Capitol Words a project of the Sunlight Foundation

Sen. Craig Thomas

Mr. President, we have heard a number of topics discussed this morning which, of course, is the purpose of morning business and that is fine. We will, however, at the expiration of this time, move back into the topic that is before us--the one that seems to me is of major importance right now, the issue of which we are required to take some action within the next week is trade promotion authority.

It is accompanied with several other bills, and so it has become a little more difficult to understand and more difficult to pass, in fact, because of the leverages. I think we ought to focus on trade, creating jobs, and to the extent that trade stimulates our economy, and to talk a bit about that. The President has had this on his priority list for a good long time. The basic idea here is to provide the outline for the President to follow--the President and the Trade Representative and his other helpers--in terms of how we negotiate trade agreements around the world. Quite obviously, constitutionally, the Congress has authority there, the Senate has authority over trade, trade negotiations.

But it is also clear that 535 people are not going to be able to negotiate trade agreements. Therefore, there needs to be a system, which has been in place until 1994, when it was not renewed, of doing this. It provides an outline for the President to follow with regard to developing trade negotiations and trade agreements with people around the world.

Because of the expiration of that outline, we have fallen far behind those countries making agreements, and the impact of that has been rather marked. Certainly the time has come for us to do something about this situation.

In this time of economic uncertainty, when we are seeking to build the economy, it is one of the bills the President has called on us to pass. The effects of it are fairly obvious. It can expand markets for American goods and services. It creates higher paying jobs. It taps the most effective workforce in the world to compete and boost productivity. It has all kinds of advantages.

It is clear that when we have trade, some elements in the economy do not do as well, and I understand that. What we are trying to do is find trade agreements that will emphasize the positive aspects, which I think is very likely to happen, and to hold down to a minimum negative impacts.

Economists say reducing tariffs by even one-third will reduce the world economy by $613 billion and boost our economy by $177 billion a year. All economists who are knowledgeable about this issue indicate there is a great deal to be gained from moving forward with a process that allows us to do what we need to do in areas where trade is prominent. We can stand back and let other countries have trade agreements, and we will find ourselves on the losing side.

We were involved in the committee, of which I am a member, on this issue. We reported out a package, the bill on which we voted this morning to consider, the Andean trade bill, reauthorizing trade with poor countries in South America. This bill is an opportunity to renew that trade. One country is Colombia, in which there are a great many problems, a great many drug problems that affect us. Some other countries are Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru. This is not new trade. We have had this agreement before, and we will, I am sure, continue it.

There is a question about the textile industry, of course, and Senators from those States are concerned about what it will mean to the textile industry.

As I said, invariably there will be certain industries that will be impacted more than others. We need to deal with that situation.

Attached to that bill, as I understand the plan, is trade promotion authority and the Trade Adjustment Act. It makes sense to separate these bills and deal with them independently. We dealt with them before. There is no reason we ought to be using one as leverage on the other. They ought to stand on their own merits. I hope we come to some agreement to separate these issues and deal with them independently. That makes sense to me.

The renewal of Presidential trade promotion authority should be one of our top legislative priorities, and indeed it is one of the President's priorities. We have in the last few months dealt with the President's priorities. I am pleased with that, and I hope we can continue to consider his priorities. We have dealt with energy. We have dealt with the farm bill. We have dealt with tax reductions. We have dealt with education. These are issues the President has been pushing, and I do not see why we cannot work together to include trade promotion authority, which certainly has an impact on our economy and on families in this country.

It passed the House by a very close vote; nevertheless, it passed. We are going to be dealing with a bill that will ultimately go to a conference committee to deal with the House or, as some prefer it, to take the House's version so there will not have to be a conference committee. I suspect that is unlikely. Nevertheless, that is the situation with which we are faced.

In general terms, the procedures are a little difficult to understand, but they fall into two categories: The President's authority to proclaim changes in tariffs resulting from negotiations of reciprocal trade agreements with foreign nations and procedures for implementing provisions of such agreements entailing changes in U.S. laws. These procedures, commonly known as fast track, require an up-or-down vote in the Senate. Again, the process is one of having the experts on trade making agreements and bringing them back to the Senate. That process has been used for a very long time.

The key provisions of the bill are:

Establish negotiation objectives of the United States. These objectives are designed to provide congressional guidance to the President in the negotiations he undertakes. He is not totally uninhibited when negotiating.

It requires Presidential consultation with Congress before, during, and after trade negotiations, again to make sure there is congressional involvement, as there should be.

It creates a congressional oversight group, a broad-based, bipartisan, and permanent organization to be accredited as official advisers to U.S. trade negotiating delegations--again, the voice of Congress in negotiations.

It requires special consultation procedures for including agriculture, fishing, and textiles, recognizing these are segments of our economy that are impacted and need special consultation.

As I said, it requires an up-or-down vote by the Congress.

The administration, of course, is urging we pass a clean bill so we are able to make some adjustments with the House. Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley, the chairman and ranking member of the committee, have urged we hold it to limited issues. I hope we can, indeed, do this.

The trade adjustment bill is more controversial. Most people agree there is merit to taking a look at the impact trade agreements will have on workers in the United States and that there ought to be some recognition of that impact and some assistance. Generally in the past, these programs have included financial and training assistance for workers displaced by import competition, assistance for firms facing a significant adjustment due to increased import competition, and assistance programs established in conjunction with NAFTA. This has been done in the past.

This Trade Adjustment Act has been in place, and I believe most people believe there should be some help. However, it has generally been training, an effort to help people become reemployed, and not to set up a longstanding welfare relief program. That is what many of us try to guard against.

I mentioned the programs that will expire, but there are some new provisions that have been put into the bill that I think will be controversial: Health insurance subsidies. No agreement has been reached as to how that will be done. Some people prefer temporary assistance be given in tax relief or tax assistance, where payments can be made for a period of time and let the workers select their health care.

One of the proposals, however, is to have the Government pay up to 75 percent of continuing what is called COBRA; that is, continuing the insurance program that was provided by the company. Unfortunately, there are no time limits on this proposal.

We are developing another health care relief entitlement, which is troublesome to some, when we ought to be thinking about how do we get people back to work rather than providing a longstanding program.

In addition to that, it increases the coverage to farmers, ranchers, independent fishermen, iron workers, and truck operators. Along with that is what is called assistance for secondary workers, those who supply the goods to the industry, whether it is upstream or downstream, and without a very clear definition as to what that means.

It would be very difficult to identify the various people who could be impacted, and one can imagine how many would be suggesting they were impacted. These are the kinds of conflicts I think we have to deal with, and we should. We have to do something about it. Amendments will be offered. There is an amendment I was involved in, where a sugar anticircumvention provision was put in. What that deals with is, in the past, we have had a situation from Canada in which sugar was mixed up in molasses, brought over the border where sugar is not allowed but molasses is, the sugar is then taken out, and the molasses is sent back. We have been able to put a stop to that, but this is a permanent anticircumvention provision, which all it does is go around the law. So I hope that is not struck.

There are a number of other things, of course, that could well be included.

This is basically an issue that is very important to the United States. It is very important to the administration to be able to do their job. I do not think there is any question about that. I come from a State that is involved in agriculture. Agriculture is very much a part of trade. About 1 out of every 3 acres, almost 40 percent of the production, goes into foreign markets. We produce much more than we consume. So one of our real issues is to be able to develop some fair overseas foreign markets for agricultural products. That really has not happened as it should. As well as we get along, for instance, with Japan, we still have very high tariffs on U.S. beef. Japan could be a great market for us.

In balance, it is like most everything else we have to face up to, which is that not everyone agrees. We will hear someone say we ought to do it the right way. I do not know of anyone who wants to do it the wrong way, but there are differences of views as to what is the right way. That is the reason we come together and vote. It is perfectly legitimate to have different points of view, but it is not legitimate to not deal with the issues that are before us.

We spent a very long time on energy. I am very pleased we have a bill, but we now have to do something in the conference committee. Certainly, in terms of our situation, in terms of defense, in terms of terrorism, in terms of our economy, these are issues that have real impact. We can deal with lots of little things. We could list a number of major issues that have a great deal to do with the way we want to see our country in the future, and what we see down the line and that is really what we ought to be doing, is sort of setting some goals as to where we want to be in terms of freedom, in terms of economy, in terms of safety. Having set those goals, it is then reasonable to deal with the issues that are in the interim and determine whether those issues will lead us to the goals we have established.

Unfortunately, too often I think we sort of deal with the issue that is at hand without much thought to where it is going to be over time. It is also true that we represent 50 States, and each of us is a little different. Some this morning were talking about health care. I am chairman of the caucus on rural health care. Wyoming is a rural State, so when one talks about health care, it is different in Meeteesi, WY, than it is in Pittsburgh, PA. There has to be a system to recognize those differences.

The same is true with trade. It is different in different parts of the country. Overall, it is to our advantage, and I hope we move forward.

In conclusion, we need to get on with some other things, like the budget, like appropriations, some of the things that have to be done in order to keep our Government rolling. I am sure we can do that. I urge we move forward and complete our work as soon as we can.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton

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

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton

Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business.