Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Senator Snowe would like 15 minutes, Senator Santorum would like 5 minutes, and I would like 5 minutes on the Byrd amendment.

Mr. NICKLES. If the assistant leader will yield, 20 minutes on each side should accommodate everyone's request.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object, let me see if I understand. For this amendment, we are saying 5 minutes on each side, and all subsequent amendments 2 minutes on each side.

Mr. NICKLES. I won't object.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is necessarily absent

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I advised my colleague from West Virginia several hours ago that I was going to move to table his amendment. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes.

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, one, I didn't want to speak against the amendment of my friend and colleague and move to table it without him having a chance to make his presentation. I happen to be a member of the Finance Committee, and the Finance Committee does have principal jurisdiction over trade. If we are going to have a trade advisory committee that would advise the administration and is composed of members appointed by the Senate President pro tempore, with the advice of the leaders, as proposed in this amendment, it also says to exclude members of the Finance Committee. I cannot imagine doing that. It sets up a separate committee, but we have a committee of jurisdiction that deals with trade. Now it says we are going to have a separate committee that will do the same thing. We don't do that in Appropriations or in the Judiciary Committee or Energy or in any other committee. I think the committee process needs to work. This is as if to say let's have a duplicate committee outside of the Finance Committee. I think it is a serious mistake, a bad precedent. Maybe we should have two committees for everything, and if somebody doesn't like what comes out of the original committee, we can go to the other committee. I cannot imagine legislation that says let's have a separate committee and exclude members of the Finance Committee. I urge my colleagues to support a motion to table the amendment. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.

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

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I have a brief question. I know my friend from Nevada wants to make a UC request. Getting the tenor of the Senator's debate--interesting debate--he is critical of the NAFTA agreement, one of the three free trade agreements passed by the Senate, two of which passed almost unanimously--the Jordanian trade agreement and the free trade agreement with Israel. NAFTA was not quite as unanimous. But did the Senator vote in favor of those three free trade agreements?

Mr. NICKLES. Did the Senator vote in favor of the Israel or Jordan free trade agreements?

Mr. NICKLES. I thank my friend.

Mr. NICKLES. Did the Senator say Senator Sarbanes and then Senator Kennedy?

Mr. NICKLES. I believe Senator Kennedy may be speaking on a different nontrade issue.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object--and we may have clearance, but we need to finalize it--I am delighted with this request. I am delighted it looks like we are now going to be able to pass the Public Health Safety and Bioterrorism Response Act. My guess is it will pass overwhelmingly, maybe unanimously, through the Senate. Could the Senator withhold the request for a moment and let me doublecheck with other Senators? I will be happy to put through the question.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, on May 4-6, more than 1,200 young people from across the country came to Washington, DC to compete in the national finals of the ``We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution'' program funded by the Department of Education and administered by the Center for Civic Education. This program teaches students to think critically, and to present oral arguments based on an in-depth understanding of the history and text of our founding documents. This is the most extensive education program of its kind, reaching more than 26.5 million students in elementary, middle and high schools. The competition simulates a congressional hearing whereby students testify as constitutional experts before a panel of adult judges. It is inspiring to see the future leaders of our Nation in active pursuit of the fundamental principles of government. I am pleased that 15 students from Tahlequah High School in Tahlequah, Oklahoma were among the finalists in this national event. My congratulations go out to Chris Augerhole, J. R. Baker, Chad Blish, Ryan Cannonie, Taylor Gibson, Carlton Heard, Corbin Heard, Zach Israel, Doug Kirk, Helena Loose, Lacie Newman, Tim Pace, Rebecca Walker, Derek Whaler, Brandon Zellner, and their teacher Norma Boren. Independent studies by the Educational Testing Service revealed that students enrolled in this curriculum ``significantly outperformed comparison students on every topic.'' While only 48 percent of 18-30- year-olds voted in the 2000 elections, 82 percent of ``We the People'' alumni reported voting in 2000. It is refreshing to see the difference that can be made in the lives of students when they are taught to develop reasoned commitments to American values. Again, I want to affirm the efforts of Tahlequah High School along with all the students across the country that participate in this study of our great Nation. We all know today's youth are tomorrow's leaders. Through their understanding of history, these students can better prepare their generation to face the challenges that lie ahead. They represent the best and brightest our country has to offer.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will tell my friends and colleagues, both the majority leader and chairman of the Finance Committee, that I join them in urging our colleagues to vote in favor of cloture so we can move this bill on, so we can finish it. We have been on it now for almost a month. We have considered a lot of amendments. That having been said, I do not agree with the process. The Senator from Montana knows that well. There are three bills that have been jammed into one. It is a very complicated bill. Two of the bills were reported out of the Finance Committee. We marked up those bills. They were included with trade adjustment assistance which was rewritten on the floor. It did not come out of the Finance Committee. So I objected to that, and I objected to some of the amendments that colleagues tried to add. We fought those battles. We have had some good debate. We have won some; we have lost some. Now is the time to have a cloture vote so we can bring this bill closer to passage and end the debate on trade promotion authority, which I happen to think is the most important provision in the bill. I also believe the Andean Trade Preference Act needs to pass. Its authorization expired months ago, and tariffs were supposed to be imposed last week on four Andean countries that really need our help, tariffs as high as 15, 25, 30 percent on countries that have not had to pay those tariffs for the last 10 years. We need to assist those countries. It is not fair to Colombia, Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador. They are our friends and allies. They have negotiated in good faith with the U.S. Government for a reduction in tariffs. We have abided by that agreement for the last 11 years, and we said we were going to extend it. We have not done so. It is up to the Senate. That is our constitutional responsibility. We need to get that done. I do not think the Andean Trade Preference Act should be in that package. I lost that debate. Senator Daschle and Senator Baucus decided to put it together. The only way we can help those countries is to pass this bill. If we do not get cloture, I am afraid the list of amendments will continue and never cease. The only way I see getting to closure is to vote for cloture. I urge our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans: Let's vote for cloture; let's address those amendments that are still remaining that are germane postcloture. There will probably be a few. There is no reason we cannot finish this bill either later tonight or tomorrow sometime and get it to conference. It is going to have a difficult conference because there are big differences. Frankly, the majority insisted on including trade adjustment authority and insisted on adding brandnew entitlements we have never had before in trade adjustment authority, including items such as wage insurance, which is almost anathema to the free enterprise system, but that is in this bill. We have to negotiate that with our House colleagues. We have to negotiate a whole new tax credit to provide health care benefits that has never been a part of trade adjustment assistance. I am sure that is going to be debated extensively. Anyway, it is going to be a very difficult conference. We need to begin that conference as soon as possible and hopefully come up with a bill that actually will promote trade, increase jobs, make us competitive, and help us to comply with international agreements. I urge our colleagues to support this cloture motion.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``no.''

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I thank my colleague, Senator Grassley, for his leadership and for his desire for us to pass a trade adjustment bill. Unfortunately, we have to pass three bills at once. We should be passing one bill. I have spoken about that issue a couple of times. This is the legislation we have before us. It is pretty thick and comprehensive legislation. It has three bills in it. I venture to say a lot of my colleagues do not know the substance of the bill. I have been doing a little homework on it, and the more I find out about the amendment that is pending the less I like about it. For example, I do not think we should combine trade adjustment assistance in the same package as trade promotion authority. Historically, we have never done that, and we do not need to do it now. Some people are trying to take trade promotion authority hostage, which they know the President wants, and say: We will not give it to you unless you pay our ransom, and our ransom is enormous new entitlements, one of which is trade adjustment assistance; that includes not just training, but also the Federal Government picking up three-fourths of the health care costs, compromised down to 70 percent. Interestingly enough, if one qualifies for the health benefits under trade adjustment assistance, looking at page 147, where it starts, to page 155, it says if you are going to get the health care tax credits-- and they are refundable, so Uncle Sam will write you a check--you cannot have other coverage. You cannot have Medicare, Medicaid or S- CHIP. It is in the bill. Maybe our colleagues did not know that. What they are trying to do for the steelworkers is to pick up health care costs for their retirees, and, incidentally, they can have Medicare or Medicaid. I do not find that to be fair. This is like saying we are going to give qualifying individuals trade adjustment assistance; we are going to give them health care or help them with their health care expenses, but the steelworkers can have Medicare, too, and everybody else cannot. Three-fourths of the beneficiaries under this proposal, according to the sponsors, are now Medicare eligible. Everybody else is going to be excluded--they cannot have both--but, incidentally, steelworkers can have both. I asked the question last week: If we are going to do it for steelworkers, why not do it for textile workers; why not do it for auto workers; why not do it for airline workers? All these industries have lost thousands of jobs. What about communications workers? They have lost thousands of jobs too. Are we not concerned about their health care costs? We are going to single out one industry, one union and say: We are going to give you enormous benefits. Some people have said the cost of this benefit is $179 million over 10 years. The bill says the benefit period is for 12 months, but they say the total cost is $179 million. What they did not include is another $58 million which is included in the same CBO number that says cost and outlays are actually $237 million. That was omitted in the debate we had last week. I am looking at the amendment. I have stated a couple of times that I want the Senate to work and I want the Senate to work effectively and efficiently, and it is not doing so. It is not doing so when we take up a bill such as this with three bills in one. The trade promotion authority section of the bill was passed out of the Finance Committee. The Andean Trade Act was passed out of the Finance Committee. Trade adjustment assistance was passed out of the Finance Committee, but the trade adjustment assistance proposal included in this did not pass out of the Finance Committee. Senator Daschle and maybe Senator Baucus revised it and included a lot of new items. Now I am looking at the pending amendment that deals with steel on which we are going to be voting momentarily. Talk about a crummy way to legislate. This is the amendment Senator Daschle and others offered. It talks about eligibility for assistance. I am trying to comprehend who is going to be eligible, and the other day I asked questions about who is going to be eligible. It says on page 2 of this amendment: Referred to the Trade Act of 1974 as amended by S. 2189 as introduced on April 17, 2002. Here is S. 2189 as introduced by several individuals--Senator Rockefeller, I believe, is the principal sponsor--on April 17. This was introduced a month ago. It has never had a hearing, and two or three times in the pending amendment, it refers to S. 2189 as if it is law. The cost of S. 2189 has never been formally estimated by CBO, but I heard estimates up to $13 billion. Its eligibility is much broader than the pending amendment, but the pending bill continues to refer to S. 2189, as if that is the statute we are going to follow for eligibility. There is a lot of confusing nonsense between these two, neither of which have had a hearing before the Finance Committee in the Senate, and they are enormously expensive. They are brandnew entitlements. I am troubled by the fact that we would ask taxpayers, many of whom do not have health care but they pay taxes, to be subsidizing retirees who have health care and are in the Medicare system. We already pay for their Medicare. Now we are saying we want to pay for their Medicare supplement. We have never done that. Picking up an individual's Medigap policy has not been a responsibility of the Federal Government. That is what we are doing under this proposal for three-fourths of the individuals. Many other people who are a lot younger than age 65 will also qualify. I question the wisdom of whether or not we should be asking all taxpayers to be benefiting one particular union and say: We are going to bail you out; we are going to take care of your retirees' health care costs, but we are not going to do it for textile workers, we are not going to do it for communications workers, we are not going to do it for auto workers. Wait, maybe we are going to. Maybe this is the camel's nose under the tent and we will do this industry by industry. Whoever has the stronger lobby, whoever puts the money forward, whoever asks Congress, maybe has the most organized proponents: Let's have a bailout and pick up the cost of health care for our retirees; we cannot afford it so, please, taxpayers, you take care of us. We already have taxpayers picking up Medicare and Medicaid, and now we are telling people: Yes, now we are going to pick up all extraneous benefits. Unions and management, you do not need to worry about what you negotiate because Uncle Sam, if you cannot afford it, if you go bankrupt, we will pick it up for you; just be irresponsible as can be, and we will pick it up for you. I do not think that makes a lot of sense. This also is detrimental to a lot of companies in the steel industry who are not in this situation, who have been responsible, who are trying to make ends meet, fulfilling their commitments and abiding by their contracts. We are asking them to subsidize their competitors. I fail to see the wisdom in this effort. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this cloture motion. I yield the floor.