt our ability to help these citizens. And I think that is a mistake. As Stuart Eizenstat, former deputy Secretary of the Treasury during the Clinton administration wrote recently in an editorial: By demanding that the Senate both reduce investors' protection against expropriation and force investors to obtain permission to file claims before tribunals, the critics would strip U.S. investors of key protections and potentially to politicize the dispute settlement process. The ability of U.S. citizens to invest abroad and foreign citizens to invest in the United States is not something to be taken for granted. For the last 25 years, each successive administration has recognized that it is critical to negotiate strong, objective and fair investment protections in our international agreements to continue to promote such investment. These traditional investment protections are largely based on U.S. law and policy and established international law. The bill carefully balances concerns about the investor-state dispute settlement process without weakening core investment rules that serve America's interests. The degree of support for the final product is demonstrated by a strong bipartisan committee vote of 18 to 3 in favor of the bill. I urge my colleagues not to upset this careful balance. Again, let me quote from a recent editorial by Stuart Eizenstat: The Senate should approve the Baucus-Grassley Fast Track bill without delay and should resist attempts to weaken investment protection rules that embody core values of the United States: respect for private property, nondiscrimination, and the right to appear before an independent and impartial tribunal. This amendment undermines these core values. I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to offer a second-degree amendment to Senator Brownback's amendment. I send a modified amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before I talk about my approach and my feelings on this whole issue of our relationship with the former Soviet Union countries, I commend Senator Brownback for the very thoughtful approach that he has on these issues, and the attention he has given this foreign policy consideration, as well as foreign trade-connected issues of the former Soviet Union. I understand his interest in seeing normal trade relations extended to Russia, central Asia, and the south Caucasus. The Democracy and Freedom Through Trade Act introduced today may be an appropriate vehicle to do just that. I certainly think this issue deserves a hearing. But I am not sure it is appropriate for this bill. Instead, I offer this sense-of-the-Senate amendment on the upcoming U.S.-Russian Federation Summit. It expresses a sense of the Senate in support of our President's efforts to strengthen our relations with Russia. The amendment itself seeks to build upon that relationship by expressing the Senate's support for restoring permanent normal trade relations with Russia. Given the upcoming meeting between President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin, this resolution is a timely opportunity for the Senate to express its support for recent developments between our two countries, and also to express encouragement for these two Presidents when they meet later this week. Since September 11, a new partnership has grown between the United States and Russia as a result of our close cooperation and common efforts in the fight against international terrorism. This enhanced relationship recently produced a new strategic framework between Russia and the United States to significantly reduce stockpiles of nuclear weapons by the year 2012. In addition, the United States and Russia, along with our NATO partners, have further institutionalized the U.S.-Russian security cooperation through the establishment of the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council. That Council meets for the first time May 28 of this year in Rome. It is clear that historic progress is being made between the United States and Russia, and that even more forward movement would be beneficial for both countries. I hope that movement continues. I am not oblivious to the fact that there have been decades of tension between our countries. And I don't think we can be so naive as to think that there are not problems down the road. But it surely is important, particularly when there are opportunities such as the last few months to grow our relationship based upon those opportunities. Since there is this opportunity for benefit to both countries, I believe the time has come for Congress to seriously consider the elimination of Jackson-Vanik requirements with regard to Russia, and, thus, begin debate on the extension of normal trade relations. President Bush has recently asked Congress to restore permanent normal trade relation status for Russia based on this policy of free and unfettered immigration. However, there are important issues that must be addressed during this discussion that go beyond just the issue of the Helsinki accords as it dealt with the subject of immigration. For example, there are some outstanding trade issues that need to be addressed. Among these are recent problems dealing with the U.S. poultry exports to Russia. We also need to see greater progress on religious freedom and human rights, and the concerns of many people within Russia and also people outside of Russia who have concerns that Russia have more religious freedom. I am pleased that President Bush has stated his commitment to work with Russia to help freedom and tolerance become fully protected in Russian law and Russian life. President Bush has also stated his commitment to work with Russia to advance free immigration, safeguard religious liberty, and enforce legal protections for ethnic and religious minorities. I am surely hopeful that President Bush will further address these concerns openly and candidly in his discussions with President Putin during his upcoming visit. So I believe the best hope for a positive future between our two countries is to develop an understanding of, and appreciation for, each culture, with both personal and business relationships. The development of commerce, international trade, and the sharing of ideas will further advance economic and political stability for both Americans and Russians. I have said so many times on the floor of the Senate--particularly when trade issues are before this body, and even sometimes when trade issues are not before this body--that we political leaders and diplomats should not be so smug as to think that the only way we are going to have peaceful relations between us--between the United States and some other country--is if political leaders and diplomats do it. In fact, I have expressed the view that our efforts are kind of a spit in the ocean compared to the efforts that can be made through commerce. That is why I have stated that this trade promotion authority bill is so important to world peace, to the development of relationships, because as we break down the barriers of trade, as we enhance opportunities for commerce, individual businesspeople in one community doing business in another country, and vice versa, we are going to build relationships that will enhance opportunities for peace much greater than what political leaders can do, not denigrating the efforts of political leaders in the process. This is particularly true as we look forward to doing away with Jackson-Vanik vis-a-vis Russia, as we look forward to Russia coming into the World Trade Organization, very much as we have looked at improving our relationship with China, with China now being a member of the World Trade Organization. So what the Senator from Kansas is doing may be a small step by political leaders, but it is an important small step. I just think his doing it on this trade promotion bill is not the ideal place to do it. So that is why I have offered this second-degree amendment. I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution which, in turn, supports President Bush's policy objectives with respect to the Russian Federation and calls for the termination, in an appropriate and timely manner, of the application of Jackson-Vanik provisions to Russia. When it comes to the issue of this substitute that is before us, I hope we can get it adopted in a consensus way because this is one opportunity for us to show support for the President. Whether we are Republicans or Democrats, we have to admit that when it comes to enhancing our relationships with Russia, it has to be done through our head of state, through our chief diplomat, our Chief Executive, the President of the United States. We should do everything we can to support the President at the time of his trip to Europe, to Moscow and St. Petersburg to further refine our relationships with the President of the Russian Federation and, in turn, with the Russian people. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. We are not quite ready to speak. I ask that the Senator use a little bit of his time.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield myself the remainder of that time. Madam President, for several years we have been debating what to do about the millions of people without health insurance coverage and about prescription drug coverage for seniors under Medicare. We may decide that steel retirees fit into our deliberations on the uninsured. We could otherwise decide as well. But we at least ought to be debating the issues of this legislation and their implication on the uninsured in regard to those bigger issues and not on this legislation. Bear in mind that there is another irony with the steel legacy cost proposal. Some very large steel companies, LTV and Bethlehem as examples, went bankrupt in part because the 1992 energy tax bill mandated them to pay retiree health care obligations for former coal employees under the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act. Over the past 10 years, these now-bankrupt steel companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars paying for the irresponsible health care promises of the Bituminous Coal Operators Association and the United Mine Workers. Think about that. The shifting of health retiree costs is a vicious circle. This amendment expands the trade adjustment health insurance assistance to steelworkers whose companies permanently closed operations while in bankruptcy. Think about who ends up then paying for it. It is the rest of America. It is the taxpayers, from the single-mother waitress with children who does not have health care for those children and herself; it is the white-collar worker in Silicon Valley who does not have health care; it is the Midwestern farmer who pays for his family's health care out of his own pocket as a self-employed person; it is the other retirees who pay tax on their Social Security benefits. This amendment then creates a double standard. There is one standard, guaranteed health care for one class of folks, retired steelworkers for a few companies. Then there is another standard for everyone else. Is that fair? Does that make sense? This bizarre proposal is compounded further by the double standard it creates for steel industry retirees. That is right. What we have is a rifleshot for a couple of companies. I have been one who has fought rifleshots in the Tax Code. Well, my fellow Senators have a rifleshot in front of them, and I hope we can stop it.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is not appropriate to include the steel legacy program on the trade adjustment assistance legislation and I urge my colleagues to oppose it. This is a trade bill and inclusion of this amendment will doom the legislation. This is not just a helping hand for retired steel workers. It is the largest and boldest corporate welfare proposal I have seen in quite a while. Not only is it corporate welfare but acceptance of this proposal is an invitation to others to come in to government largess in the same way: Promise the workers anything but give your promises to the taxpayers. This legislation gives a free pass to companies and unions to bargain for benefits as irresponsibly as they would like. They may do this with the knowledge that they will never have to keep their promises. Instead, they can foist their benefit packages on the backs of the hard-working taxpayers. That includes many who have no insurance or retiree health because their employers cannot afford to purchase it. My additional arguments against inclusion of the steel legacy program are as follows: Neither the costs of nor the implications of including steel legacy costs have been examined in the Senate Finance Committee. The Senator from West Virginia introduced his bill, S. 2189, on steel legacy costs on April 17, 2002. That is barely a month ago. The GOP members and staff on the Senate Finance Committee have asked repeatedly that hearings be held on this issue but none has been held or contemplated. This suggests that there are individuals on the Finance Committee who may not want this issue of steel legacy costs seriously examined. A generic hearing was held on March 14, 2002, in the HELP Committee. It was a very nice hearing but it consisted solely of one panel and steel labor and management and one panel of affected steel workers. There were no opposing views, no academics, no thoughtful examination of the implications of the proposal, no discussion of the fact that other industries with unsustainable benefit promises to retirees are hoping to get in on this deal. Now the Senator from West Virginia has altered his proposal a little in order to slip it into the Trade Act. He says it is designed to cover just 125,000 workers and just for 1 year. But bear in mind that a 1- year bridge benefit is not the long-term intention of the amendment. Once you grant this benefit it will never sunset. The ultimate solution for the proponents of this program is to cover all steel workers in a permanent entitlement program. The steel workers, themselves, have suggested that as many as 600,000 retired steelworkers will be picked up by such a permanent program. In addition, current steelworkers, as they retire, would come into the system, making the pool of covered individuals much larger. How many more individuals does that add to the pool? We don't know. We have some basis for comparison, but on a much smaller scale. But our experience with the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefits Act is just one-tenth the size, around 60,000 individuals, of the steel proposal. We have no reliable cost data on this proposal. Though Joint Tax told us that it only costs $179 million over 1 year. The truth is that experience tells us two things: No. 1, estimates of program costs are always too optimistic. No. 2, mortality estimates are unduly pressimistic. One estimate is that the full program, covering all steel retirees, would cost around $13 billion. But experience tells us that the estimate is probably too low. The legislation also creates a moral hazard. By allowing the parties to dump legacy costs they couldn't afford, it sends a message to all other industries. It tells them that they should make unsustainable benefit promises and lay them on the taxpayers. In order to avoid this ``moral hazard'' in the future, this proposal would have to contain incentives to get the parties to change the way they bargain for benefits. We can see how that moral hazard still exists in the coal industry today. Coal miners are still bargaining for, and the Bituminous Coal Operators Association is still promising, the same expensive benefit package that they dumped on the system 10 years ago. Shifting their irresponsible collective bargaining costs to other parties did nothing to change the way they bargain for or promise benefits in the coal industry. The coal workers and companies got away with making someone else pay for their unsustainable promises, so they keep on doing the same thing. The ``moral hazard'' is happening in steel but on a much larger scale. Steel is 10 times the size of coal. The steel retirees are similar to any group of retirees who lose their health care coverage; they are a sympathetic group. But so are the retirees from countless other industries who lost or did not receive retiree health benefits because their company could not afford them. The proposal before us creates a new Federal entitlement program for this particular ``sympathetic group'' that would cost billions of dollars. My staff heard from a lobbyist from a major manufacturer in the transportation industry this week. That lobbyist said to ``get ready'' because they wanted to unload their retiree health costs on the taxpayers, too. This lobbyist suggested that their industry is much larger than the steel industry. If you vote for this amendment, you will be ushering in an era other special retiree health care programs for all the other industries who have their own lobbyists. Steel retirees should be considered in the context of deliberations on the uninsured. For several years we have been debating what to do about the uninsured and about prescription drug coverage under Medicare. We may decide that steel retirees fit into our deliberations. Ultimately, we may decide otherwise. But we at least ought to explicitly consider the implications of the legislation. Bear in mind that there is another irony with the steel legacy costs proposal. Some very large steel companies--LTV and Bethlehem--went bankrupt, in part, because the 1992 energy tax bill mandated them to pay the retiree health care obligations for former coal employees under the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefits Act. Over the past 10 years these now bankrupt steel companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars paying for the irresponsible health care promises of the Bituminous Coal Operators Association and the UMWA. Think about that. The shifting of retiree health costs is a vicious circle. The amendment expands the TAA health insurance assistance to steelworkers whose companies permanently closed operations while in bankruptcy. Think about who ends up holding the bag. It is the rest of America. It is the taxpayers--from the single-mother waitress with children who does not have health care. It is the white collar workers in Silicon Valley who do not have health care. It is the Midwestern farmer who pays for his family's health care. It is all the other retirees who pay tax on their Social Security benefits. This amendment creates a double standard. There is one standard, guaranteed health care for one class of folks, retired steel workers of a few companies. There is another standard for everyone else. Is that fair? Does that make sense? This bizarre proposal is compounded further by the double standard it creates for steel industry retirees. That's right. What we have here is a ``rifle shot'' for a couple of companies. I have been one who has fought rifle shots in the Tax Code. Well, fellow Senators, you have got a rifle shot in front of you. We do not know all the companies that will benefit from this but certainly LTV Steel which is in chapter 7 liquidation and Bethlehem Steel that is in chapter 11 bankruptcy. Let me take a minute to review our TAA health insurance compromise and what the implications of the steel retiree health language would mean for the TAA health credit. The agreement we worked out gives TAA workers an advanceable, refundable tax credit, set at 70 percent, that can be applied to the purchase of selected qualified health insurance in either COBRA or State insurance pools. The compromise also includes funds for National Emergency Grants, so that States can provide subsidized coverage to workers before State insurance pools are established. With no company left to provide COBRA benefits, and very few State insurance pools ready early on, steelworkers will wind up being covered through the interim National Emergency Grant program, not the tax credit. I happen to support this important interim Emergency program. But I strongly believe the addition of new categories of workers is a mistake. It sends a signal to all industries, not just steel, that nearly full Federal support for unmet health insurance promises is available from the Federal Government. You should also know that the bill introduced by the proponents of this amendment provides that steel retirees will each receive a cash life insurance payment of $5,000. You may be thinking that is not very much life insurance. But multiplied by 600,000 that is $3 billion. In conclusion, I would be remiss if I didn't reiterate that I believe this is a sympathetic group. But I don't know that it is so sympathetic that we will be able to afford their bad debts, all $13 billion of them. Why? because the transportation lobbyists will be here next thing you know asking that we cover their bad debts. I urge my colleagues to vote against this proposal. To vote for this amendment will doom the trade bill. We must examine proposals such as this carefully and deliberately, weighing the implications of our action. Since most workers and retirees, including early retirees do not have any retiree health many policy questions are raised by this new Federal entitlement program. The ``sunset'' of the Senator from West Virginia in this provision is simply a temporary bridge to permanent program. I have many, many more concerns regarding this proposal. I will not go into them here. Madam President, this is a very serious amendment. It does tremendous damage to the possibility of getting trade promotion authority to the President. I can better say this if I would read from some rough notes that I made in regard to a speech that my friend, Senator Baucus, made against the Gregg amendment on wage insurance when it was up last week. These are not direct quotes, but Senator Baucus made the best argument on the Gregg amendment that I can make against the amendment by the Senator from West Virginia. First of all, you have to remember the words ``very balanced compromise,'' three words that Senator Baucus used. We have a very balanced compromise before us. We ought to think in these terms: If we want trade promotion authority to go to the President, we don't want to upset that balanced compromise. A second point he made on the Gregg amendment is: I worked very hard to kill crippling amendments that would kill TPA. This is one of those crippling amendments that could kill trade promotion authority. He expressed in another statement his ``disappointment about the amendment before us,'' meaning the Gregg amendment, again upsetting a bipartisan compromise. Then, lastly: If this amendment passes, there will be no bill. That was said about the Gregg amendment. We defeated--Senator Baucus and I working together--the Gregg amendment on wage insurance. I worked to preserve that compromise, although a majority of my caucus was against it, the same way Senator Baucus has worked to kill a lot of amendments that have upset this compromise by being in the minority of his caucus. What we are talking about is the center of the Senate. If anything is going to get done in the Senate on the controversial issue that we have before us--trade promotion authority, passing the House by a one-vote margin, 215-214--we are going to have to preserve the very balanced compromise that Senator Baucus and I have brought to the floor. Then we have the Senator from West Virginia with his amendment. I think in the same way that Senator Baucus believed the Gregg amendment would upset this very carefully crafted compromise on trade promotion authority, the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia does the same thing. So that is the reason I ask for the defeat of this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. How much time is remaining on this side?

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to comment on an article that was in the Des Moines Sunday Register April 21 which speaks to the point of conservation of farm land. There is nothing in the article that is not accurate, but I think some things that are not included leave the impression that farmers of the United States are not good stewards of the soil. The premise of the article, according to the headlines ``Farmers' penalties rarely stick,'' is that under Federal law farmers must take certain action to conserve soil. If they do not conserve the soil and do it according to a plan, then they would be fined. And the article here is based on the premise that only a Government policeman from the U.S. Department of Agriculture is going to make the farmers conserve soil and that fines that might be imposed are the way of doing that because it says here that farmers' conservation fines rarely stick. The bottom line of the article is that farmers are not conserving soil, that Government regulation is the only thing that is going to make the farmers conserve the soil, and that there is not enough club on the part of Government because the fines in too many instances, according to the article, are forgiven. As I said, there is nothing inaccurate in that, but I have prepared remarks in which I want to give both sides of the story. We do have a Government requirement for farmers to participate in farm programs they must take appropriate action to conserve soil. There has been tremendous progress made in the conservation of soil, and it has come not because of Government fines that might be imposed against farmers but it comes because it is in the farmers' best interests to conserve soil because, quite frankly, the soil is very valuable but in the process of growing crops you put tremendously expensive chemicals and fertilizers on the soil. And when you have soil erosion and that soil washes into the streams, then obviously that investment to produce a bountiful crop goes with it. So it is to the farmers' advantage to keep the soil on their land. Over the past year, this body, along with our colleagues in the House, has engaged in a protracted discussion about the future of agriculture in the United States and how to best ensure a safe and stable food supply while providing an adequate safety net for farm families. The farm bill was passed and signed by the President very recently, which will be the safety net for the next 6 years. Now that we have done that, I would like to take a step back and address a concern that has been raised by many people I represent. For those colleagues who have never had the good fortune to visit my State of Iowa, I would like to take a moment to talk about this State. While we in Iowa may not be able to boast about majestic mountains or white sands on beaches along the oceans, my State has one natural resource to which I daresay no other State can compare--our rich, abundant, fertile topsoil. This resource has given birth to a deep-seated agricultural heritage in every corner of my state. In fact, each year communities across Iowa take to the streets to celebrate our rich heritage that comes from this rich natural resource, our topsoil. For example, the community of Conrad, IA, celebrates what they call ``Black Dirt Days.'' Gladbrook celebrates ``Sweet Corn Days,'' and the little community of Dike celebrates ``Watermelon Days.'' You can go on and on with examples of the people of Iowa worshiping our great natural resource. And no one in Iowa cares more about this rich heritage and our precious natural resources than the farm families who depend on the land for their livelihood and their way of life. That is why I was disturbed, as I already indicated to you, when the Des Moines Sunday Register on April 21 accused Iowa farmers of failing to take adequate steps to protect Iowa's soil and water. The article suggested that the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service Program, as well as the Farm Service Agency, both failing to adequately enforce Federal conservation rules, often let our farmers off the hook when conservation violations occur. The article suggests that the only way to achieve real conservation in rural America is for the Federal Government to carry a very big stick. Even more disconcerting, the article fails to address the significant conservation achievements that Iowa's farm families have already attained in terms of reducing soil erosion and reducing the use of nitrogen fertilizers by using it more efficiently. The Federal Government first significantly increased the prominence of conservation as a national priority in the 1985 farm bill. For the first time, that Food Security Act of 1985 required farmers to implement sound conservation plans on their farms as a condition for receiving Federal farm subsidies. We were not controlling the farmers' land, but we were saying in effect, through that bill, if they are going to benefit from the farm safety net, we expect everybody to be good stewards of their soil. More importantly, the 1985 bill also recognized the desire on the part of farmers themselves to protect the land on which they live and raise their families from abusive farming practices. The bill created the Conservation Reserve Program, sometimes called CRP, which allows farmers to take our countryside's most highly erodible land out of production. Since the 1985 farm bill, we have expanded the number of opportunities for farmers to voluntarily practice soil conservation programs. Today, farmers have a full arsenal of conservation tools at their disposal, including the Conservation Reserve Program, the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Emergency Watershed Protection Program, and the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program, to name a few. The response to these programs by farmers and landowners has been overwhelming. Today, in Iowa alone, the farmers have enrolled 1.8 million acres in the Conservation Reserve Program, including 337,000 acres in the Continuous Conservation Reserve Program, which allows farmers to remove our country's most environmentally sensitive land from production. The Continuous Conservation Reserve Program helps farmers make significant conservation improvements on their land, including riparian buffers, grass waterways, filter strips, and windbreaks. In addition, Iowa farmers are aggressively working to restore our Nation's wetlands. Today, Iowa farmers have enrolled over 44,000 acres in the Wetlands Reserve Program. Wetlands provide a number of environmental benefits, as I am sure my colleagues understand. These wetland reserves help filter out nitrates that leech into the surface water from nitrogen fertilizers used by farmers to improve yields, as well as from naturally occurring nitrogen in Iowa's highly organic soil. They filter herbicides that seep into the ground, and they provide valuable habitat for Iowa's wildlife. As you can see, restoration of wetlands is important to all Iowans, both rural and urban. And that is not all. Iowa farmers have enrolled more than 60,000 acres in the Watershed Protection Program, and nearly 2,000 acres in the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program. These programs have proven to be very successful. According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Iowa farmers cut soil erosion in half over the past two decades. We used to lose 10 tons per acre in 1982. By 1997, because of these conservation programs, we had cut that loss down to 5.3 tons per acre, and at 5 tons per acre, it is renewable. Moreover, according to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, over 92 percent of Iowa's public water systems meet Federal drinking water standards. However, some critics of Federal conservation programs have asserted that the 1996 farm bill actually weakened conservation efforts. These critics may be interested to learn that throughout the duration of the 1996 farm bill, over 313,000 acres of conservation buffers have been built in the State of Iowa. In addition, over 106,000 acres of wetlands have been created, and there continues to be a waiting list of farmers who are eager to enroll fragile cropland in these programs, only kept from doing so because of the amount of money Congress will appropriate for these programs. It is important to keep in mind that sound conservation practices not only improve the environment in rural areas, but they also can play into the farmers' bottom line. Since 1996, Iowa farmers have increased the use of no-till planting. No-till planting leaves the residue from a previous crop on the ground, significantly reducing erosion. By not tilling the land, farmers reduce the number of trips across the field with their tractors, saving time, reducing the use of limited fossil fuels, and reducing harmful emissions into the air. In addition, technological advancements have improved the farmer's ability to care for land while improving yields. Today, for example, many farmers have turned away from the old method of applying fertilizer at an equal rate throughout the entire field. In fact, because of global positioning equipment, we can apply variable rates of fertilizer in different parts of the field in different quantities to save money, but not to waste fertilizer as well. One concern I have expressed about the 1996 farm bill is that it fails to incorporate effective payment limitations that would target Federal assistance to family farmers. Mr. President, the Senate has now passed the successor to the 1996 farm bill. This legislation should be the incarnation of our principles and our vision for the role we see America's farm families playing in the future. I was pleased that 64 Members of the Senate joined Senator Dorgan and me in a bipartisan fashion to ensure Federal payments are targeted to small and medium-sized family farmers who produce the food and fiber of our Nation. Our amendment would have helped curb the overproduction and target assistance to family farmers who live on the same land they farm. I am disappointed that the agreement reached in conference significantly weakens our provision. In conclusion, this discussion raises the question of whether Federal farm program policy should require farmers to conserve through strict enforcement of Federal regulations or whether the Federal Government should encourage farmers to conserve through voluntary conservation programs. In my State, we have witnessed the numerous benefits of voluntary conservation to improving the quality of life and our environment. It is in every farmer's best interest to conserve the soil, to eliminate excessive use of fertilization, and ensure that chemicals are applied in an environmentally sensitive manner. After all, the farmers live on the same land they farm. Farm families depend on the land for their livelihood and their way of life. I have to say again, Iowa's rich topsoil is our most prized resource. Our economy and our rural heritage depend on it. We have heard much in recent years about sustaining agriculture. No one cares more about sustaining agriculture in America than our family farmers. Our rich soil is rivaled by only one other resource: the hard-working men and women who, day in and day out, work the land to feed the United States and the world. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record two articles.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire. The Senator from Montana has laid out very clearly why this amendment must be defeated. This is a carefully crafted compromise. The year 2002 is not like previous years in the Senate when we have devoted a lot of bipartisanship to trade agreements. There is bipartisanship, but it is not as certain that we will pass a bill as in the previous 25 years when similar legislation passed. I emphasize what Senator Baucus said: This is a carefully worked out agreement. It may not be entirely to the liking of Senator Baucus or perhaps not entirely to my liking, but we have to stick together to get this legislation passed. It is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation to be considered in the Senate. Although the Senator from New Hampshire has some valid arguments, I cannot support an amendment that upsets the balance of the package by striking these wage insurance provisions. There are things in the package that Members on each side may not like. It is their prerogative to amend whatever they see necessary. I cannot support stripping out this section of the package. Another reason is, wage insurance provisions in the legislation have not been tested, as some would say. Somewhere along the line, new ideas become law. Just because this is a new idea does not mean it is a bad idea. I will read what Ambassador Carla Hills, former U.S. Trade Representative for President George Bush, said last year, a long time after she left her position as Trade Representative, when she appeared before the Senate Finance Committee: We should explore the concept of wage insurance to supplement the incomes of displaced workers--whatever the cause--who take an entry-level job in a different, more promising sector at lower pay. This would respond to workers' anxiety over near-term wage loss, encourage them to stay productive in the work force and obtain the training that has proved most effective--which is training on the job. Carla Hills went on to say in a report called ``Getting Over the Fear of Free Trade'': The key goal of all of these ideas, as unconventional as they may seem at first, especially to the U.S. business community or the Republican Party, is straightforward. It is to educate and motivate more Americans to stand up in defense of open markets lest we lose the benefits that come from the free flow of ideas, capital, and goods. We should listen to Ambassador Hills. I believe American anxiety about globalization stems in part from job instability. Wage insurance eases those fears. As we consider voting on this amendment, I ask Members on my side of the aisle to keep their eye on the ball. The ball happens to be trade promotion authority, a contract between the Congress of the United States and the President of the United States, negotiated for 270 million Americans, a better world, a world that creates job opportunities. Trade creates jobs. As President Kennedy said, trade, not aid, when it comes to helping the rest of the world. The United States has full responsibility to look out for our interests, the interests of the American people, but also to be a leader in the world. Being a leader in the world involves our participation in not only the economic concerns of the world but maintaining the peace. One of the tools of maintaining peace is economic opportunity. The cooperation comes to the world because of people trading. We often brag about political leaders and diplomats doing so much for world peace. We obviously create an environment for world peace, but there is nothing that works more for world peace than opportunities for individuals to interact with other individuals around the world in a commercial way. That does more to break down barriers and establish world peace than anything else. Trade promotion authority is one of the three or four parts of this legislation. That is the 800-pound gorilla at which we ought to all be paying attention. It takes a carefully crafted compromise to get to that point. Some of the items in the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act that people on my side of the aisle might not like--and wage insurance could be one--are very small compared to the ball that I am asking Members to keep their eye on--trade promotion authority. As the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board said regarding trade promotion authority and freeing up trade around the world, as a result of the agreements we last endorsed in this body, the North American Free Trade Agreement, 1993, the Uruguay Round of Tariffs and Trades, 1994, those have helped reduce costs to the American consumer by $4,000 for a family of four. That is equal to more than we have given in tax cuts in recent years to American families. Think of the good that comes to the economy because we have an opportunity to export and our consumers have an opportunity to import. We have an opportunity to reduce costs because of increased efficiency. That is all going to come in the future, as it has in the past, 50-some years under the GATT arrangements, because we are going to give our President trade promotion authority. That is what we want our eye kept on. This compromise on trade adjustment assistance is part of that compromise.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, once again, repeating what my colleague from Montana has said, this part of this legislation, not only in the Senate but also in the House of Representatives, is so carefully balanced, bringing in the labor and environmental issues, if you do something to pick up one vote on the liberal end, we lose a vote on the conservative end. I ask my colleagues to not in any way upset that balance. That is why this amendment should be defeated. The Senator from Connecticut is always a very sincere Senator on any subject. He presents his case well. This is one place where his ideas may be well for the country of Jordan, where we do $40 million a year in business, but it is not good idea when we look globally at negotiations with 142 countries. We cannot use the country of Jordan necessarily as a pattern for the whole organization. I am strongly opposed to this amendment. I think anyone who wants this President to get trade promotion authority, or trade adjustment assistance for that matter, should be too. Basically, the amendment takes the very carefully crafted House to compromise language on labor and Add-to it language negotiated by the Clinton administration in a bilateral agreement with Jordan. In my view this is not thoughtful trade policy. If this language is intended as a broad policy statement, it is unnecessary. The negotiating objectives in the bipartisan compromise already capture the key trade and labor provisions of the U.S. Jordan Free Trade Agreement. Taken literally, the language dictates the specific details of future labor provisions--saying that they have to look almost exactly like our bilateral trade agreement with Jordan. This simply does not make sense. The labor text negotiated with Jordan is not a one-size fits all way to address all labor issues with every U.S. trade partner, nor was it designed to be. The President will be negotiating regional, multilateral, and bilateral agreements using trade promotion authority. Any one of these may require a different approach to labor issues. He needs the flexibility to address labor issues in a variety of situations. That is what the bipartisan TPA bill does. In fact, I would say if you really want to improve worker rights around the world, you should support the bipartisan compromise. There is more in this bill designed to improve labor rights than any TPA bill that has passed the Senate. For the first time every, the ``core labor standards'' of the ILO will be referenced in U.S. trade negotiating objectives. Further, the bill directs the President to seek a commitment by other governments to effectively enforce their labor laws. These provisions will encourage countries to improve their labor laws, without infringing on their sovereignty. The bill also directs the President to seek to strengthen the capacity of trading partners to promote core labor standards. In addition, the Secretary of Labor will be directed to consult with any country seeking a trade agreement with the United States concerning that country's labor law. U.S. technical assistance will be available to help other countries raise their labor standards. Whenever the President seeks to implement a trade agreement with a country, he will submit a report to the Congress describing the extent to which that country has laws in place to govern the exploitation of child labor. This will focus attention on any problems which will help direct appropriate resources to solve these problems. Requiring a one-size fits all policy like this amendment does is not going to enhance labor rights. It will upset the careful political balance incorporated into the bipartisan TPA Act and kill the very bill that is best equipped to improve worker rights. If you want this bill or TAA to ultimately make it to the President's desk, I urge you to oppose this amendment. There is a fundamental truth about trade that a lot of Senators who are trying to amend this bill ignore--trade in of itself can lift people out of poverty and improve worker rights around the world. It is no coincidence that the wealthiest nations on Earth are those who embrace trade. And these are the nations that are most likely to have the highest labor standards in the world. The fact is, by passing this bill we can help poorer nations grow. Trade promotion authority will help us establish trading relationships with many developing nations. The poorest countries in the world desperately want the United States to trade with them and invest in them. Open trade and investment have helped to raise more than 100 million people out of poverty in the last decade, with the fastest reductions in poverty coming in East Asian countries that were most actively involved in trade. We can see similar results in the next decade if we pass this bill. A recent report by the World Bank called ``Global Economic Prospects and the Developing Countries'' shows this to be true. According to this study, a new WTO trade agreement could lift 300 million people out of poverty. Helping nations help themselves is surely a better path to global prosperity than mandates. The Senator from Connecticut stated several times in his remarks that if you vote against his amendment, then you are voting against the opportunity to do something about slave labor, child labor, and prison labor. This assertion is simply wrong. The United States already has standards relating to internationally recognized worker rights. We have had these standards for a number of years. In fact, U.S. standards on worker rights are nearly identical to the ILO standards that Senator Dodd wants to put into the Finance Committee's trade bill. For example: The First ILO standard relates to freedom of association. This is also the same standard the U.S. recognizes. The second ILO standard relates to the right to bargain collectively. This is the same standard we recognize. The third ILO standard relates to forced, slave, or bonded labor. This is exactly the same standard that we recognize. The ILO's fourth standard related to child labor. The fourth United States worker rights standard also relates to child labor. So to say that the United States needs ILO standards on worker rights because we aren't currently doing anything about these issues, or because we don't have the ability to do anything about the problems addressed by these standards, is simply wrong. I again urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and support the bipartisan compromise. I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I express my strong support for this amendment. The amendment sends a strong signal from the U.S. Senate. Customs user fees should be used solely to fund the U.S. Customs Service, not as some offset for unrelated programs. Let's put this in context. When Congress first authorized these customs fees the avowed purpose was to underwrite the costs of Customs commercial operations. We should make sure these fees are being used for customs. That is what this Amendment does. Allow me to read just a few of the letters I received over the last several months on this issue. The National Association of Foreign Trade Zones writes: [We] recently learned that the Trade Adjustment Assistance Bill . . . includes language that would provide for extension of the Merchandise Process Fee to offset the cost of the TAA program. As you are aware, the fee was originally established by Congress to cover the costs of the commercial operations of the U.S. Customs Service. The [National Association of Foreign Trade Zones] is strongly opposed to any extension or reauthorization of the [Merchandise Process Fee] from their congressionally intended purpose. And the National Association of Foreign Trade Zones is not alone. The National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America writes: [We are] aware of pending legislation due for consideration regarding Trade Adjustment Assistance. While [we] support TAA, we cannot support the use of user fees to ``pay for'' this program. Merchandise processing fees need to be directed to the agency for which they were collected--the U.S. Customs Service. Aligent Technologies, a Fortune 500 company and one of the top 100 importers in the Nation writes: The Merchandise Processing Fee is a ``user-fee'' paid by importers to cover the cost incurred by Customs to process imports. . . . If US Customs is to continue collecting [the fee], it must directly fund Customs processing improvements, specifically for the new Automated Commercial Environment and other initiatives that are greatly needed to improve the trade process. Members may be under the mistaken impression that extending these fees without ensuring that they go for customs is simply keeping a convenient money stream flowing. That is not so. You will hear that extending the fees without ensuring they are used for customs purposes will have no impact on Customs' budget. If it has no impact, why is it in the bill? It's in the bill because it has an impact on budget scoring. Once CBO scores these funds against trade adjustment assistance, they cannot be used by Customs for Customs modernization. These funds are no longer available to offset the costs of Customs modernization. So I think the Senator's amendment is very simple and very reasonable. I just want to make sure that Customs user fees are being used for their intended purpose. In fact, we included a similar sense-of-the-Senate resolution during markup of this bill. This is a commonsense amendment and I urge my colleagues to support it.